Curse

Guillaume De Sonoma · Oct 24, 2006, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Something is wrong with this imo.

Edit: There is some really annoying add that seems to be in my post. I wish I knew how to get rid of it.

EidtII:Sorry I fail with imageshack, but click the picture and full screen and you understand.

Thom Bangalter · Oct 24, 2006, 04:03 AM // 04:03

You can't, because guru needs cash. Also, could you make your pic bigger? it's hard to see. However, i get the jist of it.

I don't see anything inherently wrong though. Just a part of the game people will have to deal with. Wild blow>whirling d.

zola · Oct 24, 2006, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Since the ladder is about grinding out as many wins as possible in the shortest span of time

That's the usual gospel. Isn't Everfrost a counter-example?

Byron · Oct 24, 2006, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

One could also argue that VoD builds being ineffective in ladder play is why the NPC VoD mechanic hasn't been looked at yet.

But what would be the fix? If they were to come out one at a time, any noob r-spike could just knock NPCs down as they appear at the stand.

Perhaps if the NPCs came in tactical waves, in 20-30 second intervals, it would make VoD more interesting and prevent alleged "abuse" of VoD mechanics. Off the top of my head, I'd like to see the following:
the first wave could be all NPCs not within the walled-off base (eg, the two footmen and archer on wizards isle). The second wave could then be all NPCs not within the cage (ie, all the archers on the walls). The final wave would then be all NPCs within the cage: bodyguard, 2 knights, 2 archers. I suppose, ideally, the waves would come in 20 second intervals so that all the NPCs would be on their way by the 21:00 mark.

This could also well prevent a team from suiciding a catapult run in order to effectively eliminate all enemy NPCs at 20:23. What's more, it could lead to interesting tactical elimination of NPCs in coordination with the respective "wave" they come in.

All in all, I think it would be better for the game, especially now that VoD has been pushed up ten minutes, if the NPCs had some coordination. If not waves, something should be done IMHO.

JR · Oct 24, 2006, 05:11 PM // 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by zola

That's the usual gospel. Isn't Everfrost a counter-example?

Let me rephrase:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Since the ladder is largely about bad teams grinding out as many wins as possible with efficient farming builds.

Blame the Monks · Oct 24, 2006, 07:34 PM // 19:34

At the risk of getting Sirlinesque, it seems like some of you are imagining some metric for a "good team" other than performance -- in this context rating and/or playoff wins. There are no "bad" teams with high rating and there are no "good" teams with low rating. There are only teams that performed and teams that didn't. If the goal is rating (as opposed to playoff wins), who gives a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO if they earn it through spiking, gimmicks, or whatever else. The only thing that matters is performance.

You don't get moral victory points (MVP) for not performing due to inactivity, nor do you get MVP for playing badly or not maximizing your rating. Its silly to act like ladder standing is anything more or less than performance -- and any metric substituted in for performance is simply smoke, including reputation, kosher wins, and so on.

So to the extent you turn up your nose at people who "farm rating," realize what you are doing -- pretending winning a certain way is more important than winning.

Wasteland Squidget · Oct 24, 2006, 08:09 PM // 20:09

There is an important distinction to be made between disliking the players for running certain tactics, and disliking the game for allowing certain tactics.

I have no ethical problem with the players who run rating-farm builds. I've run rating-farm builds in the past. They're a decent way to quickly rise up through the ranks, even though they don't teach you much more than how to run a one-dimensional offense.

At the same time, I think that 321spike-style rating farm is absolutely horrible for the game. It makes ladder rating something of a joke, since 7 monkeys and a caller == a top guild. I will continue to argue for ladder ranking to be something you fight for rather than something you grind for, and understand that if I turn around and run a ladder-farm myself I'm not being hypocritical. You can play to win while still disliking certain aspects of the game you're playing, or hoping that they'll change.

1-dimensional offense builds ('gimmicks') are awarded above all else on the ladder. Even top teams often switch to a gimmick when they want to gain rating quickly, because even with how good they are at balanced, a gimmick is just better at winning the ladder. The only arena that awards versatility or coordination is the tournament, and that's only available to a select group of players who did enough grind over the course of a month.

