Curse

Patrograd · May 24, 2006, 12:19 PM // 12:19

This is really a bit of a rant about the Champion title that you earn from "high end" GvG battles (is that what it's called? I don't know anyone who has any points in this track, but rumour has it this is its name)

I had high hopes for this title, as it would end what is currently the hit and miss process of open recruiting for a GvG Guild. As things stand at the moment, I have to take someone's word for it if they tell me that they have been in such and such a high end guild and have fought in however many battles, and my recent experience is that alot of people tell alot of tall stories about their experience which is a real pain.

When I heard of this title I thought that at last there could be a proper measure of someone's GvG experience. I could see their rank along this track, and measure it against my own, and that of other members of my guild, to get a proper feel for how much "real" GvG experience someone had. Same if I was looking for guests. Instead, we have this title that you can only earn points for if you are in one of the real top guilds, probably only about 150-200 players have any points in this at all. What is that as a percentage of the serious GvG community?

Wouldn't it be great if this system could be reworked, or a new title brought in? You could base it around 1200 rating instead of 1500 rating, and give more points as the rating crept upwards (so you could give 5 points a win if your guild was rated 1500 for example). In this way, the top players in the top guilds whould still have more points and higher "rank" than anyone else, which is only correct, but the players who aren't yet at that level would also have their GvG experience measured in much the same way as the HA guys.

I mean, I can get together an unranked team, with no voice, and no build, and go into HA, and even it takes us all night there is a good chance that by the end of it we will have secured at least one point along the "fame" track. And yet, I could play all season (or any number of seasons) in a guild ranked in the area of rank 50, which would by definition be a serious, organised and highly competent team, and not score any points towards the equivalent track in GvG, and have exactly the same "GvG fame" as a casual PVE player who hadnt seen a GvG battle in his life.

Just seems wrong to me

romO · May 24, 2006, 02:13 PM // 14:13

1200 is a bit low. but i agree that there should be some other kind of measure for such a GvG title (certainly not rank due to ladder resets). i really dont know how fast anyone will get this title and how many people will ever have it. we are through one season of the title's availability and i only have 4 champion points out of 50 that i need. thats another, oh, 12 seasons worth until i can achieve the title. seems kind of silly when i was doing high end GvG the whole time and would basically need to keep up the pace for YEARS for a title. the only thing that im afraid of is that if the rating is lowered, people will just run fotm tombs builds in GvG with a lot more gimics like necro or ranger spike for fast wins and insignificant losses to farm rating and champion points and this title will become meaningless like rank in tombs. perhaps some kind of balance (like 1400 rating vs. 1400 rating win) like you suggested could be implemented, but these would have to be worked out very carefully.

JR · May 24, 2006, 02:29 PM // 14:29

1400 rating is about right, in my opinion. It's a high enough number that you actually need to be in a fairly solid guild to get there, but it is a lot more accessible, so that as Patro says; it can actually then be used as a benchmark for recruiting.

I would also drop the requirement of the opposing team to 1200 rating, and simply up the number of GvGs you need to play to get it. This way it is something that won't take you forever to get, even if you are an active guild, but it still rewards players with experience from playing fairly high level GvG.

Something like this basicly:

You must be >1400 rating.
Opponent must be > 1200 rating.
You must have played 100 matches.

TheOneMephisto · May 24, 2006, 08:21 PM // 20:21

Or maybe they could have separate titles for each rating. So like a title for a certain amount of wins in >1000, >1200, >1400, etc.

Wasteland Squidget · May 24, 2006, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Something like this basicly:

You must be >1400 rating.
Opponent must be > 1200 rating.
You must have played 100 matches.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Why should a GvG title require that your guild be very high-ranked, rather than the opponent?

One of my biggest issues with the current title is that both guilds have to be 1500+, rather than just the opposing guild. If you can beat a 1500+ guild, why should you have to be above that rank yourself in order to get a title?

