Curse

LifesRestorer · Nov 19, 2007, 07:35 PM // 19:35

lol gg andrew on talking about the same thread XD

by all means, thanks for trying for us anyways.
did the designers give any reason why they think resetting the ladder would be a bad idea?

Ec]-[oMaN · Nov 19, 2007, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by LifesRestorer

lol gg andrew on talking about the same thread XD

by all means, thanks for trying for us anyways.
did the designers give any reason why they think resetting the ladder would be a bad idea?

because resetting the ladder won't accomplish anything except getting rid of all the inactive guilds that got their rating just like everyone else. How would resetting the ladder be fare to them? Only thing it would do for maybe the first month max is put crappy teams on obs mode.

erk · Nov 19, 2007, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

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.

The ladder is full pre-AT crud that got up there when the ELO favored larger movements. A ladder reset is a lazy way of getting the dormant guilds out of it and making room for those that actually are playing.

There is a motivation to play when your guild can see progress on the ladder, that means more games for all.

It also gives active guilds a chance at some champ points early on which should see a nice spike in GvG activitiy. The top 100 guilds often say they don't care about the ladder, but there are thousands of guilds that do, and remember the game isn't just about the leet top 100 guilds and obs mode, it's about the millions of people that pay A.net to have fun, and GvG is part of that.

I think the ladder should be reset at least every 6 months.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 20, 2007, 11:21 AM // 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

The ladder is full pre-AT crud that got up there when the ELO favored larger movements. A ladder reset is a lazy way of getting the dormant guilds out of it and making room for those that actually are playing.

There is a motivation to play when your guild can see progress on the ladder, that means more games for all.

I really doubt it, we would still smurf and have at least 2 guilds in top 100.

Quote:

It also gives active guilds a chance at some champ points early on which should see a nice spike in GvG activitiy.

Wrong, you get champ points when you're 1200+ rating and beat another guild that has 1200+ rating, a reset will make less people get champ points if anything, if guilds can't get 1200+ rating now, why would they be able to when you reset the ladder?

Quote:

The top 100 guilds often say they don't care about the ladder, but there are thousands of guilds that do, and remember the game isn't just about the leet top 100 guilds and obs mode, it's about the millions of people that pay A.net to have fun, and GvG is part of that.

Ladder is irrelevant because you get up to 5 rating for a win (generally 1..3) which means you have to grind the ladder to get some rating or play ATs and get RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOloads of rating.

Quote:

I think the ladder should be reset at least every 6 months.

There really isnt a point in resetting the ladder in the current system, the rating of most guilds balances out in this system because you only get small amounts of rating for ladder and ATs don't give you much rating either if you're near the top (and if you aren't you probably won't win a lot of matches).

Lodurr · Nov 20, 2007, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

There really isnt a point in resetting the ladder in the current system, the rating of most guilds balances out in this system because you only get small amounts of rating for ladder and ATs don't give you much rating either if you're near the top (and if you aren't you probably won't win a lot of matches).

Cleaning out the ladder isn't very important for the more pro teams, but it's very important for the lower-end teams who play for weeks with an N/A rating. Having an actual rank would motivate them, may help them keep recruits and be more active, and then your smurf wouldn't have to wait 20 minutes for a match.

A stagnant ladder means that new guilds just starting out have to grind just to get to the top 1000. Teams that have been playing and winning consistently for a long time can have a mountain of rating that no new guild could ever hope to reach. This system makes no sense to me. Inactive guilds should have some kind of rating decay, or just reset the ladder each season.

Zuranthium · Nov 20, 2007, 09:08 PM // 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

The inactivity idea, or even rating decay, seems fine with me.

Yes, agreed.

Guilds that have been inactive (not played any rated matches) for more than 2 weeks should lose 1 rating per day (up to a max of 15% of the guild's total rating and also not ever dropping the rating below 1000).

This still keeps the ladder "historical", as any guild that had very high rating will forever be in champ point range...there will just be less clutter at the top. There's no point in having MoJ, Cry, and other such guilds in the top 40 forever, and the whole top 100 would shape up better. A guild's peek rank and rating should be displayed on the Ladder too.

