Curse

sno · Aug 21, 2006, 07:25 AM // 07:25

At first I was really excited about the GvG title, but now that I realize what inevidably comes with titles I'm not so sure it's good for GW. Before, GvG was meant to get a high reputation as a guild, to get your guild known, and to hopefully go to the playoffs (also silver capes were/are an incentive.) This was all fine and good until the champion points were introduced, as there is now reason for individuals to GvG, with or without a guild. This has lead to a rapidly increasing number of fake guilds (previously dubbed "smurfs", but now known as "PuG gvg guilds") which had little or no actual players in it at all, only second accounts of players in other guilds. Guilds like [Love] (the Te/sA/QQ alliance PuG) have a ton of activity, because they pick from several guilds anyone who happens to be online at a given time. It's not rocket science to see that this allows guilds like that to dominate the ladder by running a fairly straight-forward build that can be pug'd, namely thumper-way. I've seen [Love] Resign spike at the start of matches against allied guilds, seemingly because they don't care about the rank of [Love], only that they're getting Champion points. The amount of ladder manipulation and champ point farming has reached obscene levels, and it's only the first season of the champion title (being 1200+ rating, that is.) I don't mean to single out [Love], as there are MANY groups that do this, [Love] is just one of the more obvious ones, as they formed just one week ago, and already have 110 GvG's on their record.

Before champ points doing things like this was fairly useless, because of the rules for playoffs and other restrictions. Smurf guilds were used to test things or mess around without tanking rank, but it wasn't nearly as devistating to the ladder as a whole as it is now. Now that there is a farming aspect to GvG it's been cheapened, and it's no longer productive to have a high rating (considerably above 1200.) People are making PuG guilds, farming quickly to 1200, getting a bunch of champ points, and resigning matches to keep their rating near 1200, so the matches are easier and faster (resulting in more points.) This forces the real ~1200 rating guilds to face these falsely rated groups that are actually much better, and losing to them takes a much bigger chunk of rating than it should. I know it's been argued before about smurf guilds manipulating the ladder, but IMO this is much more large-scale than that.

I think if something isn't done about the way GvG is going, it could turn into something as disrespected as HA. I would have thought there would be a thread already about this, but I didn't see one so here it is. I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments, but please leave the flames out. If you're in [Love] and don't want your guild singled out like I have pm me here or in game and I'll edit it out. Observer mode and guest guild tags makes it pretty tough to hide what's going on though, and it's not like they're trying to hide it.

Wasteland Squidget · Aug 21, 2006, 08:24 AM // 08:24

Sno has echoed my thoughts on this rather well.

At any given time, it seems like there's a good chance of facing some top-ranked players in a low-ranked guilds. It's very easy to get tanked, and in general it makes rating a lot less meaningful. You can't judge a guild's effectiveness by their rating, and the ELO system is thrown out of whack.

I really liked the idea of the champion title, but it's bringing more and more things I hate into GvG. Rampant ladder manipulation, endless farming, and tanks. The same 100 top players are playing in all kinds of different guilds and rating. When you lose 25 rating to some QQ PuG team on a rank 300 guild it makes the entire ladder feel like a joke.

I thought the old Champion title was pretty stupid. It was only really achievable by the top 20, who have special capes anyway. I think 1400 would be a pretty good threshold, since it's difficult to farm and isn't going to tank a lot of people. As it is, the champion title has messed up GvG and made things a lot less fun.

sno · Aug 21, 2006, 08:37 AM // 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

I think 1400 would be a pretty good threshold, since it's difficult to farm and isn't going to tank a lot of people.

If Champion points must exist, 1400 would be great IMO. That's still top 40 or so, but it's much more likely that those 40 guilds would be much more selective about who they let play in their gvg's.

The fundamental 'champion point' system effectively undermines the entire ELO idea though, as the PuG groups will still exist. In fact if the rating was higher, the pugs would be more organized, so they could have people rotating in for GvG for that guild name 24 hours per day. With no points, it stays with the idea that a guild represents a set of players. Every time you GvG, you do it for your guild, not for your personal gain. When you introduce personal gain you remove the singularity of the guild itself, which inevidably leads to PuG's for efficiency.

sir lockt · Aug 21, 2006, 09:13 AM // 09:13

Would it solve something if the title is expanded with something like: collect points with the same (own) guild?

Another option is to LOWER the champion point level... but that would make the title rather weak... still it might be an option

JR · Aug 21, 2006, 09:17 AM // 09:17

Over the weekend I did a considerable amount of Thumping, much to my disdain. Boredom effects the best of us...

