Curse

Xanthar · Dec 24, 2006, 10:49 AM // 10:49

After some thought - I think people are making way too big a deal out of this change. Consider this:

There will still be rated matches outside the automated tournaments.

The normal ladder play will still be there. The only change to it is that the rating progression will be slower. This is not a big problem though, since the ladder will be persistent - All teams will, sooner or later, reach their "true rating" as relates to their strenght of play.

Of course - The children will get impatient when they can't "blitz" the ladder with some farming build, but... tough luck?

Now, the automated tournaments is a great change for the better. I envisage that there will be different tournament formats - Single elimination and Swiss in the beginning - And different rulesets as well. I might be wrong, but the possibility is there. This could potentially breed an increased interest in playing non-gimmicky builds, builds that are robust in the face of a changing environment.

There is a hurdle of participating in the ATs for many casual guilds, this much is true, but you don't need to participate in ATs to get better or to have fun in GvG. ATs are for serious guilds that can field eight players.

About "grinding the ATs". A reasonably good team would in all likelyhood not want to participate with anything less than their top team. The probablility of a loss against a low-ranked team would be very much increased, and the subsequent drop in rating would make the exercise unfavourable.

Which brings us to: Why did they make the rules they did? My uninformed guess is that it's because ANet presumably want a certain kind of guild to participate in the higher echelon tournaments (and the world championships) and they want more guilds to qualify to participate. The reasonable cause of action, then, is to make stricter demands on guilds that are vying for the higher positions on the charts, making sure that they fill the requirements for cash competition play.

Patrograd · Dec 24, 2006, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthar

ATs are for serious guilds that can field eight players.

.

And the serious guilds that can field 8 players, but not at peak hours?

Bankai · Dec 24, 2006, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

And the serious guilds that can field 8 players, but not at peak hours?

And you think Anet will only have tourneys at peak hours?

Gosu · Dec 24, 2006, 02:01 PM // 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

The 30 day period is only a lockout for the tournaments, and has always been in place in tournaments we've run (indeed, in some tournaments it's been longer than 30 days that you need to remain in a single guild for). It *does not* lock you out from ladder play. In this respect, it is no different from previous policy.

I will concede, however, that the lockout will now have a more immediate impact. Take the time to consider, though, that the new system will see the opportunity to access competitive tournament play vastly increased. Last year there were a few Fun Seasons of varying length that required dedication to a single guild if you wanted to participate. There were also the major tournaments, and these absolutely required at least a months dedication to a single guild ... while only allowing a limited number of the top guilds to eventually participate in the end-of-season tournaments.

Next year will see a system that allows players to play in a structured tournament on a daily basis - scheduling permitting, granted - and even with the 30 day lock I expect that player accessibility to GvG tournaments will be vastly improved.

For those who requested more details: I'm really sorry, but we're simply not ready to provide those yet. The nitty-gritty will need to be tested, changes may be made ... heck, at the detail level the entire system could conceivably go through several different versions before it gets launched. Your comments here may have an infuence on that, and with that I'll point out why I made my earlier post in this thread:

The design team implementing these changes will get far more out of well-thought, reasoned discussion than they will out of complaints based on assumptions made on limited information. We get much better information from you if you discuss how you would *like* (and not like) the system to work than we do out some of the posts seen in this thread.

We'll certainly pass on your concerns about the 30 days. It may be that the new system does not need a 30 day lockout. It may also be that once the system is in place you'll see why the decision was made.

What I'm really trying to get across here is that we value your constructive criticism. You don't need all the details to provide that ... Well thought constructive criticism can make all the assumptions it wants to, as long as those assumptions are not being used as an excuse to claim the system will fail. This new system is a response to your feedback about the tournament systems used last year. It's intended to address many concerns players raised, and improve tournament accessibility for all players. By giving you some information about it now, the team have given you the opportunity to be a part of the process of making this system as robust as possible when it goes out. Instead of complaining that 'ArenaNet are telling us when we can play' ... how about suggesting how the system of automated tournaments could be flexible enough that the assumed problem doesn't arise in the first place

.

