Curse

Performance Pudding · Aug 22, 2007, 12:59 AM // 00:59

i say 3 is the best because i have done ra a ton and never did ta once and finally got my glad title

. so my point is to many times i have had a group member leave 5-9 matches in meaning ive won about 5000 matchesbut onlyhave 26 points which hardly seems to make much sense. 10% of my matches i have a solid team that dosent leave but 2% of the matches has a team thats decent (some healer, kd, no more than 1 noob) also finding a monk seems to be very hard for me and although i have gotten to 10 without a healer it is very hard and requires a ton of spiking which i can rarely find in all three ofmy team mates. so anyway number 3 plz

TheOneMephisto · Aug 22, 2007, 01:04 AM // 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkpower Alchemist

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.

Read my suggestion in the TA forums for a TA ladder. Basically, I suggest that they can make new mini-guilds, which I call rosters, that can hold around 5-6 people, and as long as 3 people on a team are from the same roster then you can play rated matches. Also, people would have to be on a roster for a certain amount of time before being able to count as one of the 3 people, but you could play with newcomers and test with that extra "guest" slot. Basically, you add another form of miniguilds, that can be affiliated with guilds or not.

As I said in the other thread, this would help GvG competition. It would allows guilds to set up "smurf" rosters in order to test new applicants without risking rank (not that ladder games matter) in a 4v4 setting, which tests a lot of other skills. It would add a competitive (if done right and finally balanced) yet casual gametype. It would allow newcomers to the game to develop contacts and skills in an easier to understand setting. It would provide the perfect place for mid-level guilds to look for good, but unknown recruits.

It would also up the competition in TA by ridiculous amounts, while still maintaining fairly consistent, yet fairly easy to setup teams.

Hayashi · Aug 22, 2007, 01:19 AM // 01:19

Wow, if theres a TA ladder, i dont care WHAT THEY DO to the glad title. Cuz ill be that happy. WTT glad 4 title for competitive TA.

Relambrien · Aug 22, 2007, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Since I'm not really a big TA player, could someone answer this question for me? What's the problem with just adding a personal ladder in TA? Instead of certain teams being on the ladder, have individuals be on the ladder. Use a formula to determine the difference in estimated skill level between teams and make rating change calculations for each member based on this difference.

To use an example, I'll use the ELO system currently in use. Let's say that, for the sake of this example, that the rating of the four people on the team is averaged and compared to the average rating of the other team, and then the ELO system makes rating changes for each person based on these two values.

Using hard numbers: Team 1 has two members with rating 1000, two with rating 1100. Team 2 has two members with rating 1200, two with rating 1300.

The average rating of Team 1 is 1050, and the average rating of Team 2 and 1250. Then just use the ELO formula with some k value to determine how each person's rating on each team changes.

Would there be any particular problems with this kind of system? Or is it just that a specific "roster" system would be more desirable?

I'm just wondering, thanks.

Master Ketsu · Aug 22, 2007, 04:08 AM // 04:08

the problem with in individual TA ladder would be: why bother ? Glad ranks basically are the ladder for individual acheivment.

Legendary Shiz · Aug 22, 2007, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Since I'm not really a big TA player, could someone answer this question for me? What's the problem with just adding a personal ladder in TA? Instead of certain teams being on the ladder, have individuals be on the ladder. Use a formula to determine the difference in estimated skill level between teams and make rating change calculations for each member based on this difference.

To use an example, I'll use the ELO system currently in use. Let's say that, for the sake of this example, that the rating of the four people on the team is averaged and compared to the average rating of the other team, and then the ELO system makes rating changes for each person based on these two values.

Using hard numbers: Team 1 has two members with rating 1000, two with rating 1100. Team 2 has two members with rating 1200, two with rating 1300.

The average rating of Team 1 is 1050, and the average rating of Team 2 and 1250. Then just use the ELO formula with some k value to determine how each person's rating on each team changes.

Would there be any particular problems with this kind of system? Or is it just that a specific "roster" system would be more desirable?

I'm just wondering, thanks.

I think it would be kind of tough to do a guild based TA ladder, just because a lot of the higher end TAers do a lot of friends listing as well as guildies. So I really do like your suggestion, however I doubt either one will ever be more than a fantasy.

DreamWind · Aug 22, 2007, 05:17 AM // 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkpower Alchemist

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.

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?

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't neccessarily have to be guild placement or more important than anything else. Hell, they have a PvE mission ladder for crying out loud. GvG will always be the most important.