~Z

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 20, 2007, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodurr

Cleaning out the ladder isn't very important for the more pro teams, but it's very important for the lower-end teams who play for weeks with an N/A rating. Having an actual rank would motivate them, may help them keep recruits and be more active, and then your smurf wouldn't have to wait 20 minutes for a match.

Do people really care about being rank N/A or rank 9001? I really doubt what you say is true.

Quote:

A stagnant ladder means that new guilds just starting out have to grind just to get to the top 1000.

You need 36 rating to get on the ladder, anyone that puts any effort at all into gvg will accomplish this easily and quickly, even with casual play.

Quote:

Teams that have been playing and winning consistently for a long time can have a mountain of rating that no new guild could ever hope to reach. This system makes no sense to me.

This is simply not true, look at all the new guilds that show up on obs mode, it takes like 2-3 ATs to get into top 100.

Quote:

Inactive guilds should have some kind of rating decay, or just reset the ladder each season.

Decay would be fine, resets would be pointless.

erk · Nov 20, 2007, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

I really doubt it, we would still smurf and have at least 2 guilds in top 100.

Wrong, you get champ points when you're 1200+ rating and beat another guild that has 1200+ rating, a reset will make less people get champ points if anything, if guilds can't get 1200+ rating now, why would they be able to when you reset the ladder?

Match ups, if more teams are motivated to play because they can see progress on the ladder there is more opportunity to win points! As everyone will be closer on the ladder hopefully there will be more games initially, and the race to 1,200 will be motivation to play in itself.

Quote:

Ladder is irrelevant because you get up to 5 rating for a win (generally 1..3) which means you have to grind the ladder to get some rating or play ATs and get RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOloads of rating.

Not true. The grind would only be to 1,200 rating for champ points, for top 100 it will be way less for quite a while, and quite exciting until the average rating creeps up again to where it is now. The primary fault in the ladder is the average rating creeps up over time and stays up even if guilds no long play.

Quote:

There really isnt a point in resetting the ladder in the current system, the rating of most guilds balances out in this system because you only get small amounts of rating for ladder and ATs don't give you much rating either if you're near the top (and if you aren't you probably won't win a lot of matches).

Well after a ladder reset nobody will be near the top so it's a moot point. And the only people a ladder reset is really going to piss of is the current champ point farmers that are already at the top. Fortunately they don't represent the majority of GvG players.

Lodurr · Nov 21, 2007, 12:05 AM // 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Do people really care about being rank N/A or rank 9001? I really doubt what you say is true.

I'm in an N/A guild right now. We play casually but we'd like to know where we stand competitively, and it's disheartening to see how many wins we need just to have a ladder rank #, let alone make it on the website so we can see our win/loss record and history.

ATs have never been a solution because the times are so messed up. In playing for a few different guilds since the beginning of the ATs, I've never seen one starting when we start playing. As if playing at 6pm PST on weeknights is so rare and unusual. I've never been in an AT but I've been in three different guilds that wanted to AT but couldn't because of the times.

I agree that ladder decay would be enough. I haven't played in any ATs so I guess I can't comment on the difficulty of ATing your way to the top ranks.

erk · Nov 21, 2007, 12:08 AM // 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodurr

I agree that ladder decay would be enough. I haven't played in any ATs so I guess I can't comment on the difficulty of ATing your way to the top ranks.

I too would prefer ladder decay, but that would involve A.net actually spending some resources on the problem instead of a quick ladder reset which should be a no brainer.

twicky_kid · Nov 21, 2007, 12:45 AM // 00:45

The short version:

ATs shut players out because of the play times and time needed to finish the entire thing.

Ladder resets allow players to play on their own time and give an incentive to play. Champ points are not an incentive its a by-product.

ATs bad
Ladder resets good

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 21, 2007, 09:17 AM // 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

Match ups, if more teams are motivated to play because they can see progress on the ladder there is more opportunity to win points! As everyone will be closer on the ladder hopefully there will be more games initially, and the race to 1,200 will be motivation to play in itself.

