User talk:Linsey Murdock/Journal/Temp

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page

All topics regarding the Zaishen quests have been moved to User talk:Linsey Murdock/Zaishen Quests. Please take a look and see if your question or comment would be better there rather than starting a new topic here. Thanks!

Due to the current licensing terms, I am unable to accept or comment on user submitted suggestions of any kind.
If you would like input on how the new feedback namespace works, join the discussion here.

A suggestion is anything at all asking for and specifying changes. Questions asking if a change is going to be made in general, are NOT suggestions. No more rewording of posts will be allowed without strike through corrections (this has always been part of the talk page policy), so people need to be more aware of what they are posting.

Regarding topics tagged as suggestions:
If ANYONE thinks something is a suggestion it gets tagged as a suggestion and it STAYS tagged as a suggestion. If anyone adds a suggestion as part of the discussion of a topic, it then becomes a suggestion and can be tagged.

My archives

Attention check these for answers before posting Journal updates Frequently Asked Questions

Posting rules Be curteous to other posters here, including myself. If you can't, your questions or comments will be immediately archived. At least check my FAQ if not my archives before posting a question to make sure I have not already answered it. Please post bug reports on one of the following pages, not here: AI bugs Art bugs Quest bugs Skill bugs Text bugs Miscellaneous bugs Discussions regarding skill changes should go on Skill feedback pages. Lore questions pertaining to Guild Wars are welcome, but not pertaining to Guild Wars 2. Support issues such as players behaving badly or problems with your account should be directed to Gaile's talk. Questions about Guild Wars 2, upcoming projects or ArenaNet's official stance on any subject should be directed to Regina's talk. Questions pertaining to anything code related including AI Issues should be directed to either Joe's or Regina's talk pages.

Will you be at PAX with the G-dubs krewe?

Curious. I know Regina stated she will be. Also, what kind of stuff are you guys planning on showing? I am debating on weather to attend and wanted to know what GW might offer, aside from my other reasons to go. (Blizzard booth... sorry) --adrin 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SC2?...cuz we KNOW you ain't talkin' bout that other game... --ilr 09:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Both, actually. SC2 and D3 --adrin 09:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume Ilr was talking about the OTHER other game. — Jon Lupen 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually am one of those ancient hardcore legit purists who thinks that D3 shouldn't have been made if they couldn't keep it true to its origins ...*shrug*... --ilr 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

*Shrugs* To each their own. — Jon Lupen 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If by that you mean the color fiasco, then I suggest you read the reply to the fans, and play some D2. But... to each their own. I personally dislike paying extra for a 3D video card only to see black pixels. -- Alaris 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire series had already jumped the shark long ago when it allowed Wirlwinding Lance-Barbs and Guided-Arrow Burizazons... Nothing that follows that could ever be worth paying hard earned cash for --ilr 01:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, the balance was weird. To put it mildly. -- Alaris 13:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think balance hit a low point in Lord of Destruction. I also think that World of Warcraft and the Diablo III previws have demonstrated that they have learned from their mistakes, and that Diablo II was still a pretty good game despite its' glaring flaws. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I loved D2:LoD, but then I never played the first one. I still remember killing Andariel (or however it's spelt) the first time round. --Alex Eternal 11:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will be at PAX and I believe we are planing to do a Live Team panel/Q&A either Saturday, Sunday or both. - Linsey talk 22:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be interested to hear of things which get asked, personally. Doesn't seem like I'll be able to go myself, though. :( *Maybe another time* -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 00:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If ArenaNet records the panel, I'll be sure to follow it on the AN youtube channel. I won't be able to go to PAX, but that doesn't mean I won't follow it as closely as I'm able. I'll be very interested to hear what all of you are allowed to say, and I certainly hope that there won't be a repeat of that awful Kotaku reporting that was part of last year's experience.ceolstan 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you be fucking Princess Peach this year? 99.142.19.23 18:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sealed Deck instead of HB/TA

Suggestion Policy? --adrin 00:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

From 2006.

believe me, i'm not upset, i'm stoked. I'm totally for the removal of HB and TA. --adrin 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Make even more pvp players leave guild wars? gg...

(Edit conflict) Yeah, me too. The only thing I'm a bit "iffy" about is the Commander title. I'd rather have it converted into the new title, in a similar vein as was done with the old Gladiator title, but granted, I don't know the details. I just don't want to have an unfinished, frozen title that will probably stop on some weird number in my hero panel :/ Other then that I'm looking forward to the changes to PvP. Maybe it'll get me interested in it again. — Poki#3 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

good thing i just got r2 commander...... not even enough to display and its going to be worthless, still r1 glad but thats not going anywhere since i only do TA..... Why not just keep TA/HB and add sealed deck? Or merge the titles so they dont become worthless (have them gain points through the new sealed deck) yep im QQing and if this happens im sure i wont be the only one. is it possible to kill a dead game? it seems so. and btw the henchmen contest is dumb because more than one people are going to submit the winning build and only one person will be rewarded. thanks for reading 72.75.237.130 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

i think that the loss in title progression will suck. maybe they'll fix that. however, i think this new format switch will get more people to pvp. ive played sealed deck on shard's tournament. it's a blast. --adrin 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"We’ve wanted to work the Sealed Deck format that was developed for past PAX tournaments into the game, knowing that a lot of players have been playing it on their own for some time now." Jumped the gun a little? >< Mystical Celestia 02:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

72, you are mistaken. They won't be looking for meta builds, or for meta hero builds. They want people to submit something inventive, but still viable. The chance that more than one person will submit identical winning builds is quite low. Also, TA was already dead, and HB technically isn't even pvp, so how can you kill the game by removing them? Anet's trying to add something people have wanted, and assuming that don't pull an AT folly, this might be as good a change as skill templates or observe mode. ~Shard 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

rofl Adrin, no. Izzy developed Sealed years ago. We've done office leagues using Sealed. Besides, the version going in is going to be a little different than that one.

Here is just one of the reasons why we chose to remove TA and HB instead of RA: according to weekly match statistics, Random Arena is the most popular PvP format in the game and always has been. Hero Battles is the least popular PvP format and always has been. In any given week, the number of matches being run in Random Arena is ~32 times higher than the number of matches in Hero Battles. More matches are held in the Ascalon Academy, a level 12 arena. And not even by just a little bit. I'm talking around +50% here.

Anecdote time!

Back when I was first really focusing on the problems of Hero Battles, I was relaying to the room my frustration with what I was finding and explaining the dilemma we were in. At the peak of discussing our options, Izzy walked in the room. As he entered, I barked out "Izzy! If there was one PvP format you would remove from the game, what would it be?" to which he quickly replied "Team Arena". That surprised me, so I questioned it a little but then forgot the idea of removing formats for many weeks while other options were explored for HB or other projects worked on. It wasn't until after we started talking about "the plan" that I remembered the quick exchange.

oh and, thank you Shard, that is quite a compliment! ^_^ - Linsey talk 04:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I do wish you'd consider adding the option for 8v8 Sealed Deck. One of two things will happen if it's done as a 4v4, assuming people get 20 skills per pack:

1. Teams won't have any defense (or very little), which will cause matches to result in a "who can do more damage first" scenario (I call this the "Heroes' Ascent" scenario)
2. You relax the rules too much and it stops being limited play and goes back to a more constructed format (I call this the "We made ATs to prevent smurfing then removed the part of it that prevented smurfing" scenario.)

Of course, I have yet to see how you plan to solve this problem, so I may be (and hope I am) wrong.

Oh yeah, and 20% of the skills people get will be useless, as they can only have a max of 8 professions on the team. ~Shard 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

HB and TA are totally different formats with TA being quick annihilation matches and HB shrine control with heroes and as such they have totally different playerbases that play the format for totally different reasons. If you merge them there are three possible outcomes: a) if the new arena is TA style annihilation the HBers are screwed up, b) if it is HB style shrine capping the TAers are screwed and if it is c) a totally different arena both communities are pissed off. So make either 2 seperated arenas with seperated title tracks or keep them, merging them is utter bullshit imo. Vortex ™ 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in that post that said they were being merged... I saw they were being replaced with something different. I also think they have given a lot of thought and researched the numbers before making this decision and as Linsey stated, the player base in both has fallen off dramatically (as shown by the statistics that only Anet has access to), whether certain individual groups still play it, overall, it isn't what it should be, or what a sealed deck format could be, based on the years of requests for it that have inundated forum and talk page posts. Don't dismiss out of hand what you haven't experienced. -- Wyn talk 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

She talked about "one sealed deck arena", that sounds like a merging to me. If they keep TA and HB and just add the sealed deck i'm all up for it, but deleting them and replacing them with something "entirely different" seems like something else to me. Vortex ™ 07:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word merge as opposed to the word replace. The goal is to remove two things that are broken and not attracting players, and create one new thing that works and will attract players. The amount of time/work that would be required to fix TA and HB does not have enough benefit to make it a worthwhile expenditure of development resources as opposed to creating something new that many players have been asking for for a very long time. -- Wyn talk 07:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what merge means...

As i said if they replace TA and HB with one new arena at least one community, but most likely both will be pissed off cause their format just got deleted. Vortex ™ 07:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The TA community consists of literally about 50 people. There is no real HB community and there never was one. If it does exist, it is smaller than the TA one. Either way, both arenas have sucked ass for years. ANet is removing them and replacing them with something that might be good and might be bad, but is probably better than both of those by default. Looking at it from a "how many players are you pissing off compared to how many you're making happy" standpoint, this is a good decision. People have wanted sealed deck for years - it's like PvErs and an auction house, it's one of those things they ask for all the time. -Auron 07:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No HB community? Nice joke. There are more people playing HB than TA. TA just gets more matches cause of the people that enter from RA. And even TA has far more than 50 steady players. Compare that to the people that asked for a 4 vs 4 sealed deck format, i'm pretty sure almost everyone that asked for it had 8 vs 8, especially GvG, in mind. If they want to introduce sealed deck, ok, no problem. But deleting TA and HB just because they are too lazy to balance them - and this has nothing to do with sealed deck as they could just keep TA & HB and make a seperate arena - is just bullshit. Vortex ™ 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again you are misusing terms. The term lazy suggests a disinclination to work which the Live team has proven time and again is not a problem they have. I believe the phrase you are really looking for is lack of resources. You really should buy a dictionary. -- Wyn talk 08:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How about you shut up if you have nothing else to say besides flaming me. What reason they have for not balancing TA and HB has no relevance in my post whatsoever. Let me point it out for you: Even if they can't balance the formats, keeping them is better than deleting. You really should learn to read. Vortex ™ 08:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You feel free to flame the Live team but take offense to me suggesting you buy a dictionary, that's rich. You are in the total minority in your view of where they should place their priorities and resources. The overwhelming response to this announcement across the forums is no more TA/HB = Win. As Linsey stated, they have crunched the numbers, and there simply isn't enough of a playerbase in those two areas to warrant the expenditure of time/resources to fix them and make them fun and attractive to enough players, as opposed to using the same time/resources to develop an area that large numbers of players have been requesting for 3 years. -- Wyn talk 08:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you two need a timeout? Seriously.

People will have varied opinion, I've already heard some 'yes' and 'no's' to this move, but that's up to the individual. ALso, there are plenty of things people have been asking for years that could be implimented, but that's another topic.

People are excited, people are disappointed, some are cautious. Let's just keep it above board, hmm? ~~000.00.00.00~~ 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, because voicing my opinion is flaming. My only question is: Why delete them? What does introducing sealed deck have to do with deleting 2 PvP formats that are - while their communities may not be large - actively played by several hundreds of people that obviously enjoy the format to a degree, else they wouldn't play it. Vortex ™ 08:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

These formats are flawed. As they are right now, they suck; and they are things that would take far more effort to fix than it's worth. Linsey mentioned above how very few people play both formats, so only a few players are going to miss those two modes. You may be one of those few, but in this stage you are just an expected casualty. While you may have fun when playing TA/HB, a few people having fun is not a good enough reason to keep something in the game (remember the bugged Signet of Ghostly Might, that could kill anything in ten seconds? Some people complained that they had fun when playing with that skill, yet Arena Net fixed what was obviously a bug anyway; in some ways, TA and HB are mostly bugs now, too). Erasculio 09:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That has to be the most terrible comparison ever. You're comparing a gamebreaking bug that made the whole game unplayable with a PvP format. If you don't like the formats play GvG or HA. By the way, do you even play HB & TA? HB is bugged indeed, but if crossing and shadowsteps get removed it would be playable imo. And TA is just fine, the only really broken build is shove, everything else is beatable by a good balanced. Also you didn't answer my question: Why removing them if they can just let people have their fun there? Vortex ™ 09:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Have fun? Funny that... seems I remember a post on Linsey's page from someone not very long ago talking about how ridiculous TA was getting lately, and suggesting it be fixed. If the people playing in TA and HB are actually having fun with the state of the arenas, and would be willing to let it stand as is so the development team can focus their energy on something that would benefit a larger number of players, I might agree with you. We all know that isn't going to happen. -- Wyn talk 09:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

HB and TA are fun only to a very small number of players (just like the SoGM bug was, for the records), and so the steps it would take to fix both those modes are not worth it. Between having something left broken in the game or removing it, it's better to remove it, especially given how few players care about TA and HB. Erasculio 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree about removing TA. But I would also like to know why you call TA a flawed area? Since it has been around for about 4 years and nobody did a thing, removing it now would just anger more people. TA is also a good place for a bunch of people or a hand full of friends to have fun and play together. Without TA we're limited to RA sync, GvG and HA (which require more players and sometimes that's just not possible). --Johnny Rodrigues 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost no one plays TA, and it's not balanced. Without TA, you will be able to play in RA, in GvG and HA, and also in the new Sealed Deck mode. Erasculio 09:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You have obviously very much TA experience, Mr. Erasculio. Vortex ™ 09:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See, Arena Net is not removing TA because I think almost no one plays there or because I think it's not balanced. They are removing TA because they know (and literally know, they know how many matches happen a day) almost no one plays there, and they know it's not balanced. Erasculio 09:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaah, grass-hoppers, but will RA be as popular when syncing gets addressed? ~~000.00.00.00~~ 09:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't given me a reason why it's better to remove than to keep it. Vortex ™ 09:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have. Both are broken. Both are not going to be fixed (given how so few people care). If they won't be fixed, there's no point in keeping something broken in the game (again, given how so few people care). Erasculio 09:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

