Curse

I D E L E T E D I · Dec 17, 2007, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Change the Guesting System, so that you cant guest for a guild whose rating is below your current guild, or something along the lines of you can only guest for guilds who have a max of -50rating from your guild.
Yeah it will piss of alot of top guilds off but it would kill the smurfs which is the main reason we are not getting any fresh blood into GvG(including my guild, sucks to get rolled without knowing what the hell is going on)

erk · Dec 17, 2007, 01:53 AM // 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by I D E L E T E D I

Change the Guesting System, so that you cant guest for a guild whose rating is below your current guild, or something along the lines of you can only guest for guilds who have a max of -50rating from your guild.
Yeah it will piss of alot of top guilds off but it would kill the smurfs which is the main reason we are not getting any fresh blood into GvG(including my guild, sucks to get rolled without knowing what the hell is going on)

This is covered in the smurfing thread, but I would still like to repeat one point with a different example. Lets give each player the rating of their highest guild for argument sake. If at a given time there are 5 rating 1200 players looking for a game, and 20 rating 1,000 looking for a game, why does it matter how they are distributed? Should the 5 x rating 1,200 players not play at all because there are not 8 of them available in the same guild at that time? If so that means less games for all the exact opposite of what this thread is trying to achieve.

If you really want to see GvG die, just bring in a system where players can't play in guilds that are way off their normal rating.

I D E L E T E D I · Dec 17, 2007, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

This is covered in the smurfing thread, but I would still like to repeat one point with a different example. Lets give each player the rating of their highest guild for argument sake. If at a given time there are 5 rating 1200 players looking for a game, and 20 rating 1,000 looking for a game, why does it matter how they are distributed? Should the 5 x rating 1,200 players not play at all because there are not 8 of them available in the same guild at that time? If so that means less games for all the exact opposite of what this thread is trying to achieve.

If you really want to see GvG die, just bring in a system where players can't play in guilds that are way off their normal rating.

No the higher ranked players still can guest lower ranked players ( or players in a certain rank/rating range). But lower ranked players/guilds cant guest high ranked players.

erk · Dec 17, 2007, 02:31 AM // 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by I D E L E T E D I

No the higher ranked players still can guest lower ranked players ( or players in a certain rank/rating range). But lower ranked players/guilds cant guest high ranked players.

Will the higher raiting players guest lower rating players or will they just go out to a movie instead?

Ec]-[oMaN · Dec 17, 2007, 04:01 AM // 04:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

Will the higher raiting players guest lower rating players or will they just go out to a movie instead?

They will just guest the same person on a different account, pretty sure majority of the top200 all have seconds.

Doji · Dec 17, 2007, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by I D E L E T E D I

No the higher ranked players still can guest lower ranked players ( or players in a certain rank/rating range). But lower ranked players/guilds cant guest high ranked players.

Thats a horrible idea. Guild wars has a lurning curve. Higher ranked players guesting for the lower ranked ones is one of a few ways to try and help out the lower ranked guilds. Assuming that all high end players guesting are just smurfs of some sort is a false assumption.

FoxBat · Dec 17, 2007, 04:47 AM // 04:47

I thought of an easy-to-program solution. (lazy = likely to happen = good)

Why not just (significantly) raise ladder game K-value and lower AT K-value.

This would restore some meaning to rating, something that mid-range guilds chase after. Weak guilds would also have less chance of being matched to a similarly-rated mid guild that was just knocked down in ATs. Yet the QP system is still around so top guilds don't return to grind-a-thon qualifiers.

It's been said a zillion times but unranking inactive guilds would obviously help with this...

erk · Dec 17, 2007, 04:59 AM // 04:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

I thought of an easy-to-program solution. (lazy = likely to happen = good)

Why not just (significantly) raise ladder game K-value and lower AT K-value.

This would restore some meaning to rating, something that mid-range guilds chase after. Weak guilds would also have less chance of being matched to a similarly-rated mid guild that was just knocked down in ATs. Yet the QP system is still around so top guilds don't return to grind-a-thon qualifiers.

It's been said a zillion times but unranking inactive guilds would obviously help with this...

I would like the AT's and the ladder share the same k value, say 10, but I doubt if that's going to happen. A.net reduced the k value of the ladder to try and kill it and make everyone AT instead. I think the goofed.

FoxBat · Dec 17, 2007, 06:03 AM // 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

I would like the AT's and the ladder share the same k value, say 10, but I doubt if that's going to happen.

If it were say 8 vs 16, that would be good enough really.

17eIvIoN · Dec 17, 2007, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Radical idea, why not, RESET the ladder, it would eliminate all the inactive guilds which is the main problem, Ok, so everyone would take a bit of a rolling from ex-top100-500 guilds while they try to put a push up the ladder but it would be interesting to restart everyone!

