Curse

twicky_kid · Dec 23, 2006, 10:01 AM // 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warskull

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?

Not only that but what if you get kicked from a guild? You are not out of action for 30 days. I've some leaders kick people for just stupid reasons. Just visit the ugly side of guilds post.

I would think 48 hours is good. I would agree that you need something there to prevent people from membering in smurfs. 30 days is unneeded.

Bankai · Dec 23, 2006, 10:15 AM // 10:15

48 hours isn't enough. You can still join a guild to boost them easily. I think a week (or 2) would be better.

Sinful Doom · Dec 23, 2006, 10:18 AM // 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluechestdude

but u dont need to do rated games to practice now u dont need another ladder to practice on..u can just do free games which i assume is finding a random game but there is no rating..This is a great tool for guilds that need practice...(well i assume that is what they meant by free game)

I'll tell you why I think this garbage.

1. You get an early edge on a team, they say "we have nothing to lose" = /resign

2. Lets totaly change the build we are running, they say "we have nothing to lose" = /resign

3. My pizza I orderded just came to the door, they say "we have nothing to lose" = /resign

Ya, this "free ladder" will really be great. I thought unrating people was the practice time in GvG...

twicky_kid · Dec 23, 2006, 10:20 AM // 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

48 hours isn't enough. You can still join a guild to boost them easily. I think a week (or 2) would be better.

Any kind of restriction will deter people from leaving their guilds to member.

Remember you need 8 people from your own guild to get in the tournaments. I'm pretty sure your guildies are not going to be happy with you when you make them wait 2 days to play again because you wanted to member with another guild.

Any restriction will do it doesn't have to be 30 days that just crazy talk. A week is still long.

Alex Weekes · Dec 23, 2006, 10:21 AM // 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makkert

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

How about you wait for the actual execution before declaring it harsh? Right now you have some general indications of where the design team is planning to take PvP. You do not have details, and therefore you should not be pre-judging whether the execution is 'harsh' or not.

There's been plenty of times in the past when the forum community has not hesitated to leap in and declare something that's been announced without details as 'awful' or 'not good enough' or 'the death of X' ... and plenty of times when those statements have been retracte d once the actual details were known.

What I'd love to see here is a lot less pre-judging and a lot more sensible discussion based on what you know and not what you are assuming. Wait and see how the changes are implemented, and give the changes some time to settle in. If you still don't like it then, go ahead and let us know. But until then, let's save the doom'n'gloom prophecies and try to be constructive.

Thomas.knbk · Dec 23, 2006, 10:38 AM // 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

There's been plenty of times in the past when the forum community has not hesitated to leap in and declare something that's been announced without details as 'awful' or 'not good enough' or 'the death of X' ... and plenty of times when those statements have been retracte d once the actual details were known.

While I think declaring this the death of GvG is a bit early indeed, I do see a few problems I'd like to adress. For example: In the past I've been in GvG guilds that only had 12 members, or even less. In one of those guilds at one point, 5 members stopped playing. Mostly due to real-life issues. In the new system this would mean our entire guild could not play GvG for 30 days. At least, not participate in the tournaments. And the tournaments seem to become the 'real' GvG. It also means switching guilds for totally legit reasons other than smurfing is made almost impossible. It would once again mean I can't GvG for 30 days.

Thom Bangalter · Dec 23, 2006, 10:47 AM // 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

How about you wait for the actual execution before declaring it harsh? Right now you have some general indications of where the design team is planning to take PvP. You do not have details, and therefore you should not be pre-judging whether the execution is 'harsh' or not.

There's been plenty of times in the past when the forum community has not hesitated to leap in and declare something that's been announced without details as 'awful' or 'not good enough' or 'the death of X' ... and plenty of times when those statements have been retracte d once the actual details were known.

What I'd love to see here is a lot less pre-judging and a lot more sensible discussion based on what you know and not what you are assuming. Wait and see how the changes are implemented, and give the changes some time to settle in. If you still don't like it then, go ahead and let us know. But until then, let's save the doom'n'gloom prophecies and try to be constructive.

Mr. Weekes, seriously though--a MONTH? Since you already can't use guests in tournaments and tournaments are the new 'real' gameplay from what we understand based on the information your employer has provided with it's customers, there should be no harm in membering with a guild for regular ladder play since it seems, for the most part, largely irrelevant. The only issue would be having people join and throw tournaments, which is why 1 week, or 3 days (72 hour bans for infractions seem fine, why not prevent members for 72 hours) is better. instead of, for example, me membering for Anneke and Lily Bake [Pies] for a night to do teleway and not being able to play in a real tournament with my guild until march?

I also think it's shortsighted to announce a sweeping change to a system we've become familiar with; announce a large change and then say 'don't QQ about it guys, just stay silent for the next week and a half'. It's the ladder lock--we have nothing better to do.

