Curse

red orc · Jan 03, 2007, 03:17 PM // 15:17

The new point system does not reward regular gvg fights. You start with rank 1000, then for every win you gain 2 points and for every los you loose 2 points. Lets say your guild played 20 games, won 5 lost 15 => your rank is now: 1000 + 10 - 30 = 980. The guild that wins 15 and looses 5 gets: 1000 + 30 - 10 = 1020. All the difference is 40 points. Since this kind of profile will be the profile of most guilds, there is not enough space there to differentiate between bulk of the guilds. What am I missing here ?

Blame the Monks · Jan 03, 2007, 03:27 PM // 15:27

You are forgetting the ladder won't be reset. Eventually, everyone will hit their true rating. So eventually it will be like: W: 625 L: 475 Rating: 1250 Rank: 100

One thing I think will be interesting will be the effect of the reduced K value on pugs. I expect it will be much harder to get and maintain a 1200+ rating, so people may be much less willing to let people pug from their guild.

The High Lord · Jan 03, 2007, 08:14 PM // 20:14

You can also get +3 for winning.

And the ladder is just about seeing which is the "best" guild at the moment, or the guild who will have played the most tournaments.

qwe4rty · Jan 03, 2007, 08:43 PM // 20:43

Right now, the ladder seems more of a grind. 50 wins - 0 losses will be ranked lower then a guild with 101 wins - 50 losses. Seems like a 66% win is better than 100%, because they have played more games.

Dunno how the tournaments are going to affect this, but so far, I don't like it

TheOneMephisto · Jan 03, 2007, 10:51 PM // 22:51

From my understanding, it's possible to gain or lose 4 points for every win or loss, reduced from the earlier +/- 29 points. Also, tournaments will have a much higher k value, making tournaments the things that will really change your rating. Basically, play a lot more games to get to your real value, or play tournaments to get there faster.

Also, as others have said, the ladder will never reset again, so eventually every guild will get close to their proper position.

shardfenix · Jan 04, 2007, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwe4rty

Right now, the ladder seems more of a grind. 50 wins - 0 losses will be ranked lower then a guild with 101 wins - 50 losses. Seems like a 66% win is better than 100%, because they have played more games.

It's always been that way.

Edek · Jan 04, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

At least before not everyone had to grind to get their place. Well we will have to wait for tournaments, this month will be very boring.

qwe4rty · Jan 04, 2007, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

It's always been that way.

More games played is always good... but it's not to this extreme. With a range of up to 4 point differences max? You can't truly fit rating to rank.

Manfred · Jan 04, 2007, 04:34 AM // 04:34

Mhmm, but from there it should be just as fun, if not more.

Schorny · Jan 04, 2007, 04:44 AM // 04:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by shardfenix

It's always been that way.

Not completly true.

When you farmed unrank guilds, like some guilds did, you will have to win more often (in relation to your losses) to get the same rank as someone who plays at prime times.

Of course, it is much easier to win 3 games versus an unranked guild than against an even matched one - and that's what sucks at the current system.

It doesn't matter if you beat the nr. 1 guild in the ladder or a rank 3000+ guild. You'll always get about the same points. Same thing if you lose.

I think atm it's completly retarded. I hope the tournaments will improve it a lot... but currently I really don't have much fun playing GvG, knowing that farming is so much more effective than it used to.

Bankai · Jan 04, 2007, 09:27 AM // 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schorny

I think atm it's completly retarded. I hope the tournaments will improve it a lot... but currently I really don't have much fun playing GvG, knowing that farming is so much more effective than it used to.

Maybe you look at it the wrong way. I play GvG not to get an as high ranking as possible. I play for fun, to improve and have fun with my guildies. Higher rank is just nice.

lord of shadow · Jan 04, 2007, 09:59 AM // 09:59

we played 2 yesterday, lost to star when we had a 1000 point rating, -2, beat some radom top 50 guild, +2. What's the point in an ELO system where the K value is so low that the rating change is the same each time

Patrograd · Jan 04, 2007, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord of shadow

we played 2 yesterday, lost to star when we had a 1000 point rating, -2, beat some radom top 50 guild, +2. What's the point in an ELO system where the K value is so low that the rating change is the same each time

Thats the whole point of the new ladder. The ladder games effectively dont count for anything much. The ladder is there primarily for build testing, practice, recruit tryouts and so on. You will see once the Ats start that the *only* way to move up the ladder will be to play and win in ATs. Playing and losing in Ats will similarly see you plummetting down the ladder very fast.

until then, just treat it much as you would a ladder lock. A defeat, no matter who it is to can be easily recovered from, even a really bad night where you lose six in a row can be recovered by a single win in AT. Conversely, a defeat in AT can take you a whole night of ladder play to recover. This is the way the new system is designed, It will take some getting used to, but once teams realise there is no point in grinding and farming the open ladder, which will happen once they start to play ATs, I think you will see things settling down into a nice pattern

Van Goghs Ear · Jan 04, 2007, 11:43 AM // 11:43

IMO, let's critisize a system that hasn't even been implimented more please...

Also, if GvG feels like a grind to you, then you are playing for all the wrong reasons.

Wasteland Squidget · Jan 04, 2007, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

Playing and losing in Ats will similarly see you plummetting down the ladder very fast.