If some low-ranked guild manages to get a win against a high-ranked guild, they deserve the point IMHO.

Wrath Of Dragons · May 24, 2006, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

This doesn't make any sense to me. Why should a GvG title require that your guild be very high-ranked, rather than the opponent?

One of my biggest issues with the current title is that both guilds have to be 1500+, rather than just the opposing guild. If you can beat a 1500+ guild, why should you have to be above that rank yourself in order to get a title?

If some low-ranked guild manages to get a win against a high-ranked guild, they deserve the point IMHO.

i agree completely.

JR · May 24, 2006, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

This doesn't make any sense to me. Why should a GvG title require that your guild be very high-ranked, rather than the opponent?

Because if your guild is highly ranked it proves that you play well to maintain that position. It is harder to maintain a high ladder position than it is to beat a team holding one.

I would rather reward people for consistantly holding positions fairly high up the ladder, than rewarding them for beating top ranked teams.

If it was only about beating the high ranked teams; I would just run Necrospike on Burning Isle, or Ranger Spike on Isle of Meditation. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to hold a decent ladder position, but I would stand a better chance of beating top guilds when facing them on my map.

lord of shadow · May 24, 2006, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

i agree completely.

as do i

Greedy Gus · May 24, 2006, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Because if your guild is highly ranked it proves that you play well to maintain that position. It is harder to maintain a high ladder position than it is to beat a team holding one.

I would rather reward people for consistantly holding positions fairly high up the ladder, than rewarding them for beating top ranked teams.

If it was only about beating the high ranked teams; I would just run Necrospike on Burning Isle, or Ranger Spike on Isle of Meditation. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to hold a decent ladder position, but I would stand a better chance of beating top guilds when facing them on my map.

QFT. It would also allow any random guild to gain points by beating top teams if they have error 7's or lag issues. And if battles count while the ladder is frozen, any rank 200 team could beat a top team that is messing around. You shouldn't become a "champion" by scoring guerilla wins against top teams, you should become a champion by becoming a top team.

The main problem with the 1500 mark is that the seasons are now only 1 month long, so up until the last week or so, barely anyone is even near that level. If they're sticking with short seasons, I agree that the rating level needs to come down, or it should be based on something more flexible like rank.

zoozoc · May 24, 2006, 10:42 PM // 22:42

People who are in top guilds shouldn't get points for beating low guilds. And vice-versa. Really they should simply make it so both teams have to have a rating about, lets say, 1400 to get anything. Solving both problems.

JR · May 24, 2006, 10:51 PM // 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoozoc

People who are in top guilds shouldn't get points for beating low guilds. And vice-versa. Really they should simply make it so both teams have to have a rating about, lets say, 1400 to get anything. Solving both problems.

1200 isn't really what I would consider a low Guild. It is high enough that they will offer a significant challenge if they are worthy of that score, and have a fairly decent chance of actually winning.

zoozoc · May 24, 2006, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

1200 isn't really what I would consider a low Guild. It is high enough that they will offer a significant challenge if they are worthy of that score, and have a fairly decent chance of actually winning.

But then for a guild with a rating of 1200 to beat a guild with a rating of 1500 , you think that they should get nothing? We could always have it staggered so that teams with higher rating would get more points then teams with lower rating. Or we could simply lower the rating needed, like 1400 or 1300.

icemonkey · May 24, 2006, 11:12 PM // 23:12

JR- is completely right on this in my opinion. I would raise to 1250 for the opposing team but otherwise i completely agree. If it was as has been said by JR- it would be a very highly respected measure of players skill and exactly the thing i think people are looking for

zoozoc · May 24, 2006, 11:16 PM // 23:16

The problem with top teams getting points for beating teams with 1200 rating is the fact that all it does is it gives all the top guilds a ton of points (which is fine, they definently deserve it) while leaving everyone else with nothing. You have people in the top guilds, then you have everyone else. And when I say top guilds, i mean top 20. So it pretty much excludes everyone else, no matter how good they are.