I have been quietly watching peoples reaction to the whole situation and indeed I do think you are correct,alot of people are jumping the gun on this. I for one am content to wait until you divulge all the information until I make a well informed post in this thread on that subject matter.

But I put this to you Alex Weekes and I want this question answered.

Here is the question:

Why are A-net dedicating such a substantial amount of attention to HvH a format of PvP, which people aren't very concerned about. Yet you are ignoring Team Arenas a format of PvP that has a staple following of PvP players and has had many notable petitons of wanting improvement to it from the playerbase community since the very beta of GW itself.

Why are A-net ignoring these pleas from the community and supplementing us with things we didn't ask for or even want?

I find it very convenient you make statements you like to listen to the community yet why has the communities pleas on this subject matter fallen on deaf ears?

Please tell me why?

I would love to know

Patrograd · Dec 24, 2006, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

And you think Anet will only have tourneys at peak hours?

This seems to be the general assumption, that there will be one AT series per region per day during peak hours. From reading between the lines of various posts on here and elsewhere, the general view seems to be that:

The ladder will be permanently unlocked, but will be effectively meaningless as qualification for the serious stuff will be done through ATs, not ladder rank. Teams will play for typically 2 or 3 points a win, can run guests, no restrictions on length of membership. no skill restrictions, basically freeplay GvG, roughly equivalent to playing on a PUB server in Counter strike or halo

The real business will be in automated tournaments, which will take place at a fixed time every day, during peak hours for each region. Whether these will be Swiss or straight elimination is unclear. Whether these matches will affect ladder rank is unclear. It seems that the aim is to see which guilds have the best record in these ATs, and then hold a monthly tournament for these teams, with the teams with the best records in the monthly tournaments being invited to regular (say 6 monthly) World Championships. For all tournament matches guilds will need to field 8 members, all of whom have been members for 30 days + at the scheduled times, skills will probably be restricted so that only those skills which have been properly tested and balanced are useable (for example skills will be disabled for ATs which have either just been introduced or changed in any way for a certain period of time). These matches will probably take place on random maps.

How much of this is speculation on the part of people, and how much is real information, I dont know. How good this will be for the majority of players I dont know, although it is clearly good news for the elite guilds if it is true.

Bankai · Dec 24, 2006, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

This seems to be the general assumption, that there will be one AT series per region per day during peak hours.

Yes. Sadly, People are making way too many assumptions.

Deep Sea Diving · Dec 24, 2006, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

And you think Anet will only have tourneys at peak hours?

Obviously this might change (and probably will after the feedback we've provided) but as it stands right now speculation is that there will be 2 or 3 ATs a day (From the information provided on guildwars.com). Now how is it possible to only stage 2-3 ATs a day and have it be beneficial for all players? You can bet if there are only 2-3 a day they WILL be at peak hours. Now I’m sure that ArenaNet will change that in some way from adding extra ATs each day or put the ATs on a rotating weekly schedule. We'll have to wait and see I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

...although it is clearly good news for the elite guilds if it is true.

Maybe. You forgot that while most of these 'elite' guilds often play with at least 7 members, and are organized enough to plan gvgs, they have lives too (Well, some of them anyways) and oft have planned around their member's schedules. I don't know yet which guilds will adapt if indeed we're dealing with only 2-3 a day at specific hours.

Another thing that has been bothering me kind of goes with the issue of time. So let’s just say that there are 3 tournaments a day on a weekly rotating schedule. Let’s say guild [A], always in the top 16, can only play in 3 ATs a week. And now we get to guild [B], who has always been in the top 30, but never quite broken into tournament play, but who will now be playing with top 16 guilds in daily ATs. Guild [B], because of its players schedules, can play in 5 ATs a week. Because of this guild [B]'s rating is equal to/greater than guild [A]'s. (There would always be variables like how each guild did in a tourny with say 32 or 64 guilds).
Now obviously guild [A] would have gvg'ed more often([cow]'s supposed 200+ gvgs a ladder) or at an exceedingly high level ([eF]'s 59-0 Autumn ladder anyone?) while guild [B] didn’t' play either as often or obviously at a lower level.
The issue I'm trying to get at is how will changing from a free system where players can play when they want to and at their own pace, WHILE STILL BEING ABLE TO GAIN RATING AT THE SAME PACE AS EVERYONE ELSE NOW MATTER WHEN THEY PLAYED, to a system where high rating gain is dependent on when you play.

