Curse

Ensign · May 25, 2006, 05:03 AM // 05:03

The only concern I have with the new title is that because the ladder resets so frequently, gaining a win for this title is incredibly rare. There are usually sub-1500 teams in the top 10 up until the last week of the season, and the first page doesn't always require 1500 even on freeze. It isn't like top teams play each other all the time anyway. Because of this, at the current rate, I would be surprised to see anyone with a Champion title before 2008, and it'll likely be around 2009-2010 before they start popping up with any frequency.

I'm all for rare titles, but this is a little much.

Peace,
-CxE

Iraqalypse Now · May 26, 2006, 05:19 AM // 05:19

There should be an accessable title for mid-tier GvG play, call it the "XoO zerg rush minion dood" or whatever, but I think it would be very good for distinguishing GvGers that have a clue as to what they are doing.

rii · May 26, 2006, 08:18 AM // 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

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.

Both. If a low rank guild beat the top guild then fine. If you maintain a high rank for a long period thats fine. Drop should be accounted for, if it can. I would suggest that the system becomes more flexible, and perhaps reward continous success with ever increasing rewards, and reward spot victories against MUCH better opposition. It would however have to change the current system, but I think it would be more fair. If it works like it does with the gladiator system, points are occasional... if they threw them around a bit more but increased the limit more flexibility might result.

Blow Up Doll · May 26, 2006, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warskull

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.

I agree with Warskull here - maybe A-net should look at two different levels of title - like in Ha having fame and then a point for each time you hold...

This would still mean that you could have an elite gvg title but there would be some form of recognition for other (serious) gvg players. Personally i can't see why they haven't done this when they have even made a title for opening chests...

JR · May 26, 2006, 11:10 PM // 23:10

I have one major problem with Warskulls suggestion, as I said before.

If you award low ranked guilds points for beating higher ranked guilds, you then turn the title into another absolute garbage waste of time like rank. It then becomes something that is easier to farm with gimmicks, rather than get through actually playing seriously

I mean really, which is easier? Playing a serious build, playing to win every match, trying to beat top guilds in straight up even combat OR running Necrospike on Burning Isle, tanking your rating so it will always be your home map against decent teams by resigning on teams that wont get you points?

Really. You could actually earn the title faster with the second scenario, than you could through actually being a top guild. And as I said, that is just utter garbage. Please don't try and take the meaning away from the only title that actually proves player skill.

Dzan · May 26, 2006, 11:25 PM // 23:25

How about a point for a top 100 guild beating another top 100 guild? Seems fair enough and easy to manage.

That might not be exclusive enough for people, but like Patro said, it would be a good recruiting tool. Being able to see, "hey this guy has won 200 matches against top 100 opposition" says quite a bit to me.

Schorny · May 27, 2006, 04:02 AM // 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzan

How about a point for a top 100 guild beating another top 100 guild? Seems fair enough and easy to manage.

so all i need to get this title would be to play in the first few days when the season starts, because any decent team can get top 20 by then. all I need is a gimmick build that beats fast or get beaten fast, like say bunny thumpers. It's easy to run, I can power many GvGs in one night and get my title by the end of the week.

Seems not to be a good idea.

JR-, like always, has some pretty good points: what you want is a reward for a topguild for playing at a top level all the time. and not to reward people for beeing lucky...

pah01 · May 27, 2006, 05:12 AM // 05:12

Champion title as it is at the moment will command respect when people start to show off the title - but 2008 seems like the wait for it as Ensign said.

The rank system is HA is a joke and since so many people just iwayed to rank whatever and no need to make a complaint about that.

Gimmick builds is a different thing again but should rank three plus pick up group be denied their rank simply because they ran a Ranger spike? Do they not deserve their rating?

What about Thumpers? They are damn hard to play against if you arre trying to make a balanced build which has the ability to win against spike teams/split teams/pressure teams and then beat other balanced teams.

I think being able to hold a position in the top one hundred guilds is respectable and gaining 50 wins there would outweigh the rank system in HA.

Last but not least basing the title on rating seems crazy since it is only in the last weeks of a season. But then basing it on rank seems silly since it may take a while like maybe a week for the ladder to settle.

After thinking about this perhaps it is a stupid idea to reset guilds ratings to 1000 for 6-7 weeks of play.

Sam

Dzan · May 28, 2006, 02:47 AM // 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schorny

so all i need to get this title would be to play in the first few days when the season starts, because any decent team can get top 20 by then. all I need is a gimmick build that beats fast or get beaten fast, like say bunny thumpers. It's easy to run, I can power many GvGs in one night and get my title by the end of the week.

