Curse

notrich · Aug 20, 2007, 03:14 PM // 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

Yeah I like your system, then all the pve'rs that screamed for the glad title change can attain some new titles:

Welcome to PvP (1) -25 glads
Titles for Everyone (2) -50 glads
I suck at PvP (3) -100 glads
Lol TA (4) -168 glads
Rebirth is good you nub (5) -280 glads
....
I use Mending (12) -10,000 glads

Ok on a more serious note, something that hasnt been mentioned. Andrew can't we give RA 2 titles?

And your point is?

The RA issue would be resolved with a negative point per loss system. It also might push more people toward getting serious about TA (which deserves its own ladder - for crying out loud).

Either griefers will dominate and anet fixes that problem with a kick option OR using one of the options will give you enough points to counter the griefers.

I was not suggesting a negative title string - but that would probably only motivate some people.

I agree two titles would be the real answer, but anet has been clear that is not going to happen - same with TA ladder I suppose... its a shame.

Lorekeeper · Aug 20, 2007, 03:36 PM // 15:36

i think someone must have suggested this before but how about splitting a gladiator title track into 2 distinct stages.

The first few stages of the title track could be accessed through winning glad points in RA. This satisfies the need to provide an accessible title to even newer PvPers.

However once you have gained a certain rank you can only progress higher from competing and winning glad points in TA.

This supports the notion that TA is the next step upwards from RA, and the title progression encourages players interested in achieving higher gladiator ranks to enter TA instead of constantly farming points in RA, which at higher ranks lose their value.

RA will then be populated by newer players and people who just want to have fun. And TA will become more populated by people trying to achieve higher glad ranks. High ranked gladiators will not be tarnished by the possibility of farming high rank glad in RA.

In all the propositions provided by Anet gaining high rank gladiator titles in RA was just a matter of grind, which could or could not be gained through leeching. But it IS achievable through pure length of time playing in RA.

As such, for players who are not in any rush to get a title, for players who dont want to put the extra effort to gaining high rank glad titles, there is nothing to push them out of RA and into TA. This is the biggest problem with a system where all ranks of the title are equally accessible in both RA and TA and is a huge factor in the whole issue about leavers.

The system should promote RA as the first step into PvP, with rewards and titles to reflect this. The system should also encourage a migration from the first step to the next once a player has learnt enough to do so.

This is the only way a system could work for both RA and TA. It gives newer players access to an early PvP title without the huge stress of hardcore competitive play. And it reserves the highest ranks for the hardcore PvPers who actually enjoy the more competitive side of PvP.

everyone is happy.

(apart from the loonies who think that the casual gamer should have access to high pvp ranks - but thats another frustrating topic which i do not want to embroil myself in yet again)

Vermilion · Aug 20, 2007, 03:46 PM // 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Ketsu

Best

Title

Evarrr.

A title like that might promote leeching.

Master Ketsu · Aug 20, 2007, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermilion

A title like that might promote leeching.

Yes it would. But the title is still awesome.

Fits so many perfectly...

Byron · Aug 20, 2007, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deep Sea Diving

From my standpoint, ArenaNet has made the right marketing decisions, but at the expense of the PvP community. There have been those times when Izzy was able to put through a change that contradicted that strategy, changing Soul Reaping being one of the biggest, but those were few and very far between. What you’re trying to do here goes deeper than just the mutilation of the Gladiator Title, a title that most PvP’ers would argue is a better indicator of player skill than EITHER the Hero Title or even in some cases the Champion Title. This change goes right to the core of the PvE/Casual v. PvP debate.

QFE.

TA ladder would be a great idea, also.

erk · Aug 21, 2007, 06:15 AM // 06:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron

QFE.

TA ladder would be a great idea, also.

TA ladder has been asked for countless times and falls on deaf ears. Yet they give a ladder for Hero Battles! (How come Koss isn't at the top of that ladder?)

Cass · Aug 21, 2007, 07:53 AM // 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mokone

are you an underworld IWAY farmer?

Failed to see the "

" huh.

glountz · Aug 21, 2007, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

GWO is one of the main reasons why Anet is deciding to change this title. 99% of their PvE population is unable to get glad points (for good reasons, mending wammo, fc flare mesmer). If they beat tyria with those builds, why can't they get a glad point? It MUST be because the system is flawed.

Therefore, they complain that glad points are unfair, people leave if they see a mending wammo, people leave if there are no monks, and want Anet to change the system. Given that Anet still has no response to leavers and no response to how to let bad players get gladiator points, the only way is to greatly loosen the requirements so that bad players playing bad builds still have a chance to get those points (provided the rest of his team is good enough or the opposing team is worse: i.e. fc flare mesmer+healing breeze monk vs firestorm warrior+necro with power shot).

