Curse

red orc · Mar 27, 2007, 07:45 PM // 19:45

Now that the ladder is open and it is not reset every 3 months it accumulates a lot of inactive guilds. All those guild are not active and therefore need to be removed from the ladder. How will Anet take care of that ?
You can find right now at list 10% of the guilds that has not been active for a month. In half a year it will be half of the guilds.
Anet should define rules for this.

Elrodien · Mar 27, 2007, 07:46 PM // 19:46

Yep, I really think some rating degradation is called for when a guild remains inactive for over a week on the gvg ladder.

Legendary Shiz · Mar 27, 2007, 07:55 PM // 19:55

TBH there's nothing they need/should do about that. Just because a guild isn't moving up the ladder and you can't pass it up doesn't mean that other guild should be deleted. And just because the guild is inactive for a week or two doesn't mean it's disbanded and never coming back.

Dumb idea, dumb logic.

Thomas.knbk · Mar 27, 2007, 08:17 PM // 20:17

What Shiz said.

Divineshadows · Mar 27, 2007, 09:10 PM // 21:10

I used to play another game competitively online called Axis and Allies through a play by email club. It's a board strategy game that is, in some ways, more advanced than chess but also has a small element of luck through the probabilities of dice rolls. After achieving the top spot on the competitive ladder there and having beaten all top competitors available at least once, I lost the thrill of competition (due to lack of any new highly competitive members) and retired into inactivity.

That club has an interesting approach to dealing with inactive members on the ladder. They simply had a flag encoded within their database to indicate hidden status and, after some fixed period of inactivity, members became invisible to others seeing the default view of the ladder. The inactive member's rating and play history remained in tact so that if they played another match again, they would instantly show up on the ladder again.

This type of system would make a lot of sense for the new ladder A-net implemented. Inactive guilds could still be searched upon and their rating and record could still be seen through searching. They would lack an official rank until they play again and get out of inactive status.

Elrodien · Mar 27, 2007, 09:45 PM // 21:45

Oh I read that wrong - I wouldnt delete guilds, just make sure the inactive ones dropped slowly to the bottom of the ladder. I dont think its fair that a guild plays 5 gvgs, wins them all and can sit happily in the 400s or something without playing a single gvg the rest of the year.

Xenex Xclame · Mar 27, 2007, 10:29 PM // 22:29

A week is way too short.
Question here is , WHY?
I mean if there are so many guilds up there that are inactive at a certain point all the active guilds will pass them and drop them off the ladder.

Also lets say one guild got 5 wins they got to 400 and they are happy with it and they all go pve (and wait for someone to lower them),should they be dropped?

Relambrien · Mar 27, 2007, 10:30 PM // 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

Oh I read that wrong - I wouldnt delete guilds, just make sure the inactive ones dropped slowly to the bottom of the ladder. I dont think its fair that a guild plays 5 gvgs, wins them all and can sit happily in the 400s or something without playing a single gvg the rest of the year.

If rating inflation occurs like I'm afraid it will, that won't be a problem anyway.

Billiard · Mar 27, 2007, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Once the ATs come with their increased K values I think you'll see a lot more ladder movement.

Divineshadows · Mar 28, 2007, 05:44 AM // 05:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billiard

Once the ATs come with their increased K values I think you'll see a lot more ladder movement.

True, but at the same time guilds could participate in the ATs and do quite well in then but then go inactive for long stretches. I agree with OP that some form of "cleaning" needs to be done and I think hiding inactive guilds (whatever timeframe determines inactivity) is the way to go.

Nurse With Wound · Mar 28, 2007, 07:59 AM // 07:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elrodien

I dont think its fair that a guild plays 5 gvgs, wins them all and can sit happily in the 400s or something without playing a single gvg the rest of the year.

How 2 beet 1010 rating ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legendary Shiz

TBH there's nothing they need/should do about that. Just because a guild isn't moving up the ladder and you can't pass it up doesn't mean that other guild should be deleted. And just because the guild is inactive for a week or two doesn't mean it's disbanded and never coming back.

Dumb idea, dumb logic.

Agreed. If you're too lame to beat inactive guilds rating, learn how to play rather than QQ on forums. Daily/Weekly rating loss for gvg guilds is most retarded idea i've heard this month. It will only promote ladder farmers and meow gimmick guilds that play 100 matches a day.

Also, like Shiz said, when a guild is inactive for some period of time, it doesnt mean they wont come back to active gvging. Erasing their earned rating? In the name of what?

On the other hand, this is really a non-issue, simply because AT will make the ladder much more dynamic.

Div · Mar 29, 2007, 05:07 PM // 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenex Xclame

Also lets say one guild got 5 wins they got to 400 and they are happy with it and they all go pve (and wait for someone to lower them),should they be dropped?

You'd need 1050 rating atm to get to rank 400...which means you'd need +10 every game for five games. You can't even do that by beating the top ranked guild 5 times :P

And if you win all 5 games and get 1010 rating, it's really not that big of a deal. You're around rank 900, and as more active guilds play, they'll eventually get more rating and pass you and bump you out of top 1000. Before there were teams with 1004 rating by winning 2 games and are on the ladder. Now because of their inactivity they're bumped off naturally by guilds that are playing to get rating. I don't see a need to remove inactive guilds from the ladder, unless it disbanded.

