Curse

Leohan · Jan 11, 2011, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Okay say they go ahead with changing how the Guild Ladder works, adding code to it, for periodical resets, will it be done correctly?
Will this turn into another Xunlai Tournament House. Changing things for website and game code together was to make it better, than in turn broke the architecture of the system. Of course if that happened Anet could turn around and retire the ladder because it can't be fixed. It would just be really cool to know how or in what way they want to do this.

I really don't want to see something else deleted from the game because things couldn't be done or fixed.

Anet: Regina Buenaobra’s Journal
New Xunlai Tournament House Information - 10 February 2010

Quote:

After much analysis and discussion, we’ve decided to permanently retire the Xunlai Tournament House.

Initially, we took down the Xunlai Tournament House due to recurring technical issues that caused incorrect Tournament Point distribution each month. We conducted an exhaustive investigation into the backend code that runs the Xunlai Tournament House to see what we could do to fix these issues. After careful evaluation, we concluded that it wasn’t possible to redeploy the Xunlai Tournament House at the level of quality that our players expect without completely rebuilding it from scratch. To do that, we’d have to take away vital resources from the Guild Wars 2 team. Given the circumstances, we decided it was more important to keep our focus on Guild Wars 2, and permanently retire the Xunlai Tournament House.

This was a tough call for us to make. We’ve greatly appreciated the community’s enthusiastic support for XTH. We know that this decision will disappoint some players, and we apologize for that, but ultimately we believe this was the right decision.

Xunlai Tournament House Retirement: Follow-Up – 17 February 2010

Quote:

We would like to address the question that some of you have about the distribution of the May 2009 XTH points, which were distributed on June 18. Technical issues occurred with the May 2009 points distribution, and not everyone received the accurate number of points and some did not receive points.

Like I posted on July 1st, the accurate distribution of points was directly linked to us being able to fix the Xunlai Tournament House. As we have made the decision to retire XTH because of the issues with the backend code, this also means that we cannot distribute those points.

Having said that, the Zaishen Order is currently looking into Kun Shao's bookkeeping, and they will assist in sorting out his records--meaning we will put an NPC in game that will give each Guild Wars account a fixed amount of points. Each account can pick up those points from the NPC one time only.

We will let you know once he has arrived on the servers.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:..._February_2010

fowlero · Jan 11, 2011, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leohan

Okay say they go ahead with changing how the Guild Ladder works, adding code to it, for periodical resets, will it be done correctly?
Will this turn into another Xunlai Tournament House. Changing things for website and game code together was to make it better, than in turn broke the architecture of the system. Of course if that happened Anet could turn around and retire the ladder because it can't be fixed. It would just be really cool to know how or in what way they want to do this.

I really don't want to see something else deleted from the game because things couldn't be done or fixed.

Anet: Regina Buenaobra’s Journal
New Xunlai Tournament House Information - 10 February 2010

Xunlai Tournament House Retirement: Follow-Up – 17 February 2010

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:..._February_2010

What are you on about? Ladder resets are an old thing not a new thing.

Corporeal Ghost · Jan 11, 2011, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Guess I should state the obligatory "I don't think a reset will change anything by itself" before I start derailing this.

I think to answer this question, you really need to look at what purpose the ladder serves. For the last several years, its only function has been to keep a record of wins and losses. Resetting a ladder can have uses, but if the ladder's only function is to serve as a record, what exactly is the point in resetting it?

If you have some new purpose for the ladder, make sure that a reset is in line with that functionality. If you're going to set up a qualifying ladder, for example, you really need to do a wipe at this point. It's worth mentioning, however, that a wipe really isn't necessary after each qualifying season. I really don't see why the top 16 (or whatever) guilds need to put dozens of games just to reach the spots they've already earned every couple of months. But you need to wipe all the chaff off the ladder, then encourage activity in order for this style of plan to work.

I have no idea what plans ANet has for the functionality of the ladder, but the reset contingency needs to line up with that functionality.

