Would you pay for the Hall of Heroes(8v8) and GVG from GW1.

[Xillllix.3485]

Not anymore... Too many good games at e3. Anet missed their window 2 years after launch.

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

I'll go for it, but tentatively.

[Legatus.3608]

I'd pay for it I guess sure, but the thing is how many players will there be left between all the PVP modes with further dividing of the player base? Some think the player base is already too low for the MMR and other systems to function effectively, this will exacerbate the problem for existing modes as well as this mode.

 

If it were to REPLACE AT's, or maybe there could be a rotation between AT's and this, it might work as not making the problem worse.

[Aeolus.3615]

Take my money !!

[Huskyboy.1053]

> @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> Voted no, not because I won't like it but because I can't see how it would work.

> If the reason you're interested in GvG is to be similar to GW1: long fights at flag stand trying to push each others, splitting to gank enemy base or to defend your base, flag runner running flags, it simply won't be there, GW2 combat system won't allow that.

> Like Abazigal said, ANet tried it with Stronghold, it didn't work.

 

No, they tried a PvE gamemode where you barely interact with the other team and pretended it's sPvP. GvG in GW1 had plenty of interaction between enemy teams, as did Alliance Battles. FA/JQ are blurrier since there's a lot more fighting NPCs I'll give you that.

[Whitworth.7259]

I remember when winning Halls granted favor and only doing so would allow access to UW and FoW for end game PvE. Imagine that in GW2. Server based tournaments that granted access to raids depending on who won, with an announcement in chat. All the PvE players would be super interested in the best PvP players and give them kudos for actually being good and giving them extra content.

 

It's crazy cancerous but would be quite interesting.

[Huskyboy.1053]

> @"Whitworth.7259" said:

> I remember when winning Halls granted favor and only doing so would allow access to UW and FoW for end game PvE. Imagine that in GW2. Server based tournaments that granted access to raids depending on who won, with an announcement in chat. All the PvE players would be super interested in the best PvP players and give them kudos for actually being good and giving them extra content.

>

> It's crazy cancerous but would be quite interesting.

 

It's best to keep the content open regardless of what happens in sPvP, but bringing back "Favor of the Gods" would be great and increase interest in sPvP if people actually knew what it meant from a technical perspective. Aside from greater drop rates it's not really clear what it does in GW1 and whether it really matters.

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

> @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > Voted no, not because I won't like it but because I can't see how it would work.

> > If the reason you're interested in GvG is to be similar to GW1: long fights at flag stand trying to push each others, splitting to gank enemy base or to defend your base, flag runner running flags, it simply won't be there, GW2 combat system won't allow that.

> > Like Abazigal said, ANet tried it with Stronghold, it didn't work.

>

> No, they tried a PvE gamemode where you barely interact with the other team and pretended it's sPvP. GvG in GW1 had plenty of interaction between enemy teams, as did Alliance Battles. FA/JQ are blurrier since there's a lot more fighting NPCs I'll give you that.

 

Actually there was a time on GW1 when teams just rushed lord without any interaction whatsoever.

 

My point stands: GW2 combat system won't allow any GW1 GvG like match.

 

[Huskyboy.1053]

> @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > Voted no, not because I won't like it but because I can't see how it would work.

> > > If the reason you're interested in GvG is to be similar to GW1: long fights at flag stand trying to push each others, splitting to gank enemy base or to defend your base, flag runner running flags, it simply won't be there, GW2 combat system won't allow that.

> > > Like Abazigal said, ANet tried it with Stronghold, it didn't work.

> >

> > No, they tried a PvE gamemode where you barely interact with the other team and pretended it's sPvP. GvG in GW1 had plenty of interaction between enemy teams, as did Alliance Battles. FA/JQ are blurrier since there's a lot more fighting NPCs I'll give you that.

>

> Actually there was a time on GW1 when teams just rushed lord without any interaction whatsoever.

>

> My point stands: GW2 combat system won't allow any GW1 GvG like match.

