Talk:Heroes' Ascent (mission)

Type of tournament
After the short PvE part, several victories are needed in order to reach The Hall of Heroes.

I have never played Tombs. Is it the case that if you lose any of the matches, you are then out of the tournament? This is not made entirely clear from the article. If not, then how many victories are needed to reach HoH?

Successful teams which get to the Hall of Heroes and hold it a few times can spend several hours just on one run.

Presumably this means that you can stay and defend HoH once you have won the tournament? Kidburla 11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, you are out of the Tournament if you lose. The number of matches needed to get to the Hall of Heroes is basically random. You can, in rare instances, get to the HoH just by defeating the 'PvE' trial battle. It often depends on the ammount of competition available.

Yes, once you win you can continue to hold the halls until you are defeated. --Sagius Truthbarron 20:03, 20 February 2006 (CST)


 * Aye, I've been to the halls a few times, but only when there were few teams competing! I wish I was in a PvP guild! Shandy 20:21, 20 February 2006 (CST)


 * Thanks. Updated article with your remarks. That's very interesting. Kidburla 05:13, 22 February 2006 (CST)

Numbers of teams in each match
I played in 6 team matches in the Tombs... the latest change says there are no such settings. Have they been changed? --Karlos 16:26, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)

This part looks very wrong to me:

The Tomb of Primeval Kings maps:
 * Underworld (Deathmatch - 2 teams)
 * Burial Mounds (Deathmatch - 2 teams)
 * Broken Tower (King of the hill - 2 teams)
 * Scarred Earth (Deathmatch - 4 teams)
 * Unholy Temples (Capture the Relic - 2 teams)
 * Dark Chambers (Deathmatch - 2 teams)
 * Courtyard (King of the hill- 3 teams)
 * Sacred Temples (Capture the Relic - 2 teams)

When proven worthy the team is transported to The Vault where teams wait to fight in The Hall of Heroes. Only five teams can fight in the Hall of Heroes at the same time.''

Unless they changed a lot lately:
 * Burial Mounds has 6 teams
 * Broken Tower has 3 teams
 * Scarred Earth has 6 teams (that was the name of the 1vs1/1vs1/1vs1 with opening door right?)
 * It should be said that HoH fights consist of first 2 1vs1 matches of 4 attackers and then a 3 team king of the hill, with the old HoH winning team being first defender

And can we not call it mission, it is a tournament, please. =) --Xeeron 08:35, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * That part is ancient. It may be before we started playing even :) Change what you know is different. As far asc alling it a mission, that's what the game calls it. There is an Enter Mission button when you go there. --Karlos 09:28, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Well knowing something is difficult when ANet keeps changing the game ;-) But I will change it to what it most likely still is. You are correct about the Enter Mission Button, but still I disagree with calling it a mission. If we go by the Enter Mission Button, the competitive & team arena must be added to missions as well. Missions (in my definition) are part of PvE, have a story line and do have a clear ending. Tombs is part of PvP, does not have a story line (ok, maybe a some bits) and goes on forever. Server reboots apart we are still taking part in the one tournament that never stopped. I know you are technically right, but it hurt reading mission there ;-) --Xeeron 09:42, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)

Ok according to ANets link FansiteFriday 60, they "removed six-team maps from Tombs". As a matter of fact I played in 2 of them a few hours ago. And I played on a 6 team map that had 4 teams. --Xeeron 20:36, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I want to state, categorically, that I find the tournament, absurd, ridiculous, extremely hard and utterly annoying!! there, I got that off my chest. :) --Karlos 20:50, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I think what they meant was none of the maps are 6-team any longer. I don't think I've actually gotten six teams in a very long time on any map.  --Fyren 21:02, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Hmmm I havent played with 6 teams in a long time either. But why would they allow 4 teams on those maps and not 6? It seems they changed the way the system deals with less then the maximum number of teams entering (which is huge*, even without playing maps twice). It used to be that you sometimes skip maps and simply went to the next free map. However that lead to some teams jumping directly from PvE to HoH. So it seems they changed it, such that you are now forced to play all maps. However, since then not enough teams are around, they allowed for less then the maximum number of teams per map to play on that map.


 * *Just calculated it for fun: The original tournament could hold more than 30k teams at once, the all 1vs1 one needs between 250 and 1000.


