Curse

Xanthar · Dec 25, 2006, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

"We dont play AT's, we're a ladder team"
"Oh, right....."

We will see I guess.

Ah, yes, there is that! The ladder will not generate as massive an e-peen as it used to, that much is a given. The question is if it will be enough for people interested in such matters to hang around. I'm hoping it will, but as you say, we'll have to wait and see.

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 26, 2006, 12:34 AM // 00:34

If this change prevents 321spike guilds from farming the ladder to top 20 and thinking they're good at the game, all the more reason to implement it. Bad teams getting a high ranking exclusively through build + time has always been the worst thing about competitive Guild Wars.

Alex Weekes · Dec 26, 2006, 05:33 AM // 05:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

I guess the only thing Alex could be trying to say that makes sense, is "I want to hear how you would implement this new system", not "I'm afraid GW will be destroyed based on X details we don't have yet." That is, *give him suggestions for how to do it*, not *fret over how it might be done*.

Precisely

. In particular, in terms of qualification for major tournaments (eg world championship): there's very little, if anything, in that article that delves into this topic. Rather than worrying about what *might* happen, let's see some solid suggestions about how you'd *like* to see it done.

Clearly, there's a lot of worry about whether individual guilds will be able to get together to participate in enough AT's to qualify. Now, I can't comment on details (again, sorry!) however let me assure you that this is something that has been thought of.

Bankai · Dec 26, 2006, 10:27 AM // 10:27

I like the idea myself. But I'd decrease the 1 month limit to 14 or 15 days, and decrease the members needed for non-AT play to 2.

And be sure to have rotating AT times.

Patrograd · Dec 26, 2006, 10:45 AM // 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

If this change prevents 321spike guilds from farming the ladder to top 20 and thinking they're good at the game, all the more reason to implement it. Bad teams getting a high ranking exclusively through build + time has always been the worst thing about competitive Guild Wars.

I agree with this, and I think this is what I like most about the proposed system, that farming builds will laregely be redundant (I hope)

There are two ways imo to absolutely guarantee that this happens

1) Play AT matches on random maps to take away the map advantage that such farming builds typically rely on
2) Enable some form of skill disqualification system, where skills that have yet to be properly balanced are unuseable in AT matches. I dont know how easy this would be to code though - but it would be good if skills that are either newly introduced or have just been "balanced" are unuseable for a period of say 30 days. In this way, if a skill like searing flames is considered overpowered and is dominating ATs you can just give it a little nerf and take it out of ATs for a period. Also skills that come with new expansions get a trial period in ladder play before they are useable in ATs. .

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 26, 2006, 10:48 AM // 10:48

I think a key feature of ATs would be a short period where you can observe your opponent's past matches and adjust your build accordingly. Metagaming against the builds certain teams run has always been an important part of tournaments, and it's the only thing that really seperates gimmick teams from the top.

If you could observe your opponent's past AT matches, teams that only run one particular gimmick build would get slaughtered after a couple games. Versatile guilds would have nothing to fear.

-Loki- · Dec 26, 2006, 12:21 PM // 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

If you could observe your opponent's past AT matches, teams that only run one particular gimmick build would get slaughtered after a couple games. Versatile guilds would have nothing to fear.

The problem with that is a nature of how observer mode works. One update can potentially break previous observer matches.

dansamy · Dec 26, 2006, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

I like the idea myself. But I'd decrease the 1 month limit to 14 or 15 days, and decrease the members needed for non-AT play to 2.

And be sure to have rotating AT times.

Yes to 15-day req. No to reducing members needed for open ladder to 2. (Honestly, you're not much of a "guild" if you can't rally up 4 live bodies.) Yes to rotating AT times. Since they're automated, I hope to see a great amount of flexibility in the scheduling.

