Curse

ostepop · May 11, 2007, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Who cares about ATs when you can obs HvH!!!!!

=(((((((((((((((((

failfailfailfail

DutchSmurf · May 11, 2007, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

How do you define casual then? Something that only lasts 10 minutes? A typical "casual" pvper plays 1-2 hours at a time, maybe 3-4 times a week. That's enough to set up and play a respectable amount of gvgs.
How is it not AT's problem if it's forcing players to stick around for 4 straight hours? The whole tournament system is flawed, and the only reason why they were good in the past were because those were the top teams playing in seasonal playoffs, where they only have to set aside that block of time once every 1-2 months, and most of those players are more hardcore anyways. The tournament should not have been designed for public use like this, because it just turns to public abuse. This actually promotes an even stupider kind of ladder farming in reality.
Oh aren't you the brilliant prophet. Why can't the rest of us pvpers be as wise as you? Maybe because if we were, the pvp community would be full of snobs like you who think they know it all.

Seriously, what's the point of your post? To defend the AT system or to make yourself look smart or something by saying that stuff?

Yes, it seems compared to you I'm brilliant. Lets see, a daily tournament. That looks like more then 1 match to me. For a decent tournament you need to play atleast 5 matches. A gvg takes 30 minutes. You need to play 5 in a row. How strange, that makes 2.5 hours. And how strange, you need some time between matches, now it is suddenly 3.5 hours. But then I guess you need to be brilliant to get that. Now tell me how you can make a daily tournament that doesn't take 4 hours to play.
Also we already knew you would need to get a certain amount of points to go to the monthly finals where you can win money. Guilds are only interested in the money, for the rest they don't care about daily tournaments. They can get points by doing nothing. How strange, people acually do that.
Also, you try playing for 1-2 hours a day (counting from the moment you log on until you log off) and see how many gvgs you can play. I think it will be 3 at most. If you actually play a gvg at all. I've been in enough guilds to know how frustrating it is to have people that can only play 1-2 hours. By the time everyone is set up, you can play 2-3 matches and then the first has to go already.

So no, I'm not defending ATs at all. If anything, I'm doubting if gvgs actually work as daily tournament. But that isn't something people want to hear at this forum. ATs were a bad idea from the start, but nobody wanted to hear that either. I would like anyone complaining now to actually think of a suggestion to fix the problems. I tried to think of some, but always it was the gvg-format that was the problem. But any change to that won't be something people want to hear.

Ec]-[oMaN · May 11, 2007, 06:11 PM // 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ostepop

Who cares about ATs when you can obs HvH!!!!!

=(((((((((((((((((

failfailfailfail

Oh yeah, and to boot! The HVH obs mode is above GVG's/HA. Shows the importance don't you think?

I'd also like the option in OBS mode that when I click the minimize button on whatever gameplay mode ie HVH that it remembers it for the next time I open obs mode.

Not Prime Time · May 11, 2007, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Warning may contain sarcasm!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

By now this scene is familiar:
Please anet -- stop giving us crap you want to sell (ATs, HvH) and start responding to what we ask for (game balance).

Come on all the whinning is getting ridiculous!!!!! I mean updating the Combat Audio was much more important IMO. My W/Mo with echo mending sounds so bitchin' now!!!!! Thank You Anet!!!!!!!!!!

Patrograd · May 12, 2007, 09:14 AM // 09:14

Email sent to [email protected]

Hi there

We (Slayers N Scholars) entered an AT last night (Friday 11 May) and I have some observations on the whole experience, which was, to be honest, pretty brutal.

At the start of the tournament we were rank 450. 25 teams entered, and we were about the 9th or 10th highest ranked team in the tournament. We went into the tournament with our eyes open, aware of the increased K value, and aware that we could well take some heavy ratings loss. We went to some considerable effort to organise things so that we had 8 qualified guild members online at the right time (no small effort) and so we hit the join button.

Our first match was against a rank 100ish guild. We gave them a good match, was quite even, but in the end they had too much for us and we lost. We took -9 rating for this defeat, which is OK, we had a good game, and looking at the other opponents we might face we knew we could easily recover that rating later on in the tournament.

Our second match we were given a bye.

Our third match we played against a rank 50 team and were soundly beaten for -7 points. Still, we werent too disappointed, playing against this sort of opposition is good for our team development, and again we could see that there was a fair chance we could recover the rating.

Our fourth match we lost to a rank 40 team, and took another -7 rating. By now, there were only four teams left in the tournament, with the teams we had a chance of beating having forfeited out.

Our fifth match we were drawn against Team Everfrost, rank 3, and decided that we didnt want to lose yet more rating, so forfeited.

