Curse

romO · Jun 14, 2007, 11:40 PM // 23:40

Hmm that's very true. But as far as running into the same top players over and over, with this new pug-friendly system, won't it almost even out due to playing many of the same bad players over and over?

I might be wrong, but one of the assumptions that I've always made about pugging is that it's something for everyone. There are no requirements for pugs. If 8 bad players whose guilds are not online want to play, a pug is born. Those are guilds that result in easy wins, rather than hard-fought defeats. The number of top pugs and lower-level pugs should turn out favorably to most real guilds, especially considering organizational factors. Of course, once again, I might be completely off, but in the ideal world that I imagine, that's the way that things will work.

Dzan · Jun 15, 2007, 02:14 AM // 02:14

Tommy is right. The % of guilds who have 5 or 6 active members but a large friends list is very high. This will get more guilds into the tournament who actually want to play. The incidence of high level guilds tanking people will be balanced by the addition of trash pugs at the lower end, the mid level guilds have nothing to worry about.

Taurus · Jun 15, 2007, 02:50 AM // 02:50

Somebody gotta tell em that people wont just switch to ATS overnight, plus going up in the gvg ladder + playing AT's takes up a LOT of time. My guild for example is testing builds in the regular ladder before we go seriously into the tournaments.
I wont say it will completely ruin the ATS, but its better the way its now.

Lodurr · Jun 15, 2007, 07:54 AM // 07:54

I see what you're saying--that more lower-ranked guilds will be able to enter because they can guest people. Though I think smurfing and PuGing is done more often in the top 200 than in the 200-1000 range. And when your guild gets the needed QP to get into the monthly tourney, what's their motivation for using their own guild to play in ATs from then on?

I think PuGs can have plenty of fun playing the regular ladder--after all, they're not there to get rating. ATs should be the primary way guilds really establish themselves on the ladder. A two guest restriction sounds like a better number to me than four.

Div · Jun 15, 2007, 08:15 AM // 08:15

I think part of the concern for mid-tier teams is that smurf/pug guilds are generally lower in rank than the players that make up those teams. So while you may get 1 game against them and another against a crappy pug, on the whole you lose rating. Say both teams are worse in rank than you (if you're rank 200), you'll get a +6 for beating the crappy pug, and then followed by a -17 when you lose to the high-skilled but low-ranked guild. Losing that -11 rating can greatly demoralize those not-as-established guilds, and may possibly drop them a hundred or so ranks

Clouded One · Jun 15, 2007, 08:20 AM // 08:20

You are right, the new system will get more lower ranked guilds signing up to play the ATs. Being leader of a guild that is low rank we don't even think of playing competitvly unless we are 6+ members strong, I'm not saying every low rank guild is that way but wouldn't the two guest restriction make more sense? I mean seriously, if you are going in with 4 members and the rest guests how seriously are you going to worry about rating? I personally would think two guests would be more then enough of a restriction, I think the biggest problem I have heard from other guilds is the ATs time. Maybe the best idea would be 2 guest restriction and a fix of the ATs time instead of making the ATs more smurf/pug friendly? Not sure how much sense this makes but it sounds good to myself

Blame the Monks · Jun 15, 2007, 12:52 PM // 12:52

Its time for people to realize -- ATs killed the ladder. Completely. Its gone. Its irrelevant (moreso than it was). Anet turned the last quality arena of the game into a training ground at best and a cesspool at worst. In order to be successful, just completely ignore your rank/rating from now on. It has zero relevance. Regular ladder games = fun, practice. ATs = point farming. Monthly ATs = real games.

That's all. You gamble everything on a lucky seed and a few well run matches on tourney day with full guests and so on using your guest accounts. Other than that, there is no competitive play in GW. Ladder standing is irrelevant. Overall AT performance is irrelevant (no penalty for losing, just as long as you get your 20 points).

That's why the ladder is dead -- its irrelevant.
That's why daily ATs are dead -- they are irrelevant.
That's why monthly ATs suck -- who wants to stay in GvG form for 6 games a month?
The lack of competitive play (combined with so many gimmicks/button smashing bars, excessive wait times, high barriers to entry for new people, and a lack of incentive for winning at pvp) is why PvP is dead.

I think ATs suck, don't get me wrong, but for teams that only want to play 6 competitive games a month its a godsend. You can completely dick around the other 27-30 days a month with no consequence. And for that matter you can suck overall and still get rewards with a nice gimmick and/or a lucky run (see that trash guild that got silver last time).

Just realize the game has changed. In line with Anets move towards diverse, but shallow archtypes, anet replaced the ELO ladder with shallow, but accessible, tournaments where anyone has a shot. Bringing pvp to the masses....by making winning based on showing up and button mashing, not skill.

/rage

Ensign · Jun 19, 2007, 09:46 PM // 21:46

I think, just from looking at the number of teams playing in the AT last night compared to the number in the previous weeks, that the change to AT eligibility has been a resounding success. More successful than I could have guessed, there were apparently a lot of guilds out there that wanted to play but couldn't because of the time limit restriction.

Thom Bangalter · Jun 20, 2007, 04:32 AM // 04:32

Izzy was pretty pleased with it on vent, they may reduce restrictions even more in the future, but I dunno. I just don't want to stick my 2nd in the same guild for two weeks to pug on it.

black_mischief · Jun 25, 2007, 10:07 AM // 10:07

My vote is to remove daily ATs and keep a weekly (weekend AT) and the monthly AT.

Daily ATs are a complete waste of time. They require you to sit around for 3 hours collecting forfeits and playing less games than you would normally get on regular ladder play in the same period of time. It is really stupid.

I don't understand why no one at Arenanet seems to understand the value of casual, easily accessible GvG play.

1. Make a pick-up GvG district.
2. Make 50-100 premade chars for PvP at login.
3. Dump these crappy ATs. People don't have 3 hrs to sit around and get 2-3 forfeits and play only 2-3 games. They'd rather quickly get more ladder games.