Curse

Kanyatta · Oct 07, 2007, 06:41 PM // 18:41

Is it just me with this gripe? Or does anyone agree with me?

The ladder never needed to be changed into this stagnant heap it is today. There was nothing wrong with the whole "seasonal ladder" idea, it kept the standings fresh, but now with the constant (i dont even know what to call this abomination) ladder, there are so many defunct/disbanded/inactive guilds on the ladder, it makes it so difficult to get on

I would be willing to venture a guess that 20% of the guilds on the ladder haven't GvG'd in 3 months at least, which makes it hard to get on the ladder anymore.

Greedy Gus · Oct 07, 2007, 07:20 PM // 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Is it just me with this gripe? Or does anyone agree with me?

The ladder never needed to be changed into this stagnant heap it is today.

I imagine based on your keen insight of the current ladder that you have a fairly solid understanding of all the pros & cons of the old ladder system?

Div · Oct 07, 2007, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Anyways, this ladder does have a stupid amount of inactive guilds, sold guilds, etc., but it's not like the previous ladder was good either.

The nonresetting ladder with the daily ATs were supposed to allow for faster skill balance, which never happened, so yeah...

Apok Omen · Oct 07, 2007, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Since when does ladder matter to any serious gvger?

Theli · Oct 07, 2007, 09:48 PM // 21:48

old ladder did matter, when tournaments were ladder based (top 16), with ladder resets..

aapo · Oct 07, 2007, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

Is it just me with this gripe? Or does anyone agree with me?

The ladder never needed to be changed into this stagnant heap it is today. There was nothing wrong with the whole "seasonal ladder" idea, it kept the standings fresh, but now with the constant (i dont even know what to call this abomination) ladder, there are so many defunct/disbanded/inactive guilds on the ladder, it makes it so difficult to get on

I would be willing to venture a guess that 20% of the guilds on the ladder haven't GvG'd in 3 months at least, which makes it hard to get on the ladder anymore.

- And that's why instead of trashing the whole thing there could be mechanic to remove inactive guilds from it. Something like this:

#1 when guild has not had GvG in 30 days, it has ladder position taken away, but not rating.
#2 if a guild plays ranked match after 30 days on inactivity, it is treated as rankless guild for matchmaking purposes.
#3 after some trial matches, the ladder position is restored.
#4 if guild has been inactive for 6 months, rating is removed too and the guild looks as if it never had GvG.

This kind of system is used on many ladder-based games when there's no ranking resets.

hyro yamaguchi · Oct 07, 2007, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Ladder is fine as it is, since no-one gives a damn about the position of some random guild on the ladder, good guilds will be known by the community through winning tournaments.

red orc · Oct 07, 2007, 11:06 PM // 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyro yamaguchi

Ladder is fine as it is, since no-one gives a damn about the position of some random guild on the ladder, good guilds will be known by the community through winning tournaments.

right, this takes care of the top 100 guilds.
There are 20,000 more guilds that needs to be thought about.
Inactive guilds sould be removed from ladder. They also should not be counted to define a guild position. Right now a guild can be ranked 8,000 but removing the inactive guilds they will be ranked 4000. To such a guild this is as important as position 10 Vs position 5 to a top guild.

Wasteland Squidget · Oct 07, 2007, 11:21 PM // 23:21

A simple solution would be preserving a guild's rating, while disabling their ladder rank after a month of inactivity. If they GvGed again, they'd immediately return to their old ladder rank, but inactive guilds wouldn't be taking up ladder spots.

The number of inactive guilds on the ladder has gotten pretty ridiculous. A simple system to deal with them would create more accurate rankings across the entire ladder, not just the top 100.

Yue · Oct 07, 2007, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Or people could just not suck at get better, which in turn kicks the inactive guilds down.

Warskull · Oct 08, 2007, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yue

Or people could just not suck at get better, which in turn kicks the inactive guilds down.

No, it doesn't. It is more or less who grinds out the most point at the moment. An inactive guild still has 1300-1400 point and that takes time to pass. Getting on the ladder is more about playing than playing well right now.

Blame the Monks · Oct 08, 2007, 12:07 AM // 00:07

There is at most a couple of hundred active guilds total. If they dropped the inactive guilds, who would they put on the ladder?

Wasteland Squidget · Oct 08, 2007, 12:09 AM // 00:09

More to the point, there's no reason guilds that don't exist should hold spots on the ladder. A guild that sucks and still plays deserves to be ranked higher than a guild that disbanded, and is only held together by someone's second account after they quit.

just rude · Oct 08, 2007, 12:26 AM // 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yue

Or people could just not suck at get better, which in turn kicks the inactive guilds down.

Oh Please, if your inactive for a time, lets say 2 months, you should be reset to N/A, 1000. The current AT system allows any team if good enough to jump right back to where they were.

Blame the Monks · Oct 08, 2007, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

More to the point, there's no reason guilds that don't exist should hold spots on the ladder. A guild that sucks and still plays deserves to be ranked higher than a guild that disbanded, and is only held together by someone's second account after they quit.

Marketing > fairness

Vaga · Oct 08, 2007, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Looking back the ladder probably should have never been changed because despite it's flaws it would work better than the daily tournament system that we have today.

Now that it has been changed though the ladder is meant to just represent a guilds true rating over time which it does do quite well although it does have various distortions.

It's worthless to them to put resources towards removing inactive guilds and it's not a huge deal.

Bankai · Oct 08, 2007, 06:54 AM // 06:54

There's one thing I don't understand. Why do ATs give Reward points, Qualifier points AND rating? The only reason to play Ladder games is for Champ points (which can also be gained from ATs), and balthazar faction. And practice.

Yue · Oct 08, 2007, 07:18 AM // 07:18

Champ points are pretty fun to farm.

Div · Oct 08, 2007, 08:06 AM // 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

There's one thing I don't understand. Why do ATs give Reward points, Qualifier points AND rating? The only reason to play Ladder games is for Champ points (which can also be gained from ATs), and balthazar faction. And practice.

There's one thing I don't understand. Why do dungeons give Gold, rare material AND rare items? The only reason to play in NM ascalon is for the...charr carvings? :O

AT's are supposed to be a more high risk thing for established guilds. Sure, they give RP and QP, but QP means nothing to a normal (PvE) guild, and the high rating loss can be more discouraging than the 3 RP they get from a win by forfeit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

There is at most a couple of hundred active guilds total. If they dropped the inactive guilds, who would they put on the ladder?

All the PvE guilds with 990 or worse rating? That way, the best way for a PvE guild to get on the ladder is to play one GvG and quit forever at 998 rating!

At least it'll get rid of all the whiners saying they get no seen benefits from GvGing.

Bankai · Oct 08, 2007, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

There's one thing I don't understand. Why do dungeons give Gold, rare material AND rare items? The only reason to play in NM ascalon is for the...charr carvings? :O

AT's are supposed to be a more high risk thing for established guilds. Sure, they give RP and QP, but QP means nothing to a normal (PvE) guild, and the high rating loss can be more discouraging than the 3 RP they get from a win by forfeit.

Though your analogy is horrible, I guess you're right with your last part.