Curse

Xanthar · Dec 28, 2006, 12:01 PM // 12:01

Sorry to be harping this over and over, but it doesn't seem to be sticking anywhere so

There will be no farming of rating points in a long-standing ELO-based system. No matter how much you play, your average rating will remain one that reflects your relative skill vs. the other players (in this case guilds) within the system. Any farming of points will occur in the first couple of months, after which the ratings will start fluctuating with skill instead of playtime.

Sorry for taking your time again

notrich · Jan 01, 2007, 02:47 AM // 02:47

I can't wait to see how the new tourney rules will work out - here are my comments and suggestions.

1. 30 days is too long - 2 weeks max, preferably 1 week.
2. No guests is too harsh - at least one guest, preferably 2
3. If there is going to be a Heroes Battles ladder, then it can't be that hard to make a team arena ladder.

Tourney rules and payouts? Why not make it closer to the poker sites? Make rating points a nearly closed system. What I mean by this is... create tourney's that require a donation of rating points to be put into a pool so that the top three guilds can split (50%, 30%, and 20%).

You sign up for a tourney - it costs 5 rating points to enter. In a 16 team tourney there will be 80 points up for grabs (16*5= 80). First gets 40 points, second gets 24, third gets 16. The losers lose 5 each, and the winners gain 35, 19, and 11 each.

Or allow guilds to bid rating points for slots in championship tourneys... the highest bidders get into the tourney. They lose the points they bid when they enter and get a payout if they finish "in the money" (for whatever payout schedule you decide to use for larger format tourney's - again I suggest using poker type payout schedules). The highest bidders get seeded in order.

Regarding tourneys with restricted skills. Why make your employees stay in on weekends to confirm skill builds? Why not allow us to create toons based on popular tourney formats. Whether by creating a check box so that you can apply it to current toons (When this box is checked you will be able to join "core skill only" tourney's and can only put core skills in your skill bar) or by creating a new page during toon creation... Core skills only character (among other things like chapter specific skill toons).

Regarding new 30 day rules... if this is going to stick then I think you need a new officer rank(s) in the guild system. An officer that can start battles, and can recruit, but can't demote or kick other players. Or allow the guild leader to pick and choose which officer rank can do what: check boxes for battle starting, recruiting, kicking, and anything else you can think of. Along with at least three ranks of officers.

ps - I am also in the minority that think green items should have a a global population maximum - meaning greens should not drop after the maximum number is reached unless a green is eliminated through account deletion or item deletion. Global max population of any particular green item should be estimated to allow drops until a new chapter comes out.

Patrograd · Jan 01, 2007, 02:52 PM // 14:52

After some discussions with friends and guildies, I think that I'd like to see the following

1) ATs to start at varying times. Eg in Europe, have one start at 7pm one night, 8pm the next, 9pm the next, 10pm the next and then back to 7pm again
2) ATs to not last more than about 2 hours
3) Reduce the 30 day period to 7 days
4) Allow guilds to rotate team members mid tournament
5) Allow guilds to bring in up to 2 guests, who should be Alliance members, stengthening what is, under the proposed system, a wasted feature (Alliances)
6) Punish ladder camping or other forms of inactivity - for example I used to play on a ladder that gave you a 10% hit to your positive rating for every 7 days you were inactive on the ladder.

Bankai · Jan 01, 2007, 03:50 PM // 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

6) Punish ladder camping or other forms of inactivity - for example I used to play on a ladder that gave you a 10% hit to your positive rating for every 7 days you were inactive on the ladder.

If everybody around you is gaining rating and you're not, you automatically lose rank.

Patrograd · Jan 01, 2007, 05:15 PM // 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

If everybody around you is gaining rating and you're not, you automatically lose rank.

Thats a big "if" in a permanent ladder. Once it settles, and everyone is at more or less their correct ELO, it is perfectly possible to camp a high rating and a high rank forever without ever playing.

Xanthar · Jan 01, 2007, 05:33 PM // 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

Thats a big "if" in a permanent ladder. Once it settles, and everyone is at more or less their correct ELO, it is perfectly possible to camp a high rating and a high rank forever without ever playing.

Precisely. On the other hand, it would suck badly to loose ELO rating because you and your guildmates go on vacation. A more moderate option make certain that the ladder is relevant is to hide inactive guilds until such time as they play a match again. This way, inactivity might be reached fairly fast (one week?) but will not negatively impact your rating, whereas is might shrink your e-peen a bit - Much as it should

Patrograd · Jan 02, 2007, 12:19 PM // 12:19

Someone made a point earlier in the thread about the match selection for random ladder still being +/-200 points despite the point value for games being 1/6th what it was, creating several extremely imbalanced ladder matches which are no real fun for either side I guess.