24th I Black Widow I [Wi] Eu 1489 146 49

I found once we got over 1400 it was actually a lot faster to farm Champion points, as almost every guild we faced was above 1200. To be quite honest rank mattered little; we had a lot of trouble against a rank 400 Japanese guild running a very defensive build, and rolled through a lot of top 40 guilds in four minutes.

I think the Champion title will never work. Over 1500 it is a title that is just simply too difficult to get for standard players to get, any less than that it is simply too easy to farm. Infact such a high rating requirment would probably just encourage pugs such as the one I was playing for, to reach it faster. It is a mechanic that simply just does not work.

It also SERIOUSLY bugs me that it is starting to become an almost Heroe's Ascent type situation, where some Guilds will now only guest people of a certain Champion rank. If it was up to me, I would remove the title all together, that and the Gladiator title. The strength of a player should be judged quite simply by how good they are, not by any arbitrary point system. When it gets to a point of "Champion Rank 4+ Guilds" I might honestly quit this game (again) in disgust. GvG and TA are what I would consider the only uncorrupted types of PvP left, but I don't see that lasting.

Patrograd · Aug 21, 2006, 09:19 AM // 09:19

I will hold my hands up and say that i was one of those who wanted a lower cap for these points, and I am perfectly happy to accept that I was wrong. The OP is spot on imo

psycho854 · Aug 21, 2006, 11:00 AM // 11:00

true points up there. but what i have to say is for defending guilds with a lot of guests inside.

yes we are a guild that often run with guest but simply of that reason, that we cant find enough members that fit our concept.
so were taking good friends or sth. its mainly the same ppl guesting for us over and over again if we can get the required amount of 4 own guildies together (i know that sounds horrible but its fun

)

the title in my oppinion is just a gimmick... like the rank system in HA... just sucks... who cares ?

so far
psycho

yesitsrob · Aug 21, 2006, 11:17 AM // 11:17

I agree with Squidget in about everything. And most people in the thread to be honest. I at one time thought 1500 was too high, and since it's been lowered to 1200, pick up gvg guilds and horrible blatent ladder farming builds have just dominated GVG. And it's really unfun. I've personally avoided this "fun" ladder and only guested around a bit because of it....

Quote:

the title in my oppinion is just a gimmick... like the rank system in HA... just sucks... who cares ?

I'd like to think it's just a gimmick, but HA players use it as a means of judging skill. It would suck if this kind of elitist bullshit found it's way into GVG. Especially when you see how awful some rank 10+ HA players are at the game, and I'm sure how bad some r2 champions may also be

Vindexus · Aug 21, 2006, 11:47 AM // 11:47

I agree with the OP. I'd actually like to see it removed completely.

JR · Aug 21, 2006, 11:55 AM // 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vindexus

I agree with the OP. I'd actually like to see it removed completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

If it was up to me, I would remove the title all together

Jdexus is always right.

Yanman.be · Aug 21, 2006, 12:22 PM // 12:22

I think we should give everyone maxed out title, so no one should complain.

Also, remove rangers , coz they either touch, or thump. Not good!

Vaga · Aug 21, 2006, 12:34 PM // 12:34

At the end of the day champion title isn't going to mean much for a bunch of reasons. At the moment its kind of "unique" but by the end of the next season, and the season after that, anyone in a top 100 guild and possible even top 200 guild will have the title.

I think there needs to be some kind of reward for GvGers who don't make the top 16, simply because there are lot of people out there who like these things.

This leaves a couple of options as to what to do, you can basically either modify the title or remove it.

Modifying means that Anet has an opportunity to make the title more balanced. A couple of ways come to mind. First Anet can raise the rating needed to get it (doesn't really solve the issue because tanking will happen just as much). Or another way could be to possibly make it so the title is temporary, and is a reward to all members of a guild that finished rank X or lower in the last season. They could maybe build on this as to how many times you can achieve the title in a row.

Getting rid of the title obviously stops the farming, but as I said I'm sure there are a lot of people who enjoy some more recognition for GvGing. There are plenty of other things anet could introduce that don't encourage farming the ladder on PuG's, but at the same time rewards people who GvG. An example that comes to mind is a bronze trim for guilds who finish top X.

Anyway there are plenty of solutions to the problem, so if Anet wants to fix it they can.

Greedy Gus · Aug 21, 2006, 01:56 PM // 13:56

Just add a stipulation to the title so that you don't gain pts if you're just a guest in the battle.

timmyw29 · Aug 21, 2006, 02:06 PM // 14:06

This is probably going to lead off-topic. I'm not a big forum-er.

It'd be best if an alternative title track system were introduced, where players were graded on things that can be judged skillful / not skillful.