HB might be broken, TA is not. Even if they were broken, who cares? You don't need to play them. They could just keep ignoring them like they did for over 3 years, it would be better for the commnity and would piss less people off than removing them. Vortex ™ 09:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've given you the reason several times. Deleting removes a broken format that players wish developer time and resources diverted to to fix/improve for the benefit of a very small number of players, rather than using that time/resources to develop a format that will benefit a large number of players. You yourself have requested on more than just the one occasion that Linsey spend time fixing/improving TA. (See this and the previously linked section). How many times does it need to be said? Who knows? When the Sealed deck format comes out, you might find you really enjoy it much more than TA. -- Wyn talk 09:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Zzz, you don't get it. People want these formats to be fixed because they like them. Deleting them is the exact opposite of what all these players have suggested. Even if they don't balance the arenas keeping them is more fun for the community than removing them (I'm repeating myself). Vortex ™ 09:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What "People"? the ones in your head?. Pick one or the other. Broken and no effort made to ever fix it. Or Version 2.0... That's the reality of the situation. Demanding the Devs "patch up" something they already told you they can't justify the manpower for is gettin' you no where. Pretend like you got a pair and Cling to that broken format demanding no changes EVER, or just get out of the way. --ilr 11:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

People who don't play TA obviously shouldn't say anything about it. First there are a lot of people that do TA but since you don't play it you will never see them. When the devs say there are only a few people who play TA it's relative to how much people play RA or PvE since those types of play are the ones people play the most. Rather than destroying TA which is perfectly fine, you could create a new arena and test the popularity of the sealed deck first. Team Arenas is in my opinion a fun place to test small group builds and develop team skill and coordenation among PvP players before going to HA or GvG. If you ever tried to do HA you will see that groups will only ask for people who have over r3++ hero or glad2++ that is to say that people who never got the chance to try TA or learn about team effort will never play these areas because nobody is willing to play with them. --Johnny Rodrigues 11:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"there are a lot of people that do TA": there aren't, as Arena Net has stated. "TA which is perfectly fine": it isn't, as Arena Net has stated. "People who don't play TA obviously shouldn't say anything about it": you don't understand: my opinion is not going to change the game. Arena Net's opinion is. Claiming that there are enough people playing TA to invest in that game mode is pointless, given how you don't know how many people play there and Arena Net does know, down to the exact number. Erasculio 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

""TA which is perfectly fine": it isn't, as Arena Net has stated." - the only reason arena net gave to this was that the player base was rather small. The pvp comunity is also rather small compared to what it was some years ago. But small isn't a reason to delete things. ""People who don't play TA obviously shouldn't say anything about it": you don't understand: my opinion is not going to change the game. Arena Net's opinion is." That's obviously not true. Anet does need to know our opinions, after all we're the ones playing their game, if they don't listen to us who will they listen to? A game isn't based on the company's opinion or it would never get released outside of their company. "Claiming that there are enough people playing TA to invest in that game mode is pointless(...)." And you're not reading Vortex's posts where he claims (and I bet a lot of other people who can't express themselves here share the same opinion) even if they don't fix TA (whatever you think needs fixing) keeping them will be more fun for the community than removing it. --Johnny Rodrigues 12:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Arena Net stated that the reason why the TA community is so small is thanks to "a competitive atmosphere and a degenerate metagame". That, ultimately, is the problem: not how few people play TA, but rather how broken the format is, so broken that it's not worth keeping as it currently is. Arena Net's options are either fixing it (something that isn't really worth it, given how so few people play there) or removing it (given how there is no point keeping something broken in the game). Are there players who will miss TA? Yes. Will they be "the community"? No, because the great majority of GW players don't play TA at all, regardless of what you and Vortex think. Erasculio 12:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"a competitive atmosphere" is a part of almost any pvp arena and "a degenerative metagame" is Arena Net's responsability for listening to people who don't pvp like you. But this is also present in RA, HA, GvG. (an example of this are the Mind Blast Eles, Ranger/Assassins, RTL, hexway, etc).--Johnny Rodrigues 12:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact 1: TA and HB are flawed arenas. Whether you are in denial, don't have the balls to face up to it, hate it to be that way, they are all seriously flawed.

Fact 2: ANet does not have the resources to "fix" it. Hence they are removing the problems themselves. If you can't fix it, remove it. If you can fix it, but replacing it overweighs the benefits of fixing it, naturally you would remove, then get a new one. Same thing with a 12 years old TV my grandmother refused to part with because she thought fixing it was cheaper than buying a new one. Fact was, we added up all the receipts from the repairman, and it was already over 3 times more than a 30 inch plasma TV. Rather than wasting time and resources to fix it, we got a new one for her. So instead of wasting time to "fix" these broken arenas, anet may as well just chuck it away.

Fact 3: Any business will not omit the majority to cater to the minority(unless the minority are the richest men/women in the world). The whiners here, please go QQ to some other game, because no one cares about you. So what if you enjoy exploiting broken game mechanics? It doesn't make you the CEO of anet. It doesn't increase the weight of your worthless and baseless opinion.

Fact 4: Those who argue that anet could leave those modes of PvP intact and just do not maintain it need a brain transplant. Why? I thought this would be pretty obvious, but expecting even a single sign of intelligence from people is a tall order I guess. People are exploiting the situation to gain rewards such as TRPs and BFaction. For doing nothing more than twiddling thumbs and /emote-ing, no less. So you are asking anet to leave those problems there for people to exploit. Good joke. Pika Fan 12:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fact 1:" in denial or not there are a lot of people that don't want TA (specifically TA) to be removed. If you search around other dev's talk pages you'll see that most people acknowledge that HB is broken and should have been adressed before. You are the one who doesn't have the balls to come up with a reasonable excuse as to why TA is seriously broken and so you just say it's broken.

"Fact 2:" I know ANet doesn't have the resources to fix it but if it lasted 4 years without ever being changed why start now? You don't see anyone complaining about how they wish TA was gone. "If you can't fix it, remove it. If you can fix it, but replacing it overweighs the benefits of fixing it, naturally you would remove, then get a new one" - You' re just showing that people tend to choose the easy way out to do things. So let's all do the easiest thing and leave it as it is. The grandmother story is funny but the only one who's going to benefit from the tv is herself and not a community of gamers so there isn't exactly a comparison there.

"Fact 3:" Nobody is qq'ing here or exploiting game mechanics because there wasn't even a single valid reason as to why TA is broken. I never said I was the CEO of anet you got carried away there. Baseless and worthless are the opinions you made thus far that have not only shown a single piece of valid reason and the facts that aren't facts that you just made up to look important.

"Fact 4:" Those who think that what arenanet kept intact for 4 years without a change and suddenly is the target of deletion need a brain transplant? That's funny. I would also like to ask how do you gain TRP in TA? BFaction is a reward for any type of PvP even for Zaishen Challenge/Zaishen Elite and I bet you know a lot of people who do abuse the 6k of daily Bfaction you can get there. --Johnny Rodrigues 13:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, adding a new form of PvP is great and all, but deleting 2 forms of PvP that have small but active fanbases is just rediculous. Wasn't it Anet who said that when GWs 2 comes out they won't shut down GWs servers as long as 1 person is playing, or something like that. How is this any different? These formats don't have the largest fanbases, but those that do play are very dedicated to what format they play. I can't speak for Team Arenas, but I can speak for HB as I have been HBing on and off for over a year now. The only reason many people HB is because it is somewhere they can just get on and play without having to worry about noob teammates or spending hours making teams. Everyone who is hating against HB has probably just played 5 matches and found it too hard and quit. Their are a few reasons the HB fanbase is so small. First off it requires you to have pretty much all the games and having most skills/items/heros unlocked and you need to have at least basic understanding of every class or you will be at a big disadvantage. Then you have to spend time learning how the format works because it is quite complex. A large chunk of those that take the time to learn how it works and spend time getting really good quit because of frustration with a broken format and the countless number of bugs. But despite all that their are still many that keep playing because it can be fun. And those that do play, are very dedicated. You will find of the small number of HBers, most of them have hundreds of thousands of hours under their belts. How can you even compare a fan base like that to the one at Ascalon Academy? Those are all players who will be playing another game in a few weeks or will move onto another part of the game. Even though their are many bugs and many HBers are complain about it doesnt mean we want a new format, because all those people still actively HB. We just want a few basic changes like removing shadowstep and slowing down the morale meter. We don't want the format which we have spent a good part of our lives on taken away, I'd rather have buggy HB then no HB. And the insensitivety by many is rediculous. We have spent hundreds of hours doing something and it is about to be taken away from us. How would you like it if PvE was removed? Or if Hard Mode or Heros were removed? Their is no alternative to Hero Battles, their is no where else I can go to and not have to worry about other people or making teams and playing competitive pvp. Linsey do you guys realize how big of a mistake this could be? You guys will lose many active dedicated players from this. All these people have been fed up already with you guys for not making a few simple changes that would improve the quality of play greatly. This is just the final blow to all of us and the already small PvP community will shrink even more. What does replacing these formats achieve? because whatever it does acheive will most likely not cancel out the fact that guild wars will be losing maybe a thousand very dedicated PvPers. And this new format will attract new players to PvP? I doubt it, because in the end in order to succeed in PvP it will take lots of time and dedication, and most people just aren't willing to put that forth no matter what the format is. I most likely will either quit or spend much much less time on guildwars if HB gets removed. It'll be too hard to do any other PvP while in a PvE guild and I can't stand PvE so my options are limited (And for everyone wondering my PvE guild has a handful of people I know IRL and a bunch of people I have known for 2+ years and I won't leave it). X tigercat x 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"will be losing maybe a thousand very dedicated PvPers": more likely a dozen very dedicated PvPers...Like you said, HB is broken. It's the same thing as keeping the bugged Signet of Ghostly Might because some people had fun when playing with it: it's still broken, something left badly done, showing a big flaw in the game. If that flaw cannot be fixed (and it won't), it better be removed. Erasculio 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As if you know how many people HB and TA right? Because you HB on a daily basis while I am just making up statistics. Yes Hb is broken, so fix it don't remove it. First off your example is horrible as it pertains to a skill that is bugged and it is not doing what it was intended. Second off, they didnt remove SoGM they just fixed it which just destroys your whole arguement. Your fine with removing something a handful of players have spent 100s of hours on and all they want is a few skill changes. Will removing shadowstep, slowing down morale, or nerfing BB sins fix HB? Not at all, but it will improve the quality of the game greatly and that is all we want. But in the end I just wanna be able to HB, bugs or not. How is it fair that a bunch of people who don't even HB or TA decide our fates? X tigercat x 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact 1: TA has a small playerbase and isn't balanced. Like what I said in Fact 2, devs don't have the time to fix something that a small amount of players participate in. It doesn't matter even if it is not as broken as HB. Anet has the data you don't, they know how little matches go on in TA. Being retarded and stubborn about it doesn't change the fact that data doesn't lie. Walk into ANY district in TA and you will notice how sparsely populated the place is.

Fact 2: Because they made a resolution to be better. And that means listening to the community, then reviewing their limitations and resources and coming up with a suitable solution to the problem. Since people have been crying about/abusing HB, and TA isn't showing any decent amount of play, it is natural to, if they don't have the resources to fix them, remove them totally. Also, what I said is problem-solving 101. Remove a problem by its roots. Anyone in the right mind will tell you that. Sure, it's "extreme", but given their stretched resources between GW 1 and GW 2, you should count your blessings that they are even paying attention at all.

Fact 3: Orly? TA is all about the same few players abusing the same few broken skills like hexes and smites. Sure, other forms of PvP aren't exempt from that, but those forms of PvP have popularity. TA doesn't. Anet isn't going to waste their time to try and balance TA just for the convenience of a few centered players. Also, I was actually more referring to HB than TA at this point, so make an ass out of u and me more. Ever heard of figurative speech? I didn't say anything about you stating you were the CEO of anet, I clearly meant you guys think your opinions are worth more than anybody else. Lrnhao2comprehendindirecttext.

Fact 4: Funny, the people who admit these formats are broken are now telling anet not to remove it for the sake of fixing them. Asking broken formats not to be fixed on premise that it has been broken for a long time is fallacious, ridiculous, and is only capable of people having less IQ than a flowerpot.

Oh, and I haven't seen any good argument why TA should be kept if it doesn't see any decent amount of play and thus isn't worth the time and resources to balance. Try again, but this time with at least the intelligence of a flowerpot, though I suppose that's too much to bargain for. Pika Fan 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The trick is never to vanish an object. The trick is to bring it back in a way that it has a fair chance of survival. TA is not dead, instead by moving to sealed play it rewards creating a build to a far higher degree than before. It is a glorious rebirth. HB, on the other hand, is dead, but most likely only for the moment. Once some grass has grown over it, there is a chance to bring it back in some heavily revised version far down the road after serendipity struck the Live team on how to handle HB. The idea of 1vs1 + micromanagement hell + Unreal "Double Domination" mode is not that bad, it merely exceeds the skill of most people to control 4 players from 3rd person and the GW-UI to such a degree that HB remains fun. The builds are just too many (so that can be removed), the AI interactions too exploited (not that much of a problem if players do not control the builds) and the interface not really right for handling what basically is very similar to a modern unit based RTS game. We have seen the ambitious list of changes the LiveTeam already tries to conquer and it certainly helped a lot of people understand why the update is taking so long. The best thing is to bury HB with some decency now, and consider TA to be an extreme makeover shifting the very elements deciding on the outcome of the match away from "copying a build off PVX and executing it perfectly". Doing the same to HB is just too much for the moment, especially if you talk about retaining the 4 player shrine-capping gameplay of HB while making easier to pick up play for more people, you soon wander into a territory where you basically ask to move from 3rd person to an RTS perspective and remake the whole UI to reflect that.--4thvariety 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@Tigercat Please read the journal entry typed out by Linsey. She clearly stated that, according to the data recorded on the server, the number of matches that go on in TA and HB are much, much lesser than other forms of PvP. Also, it is not that anet does not want to fix HB and TA; rather, they do not have the time nor the resources to fix them. Pika Fan 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've read the whole concept and I agree with the idea to delete HB+TA and let a new PvP modus come up (especially one whose concept sounds much better than the one of HB/TA), but in many forums I've read as feedback that people want their commander title get at least up to rank 3 to show it in the HoM and think they won't have the chance to do that anymore in the few weeks till the update. So what do you devs think about double commander points till the update or any other possibilty to get more points than in normal way; that everyone who wants the title can get it in the HoM and people who already have r3+ can improve their rank? Mpidemie 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna butt in and say a few things. First of all, by definition, hero battles is not pvp. You can throw stickers on it saying it is pvp, but it's just bad AI using skills on other bad AI. The players hardly ever fight each other, it's more of a race than a fight.

