Curse

Malchior Devenholm · Oct 27, 2009, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

A ladder or something of the sort would be nice, the only problem would be how to do this with ladder ranking still carrying over when the team composition changes.

Simple sir, The teams would be pre-registered.

Take the 4-man team that you are willing to move into the Ladder, and register those accounts with that team via an NPC. Perhaps even assign the team a special name to distinguish the number of teams. The team could use the Guild Cape of the Team Leader who registered the group or a customized Ladder Cape using the current Cape Creation tools, which would only appear inside the actual Ladder Match.

You can only participate in ladder matches if all 4 members of the team are available (maybe allow for 1 non-registered sub). If 2 or more members are not part of the pre-registered team, then that group can not compete in ladder matches.

The above Ladder Registration would work very well if Ladder Matches were played on Sanctioned Sealed-Deck tournament rules, as it is done at PAX.

Kaon · Oct 27, 2009, 05:35 PM // 17:35

What you are saying then is that you basically make a seperate guild structure for sealed deck. But then what about teams that aren't registered. Do they play in a different team pool? Because in that case you can just make 2 pools of teams: rated play and unrated play. Just like in HB used to be.

Vazze · Oct 27, 2009, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codex Guru

But the way the matches seem to be set up as soon as you hit 5 you face a real organized team. I would guess that it's not random: the more wins you have the more of a chance you face teams with more wins like random arena. And I like it that way.

That would be great, however, as much as I know this has not been confirmed. Sadly, it is probably random.

The goal would be to give a sense of success to every participant no matter what level they are playing at AND sort them out according to their skills as they play. Both are equally important and can be done. But if the matchmaking system needs large masses of potential losers (95%) to select a few winners (1%) that is not realistic. Btw, I believe that was one reason why TA died.

Nice blog btw

Quote:

Originally Posted by deluxe

Why, I like playing at 9 am (the time it changes for me) so you can face the players who are making new builds.
And most players are shit at making builds without copying someone, so you can get 100 wins easy if you're any decent at building.

Good for you, too bad not everyone is so lucky. Yesterday I decided to stay up late , 2h before new deck: I failed with two coordinated R10+ and G7+ teams; an hour after new deck: one 8 and one 11 wins with three ... pve players!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apok Omen

Core Profs: 20 skills, 5 elites
Factions: 15 skills, 4 elites
NF: 10 skills, 3 elites

That's a good idea, it seems Faction and Nightfall professions need a bunch of terrible skills to be on par with core chars.

I wouldn't cut normal nightfall skill so much though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Each player should have his own personal rating and teams average should be used. Or something similar.

This has been implemented in other games, but it is a major-major upgrade, not going to happen.

urania · Oct 27, 2009, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

A ladder or something of the sort would be nice, the only problem would be how to do this with ladder ranking still carrying over when the team composition changes.

As for being beaten by us, we weren't really doing that well today, 2 people played roles they don't normally play and we had a leecher playing the necro, trust me, we lost more than enough matches.

What about having an individual rating that increases by X(..Y) when you win and decreases by X(..Y) when you lose and for matchmaking take the average rating of all 4 team members. I really wonder if there are enough teams for this to be even worth spending time on though as we faced a lot of teams several times within a short period.

NO.
No ladder.
No ranking, no rating (wtf?), no balancing, no nothing.
Shut up.
Stop.
ALL of you.
What you're asking for should've been done for TA. With TA gone, nothing needs to be done, esp since the arena was implemented with the sole purpose of never needing any attention and at the same time keeping the players going - and the daily skill pool changes are what achieves that (to a certain extent).

So, once again. STOP_IT.

oh and mitch, sorry, ure just bad at GW, thats why u werent doing well.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Oct 27, 2009, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

NO.
No ladder.
No ranking, no rating (wtf?), no balancing, no nothing.
Shut up.
Stop.
ALL of you.
What you're asking for should've been done for TA. With TA gone, nothing needs to be done, esp since the arena was implemented with the sole purpose of never needing any attention and at the same time keeping the players going - and the daily skill pool changes are what achieves that (to a certain extent).

So, once again. STOP_IT.

oh and mitch, sorry, ure just bad at GW, thats why u werent doing well.

Just because you were obsessed with TA doesn't mean CA isn't (at least potentially) better and deserving of 'attention'.

Pro-tip: Don't cast aura of faith right after you get cowarded.

Snow Bunny · Oct 27, 2009, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

NO.
No ladder.
No ranking, no rating (wtf?), no balancing, no nothing.
Shut up.
Stop.
ALL of you.
What you're asking for should've been done for TA. With TA gone, nothing needs to be done, esp since the arena was implemented with the sole purpose of never needing any attention and at the same time keeping the players going - and the daily skill pool changes are what achieves that (to a certain extent).