Very unlikely since Anet won;t want to show how many unactive guilds there actually are

~ Dan ~ · Dec 17, 2007, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by 17eIvIoN

Very unlikely since Anet won;t want to show how many unactive guilds there actually are

Well they did say they were considering it a while ago.
.. But that was a while ago and still no reset

Billiard · Dec 17, 2007, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Well one thing that was discussed long ago, and that the RAWR Cup actually used, was a tiered system for tournaments. I would think that ANet is probably considering something like that to encourage lower tier teams to compete. The problem is how to prevent sandbagging and such of the lower tier prizes are any good.

Zabe · Dec 17, 2007, 05:17 PM // 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

Well one thing that was discussed long ago, and that the RAWR Cup actually used, was a tiered system for tournaments. I would think that ANet is probably considering something like that to encourage lower tier teams to compete. The problem is how to prevent sandbagging and such of the lower tier prizes are any good.

That one combined with a bit of the rawrcup rules. 6 or 7 members from guild who has been the guilds member for say 3 or 7 days. The 14 day rule is kinda dumb for lower ranked or mid tier guilds, to high end guilds its not so big problem. The 6 or 7 member thing would still allow you guest people if you need, BUT! that would also prevent alot of the real smurfs from playing the low tier tournaments to just get easy prizes, so the lower end of ladder or PvP players, as you want it to be said, would be competitive. Ofcourse, you can't expect the prizes to be anything super cool, but maybe like in RAWR cup, a t-shirt, and reward points, or just reward points and maybe a bronze or even silver trim (These would be only for the winner and second or only for the winner in low and mid ranked tournaments, in high end tournaments old system could be the one.) Or maybe different kind of trim, some ordinary colour or something to show its the winner of the lower ranked or mid ranked tournament.

Kaon · Dec 17, 2007, 07:04 PM // 19:04

Ladder reset is the way to go if you want some activity back. With everyone on a cleans sleet a lot of (especially newer and bad) guilds will be fighting just to get a high rank for that short moment. It always was like that over a year ago. And it's incredibly fun.

erk · Dec 17, 2007, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Ladder reset is the way to go if you want some activity back. With everyone on a cleans sleet a lot of (especially newer and bad) guilds will be fighting just to get a high rank for that short moment. It always was like that over a year ago. And it's incredibly fun.

People have been calling for ladder resets in other threads for months. Andrew Patrick said he would mention it to the right people a while ago but no news there. There always use to be resets in the past, but there hasn't been one since AT's came out. I can't remember when exactly the last reset was. Anyone know?

I do think that it's important for the k value of the AT's to be the same as the general ladder regardless of what value is chosen, the AT's reward players in other ways, it's not fair that they penalize the non-AT guilds by accelerating rating creep. A single AT win against a higher ranked guild eg. a rank 1,000 beats a rank 300, can easily be net you around 15 rating points. That would take 7-8 games on the normal ladder, and the AT win might be a fluke with a DC'd player, so the rapid rank rise due to AT's might not indicate any real talent. The high AT k value is a gimmick, not worthy of a true competitive ladder.

Billiard · Dec 18, 2007, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Ladder reset is the way to go if you want some activity back. With everyone on a cleans sleet a lot of (especially newer and bad) guilds will be fighting just to get a high rank for that short moment. It always was like that over a year ago. And it's incredibly fun.

I always enjoyed ladder resets. It's the like beginng of a new sports season where everyone still feels like they have a chance to make the playoffs and such. Definitely a lot more excitement and activity when the ladder resets it seems.

twicky_kid · Dec 18, 2007, 10:20 AM // 10:20

Don't know about ATs but GW pvp is dead for a number of reasons. The players grew up and nothing to hold their interest. Oh, and this.....

http://www.allakhazam.com/sdetail.html?story=11582

Anet declined to be a part of it when the CGS first started. GW has no more potential is a competitive game. Unless that trend changes with GW2 I don't foresee anything being any better. If you really want to be a competitive game get involved with the CGS. In 5 years or so it will have a huge impact on how games are embraced by players. In its short 2 years its already made a big impact.

FoxBat · Dec 18, 2007, 10:51 AM // 10:51

That's a laugh.

Sorry, paying some thousands of dollars doesn't make WoW a real PvP game.

I don't see how you can put it and "competitive" in the same post. We might as well start Tic Tac Toe world championships.

emp · Dec 18, 2007, 12:30 PM // 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaon

Ladder reset is the way to go if you want some activity back. With everyone on a cleans sleet a lot of (especially newer and bad) guilds will be fighting just to get a high rank for that short moment. It always was like that over a year ago. And it's incredibly fun.

Maybe until pew, lightning orb, pew, lightning orb, pew pew.

twicky_kid · Dec 18, 2007, 12:33 PM // 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

That's a laugh.

Sorry, paying some thousands of dollars doesn't make WoW a real PvP game.

I don't see how you can put it and "competitive" in the same post. We might as well start Tic Tac Toe world championships.

This is just an example. In the case of WoW arena has been really changing the game since it was introduced. Being a part of CGS will bring in more players over time with the sole focus on pvp. In the interview (if you even bother to read it) the players even state that WoW has a long ways to go but at least its a start. Where is GW heading?

There are other games that are using the CGS to further their popularity.