Secondly, TA does not have a lack of players because it's flawed, it has a lack of players because it sucks. PvP in GW was designed for 8v8, not 4v4 (which is why I'm not too thrilled about sealed being 4v4). If you want to continue using mindless overpowered builds to farm a title that does nothing, you can still go to any pvp format you can find, as degenerate builds are welcome in all of them.

Anet has had some semblance of a sealed deck implementation for some time (at least since PAX), it would have been stupid for them to never actually finish it. If they had half an auction house today, they'd probably finish that someday as well. It's not that they wanted to randomly piss off the eight people who do TA and/or HB, they wanted to put something with much more potential in the game. As Auron said, they could fuck up Sealed Deck as much as humanly possible and it would still be a vast improvement over what TA and HB currently are. ~Shard 18:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@Pika Fan, "Since people have been crying about/abusing HB, and TA isn't showing any decent amount of play, it is natural to, if they don't have the resources to fix them, remove them totally." If you don't have the resources to fix it then why even bother to do anything with it? just because it has lots of flaws doesn't mean you delete it after having it for so long. People have spent hundreds of thousands of hours HBing just to have it taken away. And their is no alternative,theirs nowhere else you can play competitive pvp without having to spend forever making groups or playing with noobs. HBers love the concept of HB they just want a few things changed we don't want it deleted. This is rediculous. "Fact 4: Funny, the people who admit these formats are broken are now telling anet not to remove it for the sake of fixing them. Asking broken formats not to be fixed on premise that it has been broken for a long time is fallacious, ridiculous, and is only capable of people having less IQ than a flowerpot." We want HB to be fixed as I have said numerous times but if they aren't going to make any changes dont just remove it. We have been playing the same hero battles for quite a long time and we are used to everything that is broken and all the bugs and we are still playing today right? So why delete it and just toss away a fan base that has been dedicated to the game even though they have been ignored for years? And if you don't HB how does this even pertain to you? I spend at least 75% of my time on guildwars HBing, what do I do now?"@Tigercat Please read the journal entry typed out by Linsey. She clearly stated that, according to the data recorded on the server, the number of matches that go on in TA and HB are much, much lesser than other forms of PvP. Also, it is not that anet does not want to fix HB and TA; rather, they do not have the time nor the resources to fix them." I have read what she wrote quite a few times and again I understand they can't fix it, but it is unnecessary to remove it completely. And why does it matter if they have less matches, the doesnt mean their are less people HBing or TAing. It just means their are less battles. Do you know how long it can take to get into matches when your on certain parts of the ladder? It takes much longer because noone near your rank is currently playing and you could spend and hour and only have 2-3 matches while that is not an issue in any other arena besides GVG. Also HB battles typically last the whole 10 minutes while RA unless your stuck with 2 healers typically dont last longer then 2-3 minutes. If I were to do an experiment to see how many matches of each arena I could get into in an hour, I am sure HB and TA would be one of the longer ones. Yes HB and TA don't have the fanbases of HA or GVG or AB, these 2 formats aren't as obsolete as Anet is making them seem. If you were to take the average match length + average wait time and multiply it by the number matches then you will find that the difference between the too is not as great as it is being made out to be. 68.40.30.207 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"theirs nowhere else you can play competitive pvp"

You're right about one thing. If you want to pvp at a very low level of competition, you can try any of the arenas that are still in the game, because they're pretty much all jokes at this point.

"why does it matter if they have less matches, the doesnt mean their are less people HBing or TAing"

Yes it does.

"It just means their are less battles. Do you know how long it can take to get into matches when your on certain parts of the ladder? It takes much longer because noone near your rank is currently playing"

You're almost right. It actually takes much longer because no one near your rank is playing.

Back when people played GvG, it didn't take more than 4 minutes to find another guild, even if you were top 100. Now, you have to wait anywhere from 10 minutes to half an hour to get a top 100 match in GvG. It has nothing to do with ranking at all, match waits are directly tied to the number of people playing. ~Shard 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"theirs nowhere else you can play competitive pvp without having to spend forever making groups or playing with noobs." Thats the whole quote don't take wat i say out of context. And that is true. "Yes it does." You clearly have no idea but their is quite a large HB community out their. Less Matches =/= Less People. Less Matches = Less Matches and thats it and I have already explained why and if you fail to see that then I will not continue debating with you. "You're almost right. It actually takes much longer because no one near your rank is playing." Um not true, their is quite a handful of HBers who play but a large chunk of the latter is inactive so their may be 2-3 people near your rank on at a time but after you face them the wait is very long. But you have made it quite aparent you don't HB so you wldn't know. 68.40.30.207 20:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@68.40.30.207 GW promises new content every so often. This new content should naturally fix problems within the game, or just to make everybody's life easier and more convenient. Anet identified HB and TA as modes of PvP that are problematic and/or simply not popular because the idea and the mechanics behind those modes of PvP are flawed. Logically, given the limited resources they have, they decide to implement a more-or-less self-sufficient mode to PvP - sealed deck. In theory, sealed deck play would be more or less perfectly balanced; both teams get the same set of skills to choose from, which eliminate degenerate gameplay by abusing broken skills and mechanics, like shadowsteps, lolshovespike etc etc; while totally removing TA and HB, which would take too much time and resources to maintain and balance. Like I said, just because any broken game features have been broken for a long time, it does not mean it should remain as such. People have been mainpulating and abusing these broken features for ages, just obs any hb monthly, and recall the time where people /rockpaperscissors or /rolldice to decide the outcome of these matches.

There ARE lesser, much MUCH lesser people TAing/HBing. Like I said, please walk into any of those outposts in any district, then compare it to the waiting areas in any other form of PvP. You can multiply, make-up, or delude yourself into thinking: hey, more time taken per match = more people, fact is, much less people participate in TA/HB outside of zquest days. With a full party, more often than not, we wait up to 3 minutes sitting in the outpost watching sparsely scattered people shouting for party/members. Pika Fan 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, it doesn't matter that HB has a big active community or not. It is a severely flawed form of PvP that has problems stemming from its concept and design(match fixing, bad hero AI). It will not be easy to balance, hence anet is right to simply remove something that would definitely require more time and resources than they have. Pika Fan 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Pika Idk if you realize this but I HB so you can't BS me. And I also see you don't HB and seems like you are just throwing it in the same catergory as TA. The only reason people roll dice or rock paper scissors is because we are trying to get Anet attention to make some changes because they are too ignorant to either realize changes are needed or just don't care. But aparently Anet choose that they won't fix HB but they will just remove it. It is pointless trying to discuss this with any of you because none of you HB and none of you know wat your talking about and your whole argument is coming from the article Linsey wrote. I hope Linsey responds to this discussion because this is rediculous and Anet will lost some dedicated players because of this. But I am sure Anet feels the same way as just about everyone here because noone from Anet actually HBs and has spent the amount of time some of us have on it. 68.40.30.207 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@Pika Fan. People can see the fool you're making of yourself calling other people names just to try to prove a point. Big or small they shouldn't remove a PvP format after 4 years. Removing broken things just because they are broken is not problem solving. The solution to any problem is to think about it from various viewpoints and try to find a solution that tries to please the biggest number of people (and this does take skill). As of now the only effect that deleting TA is going to have is make people angry when there is no need. Arenanet could easily create a new outpost (similar to TA or HB) where people could try out Sealed Deck play and try to balance TA whenever they have the resources/time to do it. I already stated my opinions about why TA should stay but i'll say it again: Team Arenas is a fun place to test small group builds and develop team skill and coordenation among PvP players before going to HA or GvG. Without TA you're restricted to either play higher PvP without any type of team experience or play against npc's which isn't "Player vs Player". About "Fact 4: Asking broken formats not to be fixed on premise that it has been broken for a long time is fallacious, ridiculous, and is only capable of people having less IQ than a flowerpot." We do want the game to be fixed (again: whatever needs fixing). But removing TA is not "fixing the game". --Johnny Rodrigues 21:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Alliance Battles actually. elix Omni 21:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Team Arenas is a fun place to test small group builds and develop team skill and coordenation among PvP players before going to HA or GvG" This is wrong in many levels... According to the progression in complexity that the arenas are introduced to players, RA>TA>HA+GvG, yes this would be correct, but these days it just isn't. TA has become a place for highly specialized teams to FARM gladiator points. They are skilled and have perfect coordination, they don't plan to 'move up' to HA or GvG, ever, and they will demolish any team trying to actually have fun with builds, because they run highly compressed, synergized and optimized bars. In TA you either run the meta or you get farmed, simple as that. People who want to have fun with builds play Guild scrimmage, Random Arenas, Alliance Battles, or even randomway Heroes' Ascent and BYOB GvG. No one I can think of, tries to have fun in TA. The game is balanced around 8x8, so builds focused on skills that have maximized effect in a 4v4 environment are always abused, the small population and absence of a ladder increases the odds of a 'newb' team facing an extremely specialized team, too. I don't like the deletion of any game content, but I do believe TA is broken beyond repair, yes.--Sensei 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1)HB is problematic because of match fixing and the flawed game concept 2)TA is problematic because it is unbalanced, but hardly anybody TAs 3)Anet does not feel HB and TA are worth fixing because HB is going to be hard to fix, and TA isn't worth the time to balance because hardly anyone plays it. Instead of leaving those two forms of "PvP" to rot and draw flak, they remove them, so HB can no longer be exploited, and TA doesn't need manpower to maintain. Is it really so hard to understand that removing these forms of PvP DO solve the problem? Is it too difficult to grasp the fact that this is the best solution for both anet, which will save time and resources to fix these degenerate forms of PvP given their highly limited staffing and time, and for the player, who have been begging anet to fix the exploiting in HB and the unbalance in TA, while asking for sealed deck play?

P.S I took screenshots of 4 districts in TA, 3 of them being the most "popular", and frankly, once I post them up, those who say TA has a decent amount of people playing will have no argument at all.

Honestly, this argument is circular, it's pretty obvious anet wants to remove HB and TA for perfectly viable reasons(time and resources, as well as exploiting and bad feature design), but people keep arguing that anet should fix it when they can't. Pika Fan 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from Linsey's Journal:

This is a pretty big one, so we really wanted to warn everyone of this in advance. The plan is to remove both the Hero Battles and Team Arena PvP formats and replace them with a 4v4 Sealed Deck format.

Let's talk a bit about the reasons for this. We recognize that the Hero Battles format has reached a state of acute distress. It has always been a niche format with a player base comparable to that of the Ascalon Academy, despite its tournament support. This is largely due to flaws in the core mechanics of the format, compounded by years without skill balances to keep it in check.

Under these circumstances, we’ve seen this player base react in extreme ways to show us the flaws of the format. We’ve seen a metagame in which rolling dice or playing rock-paper-scissors has determined the outcome of a match. The final round of the Monthly Tournament was purposefully thrown month after month to send us a message.

After the Anniversary Update, we decided to take on the problems of Hero Battles for the next content update. Many different options were discussed, but unless we were talking about making major changes to the format, every option seemed like mere band-aids that wouldn’t truly fix the core issue. As a small team, it's not healthy or wise for us to invest our limited time in projects which just create more work for no substantive effect. With that in mind, we focused our attention on ways to change the format and generated a bunch of ideas for this. A simple truth emerged: to fix Hero Battles, we would need to virtually redesign the entire format.

We’d be spending a huge amount of time creating a new format to replace Hero Battles, with no guarantee that it would actually fix anything or have a player base to support the new format. That just doesn't sound awesome to me. People who frequent my wiki talk know I am uncomfortable with the idea of adding any new formats which could further fracture the community. If we’re going to invest a lot of time into designing a new format, I want it to be self-sustaining (going back to that whole "not creating more work" thing) and sure to have a player base.

This is where Sealed Deck came in. We’ve wanted to work the Sealed Deck format that was developed for past PAX tournaments into the game, knowing that a lot of players have been playing it on their own for some time now.

Now set that stuff aside for a moment and let's talk about Team Arena real quick.

Team Arena is another format that has sorely needed some love and attention. Unlike Hero Battles, Team Arena was once very popular, but a competitive atmosphere and a degenerate metagame have caused the player base to dwindle a great deal. We'd like to give the format more support, but we don't have the bandwidth to take on more balance maintenance. Now with Sealed on the table, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to give Team Arena some lovin' and remove its degenerate meta in the process.

Here’s the plan we came up with:

• The Hero Battles Ladder will freeze and there will be no more matches in the format.
• The maps used in Hero Battles will be modified and reused, including the outpost.
• Gaining points in the Commander title will no longer be possible. You’ll still be able to display it, and it will count in the Hall of Monuments and towards the Kind of a Big Deal title track.
• Random Arena will stop promoting to Team Arena after 10 wins.
• Team Arena will be renamed and repurposed to support the new Sealed Deck format.
• Sealed Deck will be implemented with new UI and revised rules aimed at making pick-up group formation a little easier to offset the limited nature of the format.
• There will be a new title for this new format. This title will be the counterpart of the Commander title; either will satisfy a single requirement towards the Hall of Monuments and the Kind of a Big Deal title track, but not both at once. It’s a one-or-the-other kind of thing.
• We hope to have customizable Sealed Deck UI so that players can refine the rule set for scrimmages or player-run tournaments, but this isn’t expected to be done for the initial release of the format.
• If the new format is successful, we’ll consider investing the development time to build a ladder and tournament system for it.