So, once again. STOP_IT.

oh and mitch, sorry, ure just bad at GW, thats why u werent doing well.

TA wasn't fun except for the half-dozen inbred euros that played it every day.

Also, Ebon Dust Aura.

Vazze · Oct 27, 2009, 09:53 PM // 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

What you're asking for should've been done for TA. With TA gone, nothing needs to be done,

So if TA died, let CA die the same death...? are you serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

esp since the arena was implemented with the sole purpose of never needing any attention and at the same time keeping the players going

Yeah well, it wouldn't be the first time they failed at something, not the last either.

urania · Oct 28, 2009, 12:46 AM // 00:46

ok, which part of this didnt u get.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

NO.
No ladder.
No ranking, no rating (wtf?), no balancing, no nothing.
Shut up.
Stop.
ALL of you.
What you're asking for should've been done for TA. With TA gone, nothing needs to be done, esp since the arena was implemented with the sole purpose of never needing any attention and at the same time keeping the players going - and the daily skill pool changes are what achieves that (to a certain extent).

So, once again. STOP_IT.

oh and mitch, sorry, ure just bad at GW, thats why u werent doing well.

Miatch, get over it, CA is an excuse that TA wasnt fixed and is thus not deserving sth TA was.
On a side note, beaten KMD twice today with the very 1st test game, not that bad. You werent in the team tho, unfortunately. But hey, least u stand a chance at beating me in CA. You didnt in TA. And im just stating facts here. You can easily say the same for me when it comes to gvg, maybe.

at bunny, im sorry we have played optimal builds with my regular mates to near perfection, can we ever redeem our sins, oh mighty one? (and no, we didnt play turret wail of doom spike like most of the ppl did before TA was wiped)
Not surprised ure embracing CA the way u are.

at vazze, yes, I AM serious. To create something to replace something else that is SUPPOSEDLY beyond all possibilities of being fixed just so you can fix things in that new creation that have actually pestered its predecessor is hardly logical or of any use. Not to mention downright sad and ridiculous.

So, once again, NO. Go whine somewhere else and eat what TA had to eat up for years after years.

To reinforce my point with the most stereotypical (and sadly, quite truthful) statement from a similar thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sierraa

No. Every profession has awful skills. Get over it. The game hasn't been balanced for 8v8, people cried about bad TA meta that never got balanced and consequently, it was removed.

Now GET OVER IT. Just cuz certain Miatch and certain Kaon and certain whoever play the arena now doesnt mean it should nor will get any more attention it was meant to receive. Zero.

Bobby2 · Oct 28, 2009, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

So, once again, NO. Go whine somewhere else and eat what TA had to eat up for years after years.

Ohhhh, I so know how you feel. The world just isn't fair. But some kids are simply more loved by their parents, and there's nothing to do but grit your teeth and ask for your allowance. Let go of the past and be at peace.

/Zen

Talania Vulcanclaw · Oct 28, 2009, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draikin

The ladder and ATs were what kept HB alive. The title, like the Z-Quest, only ruined the format even further since you didn't need to actually play the format to get them. While easier access to rewards can motivate people to play CA, the match manipulation problems in other PvP formats have shown that you need to be very careful with rewarding points for every win. There's also the fact that Anet allowed people to farm the Commander title with RR and that acts as a replacement for the codex title in the Hall of Monuments.

The Ladder and AT's worked hand in hand with the title to ruin the format too. AT's were full of tankers either Forfeiting the first match to lose a chunk of rating or tankers accessing matches against players with better rank positions and trying to bring it down a notch. Ladder meant tankers could drop their rank to play verses weaker players. So whats to stop players from tanking rating in CA if they added ATs and Ladder.

Also after a match in Hero Battles you was returned to the outpost whether you won or lost, however with Codex you continue until you lose, this means that rather than gaining one point per match which would encourage similiar problems to that of HB, you could gain points in an HA style where you are rewarded an increasing number of points per consecutive win. This would work out well for the high end Pvpers and Casual PvPers since the high end Pvpers would be earning the title at a faster rate than the casuals but the casuals will still be getting rewarded albeit at a slower rate.

PS Urania isn't it time for your shot?

lord of all tyria · Oct 28, 2009, 02:19 AM // 02:19

We all know TA could have been awesome with a ladder and ATs and some attention.

We all know you're mad TA got deleted.

You aren't saying anything new, useful or in anyway interesting. So shut the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO up.

urania · Oct 28, 2009, 09:58 AM // 09:58

and we all know GW isnt balanced for 4v4, especially not an arena that was designed with the sole purpose of not needing any attention whatsoever afterwards.
so, no U stfu.
at Talania, isnt it time for you TO GET shot?

Marxon Aurion · Oct 28, 2009, 10:17 AM // 10:17

You are definitely extremely mad.

Cantos · Oct 28, 2009, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

No.

