Curse

Elrodien · Nov 23, 2007, 11:36 AM // 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Any guild that is at all serious about GvG should have no problem being top 1000, even with casual play.

Maybe you can guest for my guild and show us how easy it is?

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 23, 2007, 03:40 PM // 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Maybe you can guest for my guild and show us how easy it is?

Sure, just send me a tell when you need someone.

erk · Nov 24, 2007, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

And nothing is stopping them from GvGing.

Good guilds are (and should be) on the top of the ladder, because well, that's kind of the point of the ladder..

Any guild that is at all serious about GvG should have no problem being top 1000, even with casual play.

Except when the average rating is pushed so high from the retarded AT ELO, that the rest of the non-AT guilds have to crawl up the ladder at typically +2 for a win, whilst the pre-AT guilds walked up there quite sweetly with less wins than todays requirement. Thats why they need clearing out so we can see the truth again.

Let me summarize the class division that A.net created on the the ladder.

There are 3 groups of guilds that require a vastly different number of wins to get into the 1200 rating for champ points. This of course assumes they never loose which would add to the number of wins required.

AT only guilds can get there in 30-40 wins. even less less with the monthy k value =50

Pre-AT guilds about 50-70 wins

The rest of the guilds nowadays 100-150 wins.

You look at the Win/Loose ratio of the guilds around the 1200 mark on the ladder, most of them don't have 100-150 more wins than losses so they got there by easier methods, which makes it unfair for the rest of the guilds.

Div · Nov 24, 2007, 02:19 AM // 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

You look at the Win/Loose ratio of the guilds around the 1200 mark on the ladder, most of them don't have 100-150 more wins than losses so they got there by easier methods, which makes it unfair for the rest of the guilds.

So what you're saying is that good guilds being able to win ATs and being higher up on the ladder is a bad thing? And that good guilds should be placed at the same place on the ladder as a bad guild that grinds a lot of ladder games?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Maybe you can guest for my guild and show us how easy it is?

Send me a whisper in game and if I'm not PvEing I'll go too :P

Guesting is more fun than sitting around I suppose.

Yue · Nov 24, 2007, 05:38 AM // 05:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Maybe you can guest for my guild and show us how easy it is?

I don't know about you, but my first pvp guild composed of a bunch of people from ascalon and shiverpeak arena, with 3 of us having mics. We got to r250 last year. Pretty sure if we can do that with ppl from asc/shivs arenas, you should be able to top 1k pretty easily.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 24, 2007, 09:31 AM // 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

Except when the average rating is pushed so high from the retarded AT ELO, that the rest of the non-AT guilds have to crawl up the ladder at typically +2 for a win, whilst the pre-AT guilds walked up there quite sweetly with less wins than todays requirement. Thats why they need clearing out so we can see the truth again.

You only get high rank from AT if you win (at least most of your matches), and you only win if you're at least somewhat competent, I don't really see how this is a bad thing.

And what's stopping people from ATing? The average rating being high is part of the current ladder system, it's balancing out though.

Quote:

Let me summarize the class division that A.net created on the the ladder.

There are 3 groups of guilds that require a vastly different number of wins to get into the 1200 rating for champ points. This of course assumes they never loose which would add to the number of wins required.

AT only guilds can get there in 30-40 wins. even less less with the monthy k value =50

Pre-AT guilds about 50-70 wins

The rest of the guilds nowadays 100-150 wins.

You look at the Win/Loose ratio of the guilds around the 1200 mark on the ladder, most of them don't have 100-150 more wins than losses so they got there by easier methods, which makes it unfair for the rest of the guilds.

The 'rest of the guilds' as you call it, is simply worse a ladder reset will not really change anything here, apart from smurfs/dead guilds most guilds will end up at around the same spot they are now.

Vaga · Nov 24, 2007, 12:14 PM // 12:14

Unfortunately for everyone ladder rank doesn't mean anything other than what guilds are shown on observer mode, so the only argument that holds any weight about ladder resets is that it would make the top 100 more active and as a result allow for more observable games.

All this stuff about how you don't know how you stand competitively because you can't make it on the ladder since the rating to be on it has inflated is pointless. It's pretty clear how you stand if you can't make it on the ladder, you're bad. I'm not even trying to troll here it's the truth.

Lodurr · Nov 24, 2007, 09:48 PM // 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaga

All this stuff about how you don't know how you stand competitively because you can't make it on the ladder since the rating to be on it has inflated is pointless. It's pretty clear how you stand if you can't make it on the ladder, you're bad. I'm not even trying to troll here it's the truth.

My only point is, who benefits from all the dead guilds on the ladder? They need to be cleared out one way or another. Seeing your guild on the game maker's website ladder makes the GvG aspect of the game more fun. If you want GvG to be exclusive to the more experienced guilds, enjoy your wait times when activity level goes even further down.

erk · Nov 26, 2007, 05:38 AM // 05:38

BTW. what ever happened to the good old ladder days when there were seasonal ladder resets, and even ladder locking where you could play some crazy builds for fun? A.net seems to have dropped those things that worked in the past.

Ego · Nov 26, 2007, 10:26 AM // 10:26

Yes they dropped them cause there is AT's who decides the seasonal winners instead.

Elrodien · Nov 26, 2007, 11:41 AM // 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Sure, just send me a tell when you need someone.

Will do

12chars

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 26, 2007, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

BTW. what ever happened to the good old ladder days when there were seasonal ladder resets, and even ladder locking where you could play some crazy builds for fun? A.net seems to have dropped those things that worked in the past.

You can play crazy builds on ladder now because at most you'll lose 4 rating for a loss.

Ladder locks were pretty uninteresting anyway, people just went for lord races most of the time.

And fun seasons were a big part of what 'killed' competitive GW.