If you think that every of these 'elite' guilds will just be able to switch their schedule around at the blink of an eye your wrong.

Greedy Gus · Dec 24, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deep Sea Diving

Another thing that has been bothering me kind of goes with the issue of time. So let’s just say that there are 3 tournaments a day on a weekly rotating schedule. Let’s say guild [A], always in the top 16, can only play in 3 ATs a week. And now we get to guild [B], who has always been in the top 30, but never quite broken into tournament play, but who will now be playing with top 16 guilds in daily ATs. Guild [B], because of its players schedules, can play in 5 ATs a week. Because of this guild [B]'s rating is equal to/greater than guild [A]'s. (There would always be variables like how each guild did in a tourny with say 32 or 64 guilds).

You're still in the wrong mindset. With an unresetting ladder, it's not a race anymore. It doesn't matter how much more often someone plays, that just expediates their journey to their correct position on the ladder.

People don't seem to grasp this concept, because with only 1 month-long seasons, everyone was constantly racing to get as high as possible, because it wasn't long enough to reach their correct position. If you don't believe in this idea of a 'true' position you'll end up at, it's much of the whole base of the ELO system. If a particular team will beat War Machine maybe 5% of the time, beat some guild around rank 30 60% of the time, and a rank 80 guild 90% of their encounters, they will eventually fall in to a certain spot on the ladder regardless of how often they play.

This was what the ladder statistic PPG was supposed to show: how fast you're still racing toward the top, meaning how far away you are from your true(ish) rank/rating (which is shown when you reach PPG 0.0, no movement).

So in your example, at some point it doesn't really matter whether a rank 30 guild can play ATs more often than a rank 16 team, if those are their true ranks, then they don't beat & lose to the same teams at the same percentages, and eventually find their true spot.

The only cause for alarm now for the old rank 16 team is if that rank 30 team was just as good as them, they just weren't able to play enough to grind the rating fast enough to keep up. In that case, tough shit, now they're a contender as well, because ladder grind will be eliminated and true guild strength will be shown.

FoxBat · Dec 24, 2006, 06:41 PM // 18:41

I guess the only thing Alex could be trying to say that makes sense, is "I want to hear how you would implement this new system", not "I'm afraid GW will be destroyed based on X details we don't have yet." That is, *give him suggestions for how to do it*, not *fret over how it might be done*.

I think the community has gotten pretty used to feeling like they don't have much input, so they are stuck in the mindset of griping at the mercy of Anet's whims than thinking their suggestions will be heard.

So with that, I say just make sure you are rotating the tournament times so it eventually covers all 24 hours of the day over different days of different weeks. You'd probably need your website to list all the tourney times for a season then so guilds can plan.

Also I'm not sure on the details of the latter rating, but if it's going to be permanent, you guys should obviously have a cap on the # of games that count towards your rating. The last 100 or whatever. So that guilds who actually improve (or worsen) their playing ability can have their rating adjusted despite however many games they have played before.

ATs may (probably?) have some effect on ladder rating, but it can't be super significant because your rating doesn't reset. ATs therefore are not (shouldn't be) the "real factor" in your ladder rating, the best way to adjust your rating is still to freely GvG. The only significant thing an AT gets you is points towards invitation to the major tourney. The reduction in free play rating is simply because there are no ladder resets, so rating adjustment is naturally slower.

In the past season tournies have only ever mattered to those that have a realistic shot at the top 30. Meaning if you can't ever break 100, don't even think about it. Which means the other guilds are just playing for fun, faction, ladder rating. Which you can still do. ATs are not a replacement for regular GvG for most guilds: it's a more intense competition for those who think they have a shot at the top, everyone else can do free play or ATs depending upon where they have fun.

tacitus · Dec 24, 2006, 07:33 PM // 19:33

The idea sounds good but im concerned about the timings of the daily Tournaments. Guilds can generally find 6/7 members + guest at odd times of day and play gvg whenever this happens. Under the new system those guilds will need to have 8 members able to play at the set time to take part in what is now going to be the main way to change ur rating.