Divine Fragrance · Mar 30, 2007, 11:44 AM // 11:44

I see the inactivity problem this way. There are large gaps on ladder which are populated by inactive guilds. For example my GvG guild is sitting firmly on around r100 - r120, but actual matches we play is mostly against top #30 or agains guilds ranking around #200. This leads to following situation. Top #30 are out of our scope skillwise, tho' we manage to dish out a win now and then. Against #200 match is usually against lameway. Generally wins go 50/50 and we're sitting on that r100 - r120. Without possibility to play against opponents with equal skill level.

While this isn't ladder threatening problem. I personally would like to play against slighty better/worse or equal opponents to improve my own game and our team's game.

In some degree I blame skill balance about this problem. I haven't done any statistical research, but my gut feeling is that inactivity gaps on ladder was caused by the hey day of Discord and Rt-Spike and their eventual nerfing which has possibly caused Discord/Rt-Spike guilds to go inactive to wait next cookie-cutter. I'm already seeing the new rise of SBRI.

I hope Automated Tourneys with higher K-value will solve this gap problem.

Relambrien · Mar 30, 2007, 09:19 PM // 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

You'd need 1050 rating atm to get to rank 400...which means you'd need +10 every game for five games. You can't even do that by beating the top ranked guild 5 times :P

And if you win all 5 games and get 1010 rating, it's really not that big of a deal. You're around rank 900, and as more active guilds play, they'll eventually get more rating and pass you and bump you out of top 1000. Before there were teams with 1004 rating by winning 2 games and are on the ladder. Now because of their inactivity they're bumped off naturally by guilds that are playing to get rating. I don't see a need to remove inactive guilds from the ladder, unless it disbanded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurse With Wound

Agreed. If you're too lame to beat inactive guilds rating, learn how to play rather than QQ on forums. Daily/Weekly rating loss for gvg guilds is most retarded idea i've heard this month. It will only promote ladder farmers and meow gimmick guilds that play 100 matches a day.

According to these two posts, rating inflation is going to occur. That's the only way guilds with a stagnant rating will decrease in rank, for the overall rating to obtain a certain rank to increase.

Ex: Say you need 1010 to be 900 right now. Six months from now, you need 1040. That's rating inflation. It's something I was afraid of ever since I heard of the final reset, and it appears that these people feel the same.

The end result of rating inflation is that it's harder for newer guilds to break into the ladder, as they'll have to repeatedly farm rating in order to reach the ever-increasing rating amount representative of a certain rank.

In other words, the longer this goes on, the harder it will be for new guilds to get onto the ladder. Of course, with the ladder being mainly kept for "historical purposes," that might not be such a bad thing.

EDIT: Oh, and ATs with higher K-value will probably increase the issue. No way to tell until they're implemented though, since we don't have the SLIGHTEST clue how they're going to work.

Thomas.knbk · Mar 31, 2007, 05:39 AM // 05:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Ex: Say you need 1010 to be 900 right now. Six months from now, you need 1040. That's rating inflation. It's something I was afraid of ever since I heard of the final reset, and it appears that these people feel the same.

Anyone could have told you that before it even started. In 6 months you'll need 2500 for the #1 spot, but I'm not sure it's actually something to be afraid of.

Div · Mar 31, 2007, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Rating inflation is of course going to happen, but I don't see too much of a problem. If it takes 1040 to get in the top 1000, then that means a lot of guilds are going to be 1100, 1200, 1300+. If the newly created guild is good, they'll be getting +4's or +5's a game and catch up very quickly. Of course it'll still take some grinding, as it used to, but the AT will probably change everything.

Thom Bangalter · Mar 31, 2007, 12:36 PM // 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurse With Wound

How 2 beet 1010 rating ?

I lol'd irl.

moriz · Mar 31, 2007, 07:44 PM // 19:44

rating inflation will only occur on some parts of the ladder, namely 600 to 1. guilds below a certain limit tends to break even as far as ratings go, so any guild in the rank 600-1000 range tend to stay put in their rank if they don't play.

and yeah, having a system of removing guilds from the ladder is kinda pointless.

Legendary Shiz · Mar 31, 2007, 07:49 PM // 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

I lol'd irl.

same here that was beyond hilarious

Relambrien · Apr 01, 2007, 04:36 AM // 04:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas.knbk

Anyone could have told you that before it even started. In 6 months you'll need 2500 for the #1 spot, but I'm not sure it's actually something to be afraid of.

Back when the reset first occurred, there was a debate I was part of for a while about this. Someone, (Loviatar I think? Not sure) claimed that this system promotes a guild reaching its "true" rating and then staying somewhere around there. I disagreed vehemently, though at the time I didn't receive any support if I remember correctly...

Though you're right, it probably isn't such a bad thing. New guilds will have a heck of a difficult time finding a match eventually, since everyone will be 200+ rating above them, but then the ATs are there to solve that problem.

Of course, this all relies on how the ATs are implemented, executed, and managed. Let's hope this delay allowed Anet to fine tune the system to the point where it will be implemented as such that everything works out with minimal adjustments having to be made. After reading a post (Billiard's, I think. Not sure) about how PvP is mainly taken care of through some devs' free time and the goodness of their hearts, I can see why this delay was needed.

And before you jump on me for calling it a delay, back around the time of the reset, go here and look at the "Daily Automated Tournaments" subsection. Watch:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Gills

Daily Automated Tournaments
This is the first big change coming up, most likely in late January. Instead of having to spend hours playing lots of matches to climb the GvG ladder, it will all come down to how your guild does in actual tournament play.

Since he said "most likely," I feel I can correctly call this a delay, since this is WELL after the desired release period.