Curse

Shmanka · Oct 10, 2007, 04:28 PM // 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

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...

And that is the only problem with it.

Personally from my perspective I like this new ladder. Why? It notes how good guilds deserve to stay at the top with the rating that have. It sorta works in the way HA does, except you can lose fame. You are noted for your skills and names are remembered better then previously with ladder resets.

There are some flaws with this system, but they are not as problematic as before.

@OP: It may be a small step up from your perspective, yet it is still a step up.

erk · Oct 10, 2007, 11:16 PM // 23:16

The ladder does have problems, the AT's screwed it over like Anet intended, however, Anet seems to forget that most guilds don't play AT's, and have no intention doing so, but they still love their GvG and improving their ladder position gives them something to work towards, after all aren't titles/status/ego feeding the core of GW design in the first place?

If Anet are not prepared to do seasonal ladder resets to clear out the dead wood, then I propose that they introduce a rating attrition system, a bit like the one they use for alliance faction. eg. each of the top 1,000 guilds that make up the ladder loose one rating point every day.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Oct 10, 2007, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Shmanka will be forever remembered for his skill from when he was in GANK.

Quote:

On-Topic: I believe about 20% of the guilds in ladder are disbanded/sitting in high ranks/inactive. 40% is just filled with gimmickers who fail at gimmicks. 40% is filled with good players.

40% is filled with good players? Less than 5% is filled with good players..

Charlotte the Harlot · Oct 11, 2007, 06:01 AM // 06:01

With all the dead guilds on the ladder it seems like it may be hard for a new/low rating guild to find their place and could be discouraging to them. Aside from that and the lack of obs mode games its not a huge problem, but I do like that taking away a guilds rank until they play again idea.

Div · Oct 11, 2007, 07:56 AM // 07:56

It seems like most of the PvP community (and some few voices from the PvE community that I've talked to) like the idea of getting rid of a guild's rank after X days while preserving their rating if they decide to come back. This'll make obs mode more interesting and give some more encouragement to newer guilds. If you're reading this Andrew, try to share these ideas with the development team? This shouldn't be nearly as difficult to code (hopefully) compared to the rest of your projects...

adrifts · Oct 11, 2007, 05:35 PM // 17:35

i'm in favor of hiding a guild that hasn't battled in x days. i think 30 days would be fair.

Shmanka · Oct 11, 2007, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Shmanka will be forever remembered for his skill from when he was in GANK.

I was saying this for people like Chizu...
btw I wasn't the one who frenzied in VoD with SS and Empathy on me.

Legendary Shiz · Oct 11, 2007, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

It seems like most of the PvP community (and some few voices from the PvE community that I've talked to) like the idea of getting rid of a guild's rank after X days while preserving their rating if they decide to come back. This'll make obs mode more interesting and give some more encouragement to newer guilds. If you're reading this Andrew, try to share these ideas with the development team? This shouldn't be nearly as difficult to code (hopefully) compared to the rest of your projects...

I agree with this concept 100%

just rude · Oct 12, 2007, 01:09 AM // 01:09

rating is already irrelevant due to the point system, except for obs, Oo. Change the way the ladder displays the top teams, have it based on accumulated monthly points, change TP into categories that way a crazy active guild who never wins a match in the monthlies cant be top. Then the rating stays untouched and the ladder reflects the current top active guilds.

or just reset it.