These set times must be thought out!! That is whats going to make or break this system before it starts, not everyone will be happy when those set times are but if those times are seriously bad its gg for gvgs.

If the rating change from the normal matches is restricted to 3 or something they wont be taken seriously which will ruin the game for guilds unable to take part in the ATs.

sorry for not being so hopeful about this but after the changes to HA i know that not every "improvement" has positive effect.

Phades · Dec 24, 2006, 08:17 PM // 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

here's the issue as I see it with running only a very limited number of tournaments per day, or at least running them at limited start times

There a whole raft of players who play what might be called "late" EU hours - EU guys with jobs and families like me and East Coast US students who play after school rather than in the evening - there are a whole group of guilds made up of mixed region teams like this who typically play sort of 9pm GMT-midnight GMT or later. These hours are later than Eu "Peak" times (say 6-9pm GMT) when most of the Euro guilds are on and presumably when the tournaments will be played. These non peak guilds exist for every time zone - I know of several West Coast US/Australian guilds for example.

So, you are worried about players who always start after the theoretical start time, but never stay on long enough for when the next tournament is schedualed. What, you arent worried about the people who start a tournament, but are unable to finish, because they have to wait for their opponents to finish playing as well? This of course, because people with lives are only limited to those who fall just outside of the start times of the tournaments.

If there are "special" qualifying tournaments, i am fairly positive there will be "fair warning" before they are held and most likely held on the week ends in order to accomodate as many people as possible. The normal every day tournaments sound just like a variation to the normal everyday play seen currently in gvg. It is just simply in a slightly different format adhering to a schedual and a different structure than the completely free formed play seen now. Depending on the impact the every day tournaments have, there could be a need to restrict a guild to 1 tournament per day or number of days, but thats just speculation without seeing the hard numbers of it.

tacitus · Dec 24, 2006, 08:33 PM // 20:33

I think the best way to describe my (and probably a lot of other peoples) concerns is in a little story.

This hypothetical story with made up characters centers around our hero called “Craig”

Craig is aged over 20 with a job he enjoys playing pvp with his guild, because of the changes made to HA a month or two ago he doesn't like play HA very often like many others (no more will be said on this issue I promise). So now most of the pvp time is spent on GvGs now Craig's guild is not top 100 but it does enjoy playing the game and having that sense of achievement when things go well and his guild gets a higher rank for it. Now at the present Craig's guild has other British people, some Dutch and others from different time zones say Canada and Romania for example. GvGs are normally played when 7/8 people are able which can be anytime of the night and maybe a guest is able to participate.

However our hero in this story is concerned about possible updates because of the following reasons. A new tournament system is going to be introduced that will be the main force of guilds achieving a good rank. Now he cant invite his friends from other guilds to join in these tournaments meaning his guild needs to increase in size to make sure there is enough people so the rest can play.

However Craig's main concern is he has a job and cant play at certain times. What if the tournaments are played at these times he cant play. If this happens the last avenue for serious pvp is removed from him. Craig then becomes dead weight to his guild he is of no use to them in GvG if he cant play at these Tournaments. Even if the times are ok for Craig what about the rest of the guild spanning time zones from Canada to Romania. Can this guild still exist and operate as it does now? Can there be a time that is ok for everyone here? Will this mean the end of well loved 8v8 pvp for this guild because of recent changes? While most importantly of all will Craig still be able to enjoy playing guildwars as he does now will everyone in his guild?

Isn't that a frightening story for you all to think about.

If the GvGs outside the ATs are giving minor changes they wont be taking seriously by teams meaning that some guilds which can only operate in them 1) don't get much rating compared to before and 2) face opposition that doesn't take the game as seriously as before in these games.

Guilds are important to this game and always have been. Some people jump about guilds every other week while others have stayed in the same guild for over a year and have enjoyed the game as it is. How will some of these long lasting guilds take these changes? No one knows at the minute this post just highlights some of my concerns about these changes.