Billiard · Dec 26, 2006, 06:24 PM // 18:24

I am a little concerned about how long these daily tournaments will last as well. If its only 3 or 4 hours a night then that fits in pretty well with a lot of folks' play schedules. But if you need to be around say 5 or 6 hours a day/night in order to win a tournament, then that could be problematic. I guess it depends a lot on the format, the number of teams, and the down time between matches. I mean you want some down time between matches to prepare for the next one, but not so much that it extends the tournament too much.

romO · Dec 26, 2006, 06:48 PM // 18:48

I think we're just going to need more information on how the tournaments are going to work. I remember in wc3 they had the farming period where you scrambled to get all of your games in and your opponents were matched much like in GW swiss rounds, and then it went into single elimination final rounds. Depending on how long they want each round to take, it could lead to some pretty hefty tournaments in terms of length. Then again, it could also be more reasonable. I still think it's going to get much harder for all guilds to play in a large amount of these regularly, not just casual guilds. Often times, what distinguishes "competitive" guilds is not their unlimited play time and flexible schedules.

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 26, 2006, 08:39 PM // 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Loki-

The problem with that is a nature of how observer mode works. One update can potentially break previous observer matches.

Yeah, true - I was thinking more that you'd see their previous matches during that day's tournament (Anet probably wouldn't do an update while a tournament was in progress), so a guild could win with spike in the first round or two, but then people would see what they were doing and they'd have to switch it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dansamy

Yes to 15-day req. No to reducing members needed for open ladder to 2. (Honestly, you're not much of a "guild" if you can't rally up 4 live bodies.) Yes to rotating AT times. Since they're automated, I hope to see a great amount of flexibility in the scheduling.

I'm actually in favor of reducing the number of required members, for the express purpose of PuG guilds being able to thrive. Being able to easily PuG is a great way to try out new players and allow more people into the GvG scene. If some tools were added to allow people to find PuGs, GvG would become a lot easier to break into for players who have the talent, but not the connections.

Ec]-[oMaN · Dec 26, 2006, 11:55 PM // 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Pretty much every competitive guild that I know has a match schedule already.

So it may be, but at least the guild as a whole has the option of flexibility on play times. Now we have a third party in the picture, telling us when we can play. GG.
It just going to become a major freaken hindrance to even form proper guilds, at least now we have the option if need be to guild hop in the hopes we find one that caters to your play time, with this 30 day thing, honestly the game will become marginally smaller.

Ashur4421 · Dec 27, 2006, 03:36 AM // 03:36

Perhaps everyone missed the part that says you can still enter normal GvG's...at least, that's what I read ... I hope I'm not a n00bcake (<---its possible though). Everyone seems to be complaining about not being able to have guests (granted I have not read EVERY post) and that guilds can only GvG at certain times but from what I understood, guilds could still GvG anytime just for not as much rating. Whether I'm right or wrong, if someone could please clarify that would be good. ^.^

twicky_kid · Dec 27, 2006, 03:44 AM // 03:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashur4421

Perhaps everyone missed the part that says you can still enter normal GvG's...at least, that's what I read ... I hope I'm not a n00bcake (<---its possible though).

Rating has nothing to do with getting into the playoffs. So its going to be meaningless.

I really like the idea of 1-2 tournaments per week. Top 3-5 guilds from each tournament qualify for the playoffs at the end of the month.

I just don't see how daily tournaments is going to be any different than the daily rating farm.

Bankai · Dec 27, 2006, 08:28 AM // 08:28

Yes, the only reason why I reduced the members needed is just for fun. It's a hell load of fun to pug. And since it will have so little influence on the ladder, why not?

Melody Cross · Dec 27, 2006, 11:28 PM // 23:28

Hello,

There are several things that concern me about these changes proposed to GvG, and I want to discuss them each as quickly as possible. That means I’m writing a Looooong post, but ask my guildies, they’ll tell you it’s my norm.

First: AT player requirements. If I am understanding everything correctly, then AT battles will be a reward based tourney on a regular basis, with prizes given to the winners if not the top 3. I agree that, to prevent top guilds from boosting poor guilds, we need to accept the implementation of a locked guild battle, where no guests or new guildies are allowed to play. Tourneys are a representation of guild skill and coordination, not the quality of your friends list.