ockhams · Oct 12, 2007, 01:59 AM // 01:59

not that i reply much, but when i log in and expect to see something interesting, the limit of "top guilds" who don't play is ridiculous. i love this game deeply. as i have slept with other games (who'd have thought w h o r e was a go-red-engine-word?) and found the alternatives lacking, i think that despite the fact that many talented players may be playing in the "top guilds" right now, it would still be refreshing to see some active guilds facing some of the other guilds in guild wars right now.
on these forums i was complaining that i continually saw the crap block-way meta in observer but a lot of the higher ranked guilds have run some deviants (yes, not variants, i meant to say what i meant), it is absolutely refreshing and encouraging to pick this game back up.
a big thank you to the players and a heads-up to the devs, the players will refresh the meta when prompted. i think the very fact that a possible skill update is on the horizon has jarred the stagnant bitches in the top guilds and "top smurfs" to vary their builds and uncovered some very effective builds lately. observer mode has been a joy to watch lately. the lower ranked guilds will copy this shit and the meta will reset again like it should from time to time. i think if anet ever decides to ignore gw1 altogether the game will absolutely die. don't let it happen, plz.
on a positive note, thank you for the pending update and plz don't let us down (in that you will think this is the final iteration of guild wars). keep the good stuff coming.
thanks,
a long time player...
ockhams
(plz extract what you can between the drinks and drugs, thanks)

Div · Oct 12, 2007, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by just rude

Change the way the ladder displays the top teams, have it based on accumulated monthly points

Doing a quick sorting of the ladder right now, the top four teams under your scheme would be RIP, one, DS, and isis. And DF wouldn't even be top 100. That's pretty fail.

Anet needs to just remove the rank of those who didn't play and the ladder will be much better without putting all the super bad guilds at the top.

Legendary Shiz · Oct 12, 2007, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

Doing a quick sorting of the ladder right now, the top four teams under your scheme would be RIP, one, DS, and isis. And DF wouldn't even be top 100. That's pretty fail.

Anet needs to just remove the rank of those who didn't play and the ladder will be much better without putting all the super bad guilds at the top.

Exactly, that still allows guilds to be given a chance to reactivate but if they don't they're not wasting somebody else's spot on the ladder.

just rude · Oct 12, 2007, 05:14 AM // 05:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

the ladder will be much better without putting all the super bad guilds at the top.

Exactly how can you do a quick sort of guilds who have won MP, and how are the guilds with MPs super bad.

Div · Oct 12, 2007, 06:09 AM // 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by just rude

Exactly how can you do a quick sort of guilds who have won MP, and how are the guilds with MPs super bad.

1. Go to guildwars.com
2. Click competitive
3. Click ladder (make sure it's the GvG ladder)
4. Click the little arrow thing next to QP.

I'll assume you don't play GvG at a high level, because if you do, you'll understand why those 4 guilds shouldn't be the top 4. Of course they're better than your average PvE/PvP/AB/FA/HA/RA/TA/GvG guild, but definitely not top 4 quality.

And I'm assuming what you mean by monthly points is QP, since there is no such thing as monthly points. DF is widely considered one of the top 3-5 (if not the top) guild in the world, so I don't know what you're smoking...

P.S. whoru? :O

IMMORTAlMITCH · Oct 12, 2007, 08:45 AM // 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

btw I wasn't the one who frenzied in VoD with SS and Empathy on me.

Hm?

A 'dead' guild keeping it's rank won't really make anyone remember anyone.

Ec]-[oMaN · Oct 12, 2007, 01:36 PM // 13:36

GW has already approached its historic age. FFS they added Hall of monuments to PVE, what does that say? Don't feed me this rubbish that if we were to remove the dormant guilds from the ladder that it would encourage more guilds to actually play... All that we would be left with is more shitty guilds on obs anyways. You'd figure anyone of a truly competitive nature would want to surpass the guilds currently on there.

Blame the Monks · Oct 12, 2007, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Looking back, I think the best system was 3 month ladders with a regional playoff followed by a 100k championship (like they did in the GWWC). The GWWC finals were awesome to watch (everyone, EVERYONE was hyped), and I really enjoyed playing in the regional playoffs (fighting against your local rivals is better than fighting some random euro team, imo).

The GWFC was ok, especially with the miniplayoffs, but the one month ladders felt too fast and too farmable, imo. Cramming 150-300 games into the month seemed at times more important than playing your best. As a semicasual gamer, I felt like I couldn't compete on a realistic level because I couldn't play 4+ hours a night every night.

