Curse

Sneaky Mcsneaksneak · Jan 04, 2008, 09:01 AM // 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

Anet can simply change it so guilds need to play say, X games in the past Y days.

That is what it definately needs to be. 90 days may be the average length of a season but when a guild plays one match a season, that is not an active guild. If the guild had the ability to climb in the ladder, they can afford to do a match at least once every 30 days.

Elrodien · Jan 04, 2008, 10:02 AM // 10:02

This is a good change - it allows everyone who is still actively gvging to gauge more accurately how their guild is doing. Thanks Anet

Will this encourage less smurfing perhaps?

Zabe · Jan 04, 2008, 10:40 AM // 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Will this encourage less smurfing perhaps?

Umm, if you still have to wait for 30 mins for match, no.

Aragiel Cz · Jan 04, 2008, 11:13 AM // 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zabe

Umm, if you still have to wait for 30 mins for match, no.

Open your Eyes

well.. how this hibernation should decrease smurfing?
One of reasons why to create smurf is that top players are waiting long time for match.. In case that there are only active guilds in top 100 they will have opponent soon and there is no waste of time..
I´m sure this will not destroy smurfing.. but at least decrease the number of smurf.. Real reason for smurfing is that we want to play.. In case that my teammates are offline then i´m calling friends and starting my own group.. or guesting for friends guilds.. how easy..

Anyway 90 days is too long and the interval should be less. 15-20 days for GvG and HB is enought i thing.

Kaon · Jan 04, 2008, 12:15 PM // 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragiel Cz

Open your Eyes

well.. how this hibernation should decrease smurfing?
One of reasons why to create smurf is that top players are waiting long time for match.. In case that there are only active guilds in top 100 they will have opponent soon and there is no waste of time..
I´m sure this will not destroy smurfing.. but at least decrease the number of smurf.. Real reason for smurfing is that we want to play.. In case that my teammates are offline then i´m calling friends and starting my own group.. or guesting for friends guilds.. how easy..

Anyway 90 days is too long and the interval should be less. 15-20 days for GvG and HB is enought i thing.

Eh... No.

Matches are based upon rating, not upon rank, therefore this does not decrease the waiting times at all.

Zabe · Jan 04, 2008, 12:23 PM // 12:23

And even if they would be based for rank. This doesn't increase any kind of activity anywhere. Only the ladder will be more active, but the amount of GvG's wont change.

erk · Jan 04, 2008, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Eh... No.

Matches are based upon rating, not upon rank, therefore this does not decrease the waiting times at all.

It wouldn't surprise me for a minute if a whole lot of guilds get on and play a game over the next week to reclaim their rating, those are games that probably wouldn't have been played if the hibernation system hadn't been introduced.

17eIvIoN · Jan 04, 2008, 01:49 PM // 13:49

problem is how long are these guilds going to maintain there hibernated rank? ideffinately? i mean after 90 days they go N/A then what? do they remain with there current rating for how long? seems a very silly system a decay system still needs to be introduced, ie -1,2,3 or so rating per week that would eventually solve all problems.

Lorekeeper · Jan 04, 2008, 02:08 PM // 14:08

90 days does seem a little too long... its just a matter of defining what active means...

maybe there should be a shorter time period of necessary activity the higher up the ladder you go, which means in order to remain in the top 100 you must continue to earn that right by remaining competitively active. Have the time period at around 30 days (maybe even less).

Then between ranks 200-500 have the time period at maybe 30-45 days.

rank 500+ time period with 45+ days.

Or you could base the time restraints on rating...

1200+ rating has 14-30 days
1100+ has 30-45 days
1000+ has 45-60 days

Its all about encouraging active competition... the higher up the ladder you go the more competitive you ''should become'' or want to become so in interests of keeping the higher tiers as active as possible the time restraints on inactivity should be stronger which means that the system can make sure that the higher tiers are populated by the most active guilds.

Having stricter restraints will basically reward activity. But hibernation does not 'punish' inactivity... because an inactive guild with 1337 rating that gets dropped off the ladder due to inactivity just has to play 1 match in order to reclaim its position on the ladder.

Of course people have already said that this isnt fair... that all it takes is for inactive guilds to take part in 1 GvG every X days in order to maintain ladder rank. I think a tiered system of inactivity restraints will help prevent this from happening... especially at the higher tiers... and if you want... you can make the time period of inactivity as short as you like in order to force proper activity from guilds who care enough to maintain their ladder rank.

But in all honesty ladder rank matters so little... the benefits of ladder rank atm are obs mode status (let me know if theres others)... and for an inactive guild this shouldnt be a big concern anyway.

So its a mystery to me why people would care so much to play that odd GvG every 30/60/90 days just to prevent themselves from being hibernated off the ladder.

deluxe · Jan 04, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Yay, got bumped into top100 thanks to this :P

Frantic-Sheep · Jan 04, 2008, 04:28 PM // 16:28

Woot, this was the best solution, and still is! Thanks for putting that in!

Although I do agree with many that 90 is a bit long and would also be in favor for 30 - 60

Blame the Monks · Jan 04, 2008, 05:13 PM // 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

To the best of my knowledge there has not been a ladder reset since the introduction of AT's when the general ladder K value was lowered to 5.

Andrew can you confirm this?

I can confirm this. The Ladder reset Jan 1 2007 (or so) and cow shot up the ladder and sat in the top 5 for the next 5 months. After cow went inactive in May, its rating (~1350) or so kept it in the top 50 until it was bumped for being inactive.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3...ghtwinshi4.jpg

^ This screen shows cow earning 0-5 points per win in early Jan 2007. This was all before ATs became active.

Thom Bangalter · Jan 04, 2008, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Don't worry about Cow, Pretty sure devine and workher are going to play a match asap to get it back on the ladder.

Also, I don't understand why you don't knock a guild off the ladder after every monthly, as it seems to make more sense than 90 days.

Lord Natural · Jan 04, 2008, 06:23 PM // 18:23

90 days is way too long. A guild can still maintain or sell as many smurfs as they want with 90 days grace to play 1 whole match. Considering guilds "kicked" from the ladder are only in hibernation, there's no reason it has to be beyond 1 monthly imo.

Julia-Louis Dreyfus · Jan 04, 2008, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

are going to play a match asap to get it back on the ladder.

my thoughts on why it won't work, -2 rating every three months should keep it on a decent part of the ladder for awhile
this is better than nothing though, i'm just sure some guilds will play 1 match just to get back on the ladder then go back into hiding

Guillaume De Sonoma · Jan 04, 2008, 08:20 PM // 20:20

I feel like the time required should be lowered to 30 days.

Riotgear · Jan 04, 2008, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Drop it to 30 days. The game's too old and the playerbase is too thinned out to let problems fester for 3 months at a time.

Selket · Jan 04, 2008, 09:40 PM // 21:40

still shows us as rank 2 in game

obaby.

erk · Jan 06, 2008, 11:41 AM // 11:41

Only A.net could make a radical change to the GvG ladder, and promote a double fame HA weekend so nobody is GVGing.

red orc · Jan 06, 2008, 01:35 PM // 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

Only A.net could make a radical change to the GvG ladder, and promote a double fame HA weekend so nobody is GVGing.

Yes, that was realy... how should I say it ????
Well, at least they did a very positive thing. I didnt think they had it in them to make such a change.
Cause it may backfire now. You can see how much activitiy there is, and if GW is loosing many gvgers, you will see the ladder rating dropping........

The next thing they need to do is to offer some good pve droppings for playing (winning) gvg to get the pveers (finaly) to transform to pvp. something that will be better than the regular mindless farming they do all day long.