That's why as I already said many times RA needs its own proposal 1 trash title. Scrubs will be pleased and TA will keep its beloved 10 wins glad title.

Legendary Shiz · Aug 21, 2007, 02:16 PM // 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by erk

TA ladder has been asked for countless times and falls on deaf ears. Yet they give a ladder for Hero Battles! (How come Koss isn't at the top of that ladder?)

That's got to be one of my biggest pet peeves of this game. A couple months ago there were SEVERAL big time TA guilds, but eventually most of them broke up and went into big time GvG guilds because there was a ladder there. A lot of them wanted to be top 10 on the TA ladder, but the lack of one forced them to be top 10 on the GvG ladder. Even though some of them still preferred TA over GvG.

I just find it amazing that the number of people asking for one thing, and Anet hasn't even seemed to consider it. If you threw in a ladder, I can't say anybody would really care what you did with the glad title. Obviously they'd love for it to be respectable, but the people trying to attain high glads would IMO be just as easily satisfied with being top 25 on a TA ladder.

Master Ketsu · Aug 21, 2007, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Ya their was alot more TA guilds around. I Miss them alot, because ussually what I do if i cant get guildies to TA with me is sit in TA and Ad the following:

"Glad 4 Ranger LF Guild team. Willing to re-roll. Serious teams w/vent only pl0x"

Alot of guild groups would take it.

What I really want is for TA to gain more popularity so I can start doing Glad3+ randomway. Ive had a few teams that started in random where everyone was glad3+ ....in all cases when this happened we pretty much obliterated RA and raped TA pretty well too. One memorable example I recall didnt even have a monk or any kind of healing and won 27 matches in a row. Against some pretty good guild teams too. Lulz.

( GWEN is a r6+ Ha guild. everytime I try to get them to TA I end up being talked into being a N/rt healer for HoH farming :P )

Orange Milk · Aug 21, 2007, 07:42 PM // 19:42

My Guild has about 3 of us that PvP more than we PvE, then there are about a dozen who I'd say are "casual" PvPers, they RA and HA here and there, then TA when the three of us that TA on a regular basis force one to join us.

With the addition of a LADDER several of those casual guys would become serious PvPers when they have their chance to see their name in lights.

I also know for a fact that the 3 of us that do TA alot will force someone from the guild to join us if there was a daily/monthy tourny. We have the tourny tokes to spend, thats for sure.

Keithark · Aug 21, 2007, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

Welcome to PvP (1) -25 glads
Titles for Everyone (2) -50 glads
I suck at PvP (3) -100 glads
Lol TA (4) -168 glads
Rebirth is good you nub (5) -280 glads
....
I use Mending (12) -10,000 glads

[

I want this option most of all..except add one more level "I'm Dead!"

Darkpower Alchemist · Aug 21, 2007, 09:57 PM // 21:57

The reasoning behind a hero ladders is simple. It's a 1 man show. 1 guy with his heroes doing the the strategic play, and all 4 builds, as well as competing against peers of equal level(Hopefully, since who wants to play guys that suck and get on a ladder?)

The reasoning behind TA not having a ladder is just as simple. TA guilds don't truely exist in a guild wars enviornment, since Guilds have GvG. HA doesn't have a ladder for this exact same reason. If you want to be on a ladder as a guild, then guess what you have to do?

That's right! Play GvG! HA guilds, this goes for you,too!

4v4 play isn't what "Guild Wars" is based on. GvG was its big seller in the PvP area of play. HA was for the Fame. The Glads title is all about personal achievement, as is the hero title. Personal achievement being the goal, what do you get if you fall short by 1 win? Zip! Zilch! Nada!

10 wins may be quite possible, as proven by the ranked Gladiators, yet it also makes for a grind scenario. First, one must understand what the word 'Grind' means.

Grind: To pursue tenaciously in order to achieve a particular goal.

That makes almost every title a grind, wouldn't it? No matter the rate of progress or the amount of time put into it to achieve the goal, to achieve the goal will take time, thus to make it to the goal one must grind it out.

The point of the matter is this; 10 wins for 1 glad point isn't a fair exchange. If this was gold exchange for an item value the PvP people would cry foul, I believe. Let me elaborate.

If you wanted a particular item, say a shield that was perfect and rare, and the owner would only issue it to you if you fought in the arena until you reached the set price, you would do it. Yet, if the owner told you that for every 10 wins, you only owned 0.1% of the shield and you had to keep winning in sets of 10 to earn a next 0.1% of the shield, would that be a fair rate of exchange?

Take Time/Value ratio into consideration, and you would realize that it was never a fair exchange. This isn't about making the title easier or cheapening the title in the least. The title is overpriced!

If you look at its contemperaries, as the Hero and Champion titles are considerably valuable and properly priced, the Gladiator title is very overpriced in comparison.

