Curse

Billiard · Jan 03, 2008, 09:55 PM // 21:55

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 Q value was lowered to 5.

Andrew can you confirm this?

When the the ladder reset Jan 2007 the K value was lowered to 5 for general ladder play and has been that way ever since - I just confirmed that with some screenshots used in GvG reports we did back then.

When the ATs were introduced they brought the higher K values.

Ego · Jan 03, 2008, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Great news. 123

l Teh Mighty Warrior l · Jan 03, 2008, 10:29 PM // 22:29

90 days is too much, in fact the system is flawed in that if a guild really wants to, they can enter a match once every 90 days just to keep its spot on the ladder.

RotteN · Jan 03, 2008, 10:44 PM // 22:44

it will indeed only filter out guilds who actually disbanded/moved on/...

while i think putting in the hibernation feature is great, imo 90 days is too long.

Billiard · Jan 03, 2008, 11:02 PM // 23:02

Well Anet tends to be conservative in their changes and probably wants to see what this does before making it any tighter.

Andrew Patrick · Jan 03, 2008, 11:20 PM // 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

Well Anet tends to be conservative in their changes and probably wants to see what this does before making it any tighter.

Indeed. As usual, we will be monitoring this new feature and making any necessary adjustments. We would like to see it in practice before we consider adjustments, though so continued feedback and suggestions are most appreciated.

erk · Jan 03, 2008, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

When the the ladder reset Jan 2007 the K value was lowered to 5 for general ladder play and has been that way ever since - I just confirmed that with some screenshots used in GvG reports we did back then.

When the ATs were introduced they brought the higher K values.

That's fair enough then.

The only major issue I still have is that average guilds don't AT, by average I mean that 80% of guilds that are left when you discard the top and bottom 10%. There is no incentive for them to play, almost all the guilds around their own rating, with the exception of smurfs, forfeit, thus leaving only the top 4 or 5 guilds each round that actually play! The chances of loosing are higher than winning so you are better off not playing. The (Wins minus Losses) number is my favorite method of judging a guilds progress, not the ratings as they are poisoned with the minority group that actually win AT's. There are several guilds in the ladders top 100 that haven't even had 100 wins yet!

If I could extract the data easily I would put up my own ladder page sorted on (wins - losses) instead of rating.

Legendary Shiz · Jan 03, 2008, 11:46 PM // 23:46

90 Days is waaaaaaaaaaaay too long.

Waaaaaaaaaaaay too long. Should be like 30-35 days IMO. A guild not GvGing for a month seems pretty inactive to me.

Div · Jan 03, 2008, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Seems pretty good to me. This at least keeps their idea of a historical ladder, while getting rid of the inactive guilds and somewhat promoting new guilds to start up (and more active guilds in top 100 = more obs more matches). 90 days is about the typical length of a season, so it is reasonable. We'll have to see how it all works out. Maybe if it's too long, they can shorten it to 30-60 days or something.

Sinful Doom · Jan 04, 2008, 12:27 AM // 00:27

90 days is laughable at best, take this into consideration. PvE Jimmy buys a guild ranked in the top 20. The rating for such a guild currently falls between 1723 and 1450. PvE Jimmy has no intention of GvGing but would rather boast about the current ladder position of "his" guild. 90 days goes by and the guild takes on an N/A status so PvE Jimmy gathers a few friends and a couple heroes and play's a rated match. Naturally they loss their match and drop -2 or -3 rating but reappear on the ladder for another 90 days at which point in time this procedure continues.

To sum it up, all I can say is, I hope Anet didn’t invest a lot of time writing code for this "improvement".

Div · Jan 04, 2008, 01:04 AM // 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinful Doom

90 days is laughable at best, take this into consideration. PvE Jimmy buys a guild ranked in the top 20. The rating for such a guild currently falls between 1723 and 1450. PvE Jimmy has no intention of GvGing but would rather boast about the current ladder position of "his" guild. 90 days goes by and the guild takes on an N/A status so PvE Jimmy gathers a few friends and a couple heroes and play's a rated match. Naturally they loss their match and drop -2 or -3 rating but reappear on the ladder for another 90 days at which point in time this procedure continues.

To sum it up, all I can say is, I hope Anet didn’t invest a lot of time writing code for this "improvement".

Yeah, that's still going to be a problem, but at least completely dead guilds will no longer appear on the ladder. And I don't think there are enough cases of PvEr buying non-trimmed guilds for the ladder rank that this will be too big of an issue. If it is, Anet can simply change it so guilds need to play say, X games in the past Y days.