I think anyone that has already came out and said 'this is the worst thing to ever happen' is jumping to conclusions, but it's the internet, so wild speculations are all we really have to keep us entertained--Iron Chef isn't on 24 hours a day.

Strid · Dec 23, 2006, 10:58 AM // 10:58

Looks like their intent is to make a "higher-lvl" PvP something more suitable for more casual players and guilds

there aren't many details on how this is gonna work, theres no reason for all this crying

fallot · Dec 23, 2006, 11:17 AM // 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

You do not have details, and therefore you should not be pre-judging whether the execution is 'harsh' or not.

There's been plenty of times in the past when the forum community has not hesitated to leap in and declare something that's been announced without details as 'awful' or 'not good enough' or 'the death of X' ... and plenty of times when those statements have been retracte d once the actual details were known.

Then give us the details, give us so much information that its impossible to develop these notions. Personally I have no complaints, I can wait and see just fine. It sure seems harsh reading it right now though, why isn't this clarified immediately ?

Patrograd · Dec 23, 2006, 11:48 AM // 11:48

I think I would like to see exactly how this would be implemented before getting either too excited or despondent about it. There are a number of ways they could implement this which would be brilliant for competitive play, vastly superior to the ladder system, and a number of ways they could implement it which would kill competitive play for all but the very elite.

For example, if the planned tournaments are HA style in implementation it could be really strong - in other words

1) A guild can join a tournament at any time
2) Tournaments are 4 matches in total on random maps, once you lose you are out of that tournament and have to start again, if you win you go through and face the next round. After 4 consecutive wins (the foruth one also being against a team who has won three in a row) you have won that tournament and can either start again or not
3) The ELO K value increases with each round, meaning you will only really make significant ladder progress by winning the tournament, discouraging teams running spike or other farming style builds. if the K value for the fourth match was something like 50 it could really be interesting
4) As long as your team conatains 8 Guildies you can swap players out mid tournament if you so choose
5) If the ELO K value for non tournament ladder matches is low enough (say 10 for example as opposed to the current 30) then this is effectively the random unrated format everyone has been asking for all this time, encouraging teams to try out recruits and new builds with minimal risk, but still in games that actually mean something (edit) In fact they have made the K value to 5, with the ladder unlocking on jan 1st

I think something along these lines would be a huge improvement on the current ladder system

If however the current rumours about fixed start times and swiss style format are true then you have just excluded about 90% of the competitive guilds in the game who are unable to meet an imposed schedule for all but special events, and sometimes struggle even then. It would in all probability take me out of the game for example, as I dont typically play "peak" hours for my region and usualy roll into my guild team after they have started a session. The vast majority of players I know are in a similar position - people with jobs, families and other comittments who just cannot meet an imposed schedule. You are basically talking about limiting these tournamentsto the elite group of players, effectively killing GvG for everyone else

The 30 day rule is a little silly imo

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 23, 2006, 12:15 PM // 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

If however the current rumours about fixed start times and swiss style format are true then you have just excluded about 90% of the competitive guilds in the game who are unable to meet an imposed schedule for all but special events, and sometimes struggle even then. It would in all probability take me out of the game for example, as I dont typically play "peak" hours for my region and usualy roll into my guild team after they have started a session. The vast majority of players I know are in a similar position - people with jobs, families and other comittments who just cannot meet an imposed schedule. You are basically talking about limiting these tournamentsto the elite group of players, effectively killing GvG for everyone else

I suspect the tournaments will require some specific scheduling, but I don't read that as killing GvG for those who can't participate.

We're all very used to GvG being the only decent format in Guild Wars, and we're also used to GvG matches being important tense affairs with large amounts of rating on the line. The way Guild Wars is right now (barring guilds made specifically to PuG), you play GvG seriously with your best players or you never see your true potential in rating. Running without core members or taking a risk on a new guy is often painful, and can result in some really massive rating hits if you lose to someone far below your own rank.

But GvG doesn't have to be that way. From what I read in this article, it will be possible to play on the ladder at any time for a greatly reduced amount of points. This will allow teams to take a lot more risks since they don't stand to lose any serious rating, but the minor ELO hits and possibility of champ points will keep teams playing fairly competitively. Right now, you're forced into a lot of setup time and wait time and scheduling to stay competitive, because otherwise you won't be playing with your best and put your rating at risk in the process. The new ladder has the potential to allieviate this, while still allowing teams to compete seriously in the tournaments.

Guild Wars has needed a casual "log on and play" format for a very long time. Compare the ladder in this new format directly to PUB servers in an FPS game - the vast majority of players in CounterStrike play PUBs, with only the few with exceptional dedication, skill, and time ever actually see tournament or league play. Guilds that can't make the tournaments can still compete on the ladder and play GvG just as they already do. Indeed, they'll be able to do it a lot more freely since they won't be putting someone else's ladder ranking on the line.

