With all the leavers in RA (for those who enjoy RA), 4v4 ends up being 2vs4, or 1vs3, etc; so since HA is no longer 6v6, why not expand the playing field to 6v6 or 5v5? If people want ORGANIZED 4v4, go to TEAM ARENAS. There shouldn't be a crappier version of a 4v4 when there already is an organized one. HB is also 4v4. AB is 12v12, HA is 8v8, as is FA and JQ, so why not RA be 6v6 or 5v5?
Anyone agree?
Expanding RA?
Alanus
tenshi_strife
hum that could be fun, more players make more chances of getting somewhat decent teammates
/signed
/signed
ZenRgy
I vote that RA be 100% more randomer!
/notsigned
/notsigned
Kool Pajamas
/signed
Might see a little more variety with 6v6. Because seriously how often do you see Paragons in RA? Just one example. 4v4 in a random style eliminates a lot of playstyle and promotes other unwanted types.
Might see a little more variety with 6v6. Because seriously how often do you see Paragons in RA? Just one example. 4v4 in a random style eliminates a lot of playstyle and promotes other unwanted types.
Helcaraxe
Random Arenas is not broken... do not try to fix it.
The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them.
/notsigned
The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them.
/notsigned
Not A Fifty Five
would be a simple, fun change from 2 years of RA with no change.
Also, matches would end up being <<shorter>> on average because monks will be more spread out
Also, gladiator points would be more TA based (good thing!) since it would be insane to get a glad in 6 vs 6 random
Also, matches would end up being <<shorter>> on average because monks will be more spread out
Also, gladiator points would be more TA based (good thing!) since it would be insane to get a glad in 6 vs 6 random
Deleet
Why dont we just make RA 12v12 on the same maps. Oh and rename it to Team Deathmatch Arena. Signed
gameshoes3003
Hasn't there been a suggestion for 6v6 or 5v5 Random Arenas?
Also 6v6 seems a bit... long... People want their faction, or get gladiator points fast. But then there are people who enjoy longer battles...
I can't really say I dislike the idea. But I'm not digging it.
/notsigned
Also 6v6 seems a bit... long... People want their faction, or get gladiator points fast. But then there are people who enjoy longer battles...
I can't really say I dislike the idea. But I'm not digging it.
/notsigned
Not A Fifty Five
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gameshoes3003
Hasn't there been a suggestion for 6v6 or 5v5 Random Arenas?
Also 6v6 seems a bit... long... People want their faction, or get gladiator points fast. But then there are people who enjoy longer battles... I can't really say I dislike the idea. But I'm not digging it. /notsigned |
To illustrate, imagine RA being 12000 vs 12000 ignoring lag(that would be freakin hilarious btw)
Lastly yes, glad points would be more difficult, not because of time, but because the individual is worth less. Which would make TA more the gladiator place where it should be (I make 80% of my glads in RA. Sure its somewhat slower than a good TA team, but being out of a guild yeah.. no good ta teams. Average TA pugger is worse than the average RA player)
Master Ketsu
Quote:
| Average TA pugger is worse than the average RA player |
<----mighty glad
And btw /NOTSIGNED.
RA already takes poor amount of skill compared to other arenas as it is. Making it 6v6 would only detract from individual skill altogether.
The only change I suggest to RA is to actually make it slightly less random: Intelligent RA. AKA: No 4 Monk teams. 3 of a kind should be banned from RA.
Not A Fifty Five
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master Ketsu
I require TA pugers to be either r6 or Glad1....that usually mitigates at least the ones worse then average RA'rs
<----mighty glad And btw /NOTSIGNED. RA already takes poor amount of skill compared to other arenas as it is. Making it 6v6 would only detract from individual skill altogether. The only change I suggest to RA is to actually make it slightly less random: Intelligent RA. AKA: No 4 Monk teams. 3 of a kind should be banned from RA. |
6 vs 6 would detract from individual skill but that's why I'd support it. Gladiator points would be nigh impossible thus giving more attention to RA for faction and TA for gladiator points.
In any case, would you agree that it would make for a really cool and easy to code test weekend? There are no extreme negative problems with it.
Surena
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helcaraxe
Random Arenas is not broken... do not try to fix it.