I think the problem as it stands, is that TA is worthless. You have an entire gametype in Guild Wars that 99% of the population agrees is worthless and only used to waste time. It has no incentive to play and is basically dead.

OneMephisto gave a nice idea on how it could be set up. Anet could easily do it in grouped teams or even individually. It would not neccessarily be for a guild title.

I think a large problem people are having is that Hero Battles were given a ladder and became extremely competitive. It became so competitive that the format was exposed for its terrible inbalances. The same thing would probably happen to TA, and I think Anet wants to avoid it.

skillsbas8 · Aug 22, 2007, 05:27 AM // 05:27

I'd love it if they added ladder/ obs for TA. I personally love the TA format (simple 4v4 annihilation), but the lack of reward or sense of accomplishment is lacking. Other than glad points, which are lol, Ta'ing has no purpose. would <3 a-net forever.

Relambrien · Aug 22, 2007, 08:55 AM // 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legendary Shiz

I think it would be kind of tough to do a guild based TA ladder, just because a lot of the higher end TAers do a lot of friends listing as well as guildies. So I really do like your suggestion, however I doubt either one will ever be more than a fantasy.

I'm not really trying to suggest such a system, just wondering what problems such a system would have, or what the pros and cons are.

Mangione · Aug 22, 2007, 09:52 AM // 09:52

I play RA sometimes, to get a spare glad point when I'm not busy doing AB/HA or pve stuff with guildies/allies/friends, and so do some of the guys I know.
I'm not a griefer, nor a leaver, nor a synchroer, nor [insert other bad name here]. Just a normal player.

Reading the whole thread I've seen many proposals, the ones i like better from the devs is #1.
The one from the players is here http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=175
(Nice idea Ketsu, well tought, it would make the title obtainable to less skilled players, but will give higher rewards to those who are more skilled)

- With a scoring system like that one, people will try to do their best to get the points, and fell less the urge to leave.

Many posters seem to fear leeching, but being honest, how many points will leechers get staying in matches 3vs4?
Will they need to be always behind the screen clicking the "join battle" button?
Or will they use a clicker/bot program to enter the arenas? (and in the such case I think A-net will be able to detect and ban them). On this matter I quote http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=136

- For the TA give an higher bonus, for example 10 points on each winning streak (or double reward if you choose a different point system).

- As for "punishment" for leaving, I think that making people unable to re-enter the arenas for 5 minutes would be acceptable (say that Balthazar gets offended and doesn't want to see you into his "house" for a while).

This would go well with the fact that the leaver would choose between staying/playing and maybe get some points, or being kept out from the arenas for 5 minutes.

And I don't think that such penalty would be too harsh for players having an emergency.
In my experience I had to leave 3 times the arenas, all the 3 times due to an emergency (it took waaaay more than 5 minutes to solve the problems, and gw went among the last things in my mind in that moments).

- I don't like a cap to glad points that can be obtained in RA as some users have suggested.

- I'd like to see a change to the current system. If not the #1 which seem to scare many, nor Ketsu's idea, then take #3 (giving double points for those who play TA)

Patrick Smit · Aug 22, 2007, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangione

....- As for "punishment" for leaving, I think that making people unable to re-enter the arenas for 5 minutes would be acceptable (say that Balthazar gets offended and doesn't want to see you into his "house" for a while).

This would go well with the fact that the leaver would choose between staying/playing and maybe get some points, or being kept out from the arenas for 5 minutes.

And I don't think that such penalty would be too harsh for players having an emergency.
In my experience I had to leave 3 times the arenas, all the 3 times due to an emergency (it took waaaay more than 5 minutes to solve the problems, and gw went among the last things in my mind in that moments)....

Ill say it one more time then, as people still seem to think this will work. THis aint working, because people will not contribute to the fight, lower their armor, will not res, as they want to loose as fast as possible, to get to a new fight. Eventually a faked disconnect (hard unplug) will prevent punishment, or we should punish people with bad connections too?

Vazze · Aug 22, 2007, 01:31 PM // 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Smit

Ill say it one more time then, as people still seem to think this will work. THis aint working, because people will not contribute to the fight, lower their armor, will not res, as they want to loose as fast as possible, to get to a new fight.

Exactly. However, RA has its share of leeroys, and leavers will be virtually indistinguishable from original nubs, so nobody will find out (well, you can guess something is fishy, when a guy with glad6 title leeroys...). But still, this is not a solution, it is just hiding the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Since I'm not really a big TA player, could someone answer this question for me? What's the problem with just adding a personal ladder in TA? Instead of certain teams being on the ladder, have individuals be on the ladder. Use a formula to determine the difference in estimated skill level between teams and make rating change calculations for each member based on this difference.