I appreciate that the ladder isnt the be all and end all any more, but I think it would be nice if this was fixed from +/-200 to +/- 35. Maybe when the ladder settles and there have been some ATs it will be less of an issue, but right now the matching system isn't working too well imo

Bankai · Jan 02, 2007, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

Someone made a point earlier in the thread about the match selection for random ladder still being +/-200 points despite the point value for games being 1/6th what it was, creating several extremely imbalanced ladder matches which are no real fun for either side I guess.

I appreciate that the ladder isnt the be all and end all any more, but I think it would be nice if this was fixed from +/-200 to +/- 35. Maybe when the ladder settles and there have been some ATs it will be less of an issue, but right now the matching system isn't working too well imo

That system will be fine when ATs are implemented. Currently the ladder is just aweful.

ump · Jan 02, 2007, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Why only 4K ladder? Why not 8K ladder with tournaments in the 8K, 16K, 24K, and 32K range (just like Magic the Gathering)? With only 4K, you have to play a lot to make any real difference in your rating. Also, I don't know what rating tournaments are, but if they are significantly more than ladder, then there is no point to play anything other than tournaments which would essentially eliminate the casualness of the GvG (since you have to have 8 people dedicated to 4 hours or however long a tournament lasts).

Seamus Finn · Jan 02, 2007, 11:20 PM // 23:20

Look, all I know is that I gvged some last night, made the top fifty and lost to an unranked. I lost 3 rating! I almost cried... Also, one of the guild's 1st string wars decided to leave my guild for a bit so he could guest for a pug. Goodbye tourneys for a month. It's ok though, I demoted him for a min when he wasn't looking for this very foolish act.

ginric99 · Jan 03, 2007, 04:33 AM // 04:33

I am going to come in and give a different version of how I see the changes affecting GvG, I think they can be nothing but good, I am a PvP player and a founding member in the small gods (not to be mistaken withthe PvP guild of similar name) we are not a tremendous PvP guild (rank 500ish bets we have managed) yes we have been known to bloodspike in the past as a way of teaching builds and yes we are to big to attract anyone that wants to PvP with the big boys. WHy is this relevant? My biggest stumbling block to getting people intrested in GvG is the sense of purpose, HA has rank, somthing you can go out and try and attain. Yes GvG has champ points but lets be fair, no one in our guild can consider farming them, so alot of PvE players when asked do you want to come GvG say whats the point. Well now I can say (and have been saying) the point is we can win a tournament, and (assuming this is the way it will work) That tournament will be against players of an equal skill basing, if we win, then tomorrow night we play against slightly better players and if we keep winning then maybe we can attain a level that we can never consider reaching. I can take it one night at a time, more people can start getting intrested in taking part. Somthing that wuld help would be points, like fame points for winning the tournament allowing a rank hell change the champ point system, if you are in a team that wins a tournament you get a champ point. Also the open GvG vs Tournament thing is great, our rank is as it is cos at the moment we don't care, to be honest we probably never will care about being a top guild, we want to have fun, but now new players will be able to learn in the open format, and then get promoted to the tournament team. The amount of intrest in guild this has sparked is fantastic, players that never considered PvPing are asking me about what builds I am runnin, skills are being caped ready and Balthsar being farmed to open mods.

well to surmise

1st Fame type points for a tournament victory, this will give people a sense of purpose, we cant all aim to be no 1.
2nd Guilds have got to be pitched against guilds of an equal standing in tournaments, I dont mind a challange, but you cant feel like your improving if you never have a chance of getting past round 1
3rd This 30 day thing seems to have really upset some people, why? Ok you can't play in a tournament for 30 days, so people will tend to stick with a guild for the course of the season. What I would suggest is an amnesty period say once every 3 months, a week where the 30 day rule is lifted. This way guild restructuring will be possible. Also what happens with new guilds? for 30 days they can not GvG in tournaments. This is somthing that, if they have not already, needs to be looked at. think of it like the a transfer windo

. On the whole guesting thing, A good point was made in an earlier post. Alliance Guild members do not have to be invited as guests to GvG Will Alliance members be able to GvG in tournaments together.