Sinful Doom · Jan 04, 2008, 01:49 AM // 01:49

The biggest thing I have hated about dead guilds is the rating lost to the system. I proposed a few months ago that the decay system should be incorporated where inactive guilds would lose rating and that rating would be distributed back into the system via placement in AT's. This would be a nice bonus to active guilds along with the Reward Points they receive for AT's. The inactive guilds over time would eventually return to a rating of 1,000 not to fall below that point due to the decay effect.

Relambrien · Jan 04, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

An excellent start, though I agree the time period should be lowered to 30 days or so. It's not a crippling effect at all, so you don't need to worry about making the system take effect too quickly.

Ekelon · Jan 04, 2008, 03:13 AM // 03:13

This is awesome. Changes aren't to harsh so some guilds who cannot play everyday are still fine. (rawr hasn't played for a good month, but the core is still all around, I can tell you that)

Now to make it complete, make hero battle matches follow the same elo rating rules as GvG's (So that hero battle matches can give +0's like in GvG). That would make this perfect. It would end the easy rating farmers for HB'ers who can play at 2 A.M. at night beating N/A individuals for an easy +2 rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinful Doom

90 days is laughable at best, take this into consideration. PvE Jimmy buys a guild ranked in the top 20. The rating for such a guild currently falls between 1723 and 1450. PvE Jimmy has no intention of GvGing but would rather boast about the current ladder position of "his" guild. 90 days goes by and the guild takes on an N/A status so PvE Jimmy gathers a few friends and a couple heroes and play's a rated match. Naturally they loss their match and drop -2 or -3 rating but reappear on the ladder for another 90 days at which point in time this procedure continues.

To sum it up, all I can say is, I hope Anet didn’t invest a lot of time writing code for this "improvement".

Hey but at least in a year or two the guild will be tanked way low. So eventually there will be an end :P

BlackEagle · Jan 04, 2008, 03:41 AM // 03:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekelon

This is awesome. Changes aren't to harsh so some guilds who cannot play everyday are still fine. (rawr hasn't played for a good month, but the core is still all around, I can tell you that)

The thing is, that's the exception as opposed to the rule; very few guilds who don't play for a month will still have all the core around and it literally just be that they haven't played in a while.

And with the system, it really doesn't make any difference. If it was 30 days and that meant [rawr] did lose their rank, if they are all still around, they just have to play again at any point and they're back where they would be.

That's the idea of the system, and because of that, there isn't really any penalty to a guild like that, because they still get it back whenever they play. But, if it is too long (like 90 days) it makes it very easy for guilds to just play a quick ladder match 4 times a year to keep it on the ladder, which defeats the whole purpose of it. That's why imo it should be a lot shorter, because tbh there aren't many guilds in the game who don't play for 30 days at a time if they're still active/exist.

deluxe · Jan 04, 2008, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Good start! I also think 30 or 60 days would be ok, but think of the vacation period, lots of guilds don't play in the summervacation for over a month, would look weird on the ladder.

rohara · Jan 04, 2008, 05:15 AM // 05:15

excellent! that should clean it up quite a bit. i'd like to see a 30 day limit as well.

Aragiel Cz · Jan 04, 2008, 07:19 AM // 07:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Patrick

Glad you like the change.

I like the change very much. But i´m not sure if 90days period is the right way.. I thing shorter should be fine.. let say 15-20 days. Otherwise everithing what inactive guild needs to do is take 4 henchmans.. lose one match (-4points) and then they will have their place for another 90 days... still on top..

Lodurr · Jan 04, 2008, 07:40 AM // 07:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aragiel Cz

I like the change very much. But i´m not sure if 90days period is the right way.. I thing shorter should be fine.. let say 15-20 days. Otherwise everithing what inactive guild needs to do is take 4 henchmans.. lose one match (-4points) and then they will have their place for another 90 days... still on top..

I agree, but keep in mind that the number of guilds people will "bump" pales in comparison to the number of guilds that've been dead and done for a long time.

I'm looking forward to seeing Friday's ladder. It's like we've been in the dark about the state of the ladder for a long time.

erk · Jan 04, 2008, 07:58 AM // 07:58

The change has been quite dramatic, not in the top 100 but further down the ladder. Here are some spot rating changes I noted down.

100th. 1,265 -> 1,250
200th. 1,180 -> 1,140
500th. 1,078 -> 1,048
1,000th. 1,037 -> 1,004

So there were a lot of idle guilds in the 200th. -> 1,000th. range.