We ended the tournament in ninth place, outside the QP range, and lost 23 points finishing the tournament in rank 750.

Now on its own, this is fine, you can get a hard draw, and as I said earlier, playing against these better teams is good for us. The nature of the ELO system is such that we will eventually recover these points from normal ladder play.

Here though is the real issue.

Of the teams that finished above us, two didnt play a single game. Both of them secured one forfeit win and one bye. Both of these were teams who were in the sort of rank range where we would expect an 80% chance or better of winning and securing 13-17 points from each win. We didnt get to play either of these teams becasue as soon as they had their two "wins" they forfeited out of the tournament, safe in the knowledge that they had secured QPs and RPs. They took no rating loss, took no rating risk really. Only 2 teams (those that finished first and second, both of whom we played and lost to) actually played more games than us.

In other words, we were punished, really pretty brutally, for turning up and taking the tournament seriously, for going to the considerable bother of organising a full team and playing late into the small hours, punished for not fofeiting out as soon as we saw the nature of our opponents - whereas other teams were rewarded massively for exploiting the ridiculousness of the system with no intention of playing to win, with no intention of playing AT ALL in fact. This is just completely wrong and desperately, desperately unfair. What is the incentive for us doing this again? While I am keen to support this concept, something needs to be urgently done to address the whole tournament structure before we could realistically consider entering again.

I dont have any answers, I dont know how this can be fixed, but it really, really needs to be fixed, not next week, not next month, but NOW, TODAY. The thing is a farce, a joke.

Regards

X Patro X
Guild leader, Slayers N Scholars

*************

TheZens · May 12, 2007, 09:59 AM // 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

Email sent to [email protected]

Hi there

We (Slayers N Scholars) ........... /snip

There isnt much i can say other than agree with everything you say in that email, anet have made some shocking mistakes in the past 6-12 months in an effort to improve this game but instead they simply made it more complicated and harder to achieve things while at the same time introducing more ways to abuse a system. When will people realise simplicity and flexibility is always the best way? its really no wonder people are leaving the game.

Its such a shame the Guild Wars concept of balanced PvP, GvG/HA/Arena, the skill sets and mechanics in many ways produced a very interesting and dynamic game that has kept me and many people playing this game for 2 years now. If only Anet would have done more balancing and tweaks to those skills and mechanics instead of introducing all these not needed bells and whistles like AT's.

I just hope they learn there lessons for GW2 because this game is done

Numa Pompilius · May 12, 2007, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

Many people clung to GW because of the hope of what it could be and was in the past

I'm just curious... What past? People have been saying the exact things you're saying (that the game is unbalanced and that it was better before) at least since GW was released, two years ago. Meanwhile the game has changed so much only the graphics are the same.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you need to be more specific in your complaint: What is unbalanced? What change is it you want rolled back?

Lord Mendes · May 12, 2007, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I'm just curious... What past? People have been saying the exact things you're saying (that the game is unbalanced and that it was better before) at least since GW was released, two years ago. Meanwhile the game has changed so much only the graphics are the same.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you need to be more specific in your complaint: What is unbalanced? What change is it you want rolled back?

(Imo) This game was best pre-factions.

Patrograd · May 12, 2007, 02:16 PM // 14:16

Some suggested fixes to the horribly broken and heavily abused At system

1) if you forfeit at any stage then you also forfeit any QPs or RPs. The final standings, in other words, are decided purely from the teams that actually completed the tournament. This will prevent afk farming and force teams to compete in 4 or 5 matches to earn their rewards.

2) The 8 member/14 day rule needs to be relaxed for all but the monthly playoffs in a bid to encourage proper participation. I think that 6 member/14 days plus 2 others is enough to discourage PUGs and smurfs but loose enough to actually get some teams entering

Ec]-[oMaN · May 12, 2007, 07:41 PM // 19:41

WTB OLD LADDER system with these new rewards put in. Make it just as casual as before. Grab your 8 guildies who have been there for 14 days, click join old ladder, wins/loss reward you with old k ratings. Qualifier points+RP's are awarded every 24 hours just like how your guild is updated on gwladder every 24. No more waiting around, forfeits...

Greedy Gus · May 13, 2007, 01:15 AM // 01:15

American GvG activity will soon go the way of Korean GvG activity. Too many blunders on Anet's part, even the teams who are on the cusp of breaking into the top level GvG (because the teams above are quitting), are quitting as well.

From the look of things, a fair amount of Euro teams are happy enough playing buildwars and farming all the AT points, so that will be the only solid activity left pretty soon.