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 24, 2006, 08:41 PM // 20:41

I would be very suprised if the automated tournaments are held at the same time every day. It just doesn't make any sense to do it that way.

Patccmoi · Dec 24, 2006, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Ok, here's a suggestion (i dunno how viable it is without your more info on your system, but anyway). How about having 3 types of GvG with different limitations :

1) Leave open GvG as you said, with low ELO, and DON'T LIMIT GUESTS. Let people play with whoever they want. This is basically 'test builds/PuG' GvG.

2) Implement continual 'Automated Tournaments' that could work like this:

You select 'Enter tournament'. You play a game against another team that is at 0-0 in the tournament. Your record is kept for this tournament and you will fight other teams that have the same record as you (1-0, 2-0, 2-1, etc.). Maybe there could be a search time limit where you play against another team that has similar record but not same (say 2-1 vs 2-0, i dunno). Note that the teams don't have to be in the 'same' tournament. Every guild playing this GvG type is in the 'same' tournament, and they get matched vs teams with the same record. After 4 games, you 'win' or 'lose' the tournament, and it could give small reward (move champion title to give 1 point when you win a tournament? i dunno. Or some small ingame reward). Your record for the tournament is active for 2 hours or 4 games once you 'enter' tournament. This means that if you go 0-1, you can't decide to restart unless you wait 2 hours OR finish your 4 games. There should be more significant ELO associated with this (it should likely grow more and more significant depending on the game # in the tournament. You should have the chance to win a lot of rating when playing 3-0 vs 3-0 for example, or lose a lot when playing 0-3 vs 0-3. I'm not too sure exactly how the ELO should work, but obviously it should favor teams winning more and getting harder games). ELO must be significant so that people don't just decide if they go 0-1 to resign the next 3 games (which would hurt their rating). Maybe for the matching in tournament there could be a rating range too (game searches for teams around your rating with same record first, etc.). Dunno, i don't have the statistics to know how many teams are playing at a given time, etc.

I'd allow 2 guests for this type of tournament.

3) Implement scheduled Automated Tournaments with requirement to get in, ingame rewards, etc. as you plan already. ELO would be even more significant and you get rewards so there's more incentive to play those. No guests allowed.

Advantage of this 3-way GvG?

You have type 1 for testing stuff, PuGing for fun, etc. You still gain small ELO and factions, etc. When you just have time for 1-2 GvGs you'd go there too.

You got type 2 for serious GvG NOT at ANet's scheduled time. Everyone can do mini tournaments continuously, facing teams that are likely pretty similar to them in strength. Trying to win 4 (could be 5-6 i dunno, as long as it's not too big. Lower number gives you easier matching too since there's likely more teams with similar rating) in a row against increasingly good teams with higher stakes every game can be really fun and it's more thrilling than just 'fun' GvG. When you're at 3-0 vs 3-0 you WANT to win this one to gain a good rating boost and maybe a small reward.

And you got type 3 for serious tournaments. Since the rewards are higher, people that can make it and have the time to invest will prefer running in these ones instead of the 'continuous' ones.

I dunno if that's too complicated to do, but i know i'd really like a GvG system like this ^^

Thomas.knbk · Dec 24, 2006, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

*post 91*

First of all, I appreciate the fact that you seem to listen and respond to our concerns.

The way I see it:
So far the ladder was regular play, and the tournaments were a lot more serious. The regular play didn't have a lockout, the serious play did. This all makes sense, as people couldn't buy their way into the tournament (buy a guild membership after the guild has qualified), and it more or less assured that the best players (the ones who actually brought the guild to its top 16/32 position) were present at the championships.

The way it's going to be, the tournaments are going to be the regular play. You still have the ability to play on the ladder, but, I quote: "the ELO rating on them will be greatly reduced." Effectively making them irrelevant. This is why I said that the tournaments were likely going to be the 'real' GvG. Thus, inplementing a lockdown on the tournament play has the same effect as implementing a lockdown on regular ladder play would've had in the past. I can understand that you require dedication to one guild if the stakes are as high as in the GWWC or the GWFC, but not in regular, dayly, and for a big part casual play.