The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them. /notsigned |
If you want to fix RA, don't allow sync-teams. Nothing else needed.
max gladius
6 on 6 would be nice for a few reasons, i think it would cut down on rage quiters.... cause a team of 4 w/ 2 dead weight can beat team of 6... but note i said dead weight... leaching will definatly replace the rage quitters.....
as for the sync teams they have tried fixing that many ways, and it has cut down alot on it... but i agree it is still a problem...
/halfsigned
as for the sync teams they have tried fixing that many ways, and it has cut down alot on it... but i agree it is still a problem...
/halfsigned
Wretchman Drake
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helcaraxe
Random Arenas is not broken... do not try to fix it.
The players trying to play Random Arenas are broken... good luck fixing them. /notsigned |
RA is broken because the system doesn't punish RA leavers, it's like children that keep jumping on furniture and destroying the house, the parents should do something to stop it. Same deal, Anet needs to step up and do SOMETHING about rage quitters that would hurt their account entirely rather than RA specifics, aka if you rage more than a specific amount of times your acct is suspended for a few days. That would show them.
I understand if people leave after a long match, or if someone else leaves, leaving your team defenseless, so if they could incorperate that into it, that would be nice.
TheRaven
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wretchman Drake
You fail at trying to be an elitist-wannabe.
RA is broken because the system doesn't punish RA leavers, it's like children that keep jumping on furniture and destroying the house, the parents should do something to stop it. Same deal, Anet needs to step up and do SOMETHING about rage quitters that would hurt their account entirely rather than RA specifics, aka if you rage more than a specific amount of times your acct is suspended for a few days. That would show them. I understand if people leave after a long match, or if someone else leaves, leaving your team defenseless, so if they could incorperate that into it, that would be nice. |
Well, i definitely support punishing the rage-quitters (see other thread), but I can't support this idea. It's overkill. Kinda like sentencing someone to 6 months in prison for going 65 in the 45 mph zone.
Instead just implement a deterrent. If you exit an RA match before it's over, you cannot re-join another match for 5 minutes. Simple solution that removes the advantages to rage-quitting. This penalty also should not be imposed if you were not the first person to leave or if the match lasted longer than 10 minutes.
About the 6v6 idea, I really don't know how I feel about that one. I guess I'd have to try it first to see. (Good idea for a test weekend!) I'm definitely worried about leechers popping up and also that it would be harder to start a match during off times.
Hikan Trilear
I think the best way to punish rage quitting would be loss of balthazarr faction...
After all, you're supposed to earn favor with him through courage and battle prowess, it would make since for a loss of favor for "retreating" or "giving up"...
After all, you're supposed to earn favor with him through courage and battle prowess, it would make since for a loss of favor for "retreating" or "giving up"...
Does-it-Matter
Two quick things...
In reference to the "anti-syncing" Master Ketsu mentioned, banning Alliance members would be controlling a random element (ignoring, of course, that no computer can truly execute a random function).
Statistically, it IS possible to just click on Join Match and end up with a friend/alliance/guild member. My roommate and I have been on the same team or opposing teams once or twice without trying to "fix it."
But yes, I agree that any attempt to affect a random outcome SHOULD be addressed.
On to my second point...
I say this just about every time the debate of leavers comes up. There is a game that came out roughly a year ago (read about it in a PC Gamer article) set in Roman-Era Britain. In it, if you leave a PvP-styled match pre-maturely, your character is crucified (banned) for seven days.
And yes, if I recall correctly, the developers of said game they would take in to account internet-disconnect issues.
Just stating that as there is the code/desire to do that already in effect.
And, if anyone knows the name of the game I'm speaking of, or has played it, I'd be more than interested to know how that system has worked out since its implementation.
In reference to the "anti-syncing" Master Ketsu mentioned, banning Alliance members would be controlling a random element (ignoring, of course, that no computer can truly execute a random function).
Statistically, it IS possible to just click on Join Match and end up with a friend/alliance/guild member. My roommate and I have been on the same team or opposing teams once or twice without trying to "fix it."
But yes, I agree that any attempt to affect a random outcome SHOULD be addressed.
On to my second point...
I say this just about every time the debate of leavers comes up. There is a game that came out roughly a year ago (read about it in a PC Gamer article) set in Roman-Era Britain. In it, if you leave a PvP-styled match pre-maturely, your character is crucified (banned) for seven days.