It's the nature of the game. Doesn't mean disliking that aspect or asking for it to be changed isn't playing to win.

JR · Oct 24, 2006, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

At the risk of getting Sirlinesque, it seems like some of you are imagining some metric for a "good team" other than performance -- in this context rating and/or playoff wins. There are no "bad" teams with high rating and there are no "good" teams with low rating. There are only teams that performed and teams that didn't. If the goal is rating (as opposed to playoff wins), who gives a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO if they earn it through spiking, gimmicks, or whatever else. The only thing that matters is performance.

You don't get moral victory points (MVP) for not performing due to inactivity, nor do you get MVP for playing badly or not maximizing your rating. Its silly to act like ladder standing is anything more or less than performance -- and any metric substituted in for performance is simply smoke, including reputation, kosher wins, and so on.

So to the extent you turn up your nose at people who "farm rating," realize what you are doing -- pretending winning a certain way is more important than winning.

If you run spike all season you get good at spike, and nothing else.

You manage to farm to top 16? Great.

You hit play offs - and you lose because you run spike and people meta against you. Or you lose because you don't run spike and get beaten due to lack of experience.

Is farming ladder playing to win? Maybe, if you are shallow enough to be after nothing more than shiney capes and a front page finish. Certainly not in my book.

If you really wanted to get Sirlinesque then you would try reading his articles in full. He also states in one that playing to win is also playing to improve yourself as a player. Running one dimensional builds such as spike certainly does not do that.

Blame the Monks · Oct 25, 2006, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

If you really wanted to get Sirlinesque then you would try reading his articles in full.

I have, and frankly I think Sirlin is full of shit, at least as applied in the general GW population. But at the risk of further irking you...

Suppose a person is "shallow enough" to think a top 16 finish is a worthwhile goal, even knowing they will lose in the playoffs. Is that so horrible? Or should they have just stuck to kosher builds to improve themselves? Why is playing to improve yourself as a player a higher goal than maxing out what you can do in one season?

Neo-LD · Oct 25, 2006, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Quote:

Why is playing to improve yourself as a player a higher goal than maxing out what you can do in one season?

Because in that case you are not playing to get first, you are playing to get sixteenth. Any guild playing to win in Guild Wars right now has to, in the back of their mind, be considering the answers to some questions: How do we plan to beat iQ? How do we plan to beat QQ? How do we plan to beat (insert awesome team here)? If you think the answer to any of those questions are spike, you are dreaming. And if you dont have a clear answer or idea on how to tackle those questions, you arent playing to win. You're playing to have the illusion of having been in contention.

Rera · Oct 25, 2006, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Sirlin's articles apply mostly to static games that were well-balanced to begin with. The main problem here is that, if there *was* a spike build that *could* beat the likes of QQ and iQ running balanced, people would be screaming 'cheap gimmick' and get it nerfed. Fighting games don't work like that. If some guy has a combo that does 90% of your health, you learn to beat him anyway.

Blame the Monks · Oct 25, 2006, 03:16 AM // 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Because in that case you are not playing to get first, you are playing to get sixteenth.

First is not a reasonable goal for most guilds. Not that top 16 is either, but at least it is closer. And again, what is sacrosanct about playing to be #1?

Or why is playing to improve and someday have a chance of performing better than performing at your max level today? Wouldn't it stand to reason that before you can learn to beat top guilds, you at least need to be high enough rating to actually play against them?

Rera · Oct 25, 2006, 04:23 AM // 04:23

The basis of the argument against playing spike or 'gimmick' is that it takes no skill to play. Twisting the argument into matters of 'playing to win' or aiming for #1 instead of top-16 is really missing the point.

I honestly don't think it would matter if you *could* be #1 running a spike team, simply because spike is seen as the no-skill way to GvG. If you could hit #1 with any gimmick build, people would either say it was a fluke, or the build is overpowered and needs to be nerfed. Basically what it comes down to is that top players have decided that balanced is the only way to play top-level PvP.