That out of the way, I'd like to address the "damage" caused by the ladder and the aversion to ladder-based qualifying seasons. There is an increasing (per capita) amount of prejudice against a lot of the things that ANet implemented rather poorly. I feel like a lot of fingers get pointed at sound concepts when other things are at fault. Power creep is the biggest example. I think qualifying ladder seasons fall into this camp as well. There are working models of both (as well as other things that the community at large feels are inherent negatives). The power creep issue is actually a mask for bad skill design.

I'm not sure exactly what set of variables would fix a qualifying ladder, there is definitely enough power within the tweakable variables to get a healthy competitive ladder without catering exclusively to people who make the game a full-time job. For example, a K-value increase decreases the amount of games needed to reach rating equilibrium, which is where a lot of the complaints are rooted. You can also do something like implement diminishing returns after some number of games per unit time--say, 5 per day.

Still Number One · Jan 12, 2011, 12:23 AM // 00:23

Ladder resets alone won't accomplish anything. They are a good idea and something that needs to happen, but it is not the only thing, and alone all they do is limit the supply of champ range guilds for bad players to buy and farm champ points on (Which I'm all for so I voted yes!).

But this could be a great thing if you actually changed the way AT's worked. I think a ladder reset should happen every three months and there should be multiple tiers every time there is a monthly. Something similar to the way the Guru tourney and the Rawr Cup were organized. Guilds in the top 75 will place in the top tournament, Guilds from 76 to 300 in the next level tournament, guilds ranking from 301-500 in the third tournament, 501-1000 in fourth, and have a fifth and final tournament for everyone outside of the top 1000. The numbers are obviously just something I threw out there and anyone can add input on what they should be, but I think the idea overall would promote more people to play GvG, at least in the long run. Sadly, I'd be surprised if there would even be 1000 guilds playing within the first month.

I am not oblivious to the fact that some guilds will abuse this, which is why the rewards should reflect the tiers. No trim should be given out unless you are in the top tier, and the rewards (RP's or whatever you want to give out) should be the highest for the top tier and decrease with every tier. It would hopefully encourage most guilds to actually play the ladder and end up in the tourny their skill level dictates, but I know there are guilds out there that will cheat the system and get into lower brackets then they should be. A way to avoid this happening too, could be if they win or place top 8 or something, in one tier they are automatically qualified for the next tier up next month preventing them from doing it twice in a row.

I think that change coupled with the ladder resetting every 3 months could spark some life into the GvG scene.

bottlew · Jan 12, 2011, 12:45 AM // 00:45

just make guilds inactive after 2 weeks of not playing N/A, I'm not exactly sure how removing rating is going to help at all if there are no rewards for reaching the top besides monthly automated tournaments having rank be irrelavent. I also think it's too late in the game to do ladder resets, but removing dead guilds from the ladder would be good. At the moment having or retaining rank 1 has no value to it, so there must be something you are not telling us.

hitsuji182 · Jan 12, 2011, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Make champ points easy to achieve (as they are worthless anyway) and you will get more people involved to GvG.

diabiosx · Jan 12, 2011, 04:09 AM // 04:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

I'm not sure exactly what set of variables would fix a qualifying ladder, there is definitely enough power within the tweakable variables to get a healthy competitive ladder without catering exclusively to people who make the game a full-time job. For example, a K-value increase decreases the amount of games needed to reach rating equilibrium, which is where a lot of the complaints are rooted. You can also do something like implement diminishing returns after some number of games per unit time--say, 5 per day.

I dont think there should be a qualifying ladder because it limits who can enter tournaments as you said, tournaments should be open to every1, no matter how u try to set values to a qualifying ladder, you are either serving the full timers or the experienced(who had the advantage of full timing when there are actual competitive ladder play. And now they can stop playing because no one has played ladder so they dont need to worry about beginners getting better). I believe a grinding ladder is the way to go. A ladder isnt meant to be competitive in the sense of how good a certain guild is, a tournament is supposed to tell people how good a guild is. Ladder rewards the grinders and tournaments rewards the talents. A grinding ladder leads to people playing to want to reach #1(epeen). People playing leads to competition. More competition is always healthy for the competitive nature of this game. I rather have a ladder that make the beginners think they have a chance of reaching top just by playing 24/7(like grinding a XP bar without worrying of xp death penalty) and eventually getting good than one where there is no one playing in.