 * I cant really say how I like that. On the one hand, some of the worst parts of Tombs used to be the 1vs1vs1 standoffs on 6 team maps. On the other hand ... a tournament with all 1vs1 maps? That gets boring soo fast. And especially the KotH maps only work with 3 teams. I wish they would shorten the tournament by removing some of the maps and thus allowing for more filled maps again. PS: I had to join IWAY builds to get a look at all maps up to HoH, ugh --Xeeron 21:28, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Excuse my abundant ignorance... What's an IWAY build? --Karlos 07:59, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * A build centered around "I Will Avenge You!", pets, and the necro order skills. --Fyren 08:20, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Someone quite incidently edited "IWAY" and I just read it. Thanks! :) --Karlos 08:45, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Also, you still skip maps when there's a lack of teams. --Fyren 14:49, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)

Ok, I think I am more or less done with the tombs part of my PvP crusade =) Please have a look at this article and the related ones and tell me if you think something is missing. --Xeeron 23:02, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Well, since I believe burial mounds is four teams, broken tower is two teams, and scarred earth is four teams now, we could probably change that and note they used to be more teams (and the map has remained the same). For broken tower, the extra "free" orb is of note especially.  --Fyren 12:18, 26 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Does anyone know for sure that they capped the maximum in these maps? --Xeeron 19:39, 26 Sep 2005 (EST)

As i play rather often down there, i corrected all descriptions on the page of each map --HJT 09:02, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

what about a list of all FOTM
It would be some sort of history-makin writin down all FOTM with the time it was used

i start the list:

Air Spike: till an update, 25. aug (nerfing of chain)

Double Smite: till 29. sept (nerfing of zealots, ether renewal)

IWAY: begin? of sept, still here

Ranger spike: mid of sept till 29. sept (nerf: delay between interrupt attacks)

the end is in most case clear, while the begin....

at least the names and the dates should me on the tombs page, the description can on a seperate page, each.

TBC

HJT 09:13, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * In general, I believe our policy is not to keep track of how the game was historically for "old times sake." It would, in general, be useless info that is very subjective (i.e. a user editing Chain Lightning to say that it used to do more damage and cast quicker). If you wish to define these strategies for the on-going benefit of the users, then that is great. But an article that says, hypothetically: "Air Spiking was really big in Guild Wars until it was nerfed in August. It used to rely on..." is to me a very useless one.
 * I think these strategies should be explained in their general sense and left out there. I am sure someone will find a way to re-use IWAY in some form or mix Air Spiking with perhaps Mesmer skills to do a destructive combination. So, a general Air Spiking article about which skills are best and which SET of skills works together best is pretty cool. For example, if you'll use glimmering mark, then Lightning Strike is a better spell than Enervating Charge, because the warriors will be blind, so no need for weakness and Strike charges fast and is cheaper. Stuff like that is going to be usefull all the time. --Karlos 16:03, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Well i thought more about a thing that just lists all the builds, the 'dead' only something like


 * buildname
 * From - till - (case of dieing)
 * consisting of these classes
 * how it was played


 * only the current builds should get a seperate page with a rather large description of all used classes and builds, also with the most common mods, which r at the moment IWAY, and prolly upcomin earth-ele-spike.


 * also the personal build things like vim-monk, KD/AS warrior, W/R tf-axe and so on... or should they be placed somewhere else?

as the FOTM page is up, move the discussion to talk:FOTM

--HJT 21:21, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)

hmmm i have one question, once you get to HoH... can you go there any time you want or do you have to do the whole tornement over????

Sigil source
Traders don't create sigils. They can run out of inventory since they are only reselling items sold to them. Hence, winning the hall is the only source of sigils in the game. If someone wants to add that note, go ahead. --Fyren 00:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting Images
Anyone ever notice this:


 * Ok, let me spell it out, to my knowledge that is a charr soldier and an ascalon soldier --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 20:26, 20 November 2006 (CST)
 * Why is this not strange to anyone??? --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 07:14, 10 March 2007 (CST)

