Curse

Kanyatta · Oct 20, 2007, 01:16 AM // 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yue

Or people could just not suck at get better, which in turn kicks the inactive guilds down.

ok, once we get 995 other guilds to get over 1300-or-so rating to kick the old RenO off the ladder, your idea will work perfectly

Zabe · Oct 20, 2007, 04:18 PM // 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanyatta

ok, once we get 995 other guilds to get over 1300-or-so rating to kick the old RenO off the ladder, your idea will work perfectly

If ANet has intented it to be so that they never reset it anymore, not even when the 100 000$ Championship row ends in early 2008, eventually all guilds in ladder will have 1200 rating.

just rude · Oct 21, 2007, 10:17 PM // 22:17

If random spike guilds getting on every 3 months or so to farm the double champs isn't enough reason the reset the ladder then idk.

Div · Oct 22, 2007, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

Probably the best system would be returning to 100k tournaments with 3 month ladders. Set champ points back at 1500 with tournament matches worth 5x champ points.

Even in the current system, it'd be interesting to see maybe daily AT's giving out 2x champ points, and monthly's giving out something like 4x champ points. Though I'm not sure whether or not that'll just result in a lot of bad spike guilds playing in the AT...but at least if they lose they'll tank out faster?

DIH49 · Oct 22, 2007, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by icedwhitemocha

I want this sent as a memo to Anet's employees and posted in giant letters on the founders' office walls: How to revive Guild Wars.

I'm sure Black Mischief could explain it in detail, but I can only give you the extremely brief version: there's no money in 100k tournaments. Anet is a business. Ergo, no more 100k tournaments. Anet doesn't care about reviving GW, and there's no reason they should. First, let's be honest. This will not be reviving GW. At the very, very best case scenario it would be reviving GW PvP, a rather microscopic area of revenue for Anet. Second, why should they care? The money has gone off and started into GW2. GW2 could use some PvP advertising, but don't expect these major tournaments (and, frankly, don't hope for them. They're bad for the PvP scene). Third, why on earth would you send it to the Anet employees? Send it to management if anything, or to NCSoft the parent corporation who pulls the purse strings.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Oct 22, 2007, 01:41 PM // 13:41

I think the best idea for getting 'dead' guilds off the ladder is to auction them of to bloodspiking tombs scrubs after a certain period of inactivity.

Tab · Oct 22, 2007, 01:43 PM // 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

I think the best idea for getting 'dead' guilds off the ladder is to auction them of to bloodspiking tombs scrubs after a certain period of inactivity.

I see what you did there.

LifesRestorer · Oct 22, 2007, 02:02 PM // 14:02

i havent really read into this thread but tbh i think the reason the ladder isnt being reset is because Anet are trying to cover up that their game is dying. think about it, if they reset the ladder, how many guilds would rejoin the new one?

By not resetting their ladder it makes the game appear bigger than it actually is.

Shmanka · Oct 22, 2007, 02:20 PM // 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by icedwhitemocha

I want this sent as a memo to Anet's employees and posted in giant letters on the founders' office walls: How to revive Guild Wars.

The better question since GW2 is coming out is: Do they even care to?

Vital · Oct 22, 2007, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Anet and NCsoft are poorly run companies, but nonetheless they somewhat understand "Value added".

Wasteland Squidget · Oct 22, 2007, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Let's not start the old "Bring back World Championships" debate in this thread. Everyone who knows anything about Arenanet knows that isn't going to happen, and its already been discussed to death. This thread is about the ladder and its problems.

DIH49 · Oct 22, 2007, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

This thread is about the ladder and its problems.

No, it's mostly about people not understanding that the function of the ladder changed. They're stuck in the mentality that the ladder is an active ranking system for current guilds, instead of what it was switched to with the advent of ATs: a historic, hall of fame type ranking system. The people in the thread are essentially asking that we drop Babe Ruth from the hall of fame because he's not currently active. They've just confused what the purpose of the hall of fame is. I think a currently active guild ranking ladder would be an alright thing to have, I guess, but suggesting that the ladder we have now is flawed because it's not some totally unrelated system is just silly.

Vital · Oct 22, 2007, 08:21 PM // 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

No, it's mostly about people not understanding that the function of the ladder changed. They're stuck in the mentality that the ladder is an active ranking system for current guilds, instead of what it was switched to with the advent of ATs: a historic, hall of fame type ranking system. The people in the thread are essentially asking that we drop Babe Ruth from the hall of fame because he's not currently active. They've just confused what the purpose of the hall of fame is. I think a currently active guild ranking ladder would be an alright thing to have, I guess, but suggesting that the ladder we have now is flawed because it's not some totally unrelated system is just silly.

The ladder is more like a Hall Of Shame. AT's are like Interleague play. Guild Wars is pretty much like girls softball at this point.

erk · Oct 27, 2007, 12:40 AM // 00:40

An interesting observation, only about 15% of the 1,000 guilds on the ladder have any Qualifier Points at all.

I still reckon all the 1,000 guilds on the ladder should loose 1 rating point each day just to weed out the inactive guilds.

ll Templar ll · Nov 02, 2007, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyro yamaguchi

Ladder is fine as it is, since no-one gives a damn about the position of some random guild on the ladder, good guilds will be known by the community through winning tournaments.

The problem with this is that Bought Guilds is still known by the community and for people to just do that in way puts the whole ladder into question; If I have more cash I win... pretty much that's how i think of it...

But there are Cons and Pros of the older ladder system I'm aware of, i think Anet could do a better job with it.

Kanyatta · Nov 18, 2007, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinful Doom

I've always wanted to see rating effected like faction is in AB. Perhaps make it so a guild will loose a set amount of rating each week they are not active in AT's.

Although, not every guild that GvG's does AT's regularly, not all of us can set apart all this time to be hardcore ATers. Your plan is good, imho, if you change the "AT's" to "GvG's"

red orc · Nov 18, 2007, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

No, it's mostly about people not understanding that the function of the ladder changed. They're stuck in the mentality that the ladder is an active ranking system for current guilds, instead of what it was switched to with the advent of ATs: a historic, hall of fame type ranking system. The people in the thread are essentially asking that we drop Babe Ruth from the hall of fame because he's not currently active. They've just confused what the purpose of the hall of fame is. I think a currently active guild ranking ladder would be an alright thing to have, I guess, but suggesting that the ladder we have now is flawed because it's not some totally unrelated system is just silly.

Yes get your dead baby off the ladder and leave it to the playing guilds.
People get the idea of what is needed rather good.

erk · Nov 18, 2007, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Dear A.Net,
please reset the GvG ladder before we go out of our minds. (Andrew are you reading this)

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 19, 2007, 02:28 PM // 14:28

What would resetting the ladder do exactly? Apart from letting bad people be on it for a few days (weeks tops).

The inactivity idea, or even rating decay, seems fine with me, a reset wouldn't accomplish anything.

Andrew Patrick · Nov 19, 2007, 07:21 PM // 19:21

I did bring this issue up a month or so ago when another similar thread was made and at that time, the designers did not express any plans to reset the ladder or change it's functionality. I will pass this thread on to them so they are aware it is still a topic of interest, and I will try to get some insight on their thoughts on the subject.

Edit: Actually, this is the same thread.

I will let them know the discussion continues. The response I received last time I brought it up was that it was a topic that is frequently comes up, but we don't have any conclusions to share at this time. I will see if that has changed though.