There really is no competition in GvG because basically not enough people are playing ladder.(look at last month's mAT, cake who supposed filled some of their lineup with some HAers that dont gvg much won against guilds that always placed good in tourneys)
or even worse you see guilds that only play for enough QPs and place really well on mATs, I honestly think there is something wrong when a guild that dont play much gvg can place so well. This is almost like having a olympian who havent been training getting a medal.

Motoko · Jan 12, 2011, 04:21 AM // 04:21

What Lemming said.

Also there should be an incentive to be at the top 16-20 of the ladder. The number itself is useless, everyone knows that. Give the number value. Ectos... Zkeys... Rare mini pets (I'd go with this one as they are more of a hassle for gold sellers to convert to real cash).

I'm sure there are more ideas for that setup out there.

*Edit: Character slots/costumes/storage panels/extra accounts all work as well.

Apok · Jan 12, 2011, 07:03 AM // 07:03

Both the reset AND increased incentives are great ideas, even if nothing changes. The ladder being frozen made top guilds less hesitant to try out new builds and it's not like the stuff the lord dropped during the holidays had a negative impact (it actually made people feel a teensy bit better about winning a GvG match)

Nothing bad ever came out of ladder resets, and I was pretty baffled when they announced it wasn't going to happen anymore. Also, making it once every month is what most prefer, at least that's what I'm hearing.

About the added incentives for staying at top 20, I doubt Anet will doing anything other than MAYBE increased champ points and RP's. Maybe.

Lord Mip · Jan 12, 2011, 11:14 AM // 11:14

Considering the Champion rank has already kind of lost its status, would it maybe an idea to award Champion points at a low rank of GvG and increase the points gained the higher your rank is? The title would obviously have to be reworked, like the Gladiator title was reworked with the change in how points were distributed. I believe something like this would make GvG interesting for the HoM grinders who want their PvP title, and should make the middle-class GvG group a bit larger, while still allowing the top guilds to distinguish themselves by gaining more C-points than the worse guilds.

infi · Jan 12, 2011, 01:13 PM // 13:13

offtopic

i wonder why are you people trying to get everlasting PvErs and grinders into GvG. Imo it is pointless.

95% of PvErs here are casuals. They don't want to get better they want to get some fast and easy fun so this people don't need a classical GvG but any light version of guild battles.

As for grinders, they never really want to get better too. All they usualy do tries to abuse or cheat.

In this case we won't get any middle or high end players after some time.

Lord Mip · Jan 12, 2011, 01:53 PM // 13:53

That is a narrow-minded way of looking at PvE'ers. There are plenty of people who are willing to improve their play, but they're usually deterred by the verbal abuse that's shown in PvP. The first idea PvE'ers get from PvP is RA and HA, where the worst type of players abuse and flame each other on a regular basis. That keeps them away from the side of the PvP community that is pleasant to play with.

Remember that back in the old days of Prophecies, pretty much everybody was a PvE'er until reaching the Tomb of the Primeval Kings. That's usually where the PvP incentive started, along with the arenas in Ascalon, Yak's Bend, Lion's Arch, Amnoon Oasis and Droknar's Forge. I remember doing matches in the Lion's Arch arena on my PvE Necromancer and getting to TotPK for the first time. Back then, PvP was glorious, interesting, and it was something many PvE'ers wanted to get into. Both the game and the community are lacking to create that air around PvP right now in my opinion. It is short-sighed to think our current way of PvP can survive without somehow giving the PvE side a reason to partake in it.

KPEATOP · Jan 14, 2011, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Of all the things said i like those two most:

1. There is no "middle class" in the game. We have either top players with hudge EGO and crap players that dream of CHAMP points. If you think of this as a rule it has it`s exceptions

.
2. RARE, UNIQUE PRIZES FOR TOP PLAYERS/GUILDS. The only thing that will bring back leet guilds to this game are UNIQUE PRIZES.