I'm actually hoping that one of the not-yet-released changes is removal of the 4-member limit. PUGs are always painful to run into when there's 25 rating at risk, but without anything serious to lose they're a fun method of quickly getting into the game when you don't have guildies on. Since they now have the protected tournament format that decides rating, I'd love to see Arenanet add more support for PuG GvG - LFG systems, and of course dropping the ridiculous 30 day limit.

I'm being an optimist here, and it may turn out to be much worse than I'm picturing. However, I completely understand what Arenanet is trying to do here and I applaud it - I only hope it pulls through in the implementation.

Bankai · Dec 23, 2006, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Yes, that's true. With these changes, you can easily log on, get some members and just play some games, without a lot of preparation, since the rating changes will be very little.

And I'm also being an optimist, just because there are already so many pessimists.

Patrograd · Dec 23, 2006, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

We're all very used to GvG being the only decent format in Guild Wars, and we're also used to GvG matches being important tense affairs with large amounts of rating on the line. ..

Well, imo, it is the "large amount of rating at risk" that makes GvG what it is. Yes, there is a need for what is effectively random unrated, but I dont think this is what I want to do every night, permanent ladder lock. Whats the point?

Great if you are in an elite guild who can regularly field 8 players at a time of soemone else's chossing, otherwise pretty dire imo.

For example, if the time scheduled for this by Anet for Euro Guilds is 8pm GMT, then I will never be able to play a meaningful GvG match again, and might as well uninstall

twicky_kid · Dec 23, 2006, 04:50 PM // 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

Yes, that's true. With these changes, you can easily log on, get some members and just play some games, without a lot of preparation, since the rating changes will be very little.

And I'm also being an optimist, just because there are already so many pessimists.

I don't understand how this will be less prep time. You every tried to set up a pug that doesn't play with each other on a regular basis.

Set up times will still be the same. Unless you have a regular guild that runs the same build all the time nothing on that side will change.

The 30 day limit and Anet make the scheduled times is what killed this for me. Since GvG is the only reason I play this game I don't know if I will be continuing. Many people are in the same boat I'm in. We cannot schedule our lives around Anet.

Ya I could play the free GvG but I would never receive any prizes. The "reduced" rating you gain from free GvG will not be enough alone to be competitive.

I can wait for more information but the information is pretty clear on how this will work. A few things are not explained like skill restrictions, exact tournament hours, and basic flow of the tournaments.

Deep Sea Diving · Dec 23, 2006, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Weekes

How about you wait for the actual execution before declaring it harsh? Right now you have some general indications of where the design team is planning to take PvP. You do not have details, and therefore you should not be pre-judging whether the execution is 'harsh' or not.

There's been plenty of times in the past when the forum community has not hesitated to leap in and declare something that's been announced without details as 'awful' or 'not good enough' or 'the death of X' ... and plenty of times when those statements have been retracte d once the actual details were known.

What I'd love to see here is a lot less pre-judging and a lot more sensible discussion based on what you know and not what you are assuming. Wait and see how the changes are implemented, and give the changes some time to settle in. If you still don't like it then, go ahead and let us know. But until then, let's save the doom'n'gloom prophecies and try to be constructive.

You’re not nerfing ectos (again), your employers are talking about radical changes to gvg. You dropped one hell of a bomb on the already distressed pvp community.

Rant:
Please stop talking about smurf guilds and pugs. People should be aloud to play the one fun part of this game the way they want to.

They don’t tank the ladder unless you let them. Other guilds lose to the pug/smurf and they cry about it. Solution, yeah don’t lose. You lost to a pug, suck it up and keep playing please.
/End Rant

Now, that being said, this change could turn out for the better, but arenanet did a horrible job of evaluating the consequences of this announcement AT THIS TIME, while they were supposed to be balancing the skills that made the ladder and the guilds on it one dimensional & possibly working to make tombs fun again, and were being incredibly optimistic if they didn’t expect backlash from the pvp community.

It is my belief that the players complaining about the ladder are the casual ones, players who get together and enter gvg discovering it to be a whole lot more difficult than they originally anticipated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

If weekes responds again, I have a question:
are you kicking the pvpers out of alpha? yes or no?

Arenanet says they are listening to ‘us’. I’m starting to wonder who specifically ‘us’ is.

Billiard · Dec 23, 2006, 06:36 PM // 18:36

I think the idea behind the 30 day limit is this:

You participate in daily tournaments during the month in order to qualify for the monthly tournament at the end. If there was a shorter limit (say 2 or 3 days) then it would be possible for a person or team of people to help a lot of guilds qualify for the monthly tournament, and then go back to some other guild to actually play in it. This seems like it defeats the purpose of having daily tournaments as qualifiers for the monthly ones then.

