Curse

sakura75 · Dec 23, 2006, 03:40 AM // 03:40

The game is good, no doubt, but I think this game is designed for young players age 12-18 years old. For the mature players over 24 years with a real life or with regular work, GvG with the current system is hard, but manageable cause the guilds make their own playing times.
The introduction of Tournament times by Anet will be the end of competive gvg for me. I am over 30 with a regular job and a real life. I cannot adapt my life to Anet/GW times to play competitve GvG.

What is left for me? HoH? Since the introduction of 6v6 I dont want to set foot in the HoH again, cause it is simply not challenging enough.
TA and RA? No thanx.
PvE? Farming is not possible anymore. Grinding Missions and Quests is horrible and getting meaningless titles? Nah, thanx again.

So with this I would say:
Thanks Anet alot for a great game that I enjoyed since the first days when it came out. Farewell.

I will look for another game where I can decide my own playing times.

Parkerbsb · Dec 23, 2006, 04:00 AM // 04:00

I find it funny that less than 2 months ago I read comments about how smurfing and PuG's could not be tolerated in a "competetive" game - and that how no real competetive people will look at this game as good enough until it's solved.

Anet solves the problem, and we now have people complaining it's too restrictive, and we havn't even expirenced the new format for a day yet!

To everyone bemoaning their GW days are over: stop being drama-queens and sit tight until you get a chance to play before QQing.

Speculation is nothing but fearfull wondering by the paranoid masses.

Deep Sea Diving · Dec 23, 2006, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkerbsb

I find it funny that less than 2 months ago I read comments about how smurfing and PuG's could not be tolerated in a "competetive" game - and that how no real competetive people will look at this game as good enough until it's solved.

Anet solves the problem, and we now have people complaining it's too restrictive, and we havn't even expirenced the new format for a day yet!

To everyone bemoaning their GW days are over: stop being drama-queens and sit tight until you get a chance to play before QQing.

Speculation is nothing but fearfull wondering by the paranoid masses.

They could probably launch this new system in the next week, which means they've been working on it. I'd rather have them working rigorously on getting skills balanced and fixing the smaller parts of the system that can make this a great game and i know a lot of people will wholeheartedly agree with me on that.

Honestly, how many people were expecting them to change the way the ladder works before they fix HA?

Edit: Not fix HA, implying that its broken, its just entirely unfavorable.

twicky_kid · Dec 23, 2006, 04:33 AM // 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkerbsb

Anet solves the problem, and we now have people complaining it's too restrictive, and we havn't even expirenced the new format for a day yet!

Yes, so restrictive it prevents casual players from being able to play in the format.

Without casual players deciding to try become competitive less and less people will play.

GvG players and competitive players are going to buy every single chapter of GW because we need those skills to remain competitive. Less people coming into the competitive pvp means less sales in the end.

This is going to be bad on so many fronts.

The 30 day restriction isn't a bad thing to anyone trying to be competitive in the season and I think that's great. We usually have a month between seasons if not more. They could just make a free GvG randomly matched system so the players that did not want to compete in the season would be able to still play casual gvg like the pugs do. That would allow teams to practise, casual players to have fun, and at the same time protect the integrity of the ladder.

As for guest and champ points. Only give champ points to guilds participating in the season. The free GvG does not gain champ points. Guilds participating in the season will not be able to guest other members during a ranked season match.

Wow, that was hard to figure out how to prevent smurfs while still maintaining the current gvg ladder system. They didn't have to destroy the entire thing to be able stop smurfs.

Tortoise · Dec 23, 2006, 04:44 AM // 04:44

I cannot imagine them keeping the 30 day limit and I cannot imagine them overlooking the entire guest thing. This system 'could' be a blessing but atm we don't know yet.

I'm concerned as well. We schedule our GvG sessions but I cannot imagine us being able to field as many teams as we do now when Anet decides for us when we can play. I can't really see this new system helping new players break into high level pvp either.

/concerned but hopefull.

twicky_kid · Dec 23, 2006, 04:50 AM // 04:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortoise

I cannot imagine them keeping the 30 day limit and I cannot imagine them overlooking the entire guest thing. This system 'could' be a blessing but atm we don't know yet.

30 days might be a too extreme. What about a week or 48 hours?

There has to be some restriction set in place otherwise smurfs would continue as they did pre guesting.

Thom Bangalter · Dec 23, 2006, 05:43 AM // 05:43

As far as smurfing goes, looks like I need a legitimate second account with more campaigns unlocked.

GG Anet, for selling more copies.

Billiard · Dec 23, 2006, 05:53 AM // 05:53

Just to clarify a couple of things:

Free play GvG matches will still exist in their current form BUT the ELO rating on them will be greatly reduced. Guilds can enter free play matches for fun and practice, but for all real purposes, these matches will have little effect on each guild's overall ladder rating or ranking.