Fun seasons were garbage because there was no meaningful final tournament. And they reset too quickly. The swiss and final playoff was good, but I kind of liked best of 3 single elimination. More pressure to win made it more fun, imo. Fixed maps also promotes build wars, almost as much as home court did. Random maps imo, and better tweaks to balance in between seasons. (3 day ladder freeze max). Fun seasons would be ok as promotional things tho, or regional, but not as a substitute for the 100k tournaments.

Not resetting the ladder and having meaningless ATs and equally meaningless monthly tournaments has been bad. No one cares, the ladder is stagnant, it promotes bad gameplay, and forfeits ruin it for casual players. I personally had a lot more fun in the real tournaments than in ATs.

In retrospect, Anet worried far too much about smurfing and pugging. Pugging should have be encouraged in any way possible. Anet also should have put more rewards in for excellence, including rewards for people in the 50-200 range on the ladder. ATs were a failure as best as I can see -- no one prefers ATs to the old system. The only positive thing about ATs was the reward system, but it was ruined by the horrid play and the fact that bot wars gave rewards too.

Probably the best system would be returning to 100k tournaments with 3 month ladders. Set champ points back at 1500 with tournament matches worth 5x champ points. Silver capes and such are a primary reward, as well as AT style rewards for winning regular ladder matches (50 points for winning top 20 vs 20, 25 points for top 50 vs 50, 10 points for top 100, 2 points for top 200 vs top 200 which could be spent on gvg exclusive skins, unlocks, and so on). Balance the game monthly based on the feedback from the current top 20 and ensign. Then promote the hell out of casual gvg, including pug gvg and tombs as a training grounds for serious pvp. Eliminate heros, eliminate the imba shit that promotes build wars and other unfun playstyles, and so on.

My $0.02.

I Angra I · Oct 12, 2007, 10:29 PM // 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

Probably the best system would be returning to 100k tournaments with 3 month ladders. Set champ points back at 1500 with tournament matches worth 5x champ points. Silver capes and such are a primary reward, as well as AT style rewards for winning regular ladder matches (50 points for winning top 20 vs 20, 25 points for top 50 vs 50, 10 points for top 100, 2 points for top 200 vs top 200 which could be spent on gvg exclusive skins, unlocks, and so on). Balance the game monthly based on the feedback from the current top 20 and ensign. Then promote the hell out of casual gvg, including pug gvg and tombs as a training grounds for serious pvp. Eliminate heros, eliminate the imba shit that promotes build wars and other unfun playstyles, and so on.

My $0.02.

QFT, though I'm sure there's a 0.0001% chance that they'll actually do it for GW1 unfortunately. Hopefully they'll have a good system for GW2 at least, rather than making it completely meaningless and unfun like the current one is.

Sinful Doom · Oct 18, 2007, 05:27 PM // 17:27

I looked down the GvG top 100 ladder today. I was kind of shocked at how many guilds on it were dead/inactive. Since Anet said the ladder would no longer reset I've always wanted to see rating effected like faction is in AB. Perhaps make it so a guild will loose a set amount of rating each week they are not active in AT's. The amount lost could be distributed back into AT's as rewards on placement in the AT's. The degeneration of rating overtime would eventually return a dead/inactive guild back to the original rating of 1,000 not to fall below that number.

It's just unfortunate, for me, to see that much rating dead on a ladder.

Frantic-Sheep · Oct 18, 2007, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Blame the Monks, sounds like utopia

I don't think they'll ever go back to that system. Would be awesome nice tho.

With the link posted somewhere earlier in this thread (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_...er_than_resets)
I say option 4 is the way to go. I remember ClanBase had/has that system too. Clanss could even put theirselves on 'non-active', and I think guilds got deleted after a year of inactivity (or something). Works well and I don't really see much drawbacks (except for maybe time/manpower invested).