This is the part of the system that seems really weird to me. In an ELO system, half the teams that play will ultimately lose rating. If ATs are implemented as a series of games with a high K value, that's going to be a lot of people losing a lot of rating. So you'll get this weird situation where the bottom 50% of guilds focused enough to schedule an AT are lower ranked than even the worst pure ladder teams.

That's going to mean a lot less teams playing ATs overall. A guild in the rank 100-200 range isn't going to risk dropping irrevocably off the ladder because they played and lost a series of high-value matches against better opponents. It would be a huge disincentive for them - that's going to mean a lot less teams playing ATs overall.

Of course, it's possible the ATs are structured completely differently and this won't be an issue. However, I don't think the bottom 50% of AT players should drop below most ladder guilds in rank - they should stand to lose something, but if losing an AT means losing 50+ rating I just can't see a lot of mid-level teams trying it.

Patrograd · Jan 04, 2007, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Of course, it's possible the ATs are structured completely differently and this won't be an issue. However, I don't think the bottom 50% of AT players should drop below most ladder guilds in rank - they should stand to lose something, but if losing an AT means losing 50+ rating I just can't see a lot of mid-level teams trying it.

I think that if you have any aspirations to really improve your rank its a risk you;re going to have to take. Look at it this way. My guild is currently rank 144. if tonight we played a hypothetical AT match against a guild with identical rating, and the value was k30 for ATs, we would gain +15 for winning that match and jump to rank 57. if we played a ladder match against the same guild, we would gain +2 and jump all the way to rank 124.

Yes, the risks for losing are equally great (loss in AT would see us fall to rank 933, loss in ladder to rank 166), but thats the edge isnt it? I can see that some guilds will prefer ladder only play, but all of those with aspirations to be competitive will play in the matches that actually have something at stake.

So basically, the teams in the top 150-200 are going to be teams that play in, and perform reasonably well in, ATs. if you are struggling in ATs, then yes, you should go back to ladder for a while to get your build and play improved, but essentially, I dont see opting out of ATs as an option for a PVP guild for any lengthy period of time

ump · Jan 04, 2007, 03:03 PM // 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by red orc

The new point system does not reward regular gvg fights. You start with rank 1000, then for every win you gain 2 points and for every los you loose 2 points. Lets say your guild played 20 games, won 5 lost 15 => your rank is now: 1000 + 10 - 30 = 980. The guild that wins 15 and looses 5 gets: 1000 + 30 - 10 = 1020. All the difference is 40 points. Since this kind of profile will be the profile of most guilds, there is not enough space there to differentiate between bulk of the guilds. What am I missing here ?

Here's what you're missing. Once there is significant difference between your rating and your opponents rating (too early in the ladder for that), you will get less points for beating a much lower ranked opponent and lose more points for losing a much lower ranked opponent. Therefore, it might take you two or more wins to earn the points you lost against a much lower ranked opponent.

I'd also like to know what the K value of ATs are. Considering ladder is 5K, I personally think anymore more than 20K would put too much of an emphasis on ATs and not enough on ladder. As I've said elsewhere, I'd much rather see an 8K ladder with ATs ranging from 8K-32K.

Wasteland Squidget · Jan 04, 2007, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

So basically, the teams in the top 150-200 are going to be teams that play in, and perform reasonably well in, ATs. if you are struggling in ATs, then yes, you should go back to ladder for a while to get your build and play improved, but essentially, I dont see opting out of ATs as an option for a PVP guild for any lengthy period of time

Here's the thing to understand though - in ELO matches, 50% of teams always lose rating. If the teams that are losing rating go back to ladder play, the teams that were previously winning will start losing. If you had an AT where only the top 20 teams entered, 10 of those teams would lose rating. It's the nature of the system.

I'm not just talking about teams that enter ATs and lose every match. If an AT has 5 games and a team goes 1-4 or even 2-3, they're probably losing a fairly large amount of rating as a result. Should the bottom half of AT teams be ranked lower than henchway teams on the ladder? Is that representative of their true skill level at all?

Greedy Gus · Jan 04, 2007, 10:36 PM // 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

if losing an AT means losing 50+ rating I just can't see a lot of mid-level teams trying it.

Your point is interesting, but you're exaggerating it. What we seem to be forgetting is that the ELO system still exists, even though right now it seems like every game is worth the same rating. Even with a high K value on ATs (though I doubt it will be as high as you're mentioning, there is no reason to stretch it that much with a non-resetting ladder), you still have less to lose the lower you are compared to your opponent.

That is to say, you can't think of ladder play as being worth 2 rating and AT play being worth 50 rating, if you're "below ladder henchway guilds", you're estimated win % is so low against a good guild that you'll likely only stand to lose 1-5 rating, even with a high K.

But I agree, there will be some interesting distortion with guilds all being ranked on the same ladder with different methods of play with different K values.

Bloodied Blade · Jan 05, 2007, 04:15 AM // 04:15

I'm gonna have to agree with a few people above me... to me GvG had always seemed like a grind if you wanted the top 50 or so, but to be stuck with just a +2/-2 system (which ranges to an amazing 4...) is a bit irrational on the part of the devs. If they really aren't resetting the ladder, then yes...this could eventually work out. However, they're overlooking the fact that 100% win percentages are easily eclipsed simply by a guild who may be awful but just win more than they lose, and have more time to gvg. Sorry if this doesn't make much sense...just vexes me that they would do this.