While we’re sad to see Hero Battles and Team Arena fade away, we feel that this plan has a lot of win/win and will ultimately be good for the health of the game. We get to replace two formats that suffer from complicated issues and dwindling player bases with one new format that we already know is fun, popular, and will be easier to support and maintain. Not only that, but because of the random nature of Sealed Deck, it’s a format that has a lot of longevity built into it. A project like this is exactly the kind of thing that Live Team should put resources into, one which eliminates outstanding issues while providing content to increase the game’s longevity.

At this point, you may be wondering just when all this will be happening.

We are going to wait until after September's Monthly Tournament to make these changes. We want the Hero Battles community to get one last full season now that they know it will be shut down. There will still be time to get those last few points for the next rank of Commander, climb the ladder before it is frozen, and shoot for being the last person to ever win a Hero Battles tournament.

I think all that needs to be said has been said by Linsey. Just read the words in bold. Pika Fan 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who plays TA or HB can sit here all day and say "You don't play it, you don't know how many people do!" The simple fact is it's Anet saying the number of players/matches in those areas is too small to warrant keeping it and expending ANY resources on it. Whether those resources are developer time to fix/maintain it, server time/space to support it, maps and art that are part of it. If you think that ArenaNet doesn't know to the last enth of a percent the numbers, you know nothing at all about the game. I personally will take their word that the raw data has been sifted through, analyzed and discussed by more than just the Live Team, and this is the decision they have reached when taking all of the factors into account. By removing them as they are now it allows them to reuse and repurpose some of the resources for the new format, cutting the development time for Sealed deck substantially. I seriously think this is a big win for the pvp community as a whole (even though I'm not part of it). -- Wyn talk 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be said has been said by Linsey. Pika Fan 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pika you are clueless and you keep bringing the same arguement that you are just taking off Linseys article. This is a joke how can anet even think of removing a form of pvp that has a decent fan base. 68.40.30.207 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Because anet has the accurate data directly taken from the servers. You don't. Unless you have access to the server, you can't refute the evidence put forth by a person who does. Now stop being retarded and gtfo. Going on like a broken recorder and forcing everyone to give circular arguments is dumb. Pika Fan 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wyn as I already mentioned Anets way of calculating how large a fan base is flawed by the fact that they base everything off how many matches are played and their are many variables that can affect that. HB is not as small as they are making it out to be. And Pika you GTFO you didn't just lose something you have spent 100s of hours of your life doing and have no idea what your talking about just copy pasting Linseys article 68.40.30.207 22:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure they already considered the length of matches, else GvG would be the most unpopular form of PvP with pretty much every other match lasting 28 minutes. So starting making some sense. Pika Fan 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well lets let Linsey answer that because according to that article you are getting all your info from, she only mentions that they based it of the amount of matches. It doesnt take into account many variables like tournaments where things can be pretty slow between matches or how long it can take to get into battles at certain points on the ladder. 68.40.30.207 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are basing the numbers wrongly, it doesn't escape the fact that they don't want to have to fix HB because of manpower and resource issues. Which part of "As a small team, it's not healthy or wise for us to invest our limited time in projects which just create more work for no substantive effect" do you not understand? They don't think fixing HB is making full use of their time, and hence they won't. Pika Fan 22:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter in the long run 68, because the amount of overall resources that are being taken up to support an area that sees so little play time can be better utilized for a greater benefit in a new format, whether you feel basing the decision solely on the number of matches is flawed or not. So ok.. let's say there are 5000 players who enjoy TA, but only play once or twice a week. The rest of the time, that format is wasted space on the server. Does it make sense to keep it for those 5000 players? or does it make more sense to repurpose that space for say 100,000 players who might play 4 times a week? I understand that simply looking at match numbers seems flawed/unfair because not everyone who plays TA is on at the same time, but I would guess the sealed deck arena is going to be steadily populated (especially at the beginning) and if they prove they have done it right, it may revitalize pvp play for the entire pvp community, not simply those 5000 players who enjoy TA. -- Wyn talk 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But Wyn that's the thing, nobody can tell the future. How do you know that the sealed deck approach will get better results than TA or HB? Sure at first a lot of people will try it at least once and if they don't like it they won't play it and will just be another wasted effort like you now call TA or HB. And if removing every little thing that people consider broken is the way to go then half the game will be lost in the process. --Johnny Rodrigues 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the reason to remove TA? I've never played HB (and well it seems to be like pretty terrible PvE) but why TA? It's is what keeps lucky RA teams from going on forever against poor teams without heals... And why remove it when you could just let it decay? Do TA take up space? --Cursed Angel 22:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As Linsey said CA, they are removing TA so to repurpose the arena/maps/server space/bandwidth for Sealed Decks because it's numbers don't warrant keeping it. -- Wyn talk 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

all I see is more food for the sync teams and one less place to test out builds... but yeah server space is important business. :/ --Cursed Angel 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They probably couldn't find a place on the map to put a new outpost :/ Also, synching is being addressed around the same time this stuff goes live, so that's not as much of an issue. ~Shard 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@Johnny

Georg C. Lichtenberg:

"I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is they must change if they are to get better."

Pika Fan 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

@Pika

Irene Peter:

Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed.

--Johnny Rodrigues 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the second part of my quote, then refer back to the first part. Pika Fan 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not waste my (and everyone else's) time with further silly quotations that are not related to this section. --Johnny Rodrigues 00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When it is related? You are basically opposing the change simply because you are afraid it would have a negative impact. That has everything to do with the quote. You are just wasting everyone's time by making red herrings that have no point to make other than to disrupt the argument. Pika Fan 01:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Using your grandmother example, if the tv was slightly bugged (but still working) and getting a new tv is cheaper than fixing the small bug, naturally you would buy the new tv. But is it really important to throw the old one in the trash? Even if it still works? --Johnny Rodrigues 10:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If Anet was needed to make server space so bad they could've removed the various low level arenas (ie. Ascalon Arena) or they could have done something with FA/JQ/AB. They could have deleted the Zaishen Challenge and Elite too. Does this game need everything single one of Ascalon Arena, Shing Jea Arena, Shiverpeak Arena, JQ, FA, and the Zaishen Challenge and Elite. The difference between deleting one of those and one of HB or TA, is for all of those arenas their are plenty of other places you can do nearly the same thing, while thier is nowhere to go to do something remotely simliar to HB. If Anet really thinks their are more people in the Ascalon Arena than HB because their were more matches in Ascalon then HB they are completely wrong for reasons stated above. The fan bases in Ascalon/ShingJea/Shiverpeak are also not nearly as dedicated to PvP or their Arena as most of the HB fan base. I doubt theirs anyone in those arenas who has spent hundreds of thousands of hours in those arenas. You won't be losing much of a fan base by removing those either68.40.30.207 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you HB freaks really need to stop with the "hundreds of thousands of hours" crap. NO ONE has played Guild Wars for hundreds of thousands of hours. elix Omni 01:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FA/JA/AB sees much, much more play. Just walk in and you will notice that it's crowded all the time. Deleting the Zaishen Challenge/Elite as well as the low level arenas is a separate issue to this. Bring it up in a forum or something; it has nothing to do with removing modes of PvP that are exploitable and need resources(not just server space) to maintain and balance - low level arenas don't need specific balancing unlike lower-mid to high level arenas. Pika Fan

HB freaks? really? its one person lol (btw I'm Tigercat didnt realize i havent been logged in) but I have HB'd over thousand hours and I know no their are numerous players that have played more than me. 68.40.30.207 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from derailing the topic with suggestions, else they will get tagged and removed. Your previous comments are toeing the line between opinion and suggestion, so watch what you type. Bring your suggestions to a more suitable place, like the forums. Pika Fan 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

100,000 hours is equal to 11.4 YEARS, okay? Guild Wars has not been in existence for 11.4 years. elix Omni 01:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what many people believe, "server space" and "server performance" are not at all related, unless of course Anet is using computer technology developed by aliens. The choice to take the arenas out has 0 to do with server space or performance. Linsey likely wants former TA/HB players to migrate to an existing format or SD, resulting a higher number of players in all arenas (unless they quit altogether). ~Shard 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Allocated bandwidth was what linsey said. Pika Fan 02:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bandwidth is networking, server space is storage, server performance is processing. These are three different things, two of which Anet has plenty of (space and performance), in fact, my home computer can maintain a large number of instances in GW. ~Shard 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So Linsey expects the the former HBers to migrate. Good joke. The reasons people HB is because their is no hassle of making groups and dealing with stupid teammates. Unless this new format is 1 person 3 npcs, most HBers will not migrate over because playings with 3 other humans is exactly the opposite of what we want to do. and Pika are you telling me I need to not go off topic when someone calls me a HB freak. and when i said hundreds of thousands of hours i meant hundreds or a few thousand of hours i worded it wrong ok. 68.40.30.207 02:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Jade Quarry, Fort Aspenwood, and Random Arena don't exist, right? ~Shard 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she expects them to play Aion. elix Omni 02:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For everyone who says their is no HB fan base http://guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10398610 68.40.30.207 04:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No one's denying the existence of HBers, only their significance. elix Omni 04:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

O really? "has always been a niche format with a player base comparable to that of the Ascalon Academy, despite its tournament support." If you read the forum people just want HB to stay they don't care about any changes they just dont want the format they have grown accustomed to to be deleted. 68.40.30.207 05:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Is English your first language? Because if it is, you really have NO excuse for asserting that "a player base comparable to that of the Ascalon Academy" is the same as "NO ONE PLAYS HERO BATTLES EVER NOT EVEN ONE NOPE NO ONE AT ALL." elix Omni 05:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

@Shard Pretty sure anet was crying recently about the lack of server space(or something along those lines) so they had to charge people for the extra storage slots in the xunlai chest. Bandwidth is another issue that is clearly covered by me under "not just". I don't think I have to rename every problem that linsey mentioned in my reply; I would sound like a broken recorder. @Felix It is apparently not, because they have failed time and time again to understand that it is anet who has the accurate data retrieved from the servers, not them. Honestly, it's like talking to spoiled kids; they insist they are right even if they aren't. Lol cranks.Pika Fan 08:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) First of all, they were rotten fruit. No way to fix them. TA empty because people go get points Synchin in RA, and HB for too much time with the /roll thing running. Second, I fell like GW is become what it should be too slowly, so when all things are finally ready... it would be time to leave and go to GW2... well... not like I won't go back once in a while... but I' rather finish everything and then completely move on... MithTalk 05:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pika, if they needed the server space, this wiki wouldn't be here. Server storage space is so easy to get and costs nothing to maintain past the electric bill. They charged for online store stuff because that's their only source of income, aside from any new game sales (which I would expect to be relatively low by now). ~Shard 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To stir this pot even more(The quotes are paraphrased):

"They be takin' mah Arenaz! But Ah've spent <hyperbolic amount of time> in mah Arenaz! Wat a waste of mah tiemz!"

To this, I reply: Tough Shit. Everything comes to an end, and you should have expected this since Day 1. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the same argument I hear from people when ANet says they're shutting down their servers. Hint: If you're only getting a kick from it because it is there, rather than because it is fun or joyful, stop your incessant bitching and go find another hobby. If you get a true thrill from it, you won't miss its departure, since it is good while it lasts.

"But...but--da arena be active! I has seen it wit' my pwn 2 eyes!"

Can you produce statistics explaining just how active the arena is? Unlike you, ArenaNet can. Which means: Your claims are full of shit until you can crunch the numbers like ArenaNet.

"Less Matches does not equal less active"

I don't even need to explain why this is such a bad logical statement. I think it's been done anyway, so I won't waste the time.

"They shud jus' fix da formats and make da new format, so evry1 be happeh."

Hint: It's unfeasible to apply the necessary fixes because they can only do so much with what they have. You do realize to fix HB they would have to start with the bare bones of the hero AI. HB needs a fundamental revamp, and to do such a thing would expend too much time and resources. They've all ready got a Sealed Deck system, so there are no resources or time used to make the fundamentals. Rather than let HB sit there and split the community so other formats are unplayable, they're just simply going to drop it all together.
TA's problem comes with the fact that it's a tired-out format that has been neglected for years. You can't argue that it is active, because that is simply not true. When, at peak hours, you can maybe fill →1← district (and I'm talking about taking everyone from every district and moving them to a single district), the format is dead. In fact, if anything, this Sealed Deck format is sort of the buff that TA has been needing for a long time. You limit the gimmicky "kill shit ASAFP" builds, which will, in turn, draw more attention to the arena since you're less likely to be killed by some dick rolling his face on the keyboard. To make my point short: Rather than thinking that ANet is completely doing away with TA, think of this as the buff that it has needed for a long time.

"Yooz gaiz kept da system broke 'n bugged fo' 3-4 years, so yoo shuldn't remoovz it"

This is, indeed, one of the stupidest train-of-thoughts to ever originate in the history of logic. This is like saying "you kept that tick on you for three or four days, so you shouldn't remove it." Nevermind the fact that the tick is still sucking your blood and very possibly giving you Lyme Disease. And since the tick is such a problem for being so tiny, the only thing to suffer from its removal is, indeed, the tick, while you, the much bigger lifeform, benefit with it gone.

Tl;dr

Stop your bitching, since ANet has all ready decided that they're going to remove HB and TA. In fact, the SD is basically the buff to TA that you've been asking.
In other news: How are new accounts going to access HA post-TA? --Riddle 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[B]@@@@@ PIKAFAN[/B] TA IS NOT BROKEN - ITS THE SKILLS THAT ARE BROKEN AND THOSE PROBLEMS SPILL OVER INTO EVERY FORMAT EVENTUALLY. Arenanet are just bad at balancing skills.

