Curse

Missing HB · Aug 29, 2011, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Hello everyone..

I do believe that it's quite hard to get champion points anymore today due to several factors :

- many guilds are smurfing on ladder .. so getting +3 +4 and then -10( more if AT) vs that kind of guild isn't really fun
- not many top100 guilds are playing ( you can press B to check the number of times a top100 faces a top100) .. to remind top100 is a bit lower than 1200 rating
- most of those guilds aren't caring of ladder and just come on AT's

I think lowering the rating requirement to 1100 or 1120 ( to be discussed) would be interesting because it would provide some other advantages :

- more guilds would play considering 1100 rating is quite common
- people might give a chance for GvG because 1100 rating is easier to get than 1200 ( check argument i gave about smurfing guilds...)

The only problem it could create is about the easy way of syncing it on very dead hours, but well i do believe that more guilds would play and that it would be harder then...

Waiting your comments

ErrantVenture · Aug 29, 2011, 05:27 PM // 17:27

The problem is that no one really cares about PvP titles at this point, so revamping them to make them more accessible is more than a little bit pointless.

Sankt Hallvard · Aug 29, 2011, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErrantVenture

The problem is that no one really cares about PvP titles at this point, so revamping them to make them more accessible is more than a little bit pointless.

No one "CARES" about titles, but I assure you a lot of people(read: most) do care a great deal. Lowering the champ range would most definitely work as a carrot type of incentive. The only question is will it stimulate mid-ladder play, attract new players and improve tactics and gameplay or will it be yet another farmable/syncable/abused thing?

So my vote is conditional, in the first scenario - YES, in case of the second scenario - NO.

*lemming* · Aug 29, 2011, 06:59 PM // 18:59

Did the glad point change really make more people play RA? All I've seen are more complaints about syncing.

Also, syncing champ points under the radar would be effortless again.

Reverend Dr · Aug 29, 2011, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Did the glad point change really make more people play RA? All I've seen are more complaints about syncing.

It brought in more people that care only about glad points and at the same time drove off a large contingent that simply enjoyed the arena as-is.

This could only bring rainbows and sunshine if brought into GvG.

Sankt Hallvard · Aug 29, 2011, 08:44 PM // 20:44

I'm not buying the RA analogy. Not saying it's wrong per se, but I doubt anyone has any statistical data to back up any claim stating that more or less people played RA after each or any of the glad pt changes. And weighing increased popularity against increased grief based on match manipulation.. who can even remotely try to judge that?

RA was popular before the change, and has remained popular after. Syncing existed before the change and it still exists. Previous korean district, international district.. syncing or not syncing? What impact did the removal of TA have? A safe assumption would be that RA syncing would increase by this fact alone.

Questions to consider: Did the introduction of titles benefit the game? In what way? Adjust for periods of rise and decline in the game's life cycle. Have the pvp titles worked as intended? (Assuming they were meant to entice people to play pvp or shift from pve to pvp?) What effect has the various changes to the titles had? What have the effects been from adding strongboxes to the arenas? The zaishen quests?

As a side note I'd just like to point out the "uniqueness" of the champion title. In every other pvp format you can progress reliably in the title track. If you gvg you need to rise to a pretty high level before you can even think about the attached title track. 1200 rating now translates to the top 50 guilds. Why is this title so different from the others? Do the top players need some extra motivation that the mid-ranked players don't? What exactly IS the point of the champion title anyway?

*lemming* · Aug 29, 2011, 08:50 PM // 20:50

I was only referring to the most recent adjustment.

superraptors · Aug 29, 2011, 10:06 PM // 22:06

short term fix, afraid it won't last more then a couple of months, its still going to be just as dead.

Spiritz · Aug 30, 2011, 09:23 AM // 09:23

This is from a person who doesnt pvp - me.
From a players view who doesnt pvp but does look on guru a lot - it seems regardless of what is done by anet things will never improve.
We see many posts on how bad certain areas of pvp have become , all the syncing etc and tbh hardly any posts on how gd pvp can be.
Now if you were in our boots you would understand all the nagative stuff builds up and instead of being tempted to do pvp we lose interest.

Instead of posting comments on how crap pvp is or how to fix it - why not come up with gd valid reasons players should do pvp.
Let players know what the bad sides are so they are warned but dont give it in such a way they think they are approaching a disaster and keep clear - make them interested , discuss builds.... etc etc.

kedde · Aug 30, 2011, 01:49 PM // 13:49

I'm seeing it bring more people in who are there for nothing but the 100 points it takes for the title to go in their HoM. It'll either be by syncing or for less terrible people using whatever overpowered build they can find. I'm looking at invoke spikes on Jade isle in particular, which is not only incredibly easy to play, but also mindnumbingly boring for everyone involved.

More opponents doesn't really matter if all the opponents either resign because they missed their sync or if all you get are boring allin matches with boring gameplay.

Missing HB · Aug 30, 2011, 04:23 PM // 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiritz

Instead of posting comments on how crap pvp is or how to fix it - why not come up with gd valid reasons players should do pvp.