One important change you should all be aware of is that you will HAVE to be a member of a guild for 30 days before your account will be allowed to enter an automated tournament for that guild. Just as we required long term membership in a guild for our previous tournaments, it will again be required for the automated tournaments. This means that guests will NOT be allowed for tournament play

So everyone can GvG the same way that they do now, it just has a smaller effect on their rating. This makes sense when combined with the fact that the ladder will no longer reset after Jan 1st.

The deal for the 30 days is just for participation in the automatic tournaments. If you only GvG for tournaments, then you need to be in the guild for the requiste time - this has always been the case, but now the tournaments are more frequent.

I look at this as a bunch of added things with just some added requirements. The ladder is still there as is guesting and pugging for champion points and such. After a two or three months the ladder will probably settle back down to where it is now even with the reduced effects of "casual" play. People that want to play in tournaments will have to go to some extra efforts for scheduling and such - but this has always been the case.

SilentVex · Dec 23, 2006, 06:17 AM // 06:17

So, assuming that the casual gvg scene dies from lack of effect (no reason to play), startup guilds now have to wait a month to do any real gvg, and if you switch guilds ever, you can't do anything but practice gvg for a month. Sorry anet, but this is lame. I have a feeling you just finished killing pvp.

Zuranthium · Dec 23, 2006, 06:28 AM // 06:28

The new changes have a lot of promise. I also like the new way that individual players can gain more notoriety as well.

~Z

Thom Bangalter · Dec 23, 2006, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

The new changes have a lot of promise. I also like the new way that individual players can gain more notoriety as well.

~Z

how's that? it escaped me. Unless you're talking about hero battles, which no one gives a crap about. I always thought Guild Wars was a team game, but apparently not.

Zuranthium · Dec 23, 2006, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

how's that? it escaped me. Unless you're talking about hero battles, which no one gives a crap about.

Yes, I'm talking about those.

Nobody gives a crap about them right now, certainly I don't, but getting rewards for coming up with the best Hero Battle builds is a good incentive.

Although I'd love to see the Random Arenas format become a bigger deal (ie. an Observer mode for teams who get 10 wins, "Random"-format tournies) and be a bit more more structured with some kind of system within the game that sorts teams better. Same for Team Arenas...I'd like to see an Observer mode there and high-level competitions with that type of format.

~Z

twicky_kid · Dec 23, 2006, 07:13 AM // 07:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilentVex

So, assuming that the casual gvg scene dies from lack of effect (no reason to play), startup guilds now have to wait a month to do any real gvg, and if you switch guilds ever, you can't do anything but practice gvg for a month. Sorry anet, but this is lame. I have a feeling you just finished killing pvp.

Agreed

No player wants to wait another month to be able to get any prizes from DAILY tournaments.

There are too many good games out there for me to wait around in GW. Sorry Anet but your competition is looking much better after these changes.

rubics · Dec 23, 2006, 07:31 AM // 07:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

As far as smurfing goes, looks like I need a legitimate second account with more campaigns unlocked.

GG Anet, for selling more copies.

If the system works the way I think it will, having multiple accounts will not enable you to smurf.

Top teams will not risk their rank vs. unrated or low-rated guilds because admission to top automated tournaments will not be possible without a requisite number of points.

If a top team makes a second account and plays out of that one, they'll only be beating down newbie teams. All the while, they'll rise through the ranks. Eventually, they'll have the points to compete in the top-tier, but at this point, their wins won't be smurfing. It'll just be one good team beating another good team with the associated rank change.

The problem right now is that you can climb to the top of the ladder and then guest in any number of low ranked guilds over and over and pull down other top teams. Once the guild you're guesting in is too high to cause meaningful damage to the rank of other good teams, you just guest in a different low ranked guild and repeat the process.

I don't think Arena.net cares if you maintain multiple accounts to play with different groups of people. What they care about is people abusing a ladder system to create unrealistic guild rankings.

If you think that you have to smurf to get to the top, then: 1.) the ladder system is fundamentally flawed and 2.) you may not be good enough to get to the top through legitimate competitive play. The roughly outlined change seems to be an attempt to fix both of these problems.

Dishonest ladder manipulation should also be curtailed by a permanent ladder. Instead of resets every 3 months, the scores will be constant over the year. The only way a team on top is going to be able to maintain its position is if it actively plays and wins in top tournaments.

The real challenge will be for Arena.net to create a reasonable points system. Ideally, top guilds would earn and loose less points in top tournaments than low and middle rank guilds would earn in low and mid-ranked tournaments.

The two problems that the points system will have to avoid is 1.) preventing good middle-level guilds from ever catch up to the points totals of comparably-skilled top guilds and 2.) preventing the best top-level guilds from maintaining their leads on lesser-skilled guilds that are on a hot-streak through the mid-level tournaments.