Just a little tid-bit for everyone to think about. Every form of PvP has it's flaws. GvG is flawed, HA is flawed, RA is flawed, AB is flawed, TA is flawed, and HB is flawed. Oh yeah and the low level arenas are especially flawed. The original flaw in making PvP for guild wars was that skill bars and gear are not forced to be the same for both teams, therefore PvP can only be equally competitive if teams choose to match up equally. However, this flaw results in diversity of play and adaptation of the player base. This adds another element to pvp that favors experience players, and that is simply know your enemy. While this is useful in all forms of PvP, in this game you can set yourself to take advantage of other players' or team's weaknesses. Therefore in this game matches are often predetermined barring mistakes. In cases where team builds are the same or relatively similar game play comes down to player skill, again barring mistakes. When team builds are the same and player skill level is comparable, how can you force the other team into a disadvantage or how can you gain your team advantage is what a match will come down to. The first we are familiar with, it is called build wars. The other two situations are just good competition.

The point from the above text block is that Guild Wars PvP is flawed at every level, but not just because of problems in each PvP type. It's flawed because the playing field is not forced to be equal. Now with that said, there are other flaws in each of the other PvP formats and there is also a flaw in sealed deck play. Minimizing those flaws is what is important if it is to be sucessful. A way to minimize the flaws would be to force common professions between teams so that each side has the same things. Forcing gear and builds to be the same between each team would also minimize flaws. Having the team leaders build teams by turn choosing professions and secondaries for the team build each side will use and from there players assigned to professions turn choosing gear and turn choosing skills from a random pool in profession bars would be the closest to flawless you could get while still putting players in control of everything, forcing stat points to be fully used would also be necessary. I doubt that this would happen though, as it would probably be disliked since it is so drastically different than the current player choice system. I think ANet will probably take certain aspects of building a team out of player control or at least they should, but I will wait and see what the system they choose to implement is. ~>Sins WDB 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent entry

I really wish I could get excited, especially with the whole 'A New Approach', but this is just like that developer update that said the same thing... but this time it's like a plug for Facebook and Twitter. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 01:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know we need to prove it first. I hope we don't disappoint you again. - Linsey talk 02:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't disappoint me, I'm too busy being happy that Nick picked something I can farm easily this week. ^^" Anywho, I noticed that you are automating the holiday system, I am surprised you guys haven't done that before but I am very glad you are. Katherinezoltin 02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflictI think the recent entry was great. I'm one of the few that appreciate all the hard work that the GW team has done. I got my money's worth a few days after I brought the game and so everything you've given us since then has been a bonus...except the Thunderclap change! My one true calling.... I get so tired of people who complain about XTH and late updates, etc. and so I cannot begin to imagine how crazy it must drive you. You probably don't hear this enough, but thank you Linsey! Mystical Celestia 02:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We've automated bits and pieces of it, but there were still a few key things that always have to be done by hand.

Oh, real quick, when I'm talking about automating the festivals, I mean the basic stuff that doesn't change like the end events or festival map decorations. We'll still always have the option to add or adjust the festivals if we want to, we just won't have to waste time on anything that isn't new... hmm. Maybe not "anything", but more like, mere crumbs compared to now.

The bits and pieces -> John Hargrove and Shana Gitnik had the idea to fully automate the festivals and concepted the basic idea how around 2 years ago. Together they made some good progress on it. It was back when we had just started to run the EveryWeekendIsSpecial events. Emily or John would schedule out the EWIS events on "paper" and the content programmers (often Shana) would run a Live Build every week to implement the event. While John was leading LT, he and Shana designed and built a system that automates the EWIS schedule and most of the events. The second half of that automation is what we are working on. Lucky for us, Shana's system has proven very expandable and Mike Z is taking great advantage of that. Joe and QA have been diligently plowing away on the big tasks like automating the festival map swaps so that it doesn't require a Live Build. -Linsey talk 03:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

in response to Mystical's comment There will always be people complaining for the sake of complaining, yet there will also people who offer constructive critical comments, but these can easily be tarred by the same people who complain about the QQ'ers complaining. It comes down to whether people such as Linsey can see the complainers for what they are doing and the others for trying to express a critical assessment or view point (as these generally have people who have, for want of a better term, a passion for the game).

Secondly, Linsey gets a lot of praise, and she is nice enough to direct praise to the correct person (if there is that need), in one instance she directed people to Joe as it was his work she was getting praised on, something that I personally respect.

in response to Linsey's comment Whether I am criticial of you or Arenanet, or what plans are out, I still see all of the fore mentioned as worth-while, otherwise I wouldn't be here. You guys do take steps others don't, and I have a great deal of time and patience for those who take such steps, even if I can come across as bitchy or harsh sometimes. Whether the experience is tottally to my liking or not both Guild Wars and Arenanet are worth-while. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 04:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much Linsey, what time are you thinking of having them turn on automatically? Will be the same time for every festival or will it be different ones? Will it be the old midnight pacific time or will you pick a new one? I am just curious because that determines how late I stay up to watch the festival start. Though the noon pacific has been very nice, means I get my stuff done that day BEFORE everything starts. ^^ Katherinezoltin 06:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Linsey=Awesome - Wuhy 06:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad they filled that position (Izzy dosn't trust 'em? ...could be a positive) --ilr 07:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you and the rest of the team have been doing some hard thinking, Linsey. Best wishes for the new schedule! I wouldn't worry too much about people having a go due to schedules slipping - there are peaople who will always find something to complain about, but those who actually have any idea will know that these things happen. Draxynnic 11:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

August 28th, 2009

That is gooooooood stuff!! All of it!!! --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 07:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I could now write sheer novels of praise, but i think 3 words will suffice:

GUILDWARS IS ALIVE!!!

Thank you guys, thank you...--Samurai_Smartie talk 08:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a really good approach to me, if you will actually do some of the things you're stating. But 1 balance update every 2 months is a joke, to keep it fresh it has to be monthly. There are two ways of balancing:

- Perfect balance, no build is by definition better then another one - Impossible to accomplish.

- Keep nerfing the meta, and buffing/reworking unused skills. This has to be done before the meta becomes stale. (think of mindblast eles, R/A's, IoP mesmers etc, - This should be the way to balance guildwars, as there are too many skills to get a perfect balanced situation. 86.89.203.194 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See it from the other direction. If skill balances can be extensively tested by a live crew and approved by the community, wont this reduce unwanted synergies and balancing aftereffects to a minimum? Wouldnt this allow them to focus more on new balance ideas (reworking entire skills), instead of hastily trying to hot-fix the latest mishap? Samurai_Smartie talk 09:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, nothing's really changed. In the first month, we get the notice and explanation behind a whole bunch of skill changes. Then people play out these new changes, stressing them to the breaking point in as many different exploitations as they can think of. A month later we get the new and improved, bug-free versions of the skills, and the process repeats. The only real difference is that instead of the whole community rampaging around with the new skills and QQ'ing about the most trivial of things, it's now a more selective, "professional" group that keeps the bugs exterminated. Silavor 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

""The switch to a bimonthly schedule allows us to maintain the quality of our work, and—this is important—it allows us to gather community feedback about the skill balance updates before they go Live.
To do this, we’ll try to post the update notes/dev update for each skill balance about a month before the update actually goes Live and ask you for your feedback."" -- It's not just the "Krewe" that will be seeing Proposals before they're sent live. Personally I could bake Lin a huge batch of cookies right now just for considering this Approach b/c it's been my biggest gripe about "transparency" since day one. Knowing what's coming in some +content+ update isn't as important as knowing how our actual builds might have to change due to balance work. And being able to take part in those negotiations before everything is finalized would be a pipe dream come true. (yadda yadda, we'll believe when we see it ...curb your enthusiasms and expectations till then since no commercially viable studio has ever actually done this before! ...and the first one that does will be labeled a french sweedish canadian Socialist-Witch cabal). --ilr 22:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about HB title + New Format Title + HoM

"There will be a new title for this new format. This title will be the counterpart of the Commander title; either will satisfy a single requirement towards the Hall of Monuments and the Kind of a Big Deal title track, but not both at once. It’s a one-or-the-other kind of thing."

I just want to clarify. If I don't have the hero battles title and don't get it before they kill the format, will the Hall of Monument Trophy and any associated benefits it transfers to GW2 be essentially replicated/duplicated by the new format trophy? I assume they will still both have their own title track and be displayed even after obtaining it is no longer possible.

I just don't want to find out that there is some cool (or even lame) reward for the Commander title track in GW2 that I will never be able to get if I don't act before HB is removed. I also don't want to miss out on the HoM trophy, the title itself doesn't bother me but always knowing there is one HoM trophy I will never be able to get will suck. 122.105.110.77 10:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It would seem most of the hostility is rather in the fact that anyone who didn't achieve maxed rank yet, will have to start all over again, even though the new format title is supposed to be completely interchangeable with Commander. ...perhaps that should be addressed before they even start talking about who gets what in GW2? --ilr 10:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they should add a different reward for the commander title seeing how its been out for 3 years, you can't really complain that you never had a chance to get it.--Soul Of Misery 07:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Heroes on PvP characters

Since now the plan is to remove Heroes in PvP, my guess is that such things as Heroes unlocks at the Priest of Balthazar or Heroes on PvP characters will become obsolete. What's the plan for that? As a PvE-er I use my PvP character's Heroes as secondary mules to store extra-weapons. And I am pretty sure that, in Heroe Battle or other PvP modes where they were used, even if people may create weapons using the PvP Equipement UI, some may have used gold or green weapons just for the vanity of using PvE-only skins. Will we be warned in advance if Heroes are to be removed from our PvP characters so we can retrieve all of those before they become unaccessible? Thx. Jaxom 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Heroes won't be "removed" from pvp characters. The game will just give you a warning if you try to enter pvp with any, as it currently does. You'll still be able to add heroes to the party, you just won't be able to use them in matches.

Worst case scenario if it doesn't even let you add them: Go to Great Temple of Balthazar (a pve area) and add them there. ~Shard 02:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten heroes still have a place in the Zaishen Challenge and Zaishen Elite *giggles*. Mystical Celestia 03:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Are they removing all of the following areas: Zaishen Challenge, Zaishen Elite, Isle of the Nameless and Zaishen Menagerie? The answer is the same for removing Hero unlocks. MithTalk 04:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the Zaishen Menagerie after all the work they did to add it less than a year ago? O.o Sorry, Misunderstood. --MageMontu 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Title question

since the last thread i started turned into a wall, lemme start this one up. Since the commander title is going to be killed, are there any plans on replacing it with a Sealed Deck type of title? It's make sense since alot of ppl will QQ if they're 1 step away from the coolest title name in the world. --adrin 03:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There will be a new title for this new format. This title will be the counterpart of the Commander title; either will satisfy a single requirement towards the Hall of Monuments and the Kind of a Big Deal title track, but not both at once. It’s a one-or-the-other kind of thing. From Linsey's journal entry. --salvius 03:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

removing TA/HB

Since there is at least some opposition to the complete removal of these formats, is there a reason that their demise has to be linked to the implementation of Sealed Deck? I am not advocating that you do not proceed with the plan, but rather I am curious as to what makes this option more attractive to you than just adding SD. Even with the current issues in HB there are a number of players who have expressed a wish to keep the format, even without any changes (see the enormous section above). Again, getting SD is great, so it's more me wondering what the difference in work is for you between converting/removing and adding SD separately. Hopefully you understood and can answer my question; if not, make me clarify it or no biggie, respectively. --salvius 04:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Linsey has repeatedly said the team is not interested in adding more PvP options which would fragment the PvP playerbase by spreading them out even more among various possible PvP games (AB, RA, TA, HA, GvG, HB, then now SD). She also discussed about how TA has became so cutthroat and how HB has became so broken. Those are reasons they decided to replace TA and HB with SD - to reduce PvP options to funnel more people into the remaining options and to remove two games that are not meshing with what they feel GW PvP should be all about. But again I could be wrong. – Barinthus 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While TA players would probably want to do SD, HB is a significantly different format and other players seem to want to keep it in some form. If the HB playerbase is so small already, will it make a difference to try to force them into a different format? I'm sure that if people want to play SD that they will (who isn't excited about it?). --salvius 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase this: I have no personal interest in keeping either TA or HB, but am curious as to why their removal, particularly HB due to its unique format, was decided upon. Why not just continue to leave them to die and avoid the complaints of people who complained before and now prefer dead to vaporized? --salvius 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

At first, I wouldn't like to see anything removed either, but I do understand the developers' reason: they don't want the PvP community to get even more fragmented into several formats, which causes every one of them to feel 'dead'. Look at how Team Arena is now, it has a very small, but VERY HARDCORE fanbase, the outpost is always empty save for Zaisen Quest days or double Gladiator weeekends. The few regular TA teams will run bars so powerful (added on top of their playing skill and coordination) that they will completely obliterate any casual team attempting TA, or coming from RA. This causes a general 'bad feel' for TA, where there is no room to have fun, because you either run specific builds to stand a chance or you get completely steamrolled in 1 minute by the more serious teams. So most people just give up on TA, and go RA which has the same objectives but is way more fun: you can run bad builds and still win and have some laughs. Same problem HB has, if you don't run some shadowstepping or seriously defensive build you can expect to lose a slow and frustrating defeat. Even popular areas like HA have a relatively small population - everyone meets in International Dis, look at American Dis for example, it is nearly always deserted. So removing the least popular formats do force people to play together in other, more popular formats.--Sensei 12:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If the TA and HB communities are as small as the Dev release claims they are then fragmenting the community is hardly an issue. TA and HB are niche enough not to steal any of Sealed Deck's thunder.--118.90.23.242 19:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't play TA or HB at all, and haven't in a long time, so removing them doesn't really affect me much personally. But I still don't understand (after reading quite a bit, but not all of the responses) why removing a broken format and adding a new format is preferred over leaving a broken format and still adding a new format. Sure, ANet doesn't have the resources to fix these broken formats. But does it really free up a significant amount of resources by removing them rather than leaving them unchanged? Does it really take up that many resources to leave 2 arena with so few matches going on (and if all goes according to plan, the number of matches would decrease even more as some people switch over, but people who HB because you can just jump in aren't going to suddenly start playing sealed deck; they're more likely to quit when they no longer have a PvP format to jump into without having to find and rely on teammates). (I could see where removing HB's MAT or even ladder support could be benificial, but not removing the format altogether). When they have such a small amount of players, why are things like "splitting the community" even issues? And even if these formats are so broken that most (but not all) players find them unplayable, the existence of these formats isn't going to cause any problems if most people don't play them; I fail to see the harm in leaving a degenerate format in the game. Just about every argument in favor of removing these arenas has been "it's broken, so remove it" but I haven't seen anyone say why something that's broken inherently needs to be removed if it isn't causing any harm, or unfairly rewarding degenerate play (except for the rather harmless faction/titles/ladder/mAT, but I could understand the removal of the in-game rewards if it's really a concern). 69.234.120.99 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Above poster, please have my babies. This is exactly my viewpoint on the matter. Many people simply want to know why these arenas simply can't be left to rot, as surely removing them would take more resources?--118.90.23.242 19:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Flat out removing HB/TA, degenerate or not, seems like a really bizarre decision. As people have said, if the people in there are such a tiny little minority they're not really fragmenting anything in the first place and, like it or not, both arenas provide a unique experience (1v1 and organized 4v4, respectively). I haven't really been following it lately but isn't one of the big reasons why TA or whatever is so "degenerate" that GW isn't balanced for 4v4 - and in that case, will 4v4 sealed deck battles really help? Besides, if it's just a matter or how many people actually play it, you might as well take out Aspenwood and JQ too - unless it's the zquest of the moment, there's about as many people in there as in HB or TA. Impaled 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are hilarious, JQ/FA have more people on non-ZQuest days than TA/HB on ZQuest days. The only exception is the luxon side of JQ. Are people nowadays this terrible at counting? It's not hard to zone into a district and count 1-2-3, with their fingers if need be. 1v1 doesn't belong in Guild Wars, fyi, the developers have explicitly mentioned time and again that GW is designed for teamplay. HB shouldn't have even existed. Pika Fan 01:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tigercat testifies, other people do stuff too

This Suggestion can not be commented on because of the current licensing as noted at the top of this page.
It should be moved to the poster's userspace or it will be deleted on Thursday, 3 Sep 2009.