The name of the Tournament
I don't think the tournament should be named after the location you enter it from. As far as the in-game lore is concerned, there are these places in the mists, that you can reach. The final destination is the Hall of Heros, where everyone wants to be. The original Tombs and the current Hero's Ascent are just two "secrete" portals that allow access to the series of places. There could easily be other portals to the same places in the mists hidden elsewhere (as far as the lore is concerned). The story goes that both the Tombs and the Hero's Ascent have been working portal to those places in the mists, but the Zaishen have kept the Hero's Ascent known only to themselves, until the Tomb's portal got invaded, so the Zaishen started allowing the others access to their own portal. Or soemthing like that. Thus I propose the name of the tournament be the Hall of Hero's Tournament in reference to the ultimate objective of the tournament (though I have no problem saying "The Hero's Ascent mission is the Hall of Hero's Tournament", I just object to the "Hero's Ascent tournament"). -PanSola 13:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Especially since they might very well change the entry point again, and then we'll be stuck with it being the tournament, tombs, heroes' ascent, and whatever the new name is...&mdash;Aranth 08:02, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

HA weekend
So, about the upcoming weekend What do you guys think about it? Any thoughts on it being permanent or not? I think it will be a permanent change, just like the PvP Extreme weekend some half year ago, where they raised the faction rewards. Also, the game currently has 2 ways to play 8v8 battles, and none to play 6v6. (I don't feel I need to play 6v6 though, larger battles would attract me more than smaller ones)-Thomas 15:19, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I think they'll add another option if it becomes popular in addition to 8vs8 &mdash; Skuld 15:21, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * No idea what they will do really, but there has been a huge drain away from HA towards other forms of PvP. HA used to be the by far most populated, nowadays GvG, arenas and AB have more people. Maybe it is their last effort to save the HA. --Xeeron 15:27, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * This is probably just testing the waters, but if some point in the future 6v6 becomes regular, I highly doubt it'll exist alongside 8v8. They can't splinter the players by adding too many game types.  I don't think AB has much to do with dwindling HA players since it's hard to conceive of a PvPer going to AB over HA.  I don't see TA being more populated than it was a year ago, either.  I think it's all GvG partially because HA was overplayed and partially because GvG is where the prestige is (ladder, championship, tons of tigers around but too much effort to get a phoenix).  --Fyren 15:34, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Fame table
I think the fame table is not up-to-date. It should read like this, this is how it works in-game:

Wins - Fame 0 - 0, 1 - 1, 2 - 2, 3 - 3, 4 - 4, 5 - 6, 6 - 8, 7 - 12, 8 - 16, 9 - 20, 10 - 24, 11 - 28, 12 - 32, 13 - 36, 14 - 40


 * I'm pretty sure the article was wrong and this is right (it matches fame), so I changed the table. --Fyren 20:00, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Revision
I mostly rearranged things and removed some redundancy from other articles (the Zaishen map and rank). I think I to kill all the notes, too, since most apply to any PvP and they're not really helpful. --Fyren 20:00, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Unworthy addition?
i think it is worth having a page for each of the unworthy units that used to exist. after all, we have pages for units that don't exist any more such as humbugs. anyone agree? --User:Aptaleon Griefhaven
 * May conflict with GuildWiki talk:Article retention and GuildWiki talk:Criteria for deletion 9I stayed out of these so I'm not sure what agreement was reached *shrug* &mdash; Skuld 11:43, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I see a difference between potentially recurring events and outdated information. If the winter of 06/07 doesn't see a return of Humbugs I would start a movement to advocate deleting them.- 23:40, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

naaaah, cos they would be forgotten, when they rocked too much for that. Humbugs for the win! wait, the unworthy... maybe pages like the humbugs (assuming they make no return) and the unworthy should simply have a note at the bottom saying "they were seen during...." or something? no harm in it --User:Aptaleon Griefhaven

if noone disagrees i'll go ahead and add the pages. for the record i agree that pages should exist for units that used to exist but we needn't keep a tab on skill changes. --User:Aptaleon Griefhaven

Change to HA
ANET will be permently changing HA to a 6 man tourny this weekend, along with map changes. Sounds like some people will be busy updating this page this weekend.

