Curse

Winstar · Aug 20, 2007, 08:29 AM // 08:29

yes, but that doesn't mean AT's are any better, it just means that both suck.

Monk Gsb · Aug 20, 2007, 08:49 AM // 08:49

why not have the rules for forfiting " if a guild forfits one match, it looses all of its qualifier points and reward points gained in this tournement " so you cant go in, play 1/2 games, then stop playing because it will just be a waste of time

yule · Aug 20, 2007, 12:14 PM // 12:14

How will that encourage participation?

Im sorta annoyed now tho, my guild beat two guilds 500 rank above us and got 6 points. A guild that was rank 100 ish got 2 forfeits and earned 6.5 points... How the hell does that work?

Elrodien · Aug 20, 2007, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Sorry for hijacking this thread a little, but my guild were playing in a AT last night and some of us got reward points and some of us didn't ( ie me

).

How do you qualify for these? I played in two games and was in the team when we got a forfeit. We lost both games we played. Im registered with the tournement npc too. Anyone know why I got zero points?

Going back on topic, the ATs don't seem to cater for guilds at the bottom of the ladder. The fear of facing rank 100 opposition every match and the huge rating loss incurred when defeated is something that keeps most of the scrub guilds away.

My own guild refused to play in ATs because of this very reason and we decided 'what the hell' at the weekend and just went for it to see what ATs were like. It was actually a good experience for us since we got playing PnH and other top guilds (and getting pwned by them invariably) but it gave everyone a chance to play top opposition and we all learned a lot from it and our own playing level has increased because of it. Our rating hasn't though....

Maybe if rating loss was handicapped for lower ranked guilds so they dont find themselves at a rank of N/A after an AT would encourage more of them to give ATs a try?

BlackEagle · Aug 20, 2007, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Sorry for hijacking this thread a little, but my guild were playing in a AT last night and some of us got reward points and some of us didn't ( ie me

).

How do you qualify for these? I played in two games and was in the team when we got a forfeit. We lost both games we played. Im registered with the tournement npc too. Anyone know why I got zero points?

Unless you play in the first match, you don't get QP. If you play in the first match, and then someone else rolls in for the rest, you'll get all the QP and they'll get none.

Elrodien · Aug 20, 2007, 05:58 PM // 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

Unless you play in the first match, you don't get QP. If you play in the first match, and then someone else rolls in for the rest, you'll get all the QP and they'll get none.

Yep, thats what happened - I came in at the 3rd game...thanks for clearing that up for me.

Div · Aug 20, 2007, 07:58 PM // 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Sorry for hijacking this thread a little, but my guild were playing in a AT last night and some of us got reward points and some of us didn't ( ie me

).

How do you qualify for these? I played in two games and was in the team when we got a forfeit. We lost both games we played. Im registered with the tournement npc too. Anyone know why I got zero points?

Going back on topic, the ATs don't seem to cater for guilds at the bottom of the ladder. The fear of facing rank 100 opposition every match and the huge rating loss incurred when defeated is something that keeps most of the scrub guilds away.

My own guild refused to play in ATs because of this very reason and we decided 'what the hell' at the weekend and just went for it to see what ATs were like. It was actually a good experience for us since we got playing PnH and other top guilds (and getting pwned by them invariably) but it gave everyone a chance to play top opposition and we all learned a lot from it and our own playing level has increased because of it. Our rating hasn't though....

Maybe if rating loss was handicapped for lower ranked guilds so they dont find themselves at a rank of N/A after an AT would encourage more of them to give ATs a try?

Yeah, it's quite annoying only the first 8 players get RP. One of our monks didn't play the first match, but played 3 of the 4 remaining matches (two of which I'm sure he had to work pretty hard for), and didn't get the 75 RP that the monk who started the first match got. Seems a bit unfair. Should multiply RP by (games played)/(total games). Seems like an easy enough formula...

Your rating will probably drop as a lower ranked guild, but what people usually don't notice is you gain valuable experience. How often are you going to fight PnH, vD, or KGYU on the regular ladder if you're rank 800? Believe it or not, you generally actually play better if you fight a better opponent, and you learn a lot more from it than getting +2 off rank 5000 guilds. Unfortunately, most lower ranked guilds don't care about "experience." It's an intangible thing, which is why a lot of players rather HA than GvG. Ladder rating is their only tangible way of measuring achievement, so they rather see those +2's from bad guilds than a -3 to KGYU in an AT.