I think the Live Team is oblivious to the fact that HB is unique from the rest of the game and most of the people who HB, only HB when they are on guildwars. When HB gets deleted pretty much that whole fan base is going to stop playing. Their is no alternative to HB and SD is exactly the opposite of what we want to do. And that article Linsey wrote was pretty nasty towards HB. HB does not have a fan base comparable to Ascalon Academy. The only evidence she gives us that HB is the least popular format is because their are less matches played. The HB community isn't nearly as small as they are making it out to be and I don't think they realize that. Are you telling me their are more people who play at Ascalon Academy because more matches are held? because thats what their implying. Their are many things they aren't taking into account that could skew that number. Match length is a big one, most HB matches last the full duration while can the same be said for a format like RA? Also tournaments, which a good percent of the HB community does and spends a large amount of the HB time doing, has lots of wait time between matches. a 7 game tournament may last 1 hour and 45 minutes and their are 3 of those a day. Just think of the amount of matches you can do in any other format in that amount of time. And also their is a ranking system and it takes a while to get matches at certain ranks, and the people at those ranks are the people for the most part who spend the most amount of time HBing. The Hb community is much larger than they realize. It may not be as large as RA but it certainly is not "a niche format with a player base comparable to that of the Ascalon Academy" X tigercat x 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to say Ascalon Academy is less active because HB match time is long. In HB, the time between match start times for each player may go up to 20 or 30 minutes, but the time between Ascalon Academy matches is INFINITY. Each character does AA ONLY ONCE and that arena still sees more action.

Hero Battles was a joke to begin with. Why anyone would make a pvp format but forget about putting players in it is way beyond the scope of the blunders I can achieve, but Anet realized it was stupid and now it's coming out.

"Their is no alternative to HB and SD is exactly the opposite of what we want to do."

The alternative to HB is PvE, and sealed deck is only the opposite of HB because Sealed Deck is actually pvp. HA gets more matches than HB, and 75% of the wait timers end up giving you no-opposings, while halls matches are 12 minutes away from each other. At any given time, I would guess there are 6 to 8 teams in HA, and there are less matches (not players) in HB. This means the number of players in HA (a nearly desolate arena) is at least 8 times larger than however many people do HB at any given time. Arguing with Linsey about what she knows will get you nowhere, because you will always be wrong. You're blowing this way, way out of proportion. There must be something else in the game for you to do. ~Shard 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude shard you have no idea what your talking about. You don't HB you so you have no idea. Their are plenty of HBers just because we don't do alot of matches don't mean we are not their. Just go check the ladder for the number of active players just in top 1k right now. the number of matches played does not represent fan base. a good chunk of HBers only show up for tournaments because if u gonna spend 1 hour and 30 min HBing you might as well make it during tournament. But most HBers only HB. You obviously wouldnt know because you don't HB nor do you know any HBers but it is addicting once u figure it all out you just drop all other formats and focus on HB. And I have tried going back to PvE but its too mindless i go crazy. And all other types of PvP I can't stand noob teammates or having to spend forever finding teams. I don't have time for that, and thats why I HB. And if you ask around the HB community you will get the similar answers from most people. Most of us can only be on for an hour or so at a time and we want to do some competitive pvp and this is our only option. But since most of us aren't on that long our matches number will be down because most of us only play for a few games then leave. and Shard why do you think their is such different reactions from TA and HB communitys? And I wasn't arguing with Linsey I was questioning her. If their is other methods they used she would come back and explain it and if they didn't then they will see they made a mistake and act accordingly. I HB daily and I cannot believe those statisics, HB arena is always more full than TA for starters and it definently more full than AA. http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10398610 X tigercat x 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude shard you have no idea what your talking about. You don't HB you so you have no idea.

You're absolutely right. I don't HB, so I don't know first hand how many players are in HB. This is where induction comes in handy. Linsey (she's a developer, you know, one of those people who knows more than you) has tools at Anet that let her know how many matches are played every day/week/whatever. I'm assuming she's not making the whole thing up (I hope that's not an unreasonable assumption).

I'm standing in HB right now, and not counting myself, I counted 27 people in American d1 and International d1 combined. It is evening in the continental US, making it the most popular time of day for Americans to play. 30 or so people around the world in HB in a game where about 100,000 people are on at any given time is minuscule. That's 0.01% of the entire player base.

Here's what you're failing to understand: The number of players required for a HB match is 2. The number of players required for everything else is 8. It takes 4 times longer to form a group for everything else, and those other arenas still get more matches by far.

I'm gonna humor you and say HB is a legitimate type of pvp, because it doesn't matter right now. Linsey said ascalon academy gets 50% more matches than HB. Go to Ascalon and find the busiest district you can. Every 3 times someone disappears in front of sir Tydus, 2 HB matches start. Stay there for one whole hour and tell me how many people you saw disappear. ~Shard 01:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the least popular time to HB. From like 11-3 eastern is ussualy the most popular and during tournaments are the most active. Their was just a tournament and 68 people particiated and this is most inactive time for hb. Their are 3 tournys a day and each 7/8 hours apart meaning people who play at different times participate in each tourny. So if lets say if the 3 tournys average 70-80 people, and most of the people only can play in 1 tourny a day. so thats around 210-240 HBers just from tournys. Then their are plenty of players who can only play certain times each day so they can't always do tournys and just log on a hb for a hour or 2. And their is a large chunk of the population who doesnt even do tournys in fear of losing their rank or because they feel like they will lose every game. The HB latter consists of 1k people all that have played a match within the past 90 days unless they changed it. I'd say at least 50% of those people play at least a few games every few days. And thats only in the top 1k, their is still a large population of people that play alot and just haven't figured it all out or tankers who purposely lose rank to farm up title. You could easily say their are 1000 active HBers. That is more of a Fan Base than AA. How many ppl does AA have that have spent 500+ hours on the format and how many ppl do 1 match of AA just to get from pre to post?. Actually, it would be very interesting to see how many players have dedicated 500+ hours to a format, because HB would be up their and it would definently have the highest percent of population that has 500+ hours or at least 2nd highest after GvG. If you look at the actual "fan base" and not matches played Anets info would be much more accurate. Every format has plenty of people who just test it out a few times for fun, and the ones that are ezer to access are the ones that are going to get players like that. Another reason HB may have lower match totals is for factors that only HB contains. It alows players to just log on and play 1-2 matches of competitive pvp. It doesn't require hours of group making and you don't have to deal with teammates who screw you up and because of that many of the players who HB are those who don't have alot of time on their hands but want to be able to play some competitive pvp. Yes we cld debate wether or not it is actually PvP but the concept of of having a competitive format that doesnt require you to spend alot of time on the computer in order to have fun time is attracting to people and you can't find that anywhere else. X tigercat x 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The number 1 excuse I see now for removing HB is the fact that it has the least amount of players playing it and how HA and Ascalon Arena are more active than it. Reasons why its like this is probably because HA takes 8 players to play (that is if your not using heroes) so for every HA match it would take 4 HB matches to equal that and a reason why HA is more popular is because it has a flashy animal emote, I've never seen HB get that. And isn't ascalon arena that place for people to fight when there under level 10, most people use it to level up when there just starting. I used to be very hardcore with HB but I went off for the pve titles a bit ago. I think HB is a unique pvp in gw and removing it when people aren't currently playing it because there going for other titles for there HoM is just stupid.--Soul Of Misery 02:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Before you start talking about stupid ideas, you might want to analyze your own arguments.

"for every HA match it would take 4 HB matches to equal that"

Actually it's 16, and assuming the same population of players, HB would have 8x the number of matches (ignoring group-forming time) as HA. So why does HB actually have way less?

"removing it when people aren't currently playing it because there going for other titles for there HoM is just stupid."

HB has always been the least popular arena.

"You could easily say their are 1000 active HBers. That is more of a Fan Base than AA."

I'm gonna humor that poor (and invalid) logic, because even though AA does not and never will have a fan base, it still gets more action than HB. ~Shard 03:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was off on the math it would take 8 matches of HB to equal one HA match. But to sum it up this update is only going to cause lack of players to gw from people quitting because of this, and for what a new stupid arena that I give about a month before the pve noobs finally realize its going to be different and after that I am willing to bet it will have an even less population of people playing than HB ever had with the arrival of gw2 coming soon. HB may not have been perfect but at least over 3 years of it being out it has a solid player base of 1000+ And how is it just stupid to believe that people work on more than one title and are trying to max all the pve ones before tackling the pvp ones?--Soul Of Misery 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that Anet should reconsider removing HB. Sure, you can say that there are problems with the format. But at this point, every format in GW has some problems. GvG, HA, RA, PvE all have their own issues. Simply not being able to fix the problem does not justify removing the format itself. I admit, the players have been complaining about issues in HB in the past 2 years, but all they wanted was some attention to Anet. The stunts by some HB monthly finalists were to convey this, never did they wanted to remove the format. If a fix is truly not possible, then the HB players will play the format as it is right now. I know quite a few players that only play the game for HB, simply because its unique. If you are to remove HB, these players will most likely quit GW as a result. Sure introducing SD will attract new players, but mostly will be players that already play the game. If at the same time you remove HB, you will lose players from the existing player base. I know that without HB, there is pretty much nothing else I play on GW. For this reason, I hope that Anet will rethink the decision to remove it.

(Reset indent) Personally, I would like them not to remove it too - HB is unique and it's really the only place where you're not reliant on other ppl for wins. As someone who gets increasingly frustrated at HA (as much as I like the larger battles) and doesn't have the guild to GvG, this is important to me. However I also agree that there are problems with it. The catch is that ANet seem to be saying the problems are too much for them to fix, so they're just going to remove it. Personally, I would have hoped they could just have done their best and then taken the point of view that an imperfect HB is still better than none, but it's their call. Of course, a Sealed Deck thing sounds interesting so don't think I'm saying keep HB over SD, I'd rather have both, but I guess beggars can't be choosers and all that. 81.109.190.169 11:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"I'm gonna humor that poor (and invalid) logic, because even though AA does not and never will have a fan base, it still gets more action than HB." I have already explained why their are less matches, but that doesn't mean their is a smaller fan base. First off AA consists of players going from pre to post AND the people playing in that arena. If it was 1 or the other I am sure HB would be more popular than both, seeing PvE is much more popular than PvP it doesn't surprise me that if you add the number of matches from people going from pre to post and the actual people playing that arena you get larger than HB. Linsey can you give us all the numbers because you don't mention how close any other format is to AA or the Shiverpeak Arena or Team Arenas? It would make everything much clearer. And Shard I have to ask you, if 5 people who just bought the game want something or 1 person who has played for 500+ hours wanted something and you could only help out 1 group who would you choose? Don't the people have spent hundreds of hours on this game deserve some respect from Anet? We should receive some sort of priority over those from AA. And also, HB doesn't have nearly the amount of noobs jsut testing the arena out. Most of the matches in HB are done by people who actually play the format on a weekly basis at least and actually care about the format. Other arenas have much much more matches caused by noobs trying out the arena. RA is probably the hottest spot for that seeing it is the easiest PvP outpost to access and its the first. I have PvE friends that thought RA and AB were the only places to PvP and it wasn't just 1 person and these people aren't new to the game either. The fact is HB is not very well known and most people just stumble across it by accident for the first time. Thats what happened to me and I decided to try it and I like the idea and just kept at it. Its not gonna get the flock of PvErs RA does just because its not well known at all. Of topic, I love the Tigercat Testifies heading whoever did that it made me LOL.X tigercat x 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"I play" it's not the same as "people play", when I want to know real opinion of people, I get inside the game and ask around.In this case... I asked my guild... no one does HB. Then I moved to some related outpost like Great Temple... no one does HB. And I go pugging or enter PvP modes I ask too... no one does HB. Of course, before all of that I get to the HB outpost itself... no one was there. The funny thing is, that my "research" doesn't matter either, that's just for me to know, but ANet DOES have stats of how many people actually enter and does HB (they can even know how many times a skill is interrupted during tournaments for gods sake), and that's why it's being discarded. Yeah, 'you' play it, but 'people' don't play it. MithTalk 18:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Um I did say people play numerous times and I have mentioned aprox how many HBers their are. You use such a small sample size its not even worthy of noting. Go into Hb amer or euro now and their are plenty of people. You would have no idea how many HB because you don't HB! I on the other hand HB and I have a first had look at how many players their are. The only proof Linsey gave of how popular HB was is how many matches were played. Why would she even mention that if she had the exact number of players? Plenty of people play it just many of you are to ignorant to see that and assume noone players it because they don't play it. X tigercat x 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still trying. elix Omni 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still commenting. Believe it or not that theirs quite a few people that have invested 100s of hours in this format and pretty much have only done HB for months now. You think I am just going to let something I have spents 100s of hours on just get removed because then their is nothing for me to do in gws. If Anet decided to remove PvE and told you to PvP would you be complaining? X tigercat x 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I am making this any longer, but there not their. Please. --67.240.83.137 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Linsey will probably strangle me if I say this, but if Hero Battles was the only form of enjoyment in GW for you, then GW is not for you at all. No RPG or MMO would be for you. In fact, I don't know any other game that has a play style as dumb as Hero Battles. The closest you could get is to have 75% of your moves picked at random in chess. ~Shard 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure their are plenty of MMOs out their for me. Their are plenty of people who feel the same way. All we want is a competitive form of PvP where we don't have to rely on teammates. Are you telling me no other game has that? I would just prefer that game was guildwars seeing ive devoted over 3.5k hours towards it. X tigercat x 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"All we want is a competitive form of PvP where we don't have to rely on teammates."