DutchSmurf · May 13, 2007, 09:33 AM // 09:33

American gvg activity is getting lower for months already, no way you can blame that on the ATs. As I said earlier, there are more deeper causes for the gvg activity to get lower and lower. Only things the ATs do is show those problems. The only blunder Anet made is making a hard to access, difficult to learn and very time consuming kind of pvp their main (and for a long time, only) focus. They made that mistake 3 years ago and now the people got bored (which isn't strange after 2 years) you finally see the effects. And solving it now is very, very, very hard.

yesitsrob · May 13, 2007, 12:40 PM // 12:40

No ones blaming the lower activity on the ATs... it was dying, people were hoping the ATs would help restore it. The ATs are actually a complete, poorly implemented joke.

The game is in a complete mess. Not at all worth playing at the moment

DutchSmurf · May 13, 2007, 01:34 PM // 13:34

The only thing that could have saved gvg is a way for new people to get UAX without paying extra, combined with an easy way to find guilds and/or a way to gvg with people not in your guild (as in, 8 people from 8 different guilds being able to play together). In other words, a way for new people to get into it.

Patrograd · May 13, 2007, 02:04 PM // 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

The only thing that could have saved gvg is a way for new people to get UAX without paying extra, combined with an easy way to find guilds and/or a way to gvg with people not in your guild (as in, 8 people from 8 different guilds being able to play together). In other words, a way for new people to get into it.

Well, I dont agree

It needed a semblance of game balance, an environment in which skill>build. This hasnt been the case since before Nightfall's release. While PUGvG is nice, it is nothing compared to playing proper GvG with your Guild team. It *is* Guild vs Guild combat after all. If you want to play with 8 random people, go play HA. That is the traditional breeding ground for GvG players after all. Play HA, build up a contact list, thats the way it has always been.

The ATs are actually a really good idea, they are just implemented so incredibly poorly. Had they been implemented in a player friendly way then they really could have gone a long way towards restoring people's faith in the game. The reasons why they are a good idea are chiefly to do with tournament matches played against known opponents on random maps in Swiss format are a far, far better guide to a team's ability than ladder play. So I can sort of agree with the concept of such matches having a higher ratings reward than ladder play, as eventually the teams that do well in the tournaments will rise to the top of the ladder, giving the ladder at the top end a much more "authentic" feel, probably for the first time ever. So this part is strong imo

Where it falls down is just the way it is implemented. Basically, the only teams really capable of fielding a team for the tournaments duration in its current structure are the elite guilds, and perhaps a few others like ourselves who have been building a roster with this format in mind. What this means is that if you arent an elite guild then entering one of these tournaments is the same as throwing two weeks worth of rating out of the window, as the only opponents you will face are elite guilds. No matter how many tournaments we enter, we will never face a team of roughly equal or lesser ability to ourselves, as these teams are, in 99% of cases, incapable of entering a team for the tournaments. it is this lack of mid ranked competition that kills the concept for everyone but the top few teams, and as by definition there arent very many of these top few teams, each of the tournaments are basically contested by 3 or 4 teams *at the very most*. The other entrants are there hoping for enough byes and forfeits to secure a top 8 finish and thus earn RPs and get their hands eventually on some nice skins.

And so, in order to save this format, and ultimately both this game and its successor in PVP terms, they need to open up the tournaments to mid ranked teams in the 150-600 range. To do this they have to heavily reduce the requirements for entry so that it more closely mirrors regular ladder play. Keep the strict requirements for entry for the monthly playoffs, but for the regular daily ATs, make it the same as for ladder. In order for the concept to be viable, each tournament needs to be contested by 32 teams spread across the range of ranks. In order for us to enter we have to have a chance that if we play to our ability we will come out of it ahead in rating, and this just wont happen until the entry requirements are loosened.

Medion · May 13, 2007, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Gaile posted today that from now on you'll just need 8 guildmembers (so no 'need 6 of the first match to continue to play') meaning it has loosened already a bit.

Besides that, you can't win RP and QP if you forfeit your first game. In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to win RP or QP if you forfeit at all. Although Anet will have to somehow make tournaments shorter.

Quote:

Its such a shame the Guild Wars concept of balanced PvP, GvG/HA/Arena, the skill sets and mechanics in many ways produced a very interesting and dynamic game that has kept me and many people playing this game for 2 years now. If only Anet would have done more balancing and tweaks to those skills and mechanics instead of introducing all these not needed bells and whistles like AT's.

The problem isn't really the balance at this moment I think (nothing is really unbalanced, I at least haven't seen a gimmick in 50% of the games for a while). The problem is the impossibility (?) of have a decent chance versus all kind of playstyles.
It's hard to put a build together which can handle splits, 8v8 pressure and other stuff that pops up once in a while (XXX-spike, paraway to name a few). And it's even harder to play that build well.