>

 

Your point doesn't "stand" at all because you haven't put forward any evidence to prove it. Also if you review recent footage of GvGs in GW1 (some guilds still do it to this day) they absolutely do engage in teamfights, not just lord rushes. And you're only referring to GvG, you didn't address my mention of Alliance Battles.

 

It's certainly possible to integrate NPCs into games and still encourage player fighting, as we do with Legacy of the Foefire; on that map many games end with a lord kill but many don't because you don't have to. The most important point is to make sure that killing NPCs **isn't the main objective** of the game mode, as it is in Stronghold; so long as people are significantly rewarded for killing enemy players, or the game mode forces them to fight over certain resources/objectives, we'll be fine.

[witcher.3197]

To specify, I absolutely do not want an 8v8 in GW2. Even 5v5 is getting too much with these damage numbers.

 

I just like the progression, satisfaction, and gamemode diversity of the whole Heroes' Ascent. But GW1 HA alone has more PvP maps than GW2 PvP got in 10 years (pre-launch included obviously) so this isn't happening. ATs are close enough I guess..

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

> @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > > Voted no, not because I won't like it but because I can't see how it would work.

> > > > If the reason you're interested in GvG is to be similar to GW1: long fights at flag stand trying to push each others, splitting to gank enemy base or to defend your base, flag runner running flags, it simply won't be there, GW2 combat system won't allow that.

> > > > Like Abazigal said, ANet tried it with Stronghold, it didn't work.

> > >

> > > No, they tried a PvE gamemode where you barely interact with the other team and pretended it's sPvP. GvG in GW1 had plenty of interaction between enemy teams, as did Alliance Battles. FA/JQ are blurrier since there's a lot more fighting NPCs I'll give you that.

> >

> > Actually there was a time on GW1 when teams just rushed lord without any interaction whatsoever.

> >

> > My point stands: GW2 combat system won't allow any GW1 GvG like match.

> >

>

> Your point doesn't "stand" at all because you haven't put forward any evidence to prove it. Also if you review recent footage of GvGs in GW1 (some guilds still do it to this day) they absolutely do engage in teamfights, not just lord rushes. And you're only referring to GvG, you didn't address my mention of Alliance Battles.

>

> It's certainly possible to integrate NPCs into games and still encourage player fighting, as we do with Legacy of the Foefire; on that map many games end with a lord kill but many don't because you don't have to. The most important point is to make sure that killing NPCs **isn't the main objective** of the game mode, as it is in Stronghold; so long as people are significantly rewarded for killing enemy players, or the game mode forces them to fight over certain resources/objectives, we'll be fine.

 

I said there was a time - past.

Which means even in a superior game combat and tactical wise, there was a time in which people rushed lord.

 

Compare GW1 damage to GW2 damage, and do the same with hp, now do the same to aoe and cleave skills.

And that's why GVG won't work.

As for AB's they weren't referred by OP, hence why I didn't comment on that. AB's could work, but I doubt them won't be another wvw like zergfest, even in GW1 there were some matches like that.

 

That's the difference - in Foefire you don't have to kill lord, in GVG you have to either do that or to get the other team to 60dp.

Remove both far and close circles from foefire, turn the mid circle into a flag stand that awards a buff and figure out how people would react.

[Huskyboy.1053]

> @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > > > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > > > Voted no, not because I won't like it but because I can't see how it would work.

> > > > > If the reason you're interested in GvG is to be similar to GW1: long fights at flag stand trying to push each others, splitting to gank enemy base or to defend your base, flag runner running flags, it simply won't be there, GW2 combat system won't allow that.

> > > > > Like Abazigal said, ANet tried it with Stronghold, it didn't work.

> > > >

> > > > No, they tried a PvE gamemode where you barely interact with the other team and pretended it's sPvP. GvG in GW1 had plenty of interaction between enemy teams, as did Alliance Battles. FA/JQ are blurrier since there's a lot more fighting NPCs I'll give you that.

> > >

> > > Actually there was a time on GW1 when teams just rushed lord without any interaction whatsoever.