Now maybe they can instead make it so that during the 30 days prior to a monthly tournament that you'll have to participate in a certain number of daily tournaments for the guild in order to qualify to play for the monthly tournament, for that guild. There still remain a problem though that "ringers" could be brought in to help boost rating for a guild during daily tournaments and then just not be able to play in the monthly - which the guild might not play in anyway.

Anyway I think they are just using the 30 days as a starting point and will refine it from there. I think its important to see what they are trying to accomplish though, and not just have a knee-jerk reaction to the numbers.

FoxBat · Dec 23, 2006, 06:37 PM // 18:37

I'm not sure I get this "cannot schedule our lives around anet" thing. Who says tournies are going to be scheduled for the same time every day? I'd expect some kind of regular rotation (and not aligned to a weekly basis) so that every hour of 24 will be represented on some day or another. And we're probably looking at more than one tournie a day, so plenty of opportunities within a week. Hopefully the new system won't require you to prove yourself as often as you did when grinding the ladder, just play in a few key tournies a season and spend the rest of your time practicing on your own schedules.

Greedy Gus · Dec 23, 2006, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by twicky_kid

Ya I could play the free GvG but I would never receive any prizes. The "reduced" rating you gain from free GvG will not be enough alone to be competitive.

You're still staying in the mindset of having short seasons with regular ladder resets. If they don't reset the ladder anymore, even if it takes longer to get up toward your 'true' ranking by playing ladder games with ELO K=5, you will be moving toward it nevertheless.

And why again are you considering yourself of even being in the running for being 'competitive', if you don't qualify to play in these daily tournaments?

It's just ridiculous to see so many people complaining about this proposed system that eliminates and/or reduces so many things that were problematic, especially with no real details.

Wasteland Squidget · Dec 23, 2006, 07:24 PM // 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

Well, imo, it is the "large amount of rating at risk" that makes GvG what it is. Yes, there is a need for what is effectively random unrated, but I dont think this is what I want to do every night, permanent ladder lock. Whats the point?

I don't think it will be permanent ladder lock at all. Ladder lock is infested with crappy matches because there really are no rewards and everyone's just come off the end-of-season high. People think they're cute playing henchway or teleway and running other teams around the map for as long as they possibly can.

In my opinion, even if there isn't huge rating to be gained, teams will still play fairly competitively so long as there's something. PuG guilds don't have to be uninteresting to play against - they're often good and challenging matches, doubly so when you don't stand to lose a massive amount of rating to a bunch of high-ranked players who started a new guild.

I used to play Halo competitively, and while I'll never enter a tournament again, I still enjoy logging onto PUB servers every few days. People play their hardest and I often get good matches, even though it's a gametype with no effective rewards.

I understand that there's a lot of enjoyment associated with struggling on the ladder for some people. Personally, I've always found the ELO mechanic on the random ladder to be one of the most frustrating aspects of Guild Wars, and I'm glad to see it being marginalized.

Edit: Also, Gus is right.

Greedy Gus · Dec 23, 2006, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Basically, here is a good way to view the proposed system:

You want to compete in GvG battles, to have fun, compete, see how you measure up to all the other thousands of guilds, or fight for playoff spots and prizes.

Just like always, you play open ladder games for rating. Forget how much they used to net you, it's not really important. There is constant movement toward your true rating level relative to the other thousands of guilds playing, and comparing it to locked ladder play is just poor/lazy thinking.

Now, suppose one day (scheduled or not) you have enough people on that you can play GvG while showing the true play level of your stable guild (meaning no guests, no new members, etc.). Then you can choose to play in an even more competitive & realistic format against other (equally stable) guilds at their true play level to see relative differences between each of you, and get boosted [rating] rewards for this more accurate GvG format.

If your guild roster is not dedicated or established enough to qualify and show up for any of these daily tournaments, then you will necessarily need to opt out of playing in them in order to maintain the greater accuracy of that more rewarding format for the teams that can.

Also, people should stop thinking of ladder rating as a 'race'. If you don't understand ELO, do some research. This isn't about ladder play vs. tournament play. You won't have "huge guilds" somehow 'dominating' because they play multiple tournaments. No matter what format you play in, you still get matched against other guilds, and the gains/losses are determined based on your relative positioning to your opponents. Eventually, things stop looking like a race, and start looking like a real ranklist. So it isn't about tournament play getting better rewards than open ladder, it's about a more accurate format being able to give better rank feedback without fear of being skewed.

Stupidity and unwarranted QQfests shouldn't be tolerated in this forum area, take that shit to riverside & WoC.