Thomas.knbk · May 13, 2007, 03:41 PM // 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

WTB OLD LADDER

WTS FACTIONS

BlackEagle · May 13, 2007, 05:03 PM // 17:03

IMO, just relaxing the requirements won't make a lot of teams start playing lots of tournaments, as that is just one of the things stopping them from playing. Teams don't wanna risk 2 weeks of hard earned rating being lost in a single evening of games against rank 50 opposition. (What happened to us) So they don't play, even if they can get an eligable team together.

I think the best way to solve it is to put the K value on ladder play back up. Even if they weren't quite as high as the tournaments, at least don't make it so much of a gulf.

If the K value of ladder play was increased, (possibly to 20, so there was still more rating availible in ATs) it would mean that teams would be more willing to participate, as even if they had a bad run it wouldn't take 2 weeks playing to regain the rating. The ATs would then become somewhere to earn a slightly increased amount of rating and to gain RP and QP points. As well as being a fun competition with a more evident, short term goal for teams.

DutchSmurf · May 13, 2007, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackEagle

Teams don't wanna risk 2 weeks of hard earned rating being lost in a single evening of games against rank 50 opposition. (What happened to us) So they don't play, even if they can get an eligable team together.

That is indeed a big problem. By giving rating to those tournaments you make them far more important then they should be. What the daily ATs in my opinion should do is giving points which you can use to enter the monthly tournament. And not more then that. People interested in tournaments will play them until they have enough points (at the moment that is 20), people wanting to try a tournament can do so without being afraid of major rating losses and the ladder is still the only thing that gives you rating so you keep that important too. Just a suggestion, not sure if it works.

Patrograd · May 14, 2007, 10:48 AM // 10:48

I think you need to be very careful to retain a structure that allows for growth. Now, the old ladder (pre factions with its silly six week ratings rush seasons) had this; you could as a team slowly rise up the ladder, improving all the time, until eventually you became a top guild yourself. There are I think plenty of examples of teams that did this. The danger at the moment is that what is being created is an environment where the top teams play in tournaments, everyone else plays ladder.

This is extremely unhealthy for the future development of the game as you are effectively excluding the vast majority of teams from proper meaningful GvG against opposition that will properly stretch them, unless they are prepared to massively tank their rating in the fashion that we did on Friday, and lets face it, that isnt something you are going to do all that often.

Although I'm sure they wont accept that its true, the top 20 need the rest of the top 50, even if only as a source of recruits, and so on down the ladder. One tier of teams feeds upon the next tier down. You need to have this growth structure in place, both for individual players and teams as a whole, otherwise the game dies.

Taking, as an example, the top 50 away from the rest of Guild Wars and into their own exclusive playground means that everyone else is basically playing another game. These top teams, who will only ever play other top teams, will get better and better, while the rest, starved of the proper competition they need in order to grow, unprepared to throw rating away in a futile environment where they get baby slapped every single game (which is no fun for anyone) stagnate both as guilds and as players, cutting off the supply line of good players to the top of the game. As the top players become bored and find something else to play, as happens increasingly often, the top teams suddenly will be faced with a situation where basically every new recruit they bring in needs considerable training to bridge the gap between ladder and tournament, a gap that will grow increasingly wide with every passing week.

Compare that scenario with one where the tournaments are genuinely open to a wide range of guilds and players, and everyone gets the opportunity to regularly compete against proper opposition and thus improve themselves. Taking the K value away from tournaments wont increase participation, because then, well, for the teams that wont finish in the top 8 its effectively no more than unrated GvG and so you will see a proliferation of heroway/pallyway as used to be the case in ladder lock from those not intent on taking it seriously. Massively increasing the k value for ladder defeats the purpose of the ATs, which is to reward via rank teams that do well in tournaments, which is hugely important.

I'm not sure what the solution is really to this, other than that it needs to be easier for "casual" teams to participate. If more casual teams enter "properly", then the risk of ratings tanking is massively lessened, as there is a fair chance you will play at some stage a team of roughly equal ability. *shrug*

Maybe the whole format just needs to be looked at again, the entry reuiqrements, the swiss style, everything about it, so that its more user friendly as a whole. Maybe you need an HA style "one defeat and you're out" format, first round k value of 5, second round 10, third round 15, fourth round 20, fifth round 25? I dont know. something like that seems more friendly to me, and you can award QPs and RPs based on which round teams go out in from the third round onwards. Combine this with entry requirements being the same as for normal ladder (keeping the strict requirements for the monthly playoffs) and I think you have a very inclusive system that rewards the good teams without punishing massively those of lesser ability, and prevents the breakup of GvG into elite in one place and the rest elsewhere which will ultimately kill competition.