This is a pure guess, there's no way to back this up, and even if it is true it will only be like this for a few weeks tops, and the same guilds would end up on top, the only difference is that it would take a little longer till smurfs start popping up, but it will take them a shorter amount of time to get to top 100 or w/e.

Quote:

Not true. The grind would only be to 1,200 rating for champ points, for top 100 it will be way less for quite a while, and quite exciting until the average rating creeps up again to where it is now. The primary fault in the ladder is the average rating creeps up over time and stays up even if guilds no long play.

The first few days, maybe the first week, there will be a few terrible guilds on obs mode, and as this may be nice for them it's not beneficial to the game in any way.

In the old ladder resets were needed because a guild's rating could basically increase infinitely (you always got some rating for wins)

Quote:

Well after a ladder reset nobody will be near the top so it's a moot point. And the only people a ladder reset is really going to piss of is the current champ point farmers that are already at the top. Fortunately they don't represent the majority of GvG players.

The majority of the 'GvG players' are in a guild that has a rank of <1000 so naturally they would be helped by a reset..

The only thing a reset would do is kick out inactive guilds, after a week or 2 the exact same guilds will be at the top and the exact same guilds will be at the bottom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodurr

I'm in an N/A guild right now. We play casually but we'd like to know where we stand competitively

If you're N/A you don't 'stand' you lie flat on your back, anyone that puts any effort into GvG and isn't completely braindead should have no problem getting top 1000.

Quote:

and it's disheartening to see how many wins we need just to have a ladder rank #, let alone make it on the website so we can see our win/loss record and history.

A reset won't change this, if you care that much about win/loss ratio spend more time improving as a team and individually and less time whining on forums.

Quote:

ATs have never been a solution because the times are so messed up. In playing for a few different guilds since the beginning of the ATs, I've never seen one starting when we start playing. As if playing at 6pm PST on weeknights is so rare and unusual. I've never been in an AT but I've been in three different guilds that wanted to AT but couldn't because of the times.

Commitment is a huge part of GvG, moreso regarding ATs, but if you know at which times the ATs are (check gw.com or tolkano) you can schedule your playtimes to match an AT.

Quote:

I agree that ladder decay would be enough. I haven't played in any ATs so I guess I can't comment on the difficulty of ATing your way to the top ranks.

I can, it's easy, provided you 'belong' at the top it won't take you very long to get there by playing ATs. (By top I mean top 50-100 here, top 20 will take a bit longer.)

Lodurr · Nov 21, 2007, 11:51 AM // 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

A reset won't change this, if you care that much about win/loss ratio spend more time improving as a team and individually and less time whining on forums.

That's a flawed argument. If I had enough guildies on to GvG I wouldn't be posting right now.

I wasn't suggesting a change to the ladder would improve our win/loss ratio, but access to the ranking system and the ladder on the GW website would be much more appreciated by guilds that are currently N/A than by guilds that stopped playing months ago (which comprises at least 50% of the top 1000 I'm sure).

Elrodien · Nov 21, 2007, 02:19 PM // 14:19

I think the majority of gvg players would agree to some sort of rating degradation/hiding inactive guilds.

I think it would give lower ranked guilds an incentive as getting on the ladder would be easier. Getting to rating 1036 is not easily achievable through casual play. Maybe if ur leeet.....but otherwise, the standard of play is so high even here at this level, it is tough to string the wins together.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this and I can almost hear the 'suck less' and 'how2beet1036?' but the learning curve for gvg is just crazily tough. If you knew you could get on the ladder by winning a few games in a row, it may keep you and your guild motivated to want to play more gvgs and learn the craft of it.

I'm not whining about my own lack of skill, or my guild, I just think it would be good for the majority.

Ec]-[oMaN · Nov 21, 2007, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

I think it would give lower ranked guilds an incentive as getting on the ladder would be easier. Getting to rating 1036 is not easily achievable through casual play.

If you knew you could get on the ladder by winning a few games in a row, it may keep you and your guild motivated to want to play more gvgs and learn the craft of it.