Why ANET why?!?!?! i loved my tombs. if you want to add a 6 man arena, go ahead, but dont punish the people who have put over a year and a half into it! Detraya talk  00:11, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry if you feel that way, but I am glad they did something to make tombs interesting again. Checking out the map changes will be fun. --Xeeron 04:42, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * O yes, the map changes will be amazing, its about time they changed something... but why take away tombs? if me, and a large portion of this games fan base put in $100 and over a year of our lives, this does nothing but compel us to stop playing. Detraya talk  06:57, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * They cant have infinitly many PvP areas, or not enough people will play in each. There is 4vs4 in the arenas, 8vs8 in GvG, 12vs12 in alliance battles, there were clearly missing something with 6vs6 in between (as well as the 1vs1 option, which seems to be comming with Nightfall). I used to play tombs a lot when GW was new, but it got repetitive long time ago, making me prefer GvG. Making fights faster and less predictable with 6 character teams will bring some of the fun back. Oh and maybe make it possible to go with PuGs again. --Xeeron 07:05, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I am fully in support of additional options for PvP and a 6v6 option seems like gold to me. Kessel 08:51, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Id love a 6 v 6 arena, however, i dont want it to come at a cost of an arena we know and love. Detraya talk  16:06, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

It should be noted in the article that many high ranked players are angry and have quit, and that this update has stired contrversy. --68.192.188.142 21:20, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

They're just pissed they can't iway anymore lol. There's no way Iway's gonna fit orders and spirits into the build with 6 people. (Not a fifty five 13:58, 7 October 2006 (CDT))


 * o, since im a high ranked person whos pissed about this, (r10), i immedetly have ot be an iwayer? evan though ive never iwayed in my life? Detraya talk  17:00, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
 * adendum- wait, thats wrong, i tried iway once, but didnt' win any fame with it, saw how bad it was, and quit. Detraya talk  17:06, 7 October 2006 (CDT)


 * shrug* just don't see why anyone would be pissed about it. 8 vs 8 gvg and 8 vs 8 HA was kinda redundant wasn't it?  And its rather silly high rankers are quitting already, nightfall is coming out and the change likely has to do with something nightfall will have.  Having HA changed poermanently 2 weeks before nightfall comes out doesn't seem like a coincidence.  Tho I have to admit this is the stupidest marketing move ever lol.  They're bound to lose tens of thousands of dollars from people not buying Nightfall due to this.(Not a fifty five 19:13, 7 October 2006 (CDT))


 * Okay, i went and gave it a fair chance, i got about a hundred fame from it. I find it rather boring. i think they should have converted ta to 6 v 6 instead of halls


 * Yeah i gotte agree with you there. this new thing is pretty much a glorifed TA lol.

RA unlocking HA
I was playing RA today and after winning a match it unlocked HA for me. I assume it wasn't faction, because i had just hit 80,900 earned, (and having the cutoff be somewhere between 80k and 81k would be kinda odd.) It wasn't gladiator title, since i only have 4 points towards that. It was my 5th consecutive win that time in RA though. Maybe a five win RA streak counts as a Team Arena win? Or maybe enough 5 win streaks in RA will work instead of TA wins? I really don't know, but i figured i'd mention this phenomenon. 24.160.252.207 21:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)


 * Did you get winning streaks in RA? After 10 consecutive RA wins, your team is automatically transferred to TA, so any wins after 10 are TA wins. --Scottie theNerd 17:49, 3 December 2006 (CST)


 * i unlocked HA with a battle in RA for being in a battle for an hour with 2 runners24.179.11.235 18:09, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Tombs redirect
Isn't it about time that "Tombs" started sending people to the TotPK page? I haven't heard anyone refer to HA as "Tombs" in ages. mikkel 16:34, 10 January 2007 (CST)