I think this is a great idea, not only for TA but also for RA (but each needs its own rating).

notrich · Aug 22, 2007, 02:31 PM // 14:31

missed something on the first read through of the original post...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Patrick

However, we also wish to ensure that when the anti-leaver system is implemented, players are not in a position where they feel we are punishing them

Its ok... they should be punished.

I have played RA off and on for two years and I can count on one hand how many times I have left a team first DURING (or at the begining of) a battle.

For the last few months, I have seen about crazy high leave rates for RA (unless I monk and then god forbid we get 2 or 3 monks).

A five minute ban (or a leaky bucket ban - lose 1 minute off of your total ban time per hour, but add 5 minutes everytime you leave to your total ban time) wouldn't kill anybody.

Legendary Shiz · Aug 22, 2007, 03:39 PM // 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

I'm not really trying to suggest such a system, just wondering what problems such a system would have, or what the pros and cons are.

Oh, I understand you weren't trying to suggest a guild based ladder I was just listing how unlikely it would be for that to be implemented. If there ever were a ladder, I personally think your idea would be great.

I could see it being very good to be honest, and I really don't see any reason for anybody to attempt to 'cheat the system' and bring a lower ranked/higher ranked person onto their team. If you bring a lower ranked player (unless he's a friend, I'm talking a PuG) you're hurting your chances of getting on TV. And if you're bringing along a higher ranked (3 low 1 high) player you're increasing your chances of getting your face smashed in on TV.

I really, really like your idea. That way people will basically just watch their favorite players, and look for them in any groups. I don't really know if there are any cons to the system. But then again, I'm such a homer for a TA ladder I could the good in basically any system.

Master Ketsu · Aug 23, 2007, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Quote:

Its ok... they should be punished.

Seconded. Any one person willing to ruin the chance of a good game for 7 people just so they can exploit the system to get a title slightly faster deserves a 5 minute ban from the battle isles, at least.

erk · Aug 23, 2007, 05:02 AM // 05:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Ketsu

Seconded. Any one person willing to ruin the chance of a good game for 7 people just so they can exploit the system to get a title slightly faster deserves a 5 minute ban from the battle isles, at least.

I played a reapers Necro in RA id1 this morning for an hour before work, it took 18 game attempts before I could get 4 players in my team without a quitter in the party, spending 10-15min for a stable team is not unusual. In the American districts it's much better, about 2-3 games before you get 4 to stay.

I do feel that players should be punished unless you have some neat method of making them feel rewarded by no quitting.

Patrick Smit · Aug 23, 2007, 06:20 AM // 06:20

Ok ERk, if you think its more funny to play with LeerroooooooYYY then go ahead. I hope you realize that in the end it will be the same if you have seen hundreds of them.

snikerz · Aug 23, 2007, 06:51 AM // 06:51

I'm not reading 11 pages, so i will post my thoughts, having experience in RA/TA with almost a lvl7 glad title.

Firstly, what about people who dont load?, lots of people still think there in the year 1995 and are still using useless pc's or have dialup connection, I can tell you this happens just as much as leavers, and it's fustrating having to fight 3v4.

i'm not a typical leaver, but i'll leave on circumstances like what I just mentioned above

I read somewhere from Andrew Patrick that ANet will implement a time system so you can't run and tank for hours on end, i personally think this is an excellent idea.

Isileth · Aug 23, 2007, 06:56 AM // 06:56

A punishment for leaving would work as long as it didnt punish those leaving for a valid reason. The simple fix to this would hold any punishment till the x time they leave in y hours. This way someone who joins a team with a runner, 4 monks, disconnects, others leave etc can leave. However someone who is trying to hook up with his guild or looking for the perfect team will be punished.

And also it would need to allow people to quit at the end of a game still or after x mins.

Thomas.knbk · Aug 23, 2007, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Smit

Ok ERk, if you think its more funny to play with LeerroooooooYYY then go ahead. I hope you realize that in the end it will be the same if you have seen hundreds of them.

I have to agree with this. If my team consists of a n/e flare spammer, a stance tank with healing breeze and an earth tank it really won't be that much of a difference if I leave or not. They'll be rolled regardless, it just saves some of my time. Please don't give me 'but it's random' crap. I'm willing to put up with no-monk teams, or imperfect builds, but a team that's basically designed to lose is a waste of everyone's time. Including mine.