Seems not to be a good idea.

Hey, if you can win 100+ gvg matches against top 100 teams in a week or two you are probably in a pretty dedicated guild with rather good players which to me is what the title should represent.

Iraqalypse Now · May 28, 2006, 07:00 AM // 07:00

Dzan: this is immediately after the ladder reset, the top 100 guilds are often the top 100 most active guilds with at least a moderate amount of playing skill.

Patrograd · May 28, 2006, 12:05 PM // 12:05

Let us say:

1100= 1 point
1200= 2 points
1300= 3 points
etc etc

Guild with 1300 rating beats guild with 1100 rating: 3 points + 1 point = 4 points

Guild with 1300 rating beats Guild with 1500 rating: 3 points plus 5 points = 8 points

Guild with 1500 rating beats Guild with 1500 rating: 5 points plus 5 points = 10 points

if you set the levels of points needed to achieve a certain personal rank quite high, with the highest levels 10k or more, then i think you have a workable solution.

I also have a couple of queries on some of the objections raised.

Firstly, any serious guild is going to take their guild rank much more seriously than their personal rank. I struggle to believe that anyone would tank their Guild's rating to achieve personal rating. Your guild's rank is how people view you.

Secondly, it is my experience that the best teams are more than capable of beating gimmick builds very, very easily. I do not believe that a team could run a gimmick build and beat a genuine top side unless they were also extremely talented players.

Therefore, if a team runs a gimmick build solely for the purposes of personal rank, then they aren't going to get very high up the ladder. if they dont get very high up the ladder their ability to "farm" points is severely restricted, as

a) They dont get to play enough matches against decent teams to rack up points quickly (assuming the ladder match system is working reasonably well)

b) Their low rating would cripple any points they get anyway as a team in the top 20 is going to be accruing points at a rate two or three times faster from beating the same teams.

As things stand today alot of teams are running gimmick builds, and playing outside peak hours with the sole purpose of farming Guild rating. I dont see that the implementation of this kind of system would alter the situation at all, but would very quickly show who had what sort of GvG experience.

Now you can start awarding points at whatever level you like (1300 seems like a reasonable level to me). No-one in a Guild ranked outside the top 100 is likely to ever accumulate many points, while the top 20 or so teams with ratings over 1500 points will accumulate points very quickly, especially as these teams typically play more than those lower down the ladder.

Just my thoughts, trying to speak up for all us part time scrubs :-). maybe its totally unworkable, idk.

Dzan · May 28, 2006, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

Dzan: this is immediately after the ladder reset, the top 100 guilds are often the top 100 most active guilds with at least a moderate amount of playing skill.

I'm aware of that. But since the top guild in guild wars only got ~170 wins the whole season and they were also one of the most active guilds, I find it difficult to believe that one guild will get 100 wins in a week against top 100 competition, albeit slightly weaker than average competition.

Greedy Gus · May 28, 2006, 10:58 PM // 22:58

If done by rank, I would do a point for each win against top 20 or 30, or perhaps a tiered system. But definitely not granting points for beating anyone in the top 100, the competition is generally not too fierce around 80-100.

Jimmy Swaggart · Jun 01, 2006, 11:21 PM // 23:21

I think people are complicating this issue too much with the staggered system of points.

The intent of a title is to show that you are a strong player in some aspect of GW, be it exploring cantha/tyria (as if that requires skill) or gvging.

True gvg skill in my mind implies consistent strong play. The title should therefore only be given to people who gvg well and often. The only way to measure this at the moment is to look at guild rating (not rank) and opposing guild rating. Why? Because a gimmick build can beat many good guilds with little skill involved in the win. Only the wins against good guilds should count to prevent "Rank-farmed" guilds from being sold on ebay so that rich people can get some gvg points for a little while by beating bad teams.

Also I agree with the reduction in rating requirement - 1500 is unrealistic for 1 month seasons. I assume Anet realized this when they implemented it and it either means:

1 Seasons will be longer in the future
2 The algorithm for rating calculation will change
3 The 1500 number might change (less likely I think)

I applaud the addition of this title and hopefully it will diminish the HA rank importance in PVP now.

EDIT: Forgot to add my suggestion: If the seasons remain at 1 month each then reduce the point req to 1400 AND give 5 points for tournament game wins (this way the absolute cream of the crop will be easily differentiated quickly)

pah01 · Jun 01, 2006, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Well IMO The title that is elite ie can only be gotten from 1500+ vicories should stay. This shows personal skill and isnt something that is farmed like rank 9 in Heroes ascent.