While I realise alot of details no doubt need to be sorted by Anet, can I just say that it would be nice to learn some more details especially concerning the 30 day thing, aliance guesting, times of tournaments (both starting times and estimated time from 1sst round to final) e.t.c Simply so everyone has a chance to reorganise and reform guilds within PvE aliances if needed, otherwise you are going to have 30 days at the start where already organised guilds have a massive advantage.

So overall it al looks very promising from here, and I have to say as a final pointer, HA and Farming in PvE not fun or rewarding anymore, oh I do disagree, and there are plenty of PvE farmers in my guild that would be shocked at such a stetment.

Anyway have fun and remember it is only a game,

Xanthar · Jan 03, 2007, 12:23 PM // 12:23

Now for my bit of speculation, please indulge me (hopefully someone from ANet reads this, hehe):

How would l'il old me do the tournament system?
If I were to implement the AT system, I'd try to design something that rewards skillful play and at the same time does not (in particular) reward playtime. How to go about doing this? My first attempt is a system like this:

Two or three ATs per day (rotating times). A system like this will produce 14-21 tournaments per week. Each tournament win grants the winning guild and the runner-up a weekly qualifier ticket.

Each weekend (rotating times) three weekly qualifier ATs will be played. Any guild in possession of a weekly qualifier ticket would be able to spend that ticket and so gain entry to the tournament. Three qualifiers per weekend will produce the order of 12 winners per month. Winners and runners-up of weekly qualifiers gains a monthly qualifier ticket.

Every month, two monthly qualifiers are held. Any guild in possession of a monthly qualifier ticket can spend that ticket to gain entry to a monthly qualifier.

Every guild that gains a top position (first or maybe top three) in a monthly qualifier is eligible to enter the finals, hypothetically once per half year, and play for cash prizes at the end of the season. The finals would be played in a swiss format followed by single elimination, much like the last seasons finals.

Properties of the described system
Skill pays. A world-class guild would need to participate in only three ATs the whole season, going straight through all qualifiers. It might be unrealistic for pretty much all but a couple of guilds, but anyway. This eliminates equivalents to rating grinds - Good play qualifies your team quickly.

Flexibility. Since all qualifiers are held numerous time each season, at differing times, scheduling should be possible to accommodate. Especially since you can book your playtime well in advance. The ticket system allows your guild to chose which actual qualifier you will participate in.

Retains interest. Since a limited number of tickets are made available each day and week and tickets are one-time only, teams that are unsuccessful at higher tournament levels will still need to participate in the daily ATs (albeit, probably not many of them for the very top guilds). This keeps the level of play in the daily ATs at an acceptable level.

So. There. Anyone else that can design a better system or improve on this one?

Relambrien · Jan 03, 2007, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xanthar

Now for my bit of speculation, please indulge me (hopefully someone from ANet reads this, hehe):

How would l'il old me do the tournament system?
If I were to implement the AT system, I'd try to design something that rewards skillful play and at the same time does not (in particular) reward playtime. How to go about doing this? My first attempt is a system like this:

Two or three ATs per day (rotating times). A system like this will produce 14-21 tournaments per week. Each tournament win grants the winning guild and the runner-up a weekly qualifier ticket.

Each weekend (rotating times) three weekly qualifier ATs will be played. Any guild in possession of a weekly qualifier ticket would be able to spend that ticket and so gain entry to the tournament. Three qualifiers per weekend will produce the order of 12 winners per month. Winners and runners-up of weekly qualifiers gains a monthly qualifier ticket.

Every month, two monthly qualifiers are held. Any guild in possession of a monthly qualifier ticket can spend that ticket to gain entry to a monthly qualifier.

Every guild that gains a top position (first or maybe top three) in a monthly qualifier is eligible to enter the finals, hypothetically once per half year, and play for cash prizes at the end of the season. The finals would be played in a swiss format followed by single elimination, much like the last seasons finals.

Properties of the described system
Skill pays. A world-class guild would need to participate in only three ATs the whole season, going straight through all qualifiers. It might be unrealistic for pretty much all but a couple of guilds, but anyway. This eliminates equivalents to rating grinds - Good play qualifies your team quickly.

Flexibility. Since all qualifiers are held numerous time each season, at differing times, scheduling should be possible to accommodate. Especially since you can book your playtime well in advance. The ticket system allows your guild to chose which actual qualifier you will participate in.

Retains interest. Since a limited number of tickets are made available each day and week and tickets are one-time only, teams that are unsuccessful at higher tournament levels will still need to participate in the daily ATs (albeit, probably not many of them for the very top guilds). This keeps the level of play in the daily ATs at an acceptable level.