See, ELO rankings can also fall. If you would get one point per match, you can easily farm hell of it even if you are terribad.

Besides, If i am bad and still play a lot I would not want to end up facing best teams repeatedly, and neither would they want to face me (i guess).

I'd rather have ELO rank than just matches won rank.

Yes.

Another good change would be to give people a point regardless of whether they win or lose the match. We need to stop obfuscating the point.

The problem with titles is they represent a time investment, not proficiency in a format, not ever. Well ok that's not really the problem. Grinding isnt evil. The real problem is people think grinding measures skill. It doesn't.

To measure skill you need to penalise losses and give rewards commensurate with a defeated opponent's skill level. I know the ELO system we have fails in many ways, but it is the only system that even tries to represent skill sensibly. The game needs to be clear that some achievements are skill based and others are time based.

Codex Guru · Oct 28, 2009, 03:48 PM // 15:48

Quote:

To create something to replace something else that is SUPPOSEDLY beyond all possibilities of being fixed just so you can fix things in that new creation that have actually pestered its predecessor is hardly logical or of any use. Not to mention downright sad and ridiculous.

I see where you're coming from, creating something totally brand new then fixing it because it has the same problems as the thing you trashed is rather dumb. But even you would agree that TA had a problem that is not enough players playing it. Codex is pretty new so maybe too early to tell but even in the worst times its got 2 districts and twenty people in it. You can say they're all dumb, stupid, noobs or w/e for embracing "dumb" format but fact is you need players to play. And no matter what changes anet made to TA, they either would have made it so badly or nobody would care except people already playing TA. So yes it was beyond all possibility of being fixed.

It's not true (for now) for CA because CA has as much players on at the worst times as TA had at the best times. So its worth tweaking (I wouldn't call it fixing) for now because there's actually people who care. But if it ever gets to the point where CA is abandoned and only Codex guilds play then I'll change my mind.

E Q U I N O X · Oct 28, 2009, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Same way GvG does it...guild based. Maybe something along the lines of you need 3 from the same guild and can guest a 4th.

I think the Codex Arena should be ranked for ladder purposes. But it should be in a guild type format. Like where you can invite people to a guild you should be able to invite people to an Arena Guild(Team). Just make it limited to 6 members, 2 back up players, and 4 core(So you can't have multiple teams running around farming rating). It'd make it more of a competitive arena, and give people something to push themselves for.

Vazze · Oct 28, 2009, 08:31 PM // 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

at vazze, yes, I AM serious. To create something to replace something else that is SUPPOSEDLY beyond all possibilities of being fixed just so you can fix things in that new creation that have actually pestered its predecessor is hardly logical or of any use. Not to mention downright sad and ridiculous.

Changing the matchmaking system or even the reward breakpoints would not have worked for TA. Bringing BACK people is a lot more difficult than keeping them there. As for AT/ladder/etc, it did not happen not because they wouldn't have helped TA, these changes are messing with the overall "game design" (whatever that is) so it is not going to happen in CA either. More ppl are asking for it because CA is (still) bigger than TA (was), that's all.

Suggesting a fire an forget automated system for profession balance.

Sum honor points for every professions in the arena for two weeks, then make changes for the next period automatically:
- Subtract 2 skills from No1 prof, subtract 1 skill from No2-3 prof deck. Add 2 skills for No9 prof, add 1 skill to No7-8 prof deck.
- Exceptions: monk class does not participate; lower limit is 15 skills.
- Number of elites = 1/5 of total skills.

X Cytherea X · Oct 28, 2009, 09:36 PM // 21:36

how about NOT counting elites separately, and just randomly select from all the profession's skills?

sometimes a prof might get NO elites, but at least there will be less EDA, IJAFW, etc.

btw: lol karla QQ XD

MMSDome · Oct 28, 2009, 09:46 PM // 21:46

I suggest they remove CA and replace it with something new

Here is my concept for a new arena:

What you do is every person chooses 3 heroes to fight along him. It is a 4v4 style but 1 human player and the 3 heroes he controls. The object to win is score 20 points first or have the higher score at the end of the time (which I think around 10 minutes would be sufficient. Methods for scoring points would including killing a member of the opposing party or through various moral shrines.

You cap different moral points all which give you 1 pip of moral except for the center shrine which gives 2. Some shrines have special benefits such as increasing attack speed, giving you health regeneration, or giving you extra health.

I think a game mode such as the one I suggest is a good idea because it allows players to control their heroes in a pvp aspect and learn to play as 4 people rather than as one.

This mode would also promote loads of creativity among its play base as the players try and create a party that works well together and also caters to the intelligence of AI.

Thoughts?

Malchior Devenholm · Oct 28, 2009, 10:23 PM // 22:23

ROFL, hero battle teleport anyone?

Cause that's just about exactly what you described