The Thing is there isnt an equilavent rank system from winning in GVG.

If one was to go about a rank system for GVG this would benefit those who prefer to GVG.

Say win 50 battles between rated 1100 guilds and above you get a title say FOOL (Fierce Champion).

Win 50 between rated 1200 guilds you get say Foolish Fool(Conqeuring Champion).

Win 50 between 1300 guilds you get Esteemed fool(Renowned Champion).

And 1400+ guild victories Eminent Fool ( say Kings Champion).

1500+ Should be changed from champion to say Emperors Champion.

I think a tiered system of this style by introducing tiered titles instead of fame title farming type crap would be ideal.

Like getting to 1100 puts you in say the top 400 guilds at the end of the season, think 1200 gets you into around the top 200 - this would IMO be better than say I am rank 9 - well I am a champion you IWAY cruel axe wielding fool. ( yes I have met rank 9 iwayers who thought the cruel mod was worthwhile)

Sam

Egg Shen · Jun 02, 2006, 09:20 PM // 21:20

I think there is probably a way to make the system a tiered one. In fact, I think pah01's idea is a very good one. Everybody wants to make sure the best titles are simply NOT farm-able. Only the top rank players who've beaten other top rank players should get them.

However, trying to micro-manage things to take into account Err7's and what sort of builds people are using seems like a waste of time. If the system is designed correctly, none of that will be necessary, and everybody should be happy.

On an unrelated side note, all this talk of "gimmick" builds is getting a bit pathetic. It'd be nice if we could save that term for builds that a single skill (perhaps four skills or less??) can destroy without fail. Unless, of course, anything other than a balanced build is now a gimmick and I just failed to get the memo. Do gimmick builds cease to be gimmicks when EW pilots them to a Season 3 championship? Sorry to go on a tangent, I'm just a little confused about how the non-scrub, play to win types around these parts can think in such clear cut terms.

Jimmy Swaggart · Jun 03, 2006, 04:30 AM // 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Egg Shen

On an unrelated side note, all this talk of "gimmick" builds is getting a bit pathetic. It'd be nice if we could save that term for builds that a single skill (perhaps four skills or less??) can destroy without fail. Unless, of course, anything other than a balanced build is now a gimmick and I just failed to get the memo. Do gimmick builds cease to be gimmicks when EW pilots them to a Season 3 championship? Sorry to go on a tangent, I'm just a little confused about how the non-scrub, play to win types around these parts can think in such clear cut terms.

OK when i say gimmick I mean a build that can beat a good team without much skill, relying more on the chance that the counter to their build is not being used by the other team. I don't know if you remember but long ago there was a guild lord gank build with grenths balance that can beat almost anyone in a couple of minutes. That build required no skill and could beat top guilds if they weren't anticipating it immediately. In my mind this is a "gimmick". Run it if you want but it requires no skill and shouldn't be rewarded.

In reference to spike or iway or other builds that are often called gimmicks, well these are fair game. Good guilds will counter these unless they are played well. Teams that run these effectively in the 1400 rating range(when you are almost always facing other good guilds) deserve to be rewarded, even though counting down from 3 is often all you need to do to win

Patrograd · Jun 03, 2006, 06:36 AM // 06:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Swaggart

even though counting down from 3 is often all you need to do to win

Well, this is all you need to do to win using spike against scrubs, but if you think you can beat a good team by simply counting down from 3 then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Unless you have the tactical awareness and the player ability to react to splits and rapid enemy movements, and unless you have a tactical plan for playing on each and every map, and unless your build counters the popular counters then your spike is going to get destroyed by any team with even half a clue and the top teams will walk past you like you werent even there.

I will accept that spike is an easy way of farming rating from noob stomping, but I am convinced that any serious team will have little difficulty coping with all but the very best spike teams - those who can do *just* a little more than count down from 3.

CAT · Jun 04, 2006, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Im all for 1500+.
Considering the title holds no physical benefit, theres no reason for not making it as hard as possible. Thats like complaining FoW is too expensive...

Dzan · Jun 04, 2006, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Swaggart

I applaud the addition of this title and hopefully it will diminish the HA rank importance in PVP now.

Unlikely, unfortunately. The only people will ever have the title are people are on teams who regularly make the tournament anyway. Those people have special capes and famous guild tags, they don't need HA rank as a measuring stick the way other folks do.

Either you have an elite title that is reserved for the best of the best (which is fine) or you have a practical title that will be used for the majority of serious GVGers to measure themselves. (also fine)

But you can't have it both ways, I don't think.