icemonkey · May 24, 2006, 11:20 PM // 23:20

tahts the point, if you arent into 1400 rating you are not on the same level of play that the guilds that do are on. Simply you being mad that you get nothing just lends support to teh effectiveness this title oculd have. Guess waht not everyone that plays this game is good, if the title is gonna mean something 90% or more of people will get left out.

zoozoc · May 24, 2006, 11:43 PM // 23:43

Ok fine, that makes complete sens, but why do you get points then fro beating teams that are a lot worse then yours? If this title is gonna be for the top 99% of the gamers, you should only get it from being the top 99%. So I guess we should leave it how it is, you only get points if both teams have a rating of 1500.

neoflame · May 25, 2006, 12:05 AM // 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoozoc

But then for a guild with a rating of 1200 to beat a guild with a rating of 1500 , you think that they should get nothing?

No, they get a significant boost to rating that puts them closer to being able to gain points toward Champion. If they lose it very quickly after (i.e. the game was anomalous), then the most likely situation was a high-end guild screwing around during ladder freeze, Err7's, etc. If they don't, then they will eventually make it into the Champion range.

Warskull · May 25, 2006, 12:14 AM // 00:14

There should be two levels Champion and Distinguished.

You get a champion point for beating a 1500+ Guild.
You get a distinguished point for beating a 1250+ Guild.

In addition a points are no longer awarded during a ladder freeze.

Lesser guilds can get points if by some miracle they beat a higher ranked guild. However to get the amount of points necessary you need to perform on a consistant basis and you need to be a higher rank to pull the matches against the top rated guilds.

Wasteland Squidget · May 25, 2006, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

QFT. It would also allow any random guild to gain points by beating top teams if they have error 7's or lag issues. And if battles count while the ladder is frozen, any rank 200 team could beat a top team that is messing around. You shouldn't become a "champion" by scoring guerilla wins against top teams, you should become a champion by becoming a top team.

So what about guilds that restart mid-season and have to go through the weeks of play required to get 500 more rating? What about guilds that run multiple teams like XoO? If some top players in a XoO guild get together and beat a bunch of top-ranked teams, do they not deserve points for it because XoO also has some unskilled players?

Remember, titles are for individuals, not guilds. If a team of 8 individuals manages to win 50 games against top-ranked teams, why shouldn't they get the title?

I do concede that disconnects are an issue, but aren't they just as much of an issue in top-ranked play? If I'm in a 1500+ guild and we win because of a disconnect on the other team, do we really deserve the point? Probably not, but we'll get it anyway. The only real solution to this is reconnects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

The main problem with the 1500 mark is that the seasons are now only 1 month long, so up until the last week or so, barely anyone is even near that level. If they're sticking with short seasons, I agree that the rating level needs to come down, or it should be based on something more flexible like rank.

Agreed 100%. The 1500+ mark is fine for longer seasons, but under the current system even the very top teams aren't going to fight that many qualifying battles over the course of a season.

JR · May 25, 2006, 12:33 AM // 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Remember, titles are for individuals, not guilds. If a team of 8 individuals manages to win 50 games against top-ranked teams, why shouldn't they get the title?

I do concede that disconnects are an issue, but aren't they just as much of an issue in top-ranked play? If I'm in a 1500+ guild and we win because of a disconnect on the other team, do we really deserve the point? Probably not, but we'll get it anyway. The only real solution to this is reconnects.

This depends entirely on what you are giving the point for, which is what I was getting at.

Do you want to give points to decent competitive guilds who actually manage to take and hold high positions on the ladder? Or do you want to give points to some random guild who runs Necrospike on Burning Isle and occasionally roll a high ranked guild. Or who beat a top guild who gets a drop.

Personally I would rather it be the former. Beating a top guild means nothing if you can't hold a decent position on the ladder.