And yes, if I recall correctly, the developers of said game they would take in to account internet-disconnect issues.
Just stating that as there is the code/desire to do that already in effect.
And, if anyone knows the name of the game I'm speaking of, or has played it, I'd be more than interested to know how that system has worked out since its implementation.
Yaga Philipe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter
Two quick things...
In reference to the "anti-syncing" Master Ketsu mentioned, banning Alliance members would be controlling a random element (ignoring, of course, that no computer can truly execute a random function). Statistically, it IS possible to just click on Join Match and end up with a friend/alliance/guild member. My roommate and I have been on the same team or opposing teams once or twice without trying to "fix it." But yes, I agree that any attempt to affect a random outcome SHOULD be addressed. On to my second point... I say this just about every time the debate of leavers comes up. There is a game that came out roughly a year ago (read about it in a PC Gamer article) set in Roman-Era Britain. In it, if you leave a PvP-styled match pre-maturely, your character is crucified (banned) for seven days. And yes, if I recall correctly, the developers of said game they would take in to account internet-disconnect issues. Just stating that as there is the code/desire to do that already in effect. And, if anyone knows the name of the game I'm speaking of, or has played it, I'd be more than interested to know how that system has worked out since its implementation. |
Patrick Smit
Disconnect > rage quit
Any attempt to fix quitters will be countered by "intelligent" measures, and punish the innocent.
Syncing could be disturbed by adding players together that accessed at randomly different times. So a team is formed from players that entered within a certain timespan. Players that "sync" will not form 1 team, Making a pool from which players are randomly selected is better then just hooking them up as fast as possible to form a team.
Any attempt to fix quitters will be countered by "intelligent" measures, and punish the innocent.
Syncing could be disturbed by adding players together that accessed at randomly different times. So a team is formed from players that entered within a certain timespan. Players that "sync" will not form 1 team, Making a pool from which players are randomly selected is better then just hooking them up as fast as possible to form a team.
Does-it-Matter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Patrick Smit
Disconnect > rage quit
|
Now of course people would then pull their net to Rage quit, although that is a bit contrived. A way to fix that would be to add a two minute cool-down period to anyone who leaves via disconnect.
If you have dialup, it's going to take about that long to reconnect and perhaps open up the game again. If you have cable and you're reseting your modem/router, it may take that long as well.
---
And actually, now that it hit me... with disconnects it brings you back to the place you left anyways (if you choose to), so all that Rage Quitting is just causing you more grief to get back to the same spot you tried to leave.
If the person attempts to say "no I don't want to go back to where I was" then implement the same punishment for someone who leaves the match via mapping.
Problem solved, disconnects are not hindered.
max gladius
i think we need to swing this topic back toward where the OP wanted it...
Rage Quitting has a forum i started and alot of good points, plz take that discussion there..
Topic here is making more ppl on team, i know they have simular interests due to the fact that it would make it easier and fairer with 6/4 then 4/3...
But lets try to swing the topic back, and act as if all 6 ppl were staying and playing....
I know its a hard topic to keep on tract, and that is a hard thing to imagine, but i would like to see some change too...
Rage Quitting has a forum i started and alot of good points, plz take that discussion there..
Topic here is making more ppl on team, i know they have simular interests due to the fact that it would make it easier and fairer with 6/4 then 4/3...
But lets try to swing the topic back, and act as if all 6 ppl were staying and playing....
I know its a hard topic to keep on tract, and that is a hard thing to imagine, but i would like to see some change too...
Master Ketsu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Does-it-Matter
Two quick things...
In reference to the "anti-syncing" Master Ketsu mentioned, banning Alliance members would be controlling a random element (ignoring, of course, that no computer can truly execute a random function). |
1) Alliance members being able to exploit a sync glitch to enter RA as a TA team
2) Alliance members are rolled into differant teams.
Does-it-Matter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master Ketsu
Which is more random:
1) Alliance members being able to exploit a sync glitch to enter RA as a TA team 2) Alliance members are rolled into differant teams. |
As another poster said previous, randomize the pool of players chosen from, so even if you manage to sync up, you may not be on the same team.
I.E.
15 players want to do RA, instead of a count down, you get "waiting to enter match" during which players are randomly selected from the pool
Or there is the previous suggestion of randomized time scenarios.
Either way, there is a solution other than fixing randomness.