If you are to do this, and do it properly, then I propose that AT battles be represented by guild rank 1-1000 and so on. While AT battles may effect rating, I would think that by separating the two (rank and rating) into AT vs. non-AT ability, guilds and the ladder would show a more accurate depiction of status of their ability in these two separate forms of PvP you have envisioned for GvG.

Second: non-AT player requirements. I do NOT agree with the idea of any changes to GvG requirements where non-AT battles are concerned. Most people call ID a LaG smurf. We’re not. We have several guild members who are RL friends to members of LaG, and it is this RL friendship that has forged a relationship through guesting between my guild and the more prominent Zero Files Remaining. They play with us to improve our standing (I will not deny this), farm some champ points doing it, and to have fun with people who are not in their guild. Even though they are not of my guild, they are respectful and respectable players who I enjoy playing with in a GvG setting.

I see no problems with this for several reasons. While they are not members of our guild, they are very good players who are willing to help us become better at this game. Its not just about farming champ points for We Card: we’re trying to become better. The tactics that these players instill, the suggestions about build dynamic that they impart; everything that LaG is, they give freely to help their friends—and by proxy their friends’ guild—become better at Guild Wars.

This is the essence of teaching; to take knowledge and share it with others. If you are to remove the ability to guest players, Anet, who then do you intend to instruct your player population to become better? Observer? Don’t kid me. Most of the junk spouted in obs is just that: trash talk between players who have no idea what they are talking about. HA then? Its 6v6 now; the dynamic of the two games was never very similar before. Now they are utterly foreign to one another.

So I do NOT think that any changes to GvG requirements should take place for non-AT battles. This allows guilds to play with new guildies on a regular basis and guest other players in a setting that is both fair and fun.
While guesting may have a detrimental effect on the true shape of the guild’s rating ladder, it will have no effect on the guild RANK ladder, the staple that would be used to define a guild’s “true” ability in GvG tourney settings.

Third: when and how AT battles should be held. I truly believe that these changes will spell the death of small 8-man guilds if it is implemented. Multi-cultural guilds playing at different times in different time zones will have a phenomenal advantage over “only” American or only European time zone guilds because they can participate in more AT battles than these small guilds (that need to sleep sometime) can. But the simple fact remains that most people do not want to be in a guild where they only play with a small percentage of its population.

To limit the damage you are about to do to these smaller guilds (composing many of your best players, I remind you) the number of AT tourneys held on a day should be no more than 1 per time zone. This allows most guilds to participate in at least 1, hopefully 2 or 3, tourneys on a daily basis and keeps their ladder rank respectable. This also limits the chances of some top 32 guilds being pushed out of their rightfully earned slot when it comes time for the world championships.

More than that and you risk multi-time zone guilds farming rank through AT, bolstering themselves to ever higher rank through sheer number of players. Its Alliance Battles then, and the biggest guild wins.

If player skill is to continue to dominate PvP over time played, there must be a limit to how many times a day a guild can farm rank. Otherwise you risk giving the top 32 slots to a bunch of Bspikes or other FotMs whose guild plays non-stop.

Fourth: Guild rating influencing the AT. While I realize that this does not sync with my previous statement about the rating ladder, there must be some way to separate guilds who can compete in an AT battle from those that will get their hat handed to them in under 5 minutes. If it is Anets choice to go on a warpath against smurfing, you must remember that you are fighting a battle against your own player base. The separation between rank and rating is a fair handed solution to this. If you seek total victory, you will certainly beat us all into submission…but at the cost of us seeking out a new game that is not designed and controlled by such heavy handed oppressors. Keep in mind what your total war tactics did to the HA community and PvE farmers in general. Neither are impossible, as of this posts writing, but neither are fun or particularly rewarding anymore. People got bored; people left. By the time the next expansion comes out, they will be “hardcore” elsewhere, and not want to waste their money or time trying Guild Wars again.