Which is the exact opposite of anything that should be found in Guild Wars, because this game is a team game. Shayne Hawke 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Their are parts of this game for everyone...their were parts of this game for everyone. But you can Pve with just yourself and heros/hench, why can't their be a competitive form of PvP for people with that preference. X tigercat x 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] That aside, it is most definitely relevant. Guild Wars is a game designed around team play, not solo play. Heroes and henchmen were never intended to be anything but a subpar replacement team member for when you couldn't find a human player to fill a spot in your team. What you seem to be looking for is not a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online ROLE-PLAYING GAME (MMORPG), but a real-time strategy (RTS) game, like starcraft or warcraft. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, GW's a team game - but HB isn't. Say what you want about the implementation, but it's most definitely designed for solo PVP, regardless of the other formats. Impaled 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my point. HB does not fit into the Guild Wars model. Putting something like HB into a game like Guild Wars is like trying to drink coffee with a hat. It technically works, to an extent, but it works very badly. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

People seem to be getting their logic backwards nowadays; or rather, have no logic at all. It's not "Guild Wars has HB, and since HB is 1v1 PvP, Guild Wars is designed for 1v1 PvP", rather it is "HB is 1v1 PvP, but since Guild Wars is designed for teamplay, HB is out-of-place and shouldn't exist in Guild Wars in the first place". Pika Fan 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that Guild Wars is designed for whatever is too objective. Who are you or anyone but the players themselves to decide on what the game is for? If players find it fun, then they will play it. You can say whatever you want about HB should not be in GW, but the truth is, it does not matter, because thats different for everybody. Regardless of whether HB should have existed, the truth is it exists now, and there is a HB community that does not want it removed. Denying their significance simply because there are fewer people compared to other formats is simply unreasonable. We are all players who bought the game, why should the HB community be overlooked just because of numbers? If you really care about numbers, get this: WOW has more than 11milion players, GW has 6million, does that mean WOW is better than GW? Probably not, because numbers doesnt say everything. Now besides the "HB should not have existed" argument, I see the 2 other main arguments to defend the removal of HB/TA. 1. You do not care/like HB, therefore it should be removed and 2.It should be removed because Anet said so. The problem with the first argument is that it contradicts itself, if you do not care, then why would you care to see it removed? If you do not like HB, then simply leave it be, other players who like it will play it. I know many PvE players that do not care/like PvP, if you apply the first argument, then should not the whole PvP format be removed, then? The second argument fails, because the players play the game for themselves, not for Anet. Looking, retrospectively, you can have a full list of updates/implementations where Anet failed. Why, then, should the players be dictated what to play/do in a game, and take in everything Anet does? Now lets consider this not from a players point of view, but from Anet's point of view. If Anet is to only implement SD, the SD format will have players. Where would these players come from? Most likely it will be players that are already playing the game. Afterall, do you honestly expect players that has never played GW before to buy it just because of a new SD? Then we can speculate that only implementing SD will cause overall minor to no gain in the existing player base. Now if Anet is to implement SD AND remove HB/TA, it will have players go play SD, but at the same time, players who only play HB/TA in GW will most likely quit, because the format that is keeping them in the game is removed, and Anet will lose players from its existing player base as a result. Now you tell me what is the more rational thing to do.--E M P 02:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"WOW has more than 11milion players" Actually, WoW is down to about 5 million since all their Chinese servers are currently inoperative due to a lawsuit that has been brought against them, and it is possible they will never go live again.

"Afterall, do you honestly expect players that has never played GW before to buy it just because of a new SD?" No. I expect that it will make the current PvP playerbase as a whole happier, though, which means more of them are likely to pay cash monies for GW2. It doesn't matter to them financially if you quit, because you already gave them all the money they're gonna get from you.

"Who are you or anyone but the players themselves to decide on what the game is for?" I'm someone who has played the game extensively and is studying game design in college. I'm also someone with some common sense and logical reasoning ability. Tell me, if Guild Wars isn't designed for team play, then why does every area of the game (with the exception of hero battles) not only allow you, but practically force you to team up with other players? Even in pre, there's a party size of 2, and you have to have another human player with you to get across the wall. If henchmen aren't meant to be subpar replacements for missing players, then why do they lack eight skills and have bad AI?

"We are all players who bought the game, why should the HB community be overlooked just because of numbers?" Because ArenaNet is attempting to please as many of their customers as possible with the limited resources they have to work on GW1. Linsey's already said they're recycling the HB maps and outpost - this greatly reduces the amount of work that will need to go into the development of the Sealed Deck matches, and allows them to get it out faster while still working on the tournament house, balance updates, bug fixes, etc. And it's not just because of numbers, it's also that HB is pretty heavily flawed, and most of the people who do it only do it for the commander title (higher balth cap, hall of monuments, etc).

"Now you tell me what is the more rational thing to do." Surprisingly enough, it's exactly what they plan on doing. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"To say that Guild Wars is designed for whatever is too objective. Who are you or anyone but the players themselves to decide on what the game is for?"

The players (emphasis on players, meaning everyone who plays GW, as a whole, not just the HB community) have decided that HB is not the format they want to play, and you can see that in its popularity. Ignore the "X arena has Y% more matches than Z" arguments, and just look at it by general players. There are tons more people in every other aspect of the game than HB, and couple that with HB-supporters' arguments that "HB players only play HB", and you get a definite majority of players who do not care about HB. Please also note that from now on, since most of the HB-supporters like the "HB players only play HB" argument and thus "without HB, HB players would quit", I will from now on assume that those who play HB don't play the rest of GW, and vice versa. The number of players who do both are negligible.

"You can say whatever you want about HB should not be in GW, but the truth is, it does not matter"

"The problem with the first argument is that it contradicts itself, if you do not care, then why would you care to see it removed?"

Except it does, because the same skills and builds that you're (ab)using in HB are skills and builds that I could be using in other PvP or PvE formats, skills and builds that players are no longer getting to use so proficiently, because the attention they are getting in HB is leading them to be nerfed or adjusted when they may otherwise be balanced in other, team game formats (where team is a term used to describe more than one human. As we are talking strictly about TA and HB here, no argument about PvE teams is valid).

"Why, then, should the players be dictated what to play/do in a game, and take in everything Anet does?"

Have you considered whose game this really is?

"If Anet is to only implement SD, the SD format will have players. Where would these players come from? Most likely it will be players that are already playing the game. Afterall, do you honestly expect players that has never played GW before to buy it just because of a new SD?"

Okay, so go to when HB was new. Where did players come from for that? Obviously not from people who played GW, because "HB players only play HB". This must mean that players bought the game just to play HB, which really must be something, since all previous game formats forced you to play with teammates (where teammates are human allies). Why would any sane person pick up a game based on team play to play a PvP format with no real team?

Here is what I'm getting at: There is no such thing as HB players who only play HB, because it is nonsensical for them to pick up GW in the first place, being it primarily a team game. They must have come from somewhere else, and after HB goes away, they will either leave, since they shouldn't be here in the first place for only HB, or they will go back to other PvP formats like they should. Also, there's no way that HB could be not affecting the rest of the game, being that skills are shared between HB and the rest of GW, faction and rewards are given out from HB that can be used elsewhere, etc. Thus, the arena can not be left alone, and especially not so because HB is broken. You can not deny HB is broken, because the consensus of HB players prior to the announcement of its deletion was that it was broken. We can not leave this broken format, as it still affects the rest of the game.

The only options are to fix it, remove its ties to the rest of the game, or get rid of it. If it was to be fixed, it would have happened long ago, as HBers have been crying about problems and solutions for a long time. We can remove rewards and any other incentives to play the game, but it would make sense then to say that the population would shrink significantly, at which point it makes no sense to have it open. Additionally, if we wanted it to truly be isolated and not affect the rest of the game, it would require a separate skill set, which seems like it would be too much of a bother for a format that has no rewards and minuscule population. Our last option is its removal, and that is the current course of action.

I don't think ANet is about to reconsider the idea of not deleting HB, or has any reason to do so. Enjoy your tears. Shayne Hawke 03:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Regardless of whether HB should have existed, the truth is it exists now, and there is a HB community that does not want it removed."

Let me rearrange that sentence a bit: Regardless of whether an HB community exists that does not want it removed, the truth is it never should have existed, and it's going to cease to exist. You see, what happened there is I concede your premise, but then I turn around and present that it is irrelevant in the face of my premise (not actually my premise, but someone's I'm sure). It does nothing to convince or even refute you, but it kinda sounds like it should.

On a sidenote, if there are players who only play HB and are going to leave if HB is removed... Why should I care? What benefit do they present to the larger GW community? If they only HB, they'll never be there when I'm looking for an extra for a PUG either way and I have no interest in HBing, so they're not contributing to my playing experience. They're probably not going to buy extra character slots or name changes or makeovers, since PvP characters are so easily remade, and the lack of items from HB makes them unlikely to need extra storage panes. I assume they already have all the campaigns and skill/item unlock packs they need, so they're not contributing to Anet financially. What exactly is the big loss the rest of us should be concerned about?

To be clear, I'm not saying that someone who doesn't party with me and doesn't continue to give money to Anet doesn't deserve to be in the game, but trying to make this "HB'ers vs everyone else" is not helping your case. - Tanetris 14:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Commander Title and HoM

I'm sort of confused about your plans with the commander title, like will you be able to add both a commander statue and the new title statue to the HoM? And you said that the commander title will count towards the kind of a big deal title track but in order to count toward the kind of a big deal title don't you have to max the title which no one has done for the commander title yet and I doubt they will be able to in a month. I think its unnecessary to remove hero battles when the problem with it is its currently dominated by assassins and monks because of lack of attention from people in charge of pvp builds. I think its an incredible waste to throw away Hero Battles after its been out in gw for 3 years and how many people have worked towards the impossible goal of getting max rank in commander and if there just going to add in a new title I doubt with gw2 close on its way that a large amount of people will devote alot of time to maxing the new title.--Soul Of Misery 07:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the commander title and the new title have a kind of "mutually exclusive" deal, you can max both and get the statues for both, however you can only ever display one of the statues, and you will only get one point to KoaBD (even if you max both). And the issue with HB wasn't the meta, it was the fact people weren't really playing it (the whole roll, rock-paper-scissors and whoever's red (or blue, idk which it was) resigns) ~ PheNaxKian 10:45, 30 August 2009

The only time anyone ever rolled was during the weekend events for Hero Battles and anyone that did it was basically laughed at for it, and no rolling is not the problem because they fixed that a couple months ago even though for some reason it took them over 2 years to fix something so easy and the red resigns is an urban myth that no one ever does.--Soul Of Misery 20:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting skill balance update notes a month in advance

Is one of the best ideas to come out of the development team in a LONG time. For years now, it's seemed to the PvP playerbase that the development team is completely disconnected from the playerbase and what they feel is necessary to improve the game. We've just had skill changes thrown at us (usually with no warning as to what they will be) and have had to try and cobble together an effective playstyle out of the changes that were often game breaking. Assuming that the development team actually listens to the suggestion made by the playerbase when they release their plans for skill changes--something i'm hopeful they will but not entirely optimistic about--this change has the potential to drastically improve the quality of gameplay for the PvP community. Actually having the ability to tell you how your ideas need to be modified and balanced before they go live will hopefully prevent many of the game-breaking changes that are inevitably introduced into the meta each month without the community's consent. Thanks so much for finally doing something sensible!--168.122.167.150 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The developers don't even have the skill update notes a month in advance. ~Shard 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the feedback space will finally open up so the feedback can come in more quickly. ~Shard 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Emily said she sent "the Ticket" in to the (I'm guessing SQL/Server?) guys to have it flicked on. --ilr 22:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about party forming in the sealed deck format.

Will it be random like in RA? Or will it automate a frontline, some kind of midline, and a healer? Or will it form just like TA did? While I like the idea of sealed deck I'm a little worried about losing the ability to do small scale PvP with my buddies(due to the lack of TA.) 74.197.234.150 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe SD is going to be random, you will form your party in the arena, whether it is a pug group or a group of friends/guildies. When you enter the match, the teams will receive an identical collective deck of skill cards (each player getting X number of cards, but overall both teams get the same cards) that you have X amount of time to trade and create builds out of before the match actually begins. (I apologize if I have gotten any of this wrong, I've never played SD, but this is my understanding of how it works) -- Wyn talk 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[2] might tell you something. Also, Linsey, you're my hero <3 /positive-feedback-from-the-bottom-of-my-heart, these are just wonderful ideas and I can't wait to play SD <3 ---Chaos- 17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

yes Linsey, u got dha pewpewz! here is a cookie for ya: - Wuhy 18:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A Mix between TA and HB using sealed deck would be intersting (so, HB maps adjusted ofcourse with 4 PEOPLE). 4v4 Cap Points go go! 90.208.74.189 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Annihilation plx. --Boro 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Be interesting to see what the time-frame is: do the skills you first get last the day (to stop rerolling or something similiar) or a couple of hours. I've had limited experience with Sealed Deck in mini-Yugioh tournaments, but the finer points of how it would work in Guild Wars would be nice to see before release. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. So, TA+HB = an arena of 4v4 where we can group with players, but also we can use heroes; everybody using sealed decks? Or TA+HB = TA with maps from HB, using sealed decks? If we can still use heroes, I think this will be a quite interesting arena. --Sharkinutalk 06:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that heroes are going to be allowed in SD... -- Wyn talk 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing 4 Members Requirement?