Rating loss is already pretty low as is. It's based on the rating difference, and playing a very high rating guild means you lose next to nothing. When we were rank 300ish, we got about -5 from a rank 50 guild, but only a -2 from a rank 10 guild. In comparison, we get +10 from stomping a rank 800, and +15 for beating a rank 150. The unfortunate thing is that the lower guilds will never see a +xx in an AT if they can't beat a rank 1k or better guild, which is pretty discouraging.

Winstar · Aug 20, 2007, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

Your rating will probably drop as a lower ranked guild, but what people usually don't notice is you gain valuable experience. How often are you going to fight PnH, vD, or KGYU on the regular ladder if you're rank 800? Believe it or not, you generally actually play better if you fight a better opponent, and you learn a lot more from it than getting +2 off rank 5000 guilds. Unfortunately, most lower ranked guilds don't care about "experience." It's an intangible thing, which is why a lot of players rather HA than GvG. Ladder rating is their only tangible way of measuring achievement, so they rather see those +2's from bad guilds than a -3 to KGYU in an AT.

Rating loss is already pretty low as is. It's based on the rating difference, and playing a very high rating guild means you lose next to nothing. When we were rank 300ish, we got about -5 from a rank 50 guild, but only a -2 from a rank 10 guild. In comparison, we get +10 from stomping a rank 800, and +15 for beating a rank 150. The unfortunate thing is that the lower guilds will never see a +xx in an AT if they can't beat a rank 1k or better guild, which is pretty discouraging.

The experience is really really important. In the old ladder system even when you were lower ranked you would on a fairly frequent basis get paired with top 100 teams, but playing the ladder now at a lower rank means you'll never see them. So tournaments really provide a great opportunity for that provided that your team is together enough to stay in the match long enough to not simply get rolled. The best lessons you learn, for me anyway, is when you come out and can watch and see exactly how the good teams figure out what you are doing and break you down, and how they adjust their play to find ways to win matches. You may have to bite the bullet and soak up some rating loss, but you have to be able to get over the mentality that your place on the ladder is always an indicator of your team. Doing a tournament and losing some rating but learning some lessons still means you come out ahead as a team and its going mean that in the future you are going to make better showings.

Xanthar · Aug 21, 2007, 01:27 PM // 13:27

I completely agree that experience is a good thing, and that it can be found in abundance even in todays ATs. On the other hand, I think that we are in agreement that there is a substantial disincentive to play them in the form or rank loss. Sure, your guild might be getting better, but to everyone else it's going to look like you are noobs. This takes a toll in the form of guild morale and fighting spirit. Telling people to hang in there is good, but it only helps so long - Your self-esteem is going to suffer if you get flattened every time you play.

If there were separate rankings for ATs and ladder play however, your guild could still be bottom ranked in ATs (my guild would be

) and yet retain a decent standing on the ladder, roughly reflecting the skill you have in that format. Can anyone see any drawbacks on this kind of dual-rating system?

Winstar · Aug 21, 2007, 02:47 PM // 14:47

There is an important sense in which the ladder is pretty irrelevant right now. In the past, ladder position was everything right up until the playoffs. You had to grind your way to the top 16 or 32. Now it doesn't matter in the same way. The focus of GvG, all the rewards and profits, are from AT's. All you need to do is show up to at's and qualify for monthly championships and you get a shot at trim and rewards. Ladder ranking is a reflection of success in this system, but it is not an actual hurdle that one must overcome.

I like having the ladder as a reflection of success rather than a requirement to succeed, and I think the current system where tournaments are bread and butter and random ladder matches are low risk chances to practice builds, try out new people, rotate in subs etc is a good idea. I think 2 seperate ladders would just encourage guilds not to try and make a go of it in the ATS which is the intended focus of GvG at the moment, and the problem is increasing ATS participation.

I can definately appreciate the morale issue, and the issue of recruiting with a bad ranking, but I think if guilds started emphasising other things in recruitment like qualifier points, average reward points for members of the a month and such it might be another way to draw people in. There is a sense in which people need to get beyond the rank obbsession- though this is of course no small problem to overcome. In the end, if more teams made the effort you'd end up with more matches with teams of comparable ranking.