Then i should be answered to why people are smurfing in GvG considering there is, according to people, no inactivity problem on high ranks and going off TV on purpose is something bad....

Fluffy Kittens · Aug 30, 2011, 06:09 PM // 18:09

That is actually true, yesterday we did 5 GvG battles and ALL 5 were against smurfs... top 20 guilds playin in 1000 rating guilds yay!

superraptors · Aug 31, 2011, 12:47 AM // 00:47

well yeh after the mat most people roll new guilds

floor · Aug 31, 2011, 12:42 PM // 12:42

There are a lot less smurf teams than people think. Its just that since GvG now only requires 2 members, a lot of "bad" guilds, just get 2 guildies then pug 6 top players to carry them and farm rating. I can see why this would be frustrating to play against, but at the same time, its not a smurf. Merely abuse of the guest system.

The problem is perpetuated by the fact that every player expects to win all the time nowadays, people who are realistically top 500 players or lower, now consider themselves top 50 even though they possess little to no experience at that level to back up their claims. (playing 5-10 games at top 100, does not make you a top 100 player. after 3-6 months and tens of matches ppl might take u srsly.) The fact is that most of the population massively overestimate their own abilities, thus refuse to play with players at their own level whom they consider "bad at the game", and would prefer to just get carried by top players because it makes them feel good about themself. As a result, bad guilds are full of guests (pugs/smurfs?), and bad guilds refuse to accept bad players intotheir teams (lead to the middle of the ladder disappearing) as they would simply prefer to get carried by ppl much better than themself. ppl only care about winning, not building teams and improving.

Also champ points have basically only been gained in any significant quantity on double GvG weekends for the last couple of years. Perhaps unfortunately though, anet decided to do the ladder reset 1 week before the last GvG weekend, so there actually werent any guilds with the required rating to participate. Probably by the next time gvg weekend comes around, there will be plenty of 1200+ guilds, and plenty of bought guilds full of HA players too, making for an active weekend, where if you no life and play a lot, gaining 100-150+ points is possible.

In terms of lowering the rating requirement to 1100? why would you bother, probably about 40% of all active gvg teams could get to champ range without much effort in just a few days, maybe a week or two. If the entire community could get champ points, what would be the point of them? They would become about as meaningful as balthazar faction. Ie - not at all. (owait they are already pointless

)

Fluffy Kittens · Aug 31, 2011, 01:33 PM // 13:33

Entire community can get the Hero points as well and any other points why would GvG be special???

Still Number One · Aug 31, 2011, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

It brought in more people that care only about glad points and at the same time drove off a large contingent that simply enjoyed the arena as-is.

This could only bring rainbows and sunshine if brought into GvG.

Pretty much this.

It is like I've said before in other threads, the thing GvG needs is more quality players, not more players in general. Getting more people to play the game just to farm titles does more to damage the game then it does to help the game. Getting more people to play the game because they actually enjoy the format and provide adequate competition and the ability to grow is what helps the game. Making a title easier to get brings in title farmers who severely hurt the game and make it a lot less enjoyable for the real players who play for more than fake numbers under their name.

jazilla · Aug 31, 2011, 03:12 PM // 15:12

Why do cheaters, smurfs, elitists, and bots need title changes?

Missing HB · Aug 31, 2011, 04:14 PM // 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazilla

Why do cheaters, smurfs, elitists, and bots need title changes?

Because most titles are hardly obtained anymore because of cheaters , smurfs and bots.

I will quote the experience i had with a japanese guild i guested in few days ago. We faced ONLY leavers upon 2 hours ( only 1 guild did try but they resigned after 1 min)... and we had +3 after those fights... then we faced a smurf ( it was ruoy sisrahtak... reverse it and you will find who it is) and we got -10... that's pretty hilarous to waste 3 hours and to end up with -7 rating with only a lose upon 12 matchs isn't it ?
( People can confirm i guess since all fights were on TV...)

floor · Aug 31, 2011, 04:17 PM // 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazilla

Why do cheaters, smurfs, elitists, and bots need title changes?

why do pve players feel its necessary to lump the majority of pvpers who are cool guys and playing fair, in with the 1% that dont. Nobody likes bots and cheaters.

Smurfs are just pug teams, nothing against the rules about them. Pugging is better than not playing at all. Since pugs lose a lot, ppl make new guilds rather than sack rating on their main guilds. If people didnt pug there would be hardly any opponents at all. Besides, most people lose to a guild, see 1 goldcape player on the other team and scream SMURF as an excuse for losing! even though they lost to 7 guildies + 1 decent guest, wheres the crime in that?

Also just as an interesting point, and has been said many times before:

there are elitists in pve too. (speed clear teams etc)
there are bots in pve too. (actually theres more bots in pve than pvp)
smurfs = pugs basically, so there are "smurfs" in pve too. (kind of at least)
there are cheaters in pve too.

what exactly was the purpose of ur post?

Reverend Dr · Aug 31, 2011, 10:34 PM // 22:34

I don't think you understand. If they had someone with a trim on their cape, then clearly they are all the starters for the same top 20 guild that are only playing to curbstomp new players, specifically me.