 * Well, no replies for two months. Changing the redirect on Sunday if no one has any objections. mikkel 09:01, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * im gonna have to object, i still refer to tombs as well, tombs, as well as a bunch of my freinds. i say we keep the redirect as is. Detraya  talk 
 * Well, tombs hasn't been HA for about a year and a half now. I think the grace period is over, and that tombs should redirect to.. well.. tombs. mikkel 02:45, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * A lot of people will always call it tombs because that's what it was first called. I still do most of the time.  --Fyren 03:19, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'm sure those people will survive. GuildWiki should provide accurate information over nostalgia, so I think it's appropriate for "tombs" to direct to what tombs is, and not what tombs was. mikkel 14:23, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * That reasoning goes nowhere. People call it tombs and therefore it should exist.  It's not nostalgia, it's the way things are now.  --Fyren 19:49, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * Uh, that reasoning is perfectly valid. It 'is' nostalgia to call HA "Tombs". HA was called "Tombs" because it was at Tomb of the Primeval Kings. Now there's a PvE area referred to as "Tombs" at Tomb of the Primeval Kings. Since "HA" is generally used to refer to Heroes Ascent, there's no justification for the outdated use of "Tombs" to take precedence over the current use of "Tombs", especially since the current use is the only way used to refer to what is now at TotPK. mikkel 07:25, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Except we're a wiki. Our goal is to document and not to tell people "don't call this tombs anymore."  It's funny that you say it's the only way to refer to the TotPK; you did a good job calling it something else.  --Fyren 07:37, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yes. We're a Wiki. Our goal is to document. That's why "Tombs" should refer to the Tomb of the Primeval Kings article, where it can mention that "Tombs" redirects there, and mention that the old "Tombs" moved to the Heroes Ascent article. Nothing regarding my suggestion to change the redirect has anything to do with telling people how to refer to it. I did not say that "Tombs" is the only way to refer to Tombs of the Primeval Kings. It's obvious that as a colloquialism, the full name is another way to refer to it. I said that the only commonly used way is "Tombs". It's simple English. mikkel 09:07, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * And I still hear more people referring to HA as "tombs" than TOPK as "tombs," so I think the redirect should stay. Then again, I do PvP primarily, so that could be a bit of bias :P -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 07:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Suggested compromise: Typically in cases where something is used by two articles, we do a disambig page, or sometimes just a disambig note at the top of the page for the "main" use of the term. I propose we attempt to agree on the more common use, or in lieu of that we use a neutral disambig page. --Zampani 10:58, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Note: I realize there's a disambig note of sorts already at the top of the HA page. My suggestion is only to discuss and decide where the note should go, and use the disambig template or a dedicated page. My personal opinion and preference is that the TotPK article should be the recipient of the Tombs redirect. --Zampani 11:08, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * I think using a dedicated disambiguation page should be reserved for when things are truly ambiguous. The ambiguity here is purely colloquial, and I think a redirect to the Tomb of the Primeval Kings page, with a note on that page like the note currently found on the Heroes' Ascent (Mission) page would be the optimal solution. mikkel 11:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * So three people want HA to be the primary tombs, and two want TOPK to be the primary tombs. Any other voters? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 11:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * A Wiki generally isn't built on votes determined by numbers, but by established guidelines and good arguments. Let's stick to logic here. mikkel 12:37, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Please tell that to the build section. I'd bear your children if you did. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 13:23, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Heh, I gave up on that part of the wiki long ago, but I hear ya'. mikkel 13:35, 9 March 2007 (CST)

HA = tombs, ruins = ... tombs ruins &mdash; Skuld 13:39, 9 March 2007 (CST)

There hasn't really been any convincing arguments in this discussion. I'm going to change the redirect tomorrow unless someone can give reasonable justification (that is, beyond colloquial and nostalgic reasons) for why "Tombs" shouldn't redirect to the place that spawned the name in the first place. mikkel 06:51, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * We document the game, people call HA "tombs", and the RoTPK "tombs ruins", therefore it should go like that &mdash; Skuld 07:20, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * We document the game. "Tombs" is derived from "Tomb of the Primeval Kings". The PvE area at TotPK isn't called "tombs ruins". It's called "tombs", as per the name of the location. It's impossible to determine which is used more frequently, and perception is always going to be biased by where people play, so that leaves logic, and logic dictates that "tombs" should redirect to what tombs is, and not what used to be located at tombs. This is already covered when saying "beyond colloquial and nostalgic reasons". mikkel 09:01, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Seriously, not one person agreed with you. I've reverted your changes.  We've said people refer to this as tombs.  People call the PvE tombs ruins or TotPK.  You've done nothing but handwave away what we've said.  --Fyren 06:02, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * There have been six participants of this discussion. Two have been for TotPK to receive the redirect, four have been against it, with one admitting bias. Don't make things up. I'm not sure you understand the issue at hand here. People don't call PvE "tombs ruins". I've done 50+ runs, and I have heard it referred to as "TotPK" once or twice, and everyone else calls it "tombs", as the name of the place inspires. Now, we have both presented our subjective interpretation of the situation. Sadly, neither of us can substantiate our claims with anything credible. This leaves us at objective reasoning. What I've done is argue my case, and the only opposition I have had was unsubstantiated preference, not logical argument. You on the other hand have done nothing but "handwave" away a sound argument in favour of your subjective opinion. If you can't produce one single argument that you can substantiate with either logic or credible statistic, I'm changing it back by the end of the day. mikkel 06:12, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I missed Zimpani stating he prefers the redirect be the other way. The argument you provided was only that because the zone is called "Tomb of the Primeval Kings" that it should get the redirect.  The only thing that matters is what people actually use the term for.  You just said everyone calls the PvE zone tombs yet dismiss when we say people call the PvP area tombs because it's subjective and anecdotal.  You want objectivity?  The redirect has been there the entire time, which is more than a year, and no one has brought it up before.  --Fyren 06:38, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I believe that if you read what I actually wrote, you'd find that I dismissed all colloquial arguments including my own. Please, argue on a sober level and refrain from libelous misinterpretation. As for your objectivity, I proposed this redirect three months ago, and no one argued neither for nor against it until I was about to change it. That nullifies apathy as an argument. mikkel 07:20, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I didn't know how many colons to throw in front of this, so I placed none. As another opinion (though not necessarily a valuable one in regard to overall participation), I would like to say the following: I run "Tombs" (meaning Ruins of the Tomb of the Primeval Kings) a lot, both with my Ranger and my Necro. Everyone I've talked to refers to them as "Tombs runs", such as "Hey, anybody down for a Tombs run?" I know without a second thought that they are talking about TotPK. I can't vouch for what people who spend more time PvPing refer to HA as, but I can definitely back-up the idea that PvE folk use "Tombs" to refer to the PvE area. Rarely (if ever) do you see someone use "TotPK" or "Ruins".. or even "Tomb Ruins". Just my two gold pieces. - Threll 13:30, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