I haven't really thought about it enough to agree or disagree with this idea, but that is definitely what's going on here.

Lews · Oct 25, 2006, 04:23 AM // 04:23

Honestly DeeR would not have run a spike in either of our two games against opponents other then SPNV, but the swiss tournie stuff screwed us up and we had no time to make new builds =/

selber · Oct 25, 2006, 09:20 AM // 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

Why is playing to improve yourself as a player a higher goal than maxing out what you can do in one season?

Because else you simply don't play to win. The best guilds in GW are very good with running balanced builds (look at EvIL, WM) and are very hard to counter even if you know their build (look at iQ). You won't reach the peak of whats possible in GW with running a 1-dimensional build all the time - even if you are perfect at it. That's what Sirlin basicly says, and I have to agree there. I think that is also why Korean teams are so damn good - they know balanced pressure is still the best you can run, if you are perfect at it.

/OT
-S

JR · Oct 25, 2006, 10:40 AM // 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

Basically what it comes down to is that top players have decided that balanced is the only way to play top-level PvP.

Which is obviously why Te has run SBRI in play-offs, EW has done FoC spike in play offs, iQ has done Ranger spike in play offs, numerous guilds have done Thumpway in play offs...

Wait, no. There is no build snobbery or elitism involved, there is simply scrub play and playing to improve.

Good teams run balanced because it is flexible, and is less likely to put you in the position of facing a complete counter to your build.

If Te ran Obsidian Flame spike and faced some rank 50 guild running a build with two copies of Blackout and an infuse they would probably lose. It's the rock paper scissors nature of running "gimmick" builds - you pick one that will out-build the majority of what you face, accepting that you will take some losses.

"Balanced" builds are simply more flexible, and allow you to beat just about anything through strategy. If you run a solid balanced build you will almost never be able to say "we lost that match because of their build". This is why good teams tend to run balanced type builds during ladder play, because they have the skill to out play most opponents.

Due to this you also simply learn more from running a balanced build, with your ability to react to different situations with a variety of options due to the flexibility in your build. It makes you a better and more well rounded player.

Then you have tournament settings where you can metagame against opponents more, allowing you to take a bit more risk in how much you want to try and rock/paper/scissors what they bring. This is where gimmicks become viable, or in some cases - attractive.

zola · Oct 25, 2006, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Let me rephrase: Since the ladder is largely about bad teams grinding out as many wins as possible with efficient farming builds.

Hey, anything to be witty.

If you look at guild ranked between 200 and 220, it looks like their average rating is getting flat before the end of the season (using IQ ladder site and doing a quick poll). So I was just questioning the idea that more games means more rating means higher rank. It's not true in general.

Wasteland Squidget · Oct 25, 2006, 11:13 AM // 11:13

It's true so long as the meta continues to support your gimmick. If people start bringing counters to your gimmick, you either have to switch to a different gimmick or your rank will drop dramatically.

Rera · Oct 25, 2006, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Which is obviously why Te has run SBRI in play-offs, EW has done FoC spike in play offs, iQ has done Ranger spike in play offs, numerous guilds have done Thumpway in play offs...

Wait, no. There is no build snobbery or elitism involved, there is simply scrub play and playing to improve.

If this were the case, there wouldn't be any emphasis on fixing the 'gimmick problem', as evidenced by your own thread on team-iq here: http://www.team-iq.net/forums/showthread.php?tid=1532

The argument that a balanced build is flexible and should be able to handle anything doesn't mesh well with your own contention that gimmicks excessively randomize the ladder by forcing teams to take too many FotMs into account. After all, if a gimmick build can beat almost anything except the team that builds specifically to counter it, it forces everyone to play RPS, whether you're balanced, spike, or whatever else.

JR · Oct 25, 2006, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

After all, if a gimmick build can beat almost anything except the team that builds specifically to counter it, it forces everyone to play RPS, whether you're balanced, spike, or whatever else.

There is a difference between gimmicks and imbalanced builds. That post was made at the time of SB/RI, Smite and Thumpers running rampant on the ladder. That is no longer the case.