> > >

> > > My point stands: GW2 combat system won't allow any GW1 GvG like match.

> > >

> >

> > Your point doesn't "stand" at all because you haven't put forward any evidence to prove it. Also if you review recent footage of GvGs in GW1 (some guilds still do it to this day) they absolutely do engage in teamfights, not just lord rushes. And you're only referring to GvG, you didn't address my mention of Alliance Battles.

> >

> > It's certainly possible to integrate NPCs into games and still encourage player fighting, as we do with Legacy of the Foefire; on that map many games end with a lord kill but many don't because you don't have to. The most important point is to make sure that killing NPCs **isn't the main objective** of the game mode, as it is in Stronghold; so long as people are significantly rewarded for killing enemy players, or the game mode forces them to fight over certain resources/objectives, we'll be fine.

>

> I said there was a time - past.

> Which means even in a superior game combat and tactical wise, there was a time in which people rushed lord.

>

> Compare GW1 damage to GW2 damage, and do the same with hp, now do the same to aoe and cleave skills.

> And that's why GVG won't work.

> As for AB's they weren't referred by OP, hence why I didn't comment on that. AB's could work, but I doubt them won't be another wvw like zergfest, even in GW1 there were some matches like that.

>

> That's the difference - in Foefire you don't have to kill lord, in GVG you have to either do that or to get the other team to 60dp.

> Remove both far and close circles from foefire, turn the mid circle into a flag stand that awards a buff and figure out how people would react.

 

That's a fair point about GvG; I agree that a singular point which could become overloaded by AoE would certainly be bad design; Skyhammer is already bad enough with all 3 nodes being AoE-friendly. That being said, I don't think this is an issue with the damage values or skills available, a new GvG can be created (perhaps with more varied objectives) that requires teams to spread out into smaller units. GvG would certainly need to be modified to work well with the GW2 environment.

[Saint Sated.2698]

Looking at this: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/42973/pvp-features-in-progress-updated-june-8-2018

 

Its pretty clear GvGs and HA aren't on their radar. 2 game modes that had such a passionate player base in gw1. JQ/FA stuff too.

Maybe they're trying to get the balance stable enough before, or maybe they just aren't interested.

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

> @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> > > > > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said:

> > > > > > Voted no, not because I won't like it but because I can't see how it would work.

> > > > > > If the reason you're interested in GvG is to be similar to GW1: long fights at flag stand trying to push each others, splitting to gank enemy base or to defend your base, flag runner running flags, it simply won't be there, GW2 combat system won't allow that.

> > > > > > Like Abazigal said, ANet tried it with Stronghold, it didn't work.

> > > > >

> > > > > No, they tried a PvE gamemode where you barely interact with the other team and pretended it's sPvP. GvG in GW1 had plenty of interaction between enemy teams, as did Alliance Battles. FA/JQ are blurrier since there's a lot more fighting NPCs I'll give you that.

> > > >

> > > > Actually there was a time on GW1 when teams just rushed lord without any interaction whatsoever.

> > > >

> > > > My point stands: GW2 combat system won't allow any GW1 GvG like match.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Your point doesn't "stand" at all because you haven't put forward any evidence to prove it. Also if you review recent footage of GvGs in GW1 (some guilds still do it to this day) they absolutely do engage in teamfights, not just lord rushes. And you're only referring to GvG, you didn't address my mention of Alliance Battles.

> > >

> > > It's certainly possible to integrate NPCs into games and still encourage player fighting, as we do with Legacy of the Foefire; on that map many games end with a lord kill but many don't because you don't have to. The most important point is to make sure that killing NPCs **isn't the main objective** of the game mode, as it is in Stronghold; so long as people are significantly rewarded for killing enemy players, or the game mode forces them to fight over certain resources/objectives, we'll be fine.

> >

> > I said there was a time - past.

> > Which means even in a superior game combat and tactical wise, there was a time in which people rushed lord.

> >

> > Compare GW1 damage to GW2 damage, and do the same with hp, now do the same to aoe and cleave skills.