That said; beating the snot out of an unprepared opponent is not what I consider fun or an appropriate estimation of my guild’s skill level. To prevent this, ATs should be restricted to those people who have farmed a decent rating (1300 maybe, no less than 1400). That’s near the level where most people stop running gimmick builds and get serious because—as most people know—you will be facing more and more serious PvPers who can cream your FotM gimmick. While a few Bspikes or IWAYs may get up that high, player skill often defines that rating as much as anything. Said often in my teams vent “I don’t care what they’re running; they have to be good at it to get that rank”.

Finally: take this and anything else said in forums with a grain of salt. These people don’t know what they want. Heck, due to lack of information I don’t know what I want to see in this new form of GvG. Most people on forums do not represent the majority of players who play and care about the game they play. Neither do beta-testers, tbh. Be ready and willing (this time) to make changes to GvG to better suit what players like or hate. I feel very strongly when I say that many of the changes Anet has made due to player appeals have made it less fun, more restricting, and more annoying instead of challenging.

Please don’t ruin GvG in the process of making it better.

GGs

bluechestdude · Dec 28, 2006, 01:46 AM // 01:46

well seeing that most of my stuff has been said already...i have to agree with melody, gw needs to put up some more info and they need to at least respond to these posts...Then again small guilds can bring alliance members in or is that considered guesting.

twicky_kid · Dec 28, 2006, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluechestdude

well seeing that most of my stuff has been said already...i have to agree with melody, gw needs to put up some more info and they need to at least respond to these posts...Then again small guilds can bring alliance members in or is that considered guesting.

Alex did respond. Its just a matter of more information.

To make this work we really need the information quickly. People are under the impression the 30 day restriction is standing so finding a guild right now is so difficult its not even funny. Everyone is scrabbling to find a guild and most of the higher guilds are already full.

We are going to have a lot of unstable guilds formed very quickly that might fall apart and then the players will be locked out for 30 days. With the members only restriction the chances of this is higher than ever because even 1 person will ruin it for everyone else. I'll be the first to say if that happens to me I'm most likely done with GW. I'm not going to wait another 30 days before I can play again.

WoW is coming out with a new pvp expansion and is taking many things GW did right. GW is about to have some very serious competition in the pvp world that up until now hasn't been really challenged. I would take great care with this situation as it could very will turn ugly for GW. I'm not saying this as a threat it just shows a very real concern of mine that players are not going to put with a game that is constantly restricting us more and more.

I would say get rid of the 30 day restriction because really is not offering anything positive to the game. Smurf/tank guilds will not be entering AT because they can farm their rating and champ points on the Free gvg ladder.

Consider not having daily tournaments. I don't see a real difference between farming the ladder everyday or farming ATs everyday. The end result will still be the same. A weekly tournament would also prevent the multi-cultural guilds from gaining a big advantage over server only guilds. A weekly tournament would spark what is really needed in GvG: competition.

Right now is always the same players that dominate the ladder. The names change but the rosters don't. If you make the tournaments weekly there will be much more fierce competition among guilds to qualify for the end of the month tournaments. After watching the play offs every season there is always some big surprises by superior guilds beening beat by guilds no one gave a chance.

Van Goghs Ear · Dec 28, 2006, 04:02 AM // 04:02

just to add my quick 2 cents.

30 day restriction is way too much. I don't really understand what this accomplishes other than making the whole guild system very UNuser friendly. Even a few days of restriction would prevent competitive players in competitive guilds from guild hopping for the sake of pugging, but 30 days? Come on..

stueyman2099 · Dec 28, 2006, 05:32 AM // 05:32

I only really skimmed through Melody Cross's post, but one point did catch my attention. Limiting the number of AT's a guild can participate, probably 1 a day if there are 3 a day would do well to keep guilds from just entering all the time and farming rating as some people keep suggesting. This number could be varied widely depending on how the system is implimented.