Sincerely, a concerned player

Patrograd · Dec 24, 2006, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

This was what the ladder statistic PPG was supposed to show: how fast you're still racing toward the top, meaning how far away you are from your true(ish) rank/rating (which is shown when you reach PPG 0.0, no movement).

.

Anet has said already that the ladder rank/rating is *only* there in the new system for historical and statistical purposes. From this I think it is safe to conclude that ladder rank/rating is now meaningless in its competitive sense. The winners and losers will be decided therefore purely through tournament play

Quote:

The Guild Wars GvG ladder will be resetting for the final time on Jan 1, 2007 at 08:01 GMT (12:01 a.m. PST). As stated in the History of GvG article, this is the final reset for the ladder, which will now be maintained primarily for historical measurements. The ELO rating for free-play GvG games has been lowered to 5K (The ELO system is explained in Appendix B of Universal Tournament Rules). The ELO rating for automated tournaments, when they begin, will be higher.

Quote:

Tournament Ladder to Reset One Last Time
Yes, you read that correct. At the start of 2007, we will reset the tournament ladder, for the very last time. As previously discussed, the main purpose of the ladder and the ELO system was to provide mathematical strength measurements of competitors and their history.

While the ladder will still be around, and players can view the competitive history of each guild, the focus will shift to how well guilds do in individual tournaments as opposed to grinding the ladder.

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 24, 2006, 09:58 PM // 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas.knbk

The way it's going to be, the tournaments are going to be the regular play. You still have the ability to play on the ladder, but, I quote: "the ELO rating on them will be greatly reduced." Effectively making them irrelevant. This is why I said that the tournaments were likely going to be the 'real' GvG.

Why would scheduled tournaments be the 'real' GvG for most people? I suspect the majority of the ladder isn't going to want to make scheduled times like that - most of the low level players and a lot of the mid-level ones will probably continue playing the ladder as normal, with no change to their game.

The high level players might consider tournaments to be the meat of GvG, but they already had to stay in their guild for 4 weeks to qualify for the end-of-season playoffs. Nothing new to see there.

Thomas.knbk · Dec 24, 2006, 10:08 PM // 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Why would scheduled tournaments be the 'real' GvG for most people? I suspect the majority of the ladder isn't going to want to make scheduled times like that - most of the low level players and a lot of the mid-level ones will probably continue playing the ladder as normal, with no change to their game.

The high level players might consider tournaments to be the meat of GvG, but they already had to stay in their guild for 4 weeks to qualify for the end-of-season playoffs. Nothing new to see there.

While thinking over my last post I decided to wait and see how things work out. It actually has a lot of positive sides as well. The ladder play doesn't have much impact anymore, but this is probably not needed as you won't have one-month seasons anymore. The tournaments will be the big fish when it comes to rating, but you can still aquite it without tourneys.
Like I said, I'll wait and see.

Patrograd · Dec 24, 2006, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Why would scheduled tournaments be the 'real' GvG for most people? .

Most people want to play competitively, even if that competitiveness is for the most part an illusion. The new ladder will not be competitive play. Therefore, the "real" GvG, the matches where a guild really measures itself, will be tournaments, even if the majority of matches played are ladder games

Relambrien · Dec 24, 2006, 10:18 PM // 22:18

Well, this update will take away pretty much all of my guild's ability to GvG. We're top 200, as of now, and yet we have GvG'ed with 8 people from our guild maybe 3 times the whole season. With tournaments, we will hardly be able to play at all, and with the reduced ladder system, our motivation to play on the ladder will be pretty much nil. So we don't have the motivation to play on the ladder, and we don't have the people to play in tournaments, which means we can no longer GvG.

To everyone who's saying this won't affect ladder play at all, an extreme decrease in the importance of the ladder will make it so that my guild, at least, will no longer care to GvG on it. And since we won't be able to play in tourneys because of player restrictions, we won't GvG at all, unless our players can somehow find a time to all get on together, even if it's not the same time each night.