And ........ the more i play GW1, the more i feel that i`m being used as a BETA TESTER for GW2. Random ideas fall upon us and they observe how we are all going to react. Anyone else feels like .....

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Killed u man · Jan 14, 2011, 02:23 PM // 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPEATOP

Of all the things said i like those two most:

1. There is no "middle class" in the game. We have either top players with hudge EGO and crap players that dream of CHAMP points. If you think of this as a rule it has it`s exceptions

.
2. RARE, UNIQUE PRIZES FOR TOP PLAYERS/GUILDS. The only thing that will bring back leet guilds to this game are UNIQUE PRIZES.

And ........ the more i play GW1, the more i feel that i`m being used as a BETA TESTER for GW2. Random ideas fall upon us and they observe how we are all going to react. Anyone else feels like .....

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Definatly true about the ginea pig thing, but that's a good thing for 2 reasons:

-Any change is good change after 4 years of no change

-If they do it right here, they'll do it right in GW2. If they do it wrong here, they know they need to change it.

Coast · Jan 14, 2011, 07:02 PM // 19:02

Pretty late to put in ladder reset again.
Should been like that forever, with less tournaments.
Like 2 tournaments a year were way better and gold cape actually was an achievement compared with now.
It's as common like bronze capes back in the day (pretty much).
Tbh champpoint earning should been kept 1500+guilds only imo.

nivelis · Jan 14, 2011, 09:10 PM // 21:10

ladder reset only if you plan some changes to gvg/rewards/champion title - the problem is ppl are loosing interest in gvg not the ladder!

Btw - you promised long time ago changes in Heroes Ascent -.-

PvP really needs your attention or this game will die after players will reach 50/50 in HoM

tealspikes · Jan 15, 2011, 04:53 AM // 04:53

I'd rather they deduct a percentage of rating after each monthly, similar to how alliance faction works. It would take longer, but inactives will eventually fade from the ladder and the current top guilds would not instantly lose all their hard earned rating. This would also work in reverse for those below 1000 rating, giving them a monthly boost.

Many PvE reputation titles allow you to farm up to a certain point, but then you must play in HM in order to progress further. To encourage folks, eliminate the rating requirement to earn champ points up to rank 3 (what's required for HoM), but then a rating or rank requirement (gvg hard mode!) or perhaps even placement in tournaments to progress any further.

superraptors · Jan 15, 2011, 01:44 PM // 13:44

leave it as it is, been like this for 2+ years

reason why people still gvg is for the trims and rp's, if there were no trims or rp's gvg would be 99% dead, that says something about the motivation to gvg, looks like majority of the people dont find it fun when theres no reward.

if anything add a rating decay system, might get people motivated to keep there guilds in champ range

also make the HA zquest and GVG zquest happen more regularly, 1 a week doesnt cut it, theres only like 100 people in HA on non-quest day and half of them are in id1 and the restarts are rediculous. GVG is even worse...

Bright Star Shine · Jan 15, 2011, 02:59 PM // 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by infi

offtopic

i wonder why are you people trying to get everlasting PvErs and grinders into GvG. Imo it is pointless.

95% of PvErs here are casuals. They don't want to get better they want to get some fast and easy fun so this people don't need a classical GvG but any light version of guild battles.

As for grinders, they never really want to get better too. All they usualy do tries to abuse or cheat.

In this case we won't get any middle or high end players after some time.

Sorry that I have to continue this off-topic, but from what I've seen on here, many of you high-end PvP'ers are actually interested in pulling new people in (which I like, my view of high-end PvP'ers has changed lately), it's people like this guy here that keeps them out.

As for the 5% grinders you're flaming at, I don't know a lot of people in my guild that are as you describe them, and to the not wanting to get better part, you could not have been more wrong.

People like you caused the downfall of PvP (partly) and I hope you're proud of it.

Sorry for this, continue on, because I personally have no affairs in a ladder reset, since I don't GvG.

urania · Jan 15, 2011, 05:11 PM // 17:11

the fact Anet thinks players still care about ladder says more than enough Anet themselves.