8v8 test weekend
boy this weekend (feb 9-11) is gonna be wild in HA with 8v8 coming back for 3 days. Oh..you can just see it. iway, b-spike, golems, smite will rise from the dead and haunt us for 3 days. M s4 15:46, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * ViMWAY ftw? --Swift Thief 21:02, 6 February 2007 (CST)
 * Nerfed. --Benoit flageol 03:35, 10 February 2007 (CST)
 * Isn't 8v8 still on?? -- Nova  [[Image:NovaSmall.PNG]] --  (contribs) 12:26, 16 February 2007 (CST)

8v8 Test Weekend is still going on as far as it can be seen. I think it might be permenent as seen by the recent state of the game on guildwars.com.--Trogam 13:02, 20 February 2007 (CST)
 * It was changed back to 6 already. They had said it would last through the whole week, not just that one weekend.  --Fyren 13:06, 20 February 2007 (CST)
 * Aww. I was looking forward to R-Spike. :( -- Nova  [[Image:NovaSmall.PNG]] --  (contribs) 15:55, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Perma 8v8 and Double Fame/Faction Weekend!
WOO HOO!!! Echo ftw 15:26, 27 March 2007 (CDT) YAY, THEY DID THE SMART THING, 8v8 ftw!!! although double fame is ftl.
 * No, 6v6 was much more fun and balanced. It was a lot harder to spike teams and pressure and skill was in favor with a 6v6 build, not to mention it was unique in that it was the only place for 6v6 combat. I hate how they are changing it back, I just started HA again after the change and loved it. I don't know why they keep changing it around... I want a 6v6 arena :-/ Stexe 00:29, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, but 6v6 is garbage. HA is a true alternative to GvG again! thank you Anet.--RAGEQueen 11:05, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * You'll eat your words in a couple of months unless they fix it (read: no kill-counts and balances). &mdash; Skuld 12:42, 29 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Dusts off IWAY* --74.208.16.5 14:36, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Sorry bout that, that was me with the IP. Forgot to login. --Mgrinshpon 14:37, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I see everyone is running old teams again. FoC / SF / Iway (!) and allmost every team is a spike team. --Nytemyre 20:37, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Exactly why 8v8 was horrible, it favored spike teams and boring non-skill based builds like SF and IWAY. 8v8 works for GvG because of the large terrain and multiple objective locations (Guild Lord and flag stand and catapults and others), but HA does not have anything like that (except for the later maps where you control locations). With 6v6 we saw actual diverse teams and interesting builds, oh well -- ANet is really messing up now with making Eye of the North (50 PvE skills?) and Guild Wars 2... *sigh* Stexe 21:46, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I actually agree with everything you said there. Not surprising really, GW is starting to fall to pieces...?

Note: main page still says 6v6. - Threll 13:24, 1 April 2007 (CDT)