I see this "motivated" word used alot. I fail to see the logic behind it being used. If guilds aren't motivated to get about 18 wins to become ranked what's going to motivate those same guilds to get +30 wins?

If these guilds aren't motivated by just trying to gain experience and improve but just see things in ranking which is just a by product, they are seeking and doing things for the wrong reasons.

Elrodien · Nov 21, 2007, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

If these guilds aren't motivated by just trying to gain experience and improve but just see things in ranking which is just a by product, they are seeking and doing things for the wrong reasons.

Maybe so, but I bet when you started gvging and your team started doing well, the ladder was gauge to your progress which you probably watched with zeal.

Giving lesser guilds the chance to map their progress at the expense of long dead guilds doesn't seem a bad thing to me.

erk · Nov 22, 2007, 08:19 AM // 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

I think the majority of gvg players would agree to some sort of rating degradation/hiding inactive guilds.

I think it would give lower ranked guilds an incentive as getting on the ladder would be easier. Getting to rating 1036 is not easily achievable through casual play. Maybe if ur leeet.....but otherwise, the standard of play is so high even here at this level, it is tough to string the wins together.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this and I can almost hear the 'suck less' and 'how2beet1036?' but the learning curve for gvg is just crazily tough. If you knew you could get on the ladder by winning a few games in a row, it may keep you and your guild motivated to want to play more gvgs and learn the craft of it.

I'm not whining about my own lack of skill, or my guild, I just think it would be good for the majority.

One of the main reasons for the rating creep up to 1036 to get onto the top 1,000 ladder is the disproportional ELO from the guilds that play AT's. Judging from the Forfeit/Play ratio each day, and the number of guilds in the top 1,000 that have any qualifier points at any given time, I would say that AT's don't represent much of the actual live GvG play, and to remove their skewing of the ladder from time to time would not be a bad thing for the greater GvG community. Although I play AT's most weeks, I would still like to see the thing reset, even if it' was only once a calendar year like most sports seasons, that would be better than nothing!

The GW community likes flocking to special event's, and a ladder reset would surely be one. The last double GvG points weekend was a great hit in terms of getting games quickly.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 22, 2007, 10:09 AM // 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

One of the main reasons for the rating creep up to 1036 to get onto the top 1,000 ladder is the disproportional ELO from the guilds that play AT's.

Wtf? This make no sense whatsoever, you don't get rating for forfeit wins nor do you lose rating for forfeiting, guilds at that rank will barely lose any rating for losign a match even in an AT.

Quote:

Judging from the Forfeit/Play ratio each day, and the number of guilds in the top 1,000 that have any qualifier points at any given time, I would say that AT's don't represent much of the actual live GvG play, and to remove their skewing of the ladder from time to time would not be a bad thing for the greater GvG community. Although I play AT's most weeks, I would still like to see the thing reset, even if it' was only once a calendar year like most sports seasons, that would be better than nothing!

The forfeit/play ratio has more to do with the fact that there's no penalty for signing up but not playing. I don't think this is neccesarily a bad thing, because sometimes we don't get 8 people to play until we already got our opponent assigned or sometimes someone has to leave mid-AT and we're forced to forfeit. I imagine other guilds have the same problems.

Of course by doing this you have guilds like BdV that win the first 4 rounds vs bad opponents and then forfeit when they play a good guild..

Quote:

The GW community likes flocking to special event's, and a ladder reset would surely be one. The last double GvG points weekend was a great hit in terms of getting games quickly.

That's a stupid argument. The only people who would play more are rank carebears. Good guilds would just wait till people have a decent rating so they can be back on top by playing a few ATs.

erk · Nov 22, 2007, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Wtf?

That's a stupid argument. The only people who would play more are rank carebears. Good guilds would just wait till people have a decent rating so they can be back on top by playing a few ATs.

The game isn't just for "Good Guilds" it's for everyone who wants to GvG. Stop being so selfish and leet.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Nov 23, 2007, 09:11 AM // 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

The game isn't just for "Good Guilds" it's for everyone who wants to GvG. Stop being so selfish and leet.

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.