For example, if the #1 guild in the game goes 30-0 in the top ladder, it would optimally be able to maintain a lead over the #200 guild that wins 40-20 on its rise through the middle ranks and into the top ranks. I would expect this result especially if the 40 wins occurred in the middle ground and the 20 losses occurred in top competition. However, that same #200 guild should probably be able to break into the top level of competition if it goes 40-0 in the middle tournaments.

rubics · Dec 23, 2006, 08:06 AM // 08:06

Another point:

I disagree with the arguments saying that the 30 day system will kill casual GvG. Casual GvG will consist of 1.) new guilds giving GvG a try; 2.) and established guilds trying out new builds.

Regarding the lack of rewards, why will that be a problem? 90% of the guilds right now don't get anything from GvG besides Balthazaar faction. That reward will still be there. Moreover, it will be a great venue to practice in without risking your rank. The meta-game will continue to shift with each skill re-balance and as always, the top teams will be the ones that can stay ahead of these changes. I don't think any of the very best guilds can simply look at what people are playing on observer and then, without testing, throw together the perfect build to counter the meta + remain flexible enough to fight balanced.

IMHO, the current smurfing situation is much more disconcerting to a new guild. I can only imagine that it's very discouraging to be a new player and play your first game against someone who is ridiculously better than you are. That must be even more true when you see the guild rank as comparable and then get totally whipped.

With the 30-day restriction, top players are less likely to jump ship to form a new guild or to smurf. That means that the young bloods will not be getting demolished as frequently in their first matches.

I don't remember the psychologists name, but there's a theory (that I believe) that says that people find challenging tasks that are not significantly above their skill level infinitely more rewarding than a task that is either too easy or too hard. It's that sweet spot that games like this try to achieve.

rubics · Dec 23, 2006, 08:18 AM // 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

I've never cared about smurfing, I'm more concerned with pugging. Pugging has always been a ton of fun and now they limit that.

Why will pugging be destroyed? You'll still be able to guest with other guilds and play games with them.

If you think whatever prize these ATs are going to award will make guilds only play in ATs, then one solution that could protect the integrity of the ladder and allow people to play in the tournament format would be to have an unranked AT for guilds just looking to grab a few friends and go. . . . Which, now that I think about it, is pretty much what the old HA was.

So if Arena.net fixes HA, which they seem legitimately interested in doing, and implements this new system in a way that avoids people's legitimate concerns, this is going to be an awesome addition.

Now I know that I've posted my own concerns (on page 2) about the new system, but I'm going to give Arena.net the benefit of the doubt. I really disagree with the doom-and-gloom attitude. They are clearly trying to make the game more enjoyable for the most number of people, and if a design is inherently flawed, they'll work with the players to improve it.

Thom Bangalter · Dec 23, 2006, 08:36 AM // 08:36

You can't guest member.

and HA will only be a suitable replacement if they replace Ghostly heroes with Guild Lords, change the maps to GvG maps, and archers, two knights, and a bodyguard.

Makkert · Dec 23, 2006, 08:40 AM // 08:40

- the 'no guests' clause is just downright annoying. people want to play the game, and if one player now can't show up, 7 can't play in the tourny.
GG. That is just silly, and requires an astonishing effort to organise for the guilds that may be not top of the line, but still want to play a decent game.

- the tourny structure sounds like if you want to play a decent game, play tourny. Because ladder is not very rewarding, you'll stay at low rating for ages. So play tourny. Which means YOU no longer decide when you play and for how long you play. Unless your team is big enough to rotate.

The general idea of the changes is fine, and makes sense. But I think the execution is a bit harsh (especially the 'guest'-clause).

Bankai · Dec 23, 2006, 09:05 AM // 09:05

It seems people are forgetting that you can still play 'fun' games on the ladder, even with the AT. And it has much less of an impact on your rating. So yes, this time, high-ranked guilds can practice new builds without losing rating. Also, Pugging has never been about boosting a high ranked guild. It has always been about playing fun matches with each other. Which is still possible.

I honestly think that Anet will make it 14/15 days, and that they will lower the members needed for non-AT gvg to 2, since the 4-member rule was initially to prevent smurfing and Pugging.

Warskull · Dec 23, 2006, 09:40 AM // 09:40

Ladder quality goes down the tubes during ladder lock. People consider the ladder to be significantly less fun now. With these changes you can get +5 or -5 points at max. The competition will shift to the tourney's. Thus tourneys will be "real" gvg and the ladder will be a much lower play level.

The 30 day limit is way too much. You are telling people they can't play what they love to play. Why go through all this effort to create a great tourney system to block people from playing in it? Smurfing and PuGs weren't that bad a problem, however this solution has a lot of collateral damage. Legitimately finding a new guild will put you out of play for over a month. Then when you come back you will be rusty as heck. Even 1 week is a long time for a game.

This has me worried that I won't have any guild wars left to play when it is implemented. If you have daily tournaments of all levels designed to bring tournaments to everyone, why do they all need the 30 day requirement?