So. There. Anyone else that can design a better system or improve on this one?

My complaint is that you don't mention the ladder at all. You have essentially made it useless, since Elo ratings aren't required to get into tournaments, and these tournaments apparently don't even give Elo rating. The ladder therefore becomes only a historical comparison, and so guilds that don't play in tournaments don't have a chance at winning anything.

Now that we've gotten more information on the system, it seems there will be two point systems used for GvG, Elo ratings and "qualifying points." Both types of GvG play (ATs and free play) will give both types of points, but free play will grant a MUCH smaller number.

IMO, the best way to do this is to have World Championship (and other cash tournaments) access still be based on Elo ratings, but have free play give less points than tournament play. Thus, the ladder is still relevant and a guild's ladder rank still generally reflects its skill, while those who cannot participate in ATs will still find some consolation in ladder play.

Of course, we're still short of specific information; we only have vague details. Hopefully Anet will have devised something brilliant to keep the ladder relevant and to integrate the ATs flawlessly. We'll see in a month or so.

Thom · Jan 03, 2007, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Championship suggestions:
-Six teams go live to the championship.

-Participation requirement: Participation in two tournements within the final month and five tournements since the last major event. Roster members have been in the guild for 30 days.

-First position on the ladder gets an automatic bid and a bye.

-Top 16 unqualified teams, 4 round swiss tournement. Top 4 teams get a championship invitation. Top team gets a bye.

-Open tournement for the final slot. Double elimination tournement for all teams who wish to participate and meet participation requirements. Open weekend was great, this is simply the tournement version. Takes place after the top 16 qualification tournement, so top teams have another shot.

Xanthar · Jan 04, 2007, 09:42 AM // 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

My complaint is that you don't mention the ladder at all. You have essentially made it useless, since Elo ratings aren't required to get into tournaments, and these tournaments apparently don't even give Elo rating.

True that ladder play gives no reward in itself - Seeding the top team (or the top teams) from the ladder (as Thom suggests) to the finals would make it more interesting. You are however wrong that the ATs would give no ELO rating. As per ANet they will in fact give more rating than free play, indicating that ANet feels tournament play is a better indicator of play strength than ladder play.

Quote:

Now that we've gotten more information on the system...

Where? Did I miss something? Nothing on guildwars.com, so I'm guessing on some forum. A pointer please!

Patrograd · Jan 04, 2007, 11:14 AM // 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

My complaint is that you don't mention the ladder at all. You have essentially made it useless, since Elo ratings aren't required to get into tournaments, and these tournaments apparently don't even give Elo rating. The ladder therefore becomes only a historical comparison, and so guilds that don't play in tournaments don't have a chance at winning anything.

in my opinion you cannot have qualification for the major tournaments decided by a ladder that never resets, as once the ladder is properly stratified, it is likely that the top few guilds will have such a high rating as to never need to play competitively in anything other than finals tournaments. it is also possible that smurfs and PUGs set up and run with second accounts will be somewhere in the top few positions also. You might also get a guild that is to all intents and purposes disbanded sitting at number one in the ladder with a rating so high as to be unassailable. Think what you could do with such a guild - what would it be worth in terms of ectos do you think? How much would you pay for a shot at the world championships on the back of someone else's work? All you would need to do is to buy the guild thirty days before the world championship finals, recruit all your mates, and off you go.

Effectively the ladder must, imo, be no more than a historical record of wins and losses, a rough guide to a guild's ability. Anet have made mixed noises about whether this will be the case or not, at first saying that the ladder would not be used for qualification, but most lately sort of hinting that maybe it would in a small way as you say here

Quote:

Now that we've gotten more information on the system, it seems there will be two point systems used for GvG, Elo ratings and "qualifying points." Both types of GvG play (ATs and free play) will give both types of points, but free play will grant a MUCH smaller number

.

For me I would much, much prefer a system along the lines that Xanthar indicates, although there some minor issues with his exact proposal. specifically that some guilds only play weekends, others never play weekends and that also you need some way of allowing for the same guild winning every AT in their region excluding anyone else from qualifying. But I do very much like the idea of a qualifying series of tournaments culminating a grand final tournament for half a dozen teams. Not sure exactly how that could be organised though.