Let's say this player skill title was only attainable in GvG, while you're with a team from your current guild, while your guild had a rating above xxxx. The title could increase based on how you reacted to certain events. Say casting through Diversion * -10 points *... Chaining a knockdown on a target who has just stood up within 1/2 a second of them standing up * +5 points *. Maybe it's stupid and flawed to the point where it should be buried in some deep depth of a chasm somewhere. There are no doubt a lot of issues with that and the fact that the servers would have to be handling this metric tonne of additional data per-player during GvG is of course a factor. I was just throwing a concept out there, really.

I want to get my champion title, but wouldn't care if it was removed from the game. I agree with JR's comment on HA-like behaviour that will no-doubt arise eventually.

1400rating Guild LF champs (r6++)!!!!!1

I've not had a lot of chances to GvG in the past season or two, but I know it's only going to hurt the game more to have this happen to GvG. Odds on Anet won't remove the title. They might bump the rating requirement up. Doesn't really solve the problem like others have said.

Before starting GW:IV Anet should look at what's going on thoroughly. Investigate the forums, and re-develop half of the PvP in the game. This happens to nearly every MMORPG. Developers start off with a great concept, great community, great everything. They promise a lot of content then end up having to provide, and don't have time to fix what already exists because of financial pressure and the like. It makes for lots of half-done content and in the end a less-than-gratifying experience that deters future expert players from sticking around very long. They see the crowd of experts who came before them, see that that crowd is leaving, and feel like their newfound community has hung them out to dry.

JR · Aug 21, 2006, 02:20 PM // 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaga

At the end of the day champion title isn't going to mean much for a bunch of reasons. At the moment its kind of "unique" but by the end of the next season, and the season after that, anyone in a top 100 guild and possible even top 200 guild will have the title.

I wouldn't consider it that unique. Most of the people I associate with in GvG already have the level one title, a few people have level two or three, and I'm pretty sure I even know someone who has level four now. As such it wont be too long before being accepted into any kind of decent guild comes with a rank requirement.

latbec · Aug 21, 2006, 02:20 PM // 14:20

I was also of the people who wanted the bar lowered from 1,500. But now, I must admit that champion points are the worst thing that ever happened to GvG. I'm looking at the observer mode and I see guilds resigning at the flag stand after 5 min if they haven't scored any kills. This system is a joke.

Champion points are like HA's rank system. If you want to discriminate a player according to his number of champ points, then you will have to find out if they were acquired through PUG thumper GvG, the same as if you want to find out if a player acquired his fame through iway or a balanced build.

Greedy Gus · Aug 21, 2006, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmyw29

I want to get my champion title, but wouldn't care if it was removed from the game. I agree with JR's comment on HA-like behaviour that will no-doubt arise eventually.

1400rating Guild LF champs (r6++)!!!!!1

Totally wrong. Guild recruitment will still be based on what it always has been: past guild experience. You can look up where guilds were on the ladder with precision on iQ's historic ladder system.

People don't seem to grasp the concept that tombs fame/rank is a necessary evil because the entire HA foundation is PvP based on pick-up groups where you can put together teams without worrying about losing a game or two. Compare that to GvG where you want to stick with the same trusted people in your guild, because every loss counts against you. The other aspect to this is that there is no good way of proving HA experience, so that's why they've always had fame.

Champion points are just fun things to strive for in GvG, they won't affect real guild recruitment. It's simply for e-peen value. The people at the top of the ladder know each other anyway, or at the very least know of / have played against the other guilds.

This is just another thing that people can latch onto and complain about, blowing it way out of proportion. If you don't understand the real way things work, and you're worried about being discriminated against, then you have no shot at joining a higher up guild anyway.

Thom · Aug 21, 2006, 03:12 PM // 15:12

1500 was a good number for a longer season. While the number of games played by lower ranked guilds was encouraging, 1200 is a very low number if you have guilds ranked 1700+. The existance of a higher rating pulls up everyone's rewards, especially since top guilds are losing more games (67 loses between the 4 teams with ranking ending over 1700).

At the very least the championship points need to be tied to rank, not rating. 225 guilds ended with rating at 1200, which means any team with voice com, leadership and a reasonable build can earn championship points within 20-30 games. Several "champion" level guilds had very poor win-loss ratios, but played 150-200 games. Since the ladder is fundamentally relative to total games played by the ladder as a whole, rank seems to be the best indicator of play quality across seasons.

JR · Aug 21, 2006, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Totally wrong.

Whilst I would like to agree with your post, I think there will always be idiots who think Champ points seriously mean something.

Sinjin · Aug 21, 2006, 04:16 PM // 16:16

I'd be happy if they removed champ points all together. GvG used to be about striving to win - not about manipulating the ladder for personal titles.