So, are those who achieve Gladiator titles saying that their title is more valid than a Champion or a Hero, who have without a doubt have put PvP in GW in its current state?

Proposal 3 is the most valid, imo, though the majority of people will be against all of them for the arguement of "cheapening the title". The comparison to LB and SS title strands is bogus and overly dramatic. Those titles are linked to skills and are strictly for PvE players. Kurzick/Luxon titles were also greatly overpriced until recent, and adding the skills to them made the grind to achieve them at higher levels more valid in the larger scheme of things.

Yet, the PvP Only titles are strictly based on personal achievement. My wins mean little if I don't get 10 wins in a row, yet giving me 1 point per win will surely encourage leeching tactics. The happiest medium would be proposal 3, giving credit for a shorter streak, and more for the longer streak, as well as a title update for those who have achieved the title ranks previously. My skill can not be noted if I have never achieved the required 10 wins straight, though I have achieved many 5, 7, or 9 wins straight streaks in the 2+ yrs of play. I've been involved in many standstill matches, where neither team gave much ground until someone ragequit and tip the scales in the other teams favor.

Take that into thought. Limit match times to 10 mins, and make proposal 3 a reality.

DreamWind · Aug 21, 2007, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyGiant

Yeah I like your system, then all the pve'rs that screamed for the glad title change can attain some new titles:

Welcome to PvP (1) -25 glads
Titles for Everyone (2) -50 glads
I suck at PvP (3) -100 glads
Lol TA (4) -168 glads
Rebirth is good you nub (5) -280 glads
....
I use Mending (12) -10,000 glads

LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

GWO is one of the main reasons why Anet is deciding to change this title. 99% of their PvE population is unable to get glad points (for good reasons, mending wammo, fc flare mesmer). If they beat tyria with those builds, why can't they get a glad point? It MUST be because the system is flawed.

Therefore, they complain that glad points are unfair, people leave if they see a mending wammo, people leave if there are no monks, and want Anet to change the system. Given that Anet still has no response to leavers and no response to how to let bad players get gladiator points, the only way is to greatly loosen the requirements so that bad players playing bad builds still have a chance to get those points (provided the rest of his team is good enough or the opposing team is worse: i.e. fc flare mesmer+healing breeze monk vs firestorm warrior+necro with power shot).

Why is proposal one so popular? As stated before, it's one of the few ways those bad players can get gladiator points. That bad population also outnumbers the serious TA community that truly care about the gladiator title track at least 1000:1. Even if you add in other PvP'ers (like me) that don't want to see the title change to a grindfest, we are still in the minority. Hopefully Anet will listen to the minority that knows what we're talking about, and for the first time, not consider marketing when dealing with this situation.

Because seriously, gladiator is a very prestigious title to some, and very cherished by TAers. It's not meant as something bad players can get.

If gladiator is really changed to one point a win, I'm making a post on GWO forums proposing champion points should be for any 1000 rating+ guilds, since it's too elitist of a title and normal PvE'ers have no chance of getting it. I mean, the champion title tracked is screwed up enough by those double ritspike weekends, so why not just let all PvE'ers get champ 4 like eE and SoG?

You win this entire pathetic thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkpower Alchemist

The reasoning behind a hero ladders is simple. It's a 1 man show. 1 guy with his heroes doing the the strategic play, and all 4 builds, as well as competing against peers of equal level(Hopefully, since who wants to play guys that suck and get on a ladder?)

The reasoning behind TA not having a ladder is just as simple. TA guilds don't truely exist in a guild wars enviornment, since Guilds have GvG. HA doesn't have a ladder for this exact same reason. If you want to be on a ladder as a guild, then guess what you have to do?

That's right! Play GvG! HA guilds, this goes for you,too!

This is really crap reasoning. You are saying that hero battles deserve a ladder because its a 1 man show. Thats fine. But why not a 4 man show? What about the massive number of guilds who can't field 8 players to GvG but want to play competitive PvP?

I think the real reason here is that Anet doesn't want more of the "PvP problem" that they have no idea how to deal with. That is, if they made TA competitive, they would have to balance it (which would be damn near impossible for them) and hear multiple complaints which I'm sure they just want to avoid at this point.

DokkyDok · Aug 21, 2007, 10:43 PM // 22:43

Hmm, I would like to see Gladiator Points removed from Random Arenas, as it's too exploitable.
Off topic - I have no desire for a Team Arena Ladder, but an Observer mode for one would be more enjoyable than the Observer mode for hero battles.

kvndoom · Aug 21, 2007, 10:44 PM // 22:44

I find it hard to relate to anyone who says they "just can't get 10 wins." If I play casually I can get 2 or 3 points a day... sure there are those frustrating streaks where you lose on #10, but it happens. I do not consider myself a "great" player by any means. I don't suck, though, even though I once did. But I have played enough 4v4 to understand the 2 basics: learn and adapt.

