Curse

Thom · Apr 06, 2007, 11:35 PM // 23:35

The ranking system is designed to level out at some point and end rating inflation. That may not be until the top guild hits 2500, but at some point rating will stop its crawl upwards. Right now the number of games won is the strongest determinant of rating. Once the K gets a bit higher, things will sort themselves out quicker, but it could still be months before we get a mature ladder (rating reasonably reflects relative skill).

Once the ladder is mature, inactive guilds will only lose rank as the total pool of guilds increases. The ranking will compare you with every guild that ever played as oppose to those currently playing now. I think ranking should have to do with currently active guilds, therefore Divineshadow's solution is reasonable.

With the ease of guild creation and the fluctionation of guild participation, keeping guilds ranked on the the ladder forever doesn't provide an accurate measure of where people are at. Simple code which didn't rank guilds who haven't played for 2-3 months would keep the rank a fresh measure of where you stand in comparison to other active guilds.

Warskull · Apr 07, 2007, 03:13 PM // 15:13

The problem of a guild no longer playing an maintaining a high ladder ranking indefinitely is something that should be addressed. A decay system that starts costing you points after 1 week of inactivity is probably the best. It isn't going to wipe you off the ladder after one week, but if you don't play any games you take a hit to your rating just like you lost to a team about equal to your skill level. The two week hit is bigger and so on, until you level out at 1000 again.

FoxBat · Apr 07, 2007, 04:58 PM // 16:58

It's been mentioned before, but I think removing inactive guild's rank from the ladder, while allowing them to retain their rating and re-acquire their rank on playing a game, is the least damaging solution.

Relambrien · Apr 07, 2007, 05:22 PM // 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warskull

The problem of a guild no longer playing an maintaining a high ladder ranking indefinitely is something that should be addressed. A decay system that starts costing you points after 1 week of inactivity is probably the best. It isn't going to wipe you off the ladder after one week, but if you don't play any games you take a hit to your rating just like you lost to a team about equal to your skill level. The two week hit is bigger and so on, until you level out at 1000 again.

That would be -2 the first week, and if you went exponentially, it would be -4, -8, -16, -32 for consective weeks. So after one month (four weeks), you would get -30 rating.

With ATs and their increased K-values, I don't think -30 after a month is going to matter much.

If something is to be done about it, I would prefer the "hidden rank" system others have talked about, where you lose your rank after a week but as soon as you play another game you're right back to where you should be.

kcabrekcuf · Apr 07, 2007, 06:05 PM // 18:05

A week?

More like a month.

Legendary Shiz · Apr 07, 2007, 10:57 PM // 22:57

Yeah a penalty per week is beyond insane, some people have lives outside of this game and can't devote every second of their waking moments to playing a silly online game. Doesn't that kind of ruin the "fun factor" of the game? And not to mention, about about those guilds that have hover right around .500 for their win loss. They miss a week, and that's going to completely screw with their rating. You guys are only thinking of the top 100 guilds that are inactive here when you say a - whatever isn't going to hurt them too badly.

kcabrekcuf · Apr 07, 2007, 11:11 PM // 23:11

I am in favor of NOT having any rating "degen" at all. Its not needed, the ladder is for "historical" purposes. Not to tell who is on top this week.

BUT, I think having an "active" ladder showing guilds who have played in the past month. And have a "historic" ladder shows guilds of all time. And show them side by side.

Div · Apr 08, 2007, 04:54 AM // 04:54

I guess hiding a guild's rank after not playing for 1-2 weeks would be a good solution...but seriously, who cares about rank? It's all about your rating and how well you've been playing. Only the rank 2000 people who complain about drawing rank 700 opponents care about rank, whereas their rating difference is actually just 2-3...

Legendary Shiz · Apr 08, 2007, 05:51 AM // 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

I guess hiding a guild's rank after not playing for 1-2 weeks would be a good solution...but seriously, who cares about rank? It's all about your rating and how well you've been playing. Only the rank 2000 people who complain about drawing rank 700 opponents care about rank, whereas their rating difference is actually just 2-3...

Bingo, and to prove this point the thread was started by some guy complaining because he couldn't get his guild into the 400's.

red orc · Apr 10, 2007, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legendary Shiz

Bingo, and to prove this point the thread was started by some guy complaining because he couldn't get his guild into the 400's.

No it did not, I do not have such problem.
I know that for you anybody who is not in the top 100 is not worth talking to, but it is important to other ppl.
I do not care for guilds that are top 100 (or even top 300). They know each other and how they perform. I'm more concern about guilds ranked 500-5000 who fail to see their position on the ladder due to inactive guilds.

Avarre · Apr 10, 2007, 09:30 AM // 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by red orc

Who cleans the ladder ?

The Custodian.

Arkantos · Apr 10, 2007, 09:35 AM // 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The Custodian.

AKA Avarre.

around · Apr 10, 2007, 10:20 AM // 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The Custodian.

Who's now playing WoW. Alright guys, no more ladder cleans from now on. He's too busy on WoW.

Patrograd · Apr 15, 2007, 11:29 AM // 11:29

Most ladders I know of implement a system of rating decay for inactivity based upon a certain %age of their positive rating (say 10% per week as a random example). This is to prevent ladder camping and to force players to defend their rank.

This is only useful however where the ladder is used as the definition of competitive success. The current GW ladder isnt that, as the definition of competitive success in Guild Wars will be the monthly tournaments, which you qualify for via daily tournaments, not via ladder rank.

Conclusion: Who cares about inactive ladder teams? They wont win any tournaments and they wont gain any advantage through ladder camping.

red orc · Apr 15, 2007, 11:36 AM // 11:36

As I said before top 300 guilds dont care. Top 5000-10000 guild care. They will not do TA and one of the things they need to see is their progress in the ladder. Anet has to answer those guilds in order to keep gvg alive. You also have to think about it, cause if guild 10,000 will not exist there will be no top 100 cause Anet will dump the whole gvg and keep it at AB level (or WOW level), if they hadn't done that already in GW2

LightningHell · Apr 16, 2007, 02:10 PM // 14:10

...Imo just tell them to look at their rating...

tortugan · Apr 17, 2007, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Cry For Eternity[Cry], I mean they're R5 or so after 2 weeks of GvGing, just sick.

Maiyn · May 04, 2007, 05:34 AM // 05:34

It's the automated tournaments we should be concerned with imo. Not the ladder, I stopped caring about that in dec/jan. ;D

Gvg? Wassat?

Elfie · May 04, 2007, 06:59 AM // 06:59

I kinda understand the point of the cleaning guild ladder.

My old guild disbanded during Celestial tournament. There hasnt been any activity after 23rd of march when we playd last gvgs and the guild still shows in ladder ranked 300ish. I dont think theres even anyone in a guild now. I know all the guys left so i think some degen system would be nice.

Lets say if guild hasnt done gvg for 30 days it would start degen.

Skuld · May 04, 2007, 06:09 PM // 18:09

my guild dropped from 17 to 27 or something after 2-3 months of inactivity.. lulz