Has this ever been considered? Now that you removed the hero option, its harder to form up in GvG. Removing this will make it easier to get people for GvG:D! 80.203.128.167 20:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what the henchmen are for. King Neoterikos 20:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a stupid question b/c I choose not to PvP in this game, but wouldn't limiting all stand-in A.I. involvement to only the Henchmen just lead to a more Stale Meta, more quickly? I mean the Henchmen's bars will never change once the contest is over and winner's submissions applied. ...Then to "win" the most often in the lower Scrub teirs of competition, all you have to do is copy some PvX build made specifically to counter as many of the Henchmen as possible. Where-as with Heroes, you never always knew what to expect b/c someone could always toss some curveballs into their hero builds. IE: Won't this just lead to much more concrete Metas, sooner? --ilr 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Its player vs player, not player vs AI. As far as I'm concerned, players and AI have no place together outside of PvE. Linsle is doing the right thing, it just might be too late.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it just make a lot more sense to forget about Henchmen entirely and allow actual human players to "fill in" in GvG matches as "pick up" members when that guild doesn't have enough of their own members to fill out a team? Hell, I might give it a go if I could just be a fill-in without having to leave my PvE guild. --ilr 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if there were more GvG/PvPers they wouldn't need henchmen. I know a few casual PvPers/GvGers who go with heroes just because of the rank-orientated crap that comes with a lot of PvP. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

AI was never meant to be brought into pvp to be exploited. AI is only in pvp so if a group is missing 1 or 2 people they can get a replacement easily. None of this "Weapon of Shadow + Tease = lolwewin" was supposed to ever happen. ~Shard 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, but at this point, isn't everything going to be an imperfect solution? ...especially with so many new games competing for PvP'ers now. I'm definitely not saying Heroes should still be allowed to PvP. I'm just saying that continuing to require Players to be Affiliated with eachother just to team up in GvG could lead to some situations where "dying guilds" will only die faster and the meta will get stale quicker b/c the only other alternative IS Henchman who will be easily "farmed" by cookie cutting PvX shitters... --ilr 23:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only game "competing for pvpers" with GW is Diablo 3, and Blizzard doesn't even know if they want to balance pvp in that game. Metagames are caused by what players run, because the things players run change. Henchman bars, after this update, will not change. Henchmen have 0% influence on the metagame.

Players don't have to group with other players if they don't want to. That's what Alliance Battles, Random Arena, JQ/FA, and scrimmages are for. If you don't want to play with other people, why do you care about pvp at all? ~Shard 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no real comments to offer on those things. But I do care about PvP in GW1 b/c what works and what doesn't work will relate directly to GW2's PvP which I plan to be very active in. *shrug* --ilr 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole adding better henchmen thing is a nice idea, but it's fatally flawed in that ppl only really bring heroes if they can run OP (*cough* Tease) builds on them or give them 16 interrupts. If henchman have those OP builds then they won't fix the hero problem in the first place. If they don't, they'll be next to useless, especially given that on the occasions that teams do take a hero just to fill a niche, that hero will be tailored to that niche (e.g. in HA said hero might need SoC/MH, Grasping/WaF or a hard rez et.c.) and as the henchmen won't be, they won't be a viable option. 81.109.190.169 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying AI doesn't belong in PvP is ignorant. Let's clear this up. AI IS PVP. Guild Lord and other npcs all rely on AI. The entire pvp concept revolves around the guild lord, which again is run by AI. So the argument that heroes shouldn't be in PvP because its Player vs Player not Player vs AI fails. You can argue as to whether or not it is fair to have 7P+1AI vs 8P, that's all good and well, but you can't justify taking AI out of PvP when it was fully ingrained into it b4 heroes even existed. Honestly it is fair though, because while filling the last spot with a bot over a bad player seems unfair to bad players, they will always have greater potential than AI, even if their rxn times aren't as godlike as AI. From here you can argue that if players fill in with heroes the bad players won't ever get a chance to learn, blah blah blah... that's what low end pvp is for to learn player vs player in it's purist form in THIS game, except for death matches with priests. From there a player can learn to be better than the game's AI, in all aspects beyond rxn time (because AI is stupidly good at that). Now you'll probably say players with low end arenas have little/no experience in the high end formats. To that I say so what? AI doesn't either. Honestly I am glad to see heroes go, but the formats they are in still revolve around AI, which is something that probably will never change.

Pro Tip: Don't argue and be hypocritical. It's helpful, mhmm.~>Sins WDB 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have confusion. When I say pvp, I mean pvp in the form that every other multiplayer game on the planet has, you must be using some twisted definition of it. I'll take you one step further on the GL thing. The GL is so restricted (can't move, only has 3 skills) that you can't consider it AI. He might as well be a bunker from starcraft or a pillbox from command and conquer. The GL is nothing but an if-then statement when it comes to using skills. ~Shard 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in HA or during old VoD. That is only true for current GvG and the body guard has become more important in current gvg, so it revolves around two stationary AIs now. I've twisted nothing, I've just pointed out that npcs with AI is what high-end PvP revolves around, used to be worse with VoD.~>Sins WDB 21:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You do notice there's a big difference between AI you can physically control and AI you can't control? Owait. I am expecting too much from people. My bad. Pika Fan 01:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NPA Pika, also, you'd be surprised how many times Razah has been body-blocked by an Archer in the opposing base, only to be time kill'd, even though he is flagged in the other freaking base. AI you can physically control is nice, but AI is still AI. It's still got some quirks, and some upsides. (positioning vs LOL GWEN JUST WOS'D ME WHILE YOUR SPEAR WAS IN MIDFLIGHT) Moo Kitty 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people abuse the downsides of running heroes. Oh, okay. That made me enlightened. Pika Fan 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it's not always a positive to run heroes. Moo Kitty 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying people run heroes for their positives, not negatives. If you flag properly, razah will never get stuck unless you flagged him to a spot where you can't walk over, or to a spot where pathfinding doesn't cut it, usually a very long distance. People do that all the time, and it's really the fault of the human, not the AI. Pika Fan 01:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Until Razah can pick up a damn flag and run it, I'd rather PuG someone. With two grams of brains. Then again, some people think less than Razah. Moo Kitty 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pika Fan you do realize the arguement is about AI in PvP right? People are complaining about heroes for one reason, the AI is filler over bad players. Heroes are never better than someone who knows what they are doing, except in rxn time. I don't constantly hear people complaining that GvG and HA or even AB suck because there is AI in the formats, and in two of those formats npcs follow players too. Good or bad AI is either in PvP formats or what PvP formats revolve around, I don't care really as long as it's fun and balanced well. ~>Sins WDB 15:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback of TA-based skill changes?

You mentioned many tries to rescue the Team Arena or fix (meta-based) issues by updating skills accordingly which prove too powerful for synchronized 4v4 or Team arenas. I now wonder if those changes that were made only because of the Team Arena will be rolled back to make skills that died for other formats acceptable again. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not removing all 4v4 formats, so no. elix Omni 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

He makes a good point never-the-less. Why did some skills get "boon'ed" just for the sake of 4v4 matches when some attribute lines are almost entirely designed around 8v8? Furthermore, shouldn't a sealed deck remove that need to balance around 4v4's if it's done right? And what makes you think they'll stop at combining only those two formats if the biggest problem with PvP is how fractured it is? Won't it only get more fractured over time if more steps aren't taken? --ilr 02:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not roll back the XTH?

This Suggestion can not be commented on because of the current licensing as noted at the top of this page.
It should be moved to the poster's userspace or it will be deleted on Thursday, 3 Sep 2009.

If you launch an application, update, exclusion, correction, or whatever you wish to call it into production and the product fails (for whatever reason like lack of testing) you have few options. Fixing the problem is the most desired course of action. However if the problem is deep rooted and requires more than 24 hours of down time then any reasonable I.T. admin would make the suggestion to 'ROLL BACK' the update. This way everyone could still use XTH in it's original 'WORKING' condition, while they solve the problem and then 'TEST' it thouroughly with their live krew. Everyone gets points, the XTH keeps working, support doesn't get flooded with complaints, and eventually they come out with an update that WORKS.

I just don't understand why they have to scrap the entire XTH if it fails. Maybe since I don't see the bigger picture or what would be needed to fix the problem is the origination of my confusion. But I will say this... any I.T. shop worth it's weight has a back up procedure. Restoring the back up would not be (should not be) a problem. I would much rather have the original that WORKED than receive empty promises then waiting around for a fix that may not come. Can someone please explain why this has not been done yet? It's been 4 months now...

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy they are attempting to 'fix' the problem, and I have high hopes that they will prevail. I just vigorously disagree with they way in which they handled the situation. When GW had that major problem in 2006 that required a roll back of the entire servers to safe guard the economy, nobody blinked twice. Why are the shutting their eyes now? MëřċïÍëşş 02:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that it stopped working all of a sudden, the problem was that it never worked properly in the first place. It was costing them too much time each month to give out points manually. ~Shard 02:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I used the XTH for 6 months on 26 accounts and never had a problem. I had heard about others having problems before, but I was under the impression that they were fixed and working fine before the last update.MëřċïÍëşş 02:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been people having problems with XTH since it first started. Some people were lucky and never had any problems, but that doesn't mean there weren't problems. With Anet having to go through the database manually to fix the problems, it's just too much for the team to handle and have any hope of releasing updates on time.--Pyron Sy 02:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just delete every remains of it and forget it ever existed? Working on actual playable content is far more important than wasting time on free currency handouts, where players who own 10++ accounts can get millions of gold every month for doing almost nothing (don't kid anyone with talk of it requiring any PvP knowledge).--Yawg 04:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawg your right about the PvP knowledge. However I can make alot more gold doing Zquest on 80+ characters gaining Zgold for Zkeys I could every hope to dream of making on XTH each month. After all my lack of pvp knowledge just makes my picks 'shots in the dark guesses'. They should make getting good gas mileage a top priority and get rid of air conditioners and radios in cars...after all they aren't need either. Come on it's part of the game and fun to play. As for them not having the team to 'handle' it outsource the problem with contractors. It might even get fixed faster.MëřċïÍëşş 04:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if that's considered reasonable, then I demand they remove Polymock immediately and then reintroduce it with a Renamon instead of This goddamned Chimpokomon b/c he kept me from getting my goddamned Flameymon that I absolutely 100% required in order to enhance my casual gameplay --ilr 05:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Polymock is easy. Well, if you're good at the game. I could beat it for you ;o Vili 点 22:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great...If you of all people couldn't tell if I was being serious or not, then there really is no hope for satire --ilr 23:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

26 accounts, what the hell? —Jette 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

XTH=ANet selling gold for rl currency. It's true mhmm.~>Sins WDB 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with buying gold (or anything) from Anet, as Anet isn't a third party of itself. ~Shard 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also nothing wrong with buying gold from third parties, except that the EULA says it's not allowed. Just pointing out that even though ANet doesn't want to sell gold they sold it in round about way.~>Sins WDB 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can 600/smite with heroes faster, because anet sells to me skill unlocks. Thus, anet is selling me gold. Such a cool story, right? Pika Fan 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't a suggestion, it was a question as to why there was no roll back.76.97.214.95 04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to pick up some comprehension skills if you can't tell the question clearly requests for a rollback as opposed to asking why there wasn't a rollback. Pika Fan 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, I'm guessing that the XHT was not rolled back was because it was a flawed programming issue in the first place, and the fact that the actual money they were making off of it (extra hits on their site, commercials from the site, etc) couldn't make up for the time/resources it took to over-come the flaws. On a side note, you can spell flaw without lawl. I'm saddened by this fact. Moo Kitty 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sins, I'm not seeing how your point is at all relevant to anything on this page. ~Shard 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude bought 26 accounts, extent of effort required for zkeys rewards... signing into xth and clicking auto select. Other ppl have bought gold, extent of effort required for gold buying... signing into paypall and clicking purchase. Very simplified i know, but the point is made. Above someone mentioned how easy it was to get money off of zkey rewards, and I related it to gold buying because it isn't so far off. That's the relation to what was said under this section. As an aside Pika Fan seems to have much love for people. ~>Sins WDB 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee, if only it were that easy, MëřċïÍëşş. While you may not have had any problems with the XTH, I assure you, many other people did from the beginning. Each month we would double check the list for discrepancies in the database prior to distribution but that didn't stop it from borking the distribution somewhere in the link to the Live servers (I *think* that's where it's happening, but I can't remember offhand). So every month, Support would need to field thousands of tickets and every month we would need to manually give out points to people who didn't get the correct amount in the prior month. The update(s) that you refer to, fixed some of the issues but still left the true underlying bug that we are trying to fix now. This is very much NOT a case of an update breaking the system, so rolling back won't do anything (in fact, it'll break it more). If you would like to discuss this further, please post a new topic on my Feedback Namespace talk page. :) - Linsey talk 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unspent Balthazar Faction Cap

Hello Linsey, pretty interesting news, can't wait to see how Sealed Deck plays. I have one concern though - with the removal of the HB format, and its related title becoming permanently unatainable, will the new Sealed Deck title also offer increases in unspent Balthazar Faction each level (not sure if I'm correct, as I don't even have an HB title, only did 1 match of it, ever)? Would these faction cap increases be mutually exclusive to each title just like adding them to the Hall of Monuments is? Thankyou. --Sensei 17:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)