> > And that's why GVG won't work.

> > As for AB's they weren't referred by OP, hence why I didn't comment on that. AB's could work, but I doubt them won't be another wvw like zergfest, even in GW1 there were some matches like that.

> >

> > That's the difference - in Foefire you don't have to kill lord, in GVG you have to either do that or to get the other team to 60dp.

> > Remove both far and close circles from foefire, turn the mid circle into a flag stand that awards a buff and figure out how people would react.

>

> That's a fair point about GvG; I agree that a singular point which could become overloaded by AoE would certainly be bad design; Skyhammer is already bad enough with all 3 nodes being AoE-friendly. That being said, I don't think this is an issue with the damage values or skills available, a new GvG can be created (perhaps with more varied objectives) that requires teams to spread out into smaller units. GvG would certainly need to be modified to work well with the GW2 environment.

 

It can work depending on the objectives' importance in order to force the team to split.

As for the damage I still think it would mine the entire thing but will give the benefit of the doubt if the forced split works.

[Huskyboy.1053]

If this new GvG were 8v8, it could either force two groups of 4, or perhaps one group of 4 and two pairs. Could make for some interesting combat dynamics.

 

Conquest is often decided by which team has the better roamer, would be interesting to instead have a mode where teams are forced to split into squads and achieve objectives relatively independently of the other squads, but still rely on all squads succeeding in order to ultimately win.

[ChronosCosmos.9450]

> @"Huskyboy.1053" said:

> If this new GvG were 8v8, it could either force two groups of 4, or perhaps one group of 4 and two pairs. Could make for some interesting combat dynamics.

>

> Conquest is often decided by which team has the better roamer, would be interesting to instead have a mode where teams are forced to split into squads and achieve objectives relatively independently of the other squads, but still rely on all squads succeeding in order to ultimately win.

 

Yeah that sounds very interesting. I just want any new game mode at this point lol. 5v5 Conquest for 6 years is just too much.

 

[ChronosCosmos.9450]

> @"Saint Sated.2698" said:

> Looking at this: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/42973/pvp-features-in-progress-updated-june-8-2018

>

> Its pretty clear GvGs and HA aren't on their radar. 2 game modes that had such a passionate player base in gw1. JQ/FA stuff too.

> Maybe they're trying to get the balance stable enough before, or maybe they just aren't interested.

 

I'm hoping that we can show the demand for GvG and Hall of Heroes. We certainly do have it. People would even pay for it!

[Saint Sated.2698]

I don't honestly see why we would need to pay for it directly, but maybe as part of a new xpac? I agree with you otherwise! hypehypehype!

[ChronosCosmos.9450]

Bringing this poll back because I want A-net to see this!

[Auturgist.8256]

I would absolutely pay for GvG and HA if this game were even remotely balanced. The fact that what we've had for 5+ years is still terribly imbalanced doesn't suggest to me that my money would be well spent on classic modes that I love only to watch them degenerate into yet more maddening exhibitions of the PvP balance team's incompetence.

[Ziggityzog.7389]

Ha / Hall Of Heroes was the highlight of gw1 pvp. Having the global tournament going constantly was awesome. Not dancing around 3 little circles on the floor opened things up a lot.

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Ziggityzog.7389" said:

> Ha / Hall Of Heroes was the highlight of gw1 pvp. Having the global tournament going constantly was awesome. Not dancing around 3 little circles on the floor opened things up a lot.

 

I always saw HA as the most prestigious form of PvP in GW1

[Ziggityzog.7389]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"Ziggityzog.7389" said:

> > Ha / Hall Of Heroes was the highlight of gw1 pvp. Having the global tournament going constantly was awesome. Not dancing around 3 little circles on the floor opened things up a lot.

>

> I always saw HA as the most prestigious form of PvP in GW1

 

Oh those were the golden days of guild wars pvp. Then when the alliance battles came in and you could run one of the cities of lux or kurz. My guild held the lux main for almost a year it was fun.

 

Gw2 sadly hasn't lived up to how epic gw1 was.