Xanthar · Jan 04, 2007, 12:34 PM // 12:34

What Patrograd says is of course true - The top ladder team will be pretty static, and this might provide a nasty possibility of selling the guild. In fact, this might be a problem for the system presented in my post above, namely this:

Once a very strong team has won a monthly qualifier, they might be sure enough of being able to win another one (sounds risky, but...), and might attempt to sell their first qualified guild. This would be effectively stopped by barring any members not on the rooster at the time of qualifying from participating in the finals. Of course, this means that your guild needs to have some reserve players in case of unexpected drop-outs during the season.

I think the "guild selling" thing is one of the main reasons for ANet to want the 30 day quarantine on players new to a guild. My suggestion here would be more effective at stopping that, I'd wager

Thom · Jan 04, 2007, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Participation requirements are important. Teams that haven't been active should be removed from the rankings while retaining their rating. Using the ladder as a Championship qualifying device cannot be seperated from tournement participation requirements. Inactive guilds with a strong history could potentially qualify for the tournement, but I find it hard to believe that a team that rarely plays won't be passed up by a powerhouse team.

Relambrien · Jan 04, 2007, 11:52 PM // 23:52

To everyone talking about the ladder thing, sorry if it came across the wrong way, but what I meant was to have an integration of ladder rank and AT participation for tournaments (much like Thom suggested after my post; personally I love his idea).

And Xanthar, I was only going by what you posted, not what Anet said (but I can see the confusion). I'm ecstatic the ATs will give Elo ratings.

And to everyone who says the ladder shouldn't have anything to do with tournament access, here's the problem with that. Ladder rank will mean NOTHING. Take any good guild, iQ for instance. They could be totally unranked on the ladder and still qualify for the tournament in such a system. This means ladder rank will NOT reflect your true skill, since there's no point in playing your hardest on the ladder; it doesn't affect anything. Being top 100 will lose its meaning, and for guilds like mine, which will ONLY be able to play on the ladder, there won't be any reward at all. Previously, there was an "accomplishment" award where being rank 134 and knowing only 133 guilds are better than you gave an ecstatic feeling. In a ladder-means-nothing system, being rank 134 doesn't mean you're better than anyone; people won't be trying their best so you can't accurately compare skill levels.

That's the problem if the ladder isn't used for anything besides analysis. Since it won't affect your chances in anything else, you have no reason to play your hardest, and ladder rank will lose its meaning.

Thom Bangalter · Jan 05, 2007, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relambrien

To everyone talking about the ladder thing, sorry if it came across the wrong way, but what I meant was to have an integration of ladder rank and AT participation for tournaments (much like Thom suggested after my post; personally I love his idea).

And Xanthar, I was only going by what you posted, not what Anet said (but I can see the confusion). I'm ecstatic the ATs will give Elo ratings.

And to everyone who says the ladder shouldn't have anything to do with tournament access, here's the problem with that. Ladder rank will mean NOTHING. Take any good guild, iQ for instance. They could be totally unranked on the ladder and still qualify for the tournament in such a system. This means ladder rank will NOT reflect your true skill, since there's no point in playing your hardest on the ladder; it doesn't affect anything. Being top 100 will lose its meaning, and for guilds like mine, which will ONLY be able to play on the ladder, there won't be any reward at all. Previously, there was an "accomplishment" award where being rank 134 and knowing only 133 guilds are better than you gave an ecstatic feeling. In a ladder-means-nothing system, being rank 134 doesn't mean you're better than anyone; people won't be trying their best so you can't accurately compare skill levels.

That's the problem if the ladder isn't used for anything besides analysis. Since it won't affect your chances in anything else, you have no reason to play your hardest, and ladder rank will lose its meaning.

Well, that was kind of the point of the change, wasn't it? Since grinding the ladder is over, now the tournaments are everything. Besides, just because previously you were 134 doesn't mean those other 133 teams were neccessarily better than your guild; it meant that they played more, or played at different times, or so on.

The tournament structure makes the tournaments so many of us watch on observer accessible, and removes ladder grinding gimmicks from the equation. Which is a good thing.

Eventually, being top 100 will be meaningful. Since teams can't run some gimmicky one-trick pony all season long during dead hours and get meaningful rating out of it, the tournaments will place you on the ladder appropriately (hopefully). It's not like being 134, or even top 20 was all that meaningful before, when a guild can run a cheap gimmick to get there (I'm speaking from experience).

While I think the no guest/30 day waiting period stipulations are excessive, overall your guild's rating is going to be a lot more meaningful.

Also, get to grinding the ladder right now. It's really easy to hit top 100 at the moment.