Learn the mechanics of 4v4. It's a different game from PVE or HA or GVG. Adjust your build for this type of play. Different skills, attributes, weapons, armor, etc all apply to 4v4. If you absolutely cannot win 10 in a row ever, you can't keep blaming it on solely on drawing poor teammates. You can't keep blaming it on not having a good monk. At some point you have to ask yourself "what am I doing wrong?" The people who are successful in 4v4 aren't "elitists", they are just people who play builds they are comfortable with and know how to establish good teamwork in a 4v4 environment. They practice, practice, practice. They post builds and ask for feedback. They know the average match is 2-3 minutes and they build and play towards that goal.

Seamus Finn · Aug 21, 2007, 10:53 PM // 22:53

I rarely play TA these days, but progressed from 4v4 to Gvg as I was never a fan of halls(I think TA encourages a lot more individual player skill). I think that a TA ladder would help the format's popularity a great deal. I was also wondering if it might be considered integrating Hero vs. Hero type maps into TA. My biggest complaint with the game theory behind TA is that build wars has too much of a prescence. More maps with different victory options would make the format more respectable and fun and then a ladder would probably reinvigorate the arena. Probably a lot of work, but I know I would play a lot more TA if such changes were made.

Darkpower Alchemist · Aug 21, 2007, 11:34 PM // 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

This is really crap reasoning. You are saying that hero battles deserve a ladder because its a 1 man show. Thats fine. But why not a 4 man show? What about the massive number of guilds who can't field 8 players to GvG but want to play competitive PvP?

I think the real reason here is that Anet doesn't want more of the "PvP problem" that they have no idea how to deal with. That is, if they made TA competitive, they would have to balance it (which would be damn near impossible for them) and hear multiple complaints which I'm sure they just want to avoid at this point.

Your reasoning is flawed, so let me make my statement abit more clear. The 4 man teams of TA are not always guilds, and as I said, the GvG premise is for guild ladder placement. To add the same ladder scenario for a 4 man guild team would make the GvG scenario to either seem flawed or the TA equivalent to be redundant. Both making ANet look like they have no real stance on what is important to them. They have to stand for something or they will fall for everything. TA battles in OB mode would be interesting, since I'm always up for a good scrap

, yet, TA isn't anything more than 4 man HA without the shrines and excess game paraphinalia. TA is for the guys that can't readily get 8 man teams to gain fame, thus why the Glads title was more than likely created. It appeased the guys that couldn't get 8 guys for HA, but could get 4-6 guys.

That would explain why HA was turned to a 6 man area, but it wasn't respected or wanted by HA guilds/players, so it eventually reverted back.

Yet, TA's title is harder to achieve? Yet, GW's flagship PvP scenario has an easier title track? It's secondary PvP title is also easier to achieve? Does my reasoning make more sense now?

The ladder for 4 possible random guys, or 4 unaffiliated friends equates to the same thing. Chaos looking for order. TA on OB mode, sure, but the ladder is a no go,imo.

erk · Aug 21, 2007, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legendary Shiz

That's got to be one of my biggest pet peeves of this game. A couple months ago there were SEVERAL big time TA guilds, but eventually most of them broke up and went into big time GvG guilds because there was a ladder there. A lot of them wanted to be top 10 on the TA ladder, but the lack of one forced them to be top 10 on the GvG ladder. Even though some of them still preferred TA over GvG.

I just find it amazing that the number of people asking for one thing, and Anet hasn't even seemed to consider it. If you threw in a ladder, I can't say anybody would really care what you did with the glad title. Obviously they'd love for it to be respectable, but the people trying to attain high glads would IMO be just as easily satisfied with being top 25 on a TA ladder.

TA is much easier to organize than GvG, I often waste an hour in the guild hall whilst the GvG team gets it's act together, and that's a guild with 99 members.

Perhaps Anet does not have a formula for a ladder? I would have just assigned 1 rating point per player's guild per win, and subtract 1 per loss.

So if you had 4 x players from the same guild that would be 4 rating points for the win for that guild, or if you had 1 x player from 4 different guilds, each of the guilds would receive 1 rating point for the win. If you are not in a guild, but you can still play.

Master Ketsu · Aug 21, 2007, 11:58 PM // 23:58

Quote:

Perhaps Anet does not have a formula for a ladder? I would have just assigned 1 rating point per player's guild per win, and subtract 1 per loss.

This would be a good idea for a guild ladder in TA. Each guild initially gets 1 bonus point for each gladpoint each player in the guild has, and then they gain 5 points per win, and lose 5 per loss. Some formula that makes sense like that wouldnt be too hard to come up with.