Feedback talk:User/Draikin/Alternative to deleting Hero Battles

No, they are tainted beyond repair. Piles of /roll made the title worthless, and hero micromanagement gives advantages to players that can set macros, as in with special mouses and keyboards. GW PvP is better when 1v1 is completely avoided even when it is not real 1v1. Its end is the right thing to do, and it took too long. MithTalk 06:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do PvE players always have to respond to PvP suggestions? Draikin has probably 1000x more HB experience than you so seriously, shut up if you have no clue what you are talking about and let people comment that have actually played the format. Vortex ™ 06:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm am not a 'PvE player' I'm a GW player, spending more time in PvE than in PvP doesn't make me less valid to respond to any PvP suggestions, excepting for GvG ones, since I rarely play in GvG. Do you know how many people stopped playing in HB since the removal of /roll? Well, ANet knows, ask them. It's the less played PvP mode, and not just because it's played in teams with only one player. Before the roll change, when I played there, 8 out of ten players where /roll players, and from those, more than the half of them would insult you and rage-quit if you didn't /roll too, the rest many play. And when you were lucky and found a player that would actually play, they just run around capping shrines without really fighting, that's not what pleases Balthazar. But running around avoiding battle, what's the fun in that? HB was flawed, and after being stained by /roll for so long, there is no way to recover it. And since spreading the PvP playerbase is a very bad idea, it's better to add a mode that would actually be played, and remove the less played ones. It's a shame for those that will not be a ble to max the title, but hey, blame the ones that /rolled for so much time. MithTalk 13:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

spending more time in PvE than in PvP doesn't make me less valid to respond to any PvP suggestions

If your PvP experience is limited to AB, RA or in this case some HB matches around 1000 rating (you don't even have commander1 according to your userpage) then YES IT DOES! If you haven't at least played top500 in the ladder then you got no competence to judge the format since you have no clue what you are talking about. Vortex ™ 13:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't usually have much time to update my userpage, so don't trust much what you read in there, it's quite outdated, specially the characters. And, as you should know, having commander or not is irrelevant, since those that /rolled are the ones with higher values in that title and you know it. I know what is boring, and that format was boring. You just have to seem some ranked battles in the observer mode. You can't compared them to an actual fight with other players. GW was never meant to anything remotely close to 1vs1. The more the merrier. MithTalk 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with people having different opinions of the format, but I don't think it's up to you to decide what PvP formats GW was "meant" to have. --Draikin 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bots fighting bots is not pvp. This is why it was never popular. ~Shard 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they actually fought... but entering checking if your color is red or blue and leaving is not what I would call 'fighting' and don't tell me bots can't do that, checking the color of one pixel is piece of cake. MithTalk 00:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if you don't like the concept of players fighting each other by controlling AI units, it's still PvP. And the match manipulation issues are obviously a problem, which I think my suggestion would solve for the most part. --Draikin 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying HB was never popular is simply a bad lie, even normal AT's often had 3 Groups everyday, and the ladder consited of 1-2k active players. (atleast!)