Xanthar · Aug 21, 2007, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

I like having the ladder as a reflection of success rather than a requirement to succeed, and I think the current system where tournaments are bread and butter and random ladder matches are low risk chances to practice builds, try out new people, rotate in subs etc is a good idea. I think 2 seperate ladders would just encourage guilds not to try and make a go of it in the ATS which is the intended focus of GvG at the moment, and the problem is increasing ATS participation.

I disagree: Presumably, the AT ranking would be much more prestigious and thus engender more "buzz" since it can only be gotten by actually playing ATs. It is akin to the "Gladiator point system" that is now being discussed elsewhere: For a middling-to-bad guild, the easiest (and admittedly slowest) way to get a high ladder rank is to grind it in free play. Since the rewards are the same, most chose the path of least resistance.

In fact, I anticipate that a low AT rank might even be more "attractive" from a status/recruiting standpoint than a high free play rank, since it will indicate that you are playing with the "big boys" for real prizes.

As for "ATs decide your real rank and free play is for build testing" - That will remain in place even with two separate ELO systems. The fun thing is that the converse would also be true. People with a high free play ranking (and the e-peen to go with it) are less loath to play ATs and put it all at risk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

I can definately appreciate the morale issue, and the issue of recruiting with a bad ranking, but I think if guilds started emphasising other things in recruitment like qualifier points, average reward points for members of the a month and such it might be another way to draw people in. There is a sense in which people need to get beyond the rank obbsession- though this is of course no small problem to overcome.

Indeed, but this is a PR problem that is hard to attack as a single guild - The reward points etc. has gained no traction when it comes to status in the (middling to low end) GvG crowd. A good thought, but it seems an insurmountable task at the moment.

czart · Sep 01, 2007, 05:15 AM // 05:15

My searching the forum finished in nothing interesting about this subject, so I'm writing. Automated Tournaments are very good idea, but in my opinion they suffer from two problems
1) no rewards for all players in a team
2) too many forfeits

Problem 1 - rewards
If you enter a team for example in the second round, you will receive no reward points, even if you have played until the end and achieved 1st place. This is unfair for players participating in a tournament

This should work in this way: all players from a guild team which won reward, who participated in play, receive points. How many, it depends on the number of matches played. Let's say someone played all 5 from 5, he will receive 100% of what is calculated for his team. Another player played in 1 match from 5, so he will receive 20% of the points calculated for his team.

Problem 2 - forfeits
I suppose everyone who participates in AT hates forfeits. This is probably more common, the better rank of your guild is. Also some guilds exploit it to easy farm reward points, as you may enter a tournament even with 4 people + 4 hero, loose a battle, but it's very likely that during those 5 or 6 matches there will be about 50% forfeits, so you got your points anyway. This works especially at time when very low number of guilds play (like early morning or very late evening in Europe during working days).

I do not understand why forfeits aren't counted as normal wins/defeat (plus or minus points). This should affect ladder points - like in any sport, your team did not standed a match at specific time, it would be lost with all consequences. The solution is the following:
1) if a guild do not enter a battle after a round is paired and they know the opponent ("no! top 100 guild, we do forfeit" or "yes! top 2000 guild, we play!"), they will loose ladder points like they would be defeated in normal AT battle
2) add a button "withdraw from tournament", which guild may press any time except those 5 minutes when you know the name of your opponent. After pressing, your guild is dropped out and is not calculated anymore for pairing. This button is to prevent loosing points by subscribing to a tournament and changing your decision or in situation you have no longer players to participate. This also prevents from abusing ladder ELO system by such situations.

This should
- decrease the number of guilds subscribing to a tournament just in case that "maybe we will play, but who knows, there is only 1 player on-line now"
- decrease the number of forfeits, so save the time of those who are waiting this XX minutes for next round just because someone had "great idea" and subscribed, because there are no negative consequences (5k factions for tokens is no conesquence when so many players have nothing to do with factions).

First round faster
There is also an improvement for situation in which there is no match in the first round as every opponent forfeited. Every guild which stayed have to wait this 30 minutes for next round, while a system could make next round immediately in one minute, before people start to do sth else, like playing normal gvg or go afk.

Vaga · Sep 09, 2007, 08:33 AM // 08:33

The problem with AT's all stem from underlying problems with the AT system. The best solution in order to get more matches would be to have a monthly ladder (or reset the ladder each month) and just have the top 16 teams go through to the monthly single elimination rounds.

This motivates all the top teams to play more, motivates less degenerate game play in that it pays to win quickly rather than play defensively. It also shortens the time of the monthly by a lot.