Curse

LightningHell · Mar 29, 2006, 09:40 AM // 09:40

Well, if you wish...

People say that in GvG, it's 5% the build and 95% tactics.

But in my opinion, if you have a bad build, you limit the effectiveness of your tactics. Maybe not 95%, but you still do limit your effective tactics.

I have a feeling I still haven't said that correctly.

JR · Mar 29, 2006, 10:16 AM // 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightningHell

Well, if you wish...

People say that in GvG, it's 5% the build and 95% tactics.

But in my opinion, if you have a bad build, you limit the effectiveness of your tactics. Maybe not 95%, but you still do limit your effective tactics.

I have a feeling I still haven't said that correctly.

I have always had an issue with people saying it's X% build, and X% tactics. They are entirely seperate subjects.

To a degree your build is only as much of a factor as your opponents build is. You could be running the most trashy thrown together pile of rubbish, but you could absolutely slam a guild of equal skill running a decent build because you just happened to counter them. An extreme example I realise, and not that the quality of your build doesn't have an effect on your success, but there is definately a large grey area.

The quality of your tactics and strat is more black and white. You can either read your opponent correctly and make the right decisions based off that, or you can't.

Patrograd · Mar 29, 2006, 12:04 PM // 12:04

Whilst it is clear that the guilds rank is the most accurate measure of their ability currently available, it is not a totally definitive guide. For example, is a team with 1700 points from 200 battles better than a team with 1500 points from 100 battles? Its not clear.

Also, you could take our guild as an example. If we get our best 8 players out we can beat anyone from about rank 50 down pretty easily, but if we have to fill two or three slots with guests or lesser players then suddenly we are struggling to beat rank 400-500 teams. The difference between players capable of beating rank 50 and those incapable of beating rank 500 is really very small, a matter of tiny details of their gameplay, and as has been observed before in this thread the general standard of teams has increased alot over the past four months and no team can carry passengers successfully

We could either fight less often, and take a rank hit from that, or play more often with lesser players and take a rank hit from that. We do the latter because playing is always more fun than not. As a result our rank swings wildly, our graph on Team IQ is pretty unique I think :-). So are we a rank 50 team or a rank 500 team? Well in fact we are somewhere in between, but our actual ability depends upon who we have available when you play us.

So far all of these reasons and plenty more, I think that while guild Rank is the best guide to a guild's ability, it can only be used as a guide, not as some kind of definitive statement

LightningHell · Mar 29, 2006, 01:52 PM // 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

I have always had an issue with people saying it's X% build, and X% tactics. They are entirely seperate subjects.

To a degree your build is only as much of a factor as your opponents build is. You could be running the most trashy thrown together pile of rubbish, but you could absolutely slam a guild of equal skill running a decent build because you just happened to counter them. An extreme example I realise, and not that the quality of your build doesn't have an effect on your success, but there is definately a large grey area.

The quality of your tactics and strat is more black and white. You can either read your opponent correctly and make the right decisions based off that, or you can't.

Which is why I think I had a problem explaining. That was supposed to be the gray area...maybe it's just my weird...thoughts...

I'm just trying to use their example, and sortof bend it back at them. Or something of the sort.

stickyballs · Mar 29, 2006, 03:06 PM // 15:06

Even the best guilds have problems staying 25+ ALL the time. I've seen iQ slump to like 30's sometimes, but they usually rebound back up. In such a competitive atmosphere, it's hard to maintain such a high ranking all the time.

Nadine · Mar 30, 2006, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Good exapmle how the build matters is iB against R50 CLONE-build. The R50 guild had fully cloned iB's build, (also those features which seems bit idiotic to me

).

...
... It took 8 minutes for iB to *farm* that guild with flawless victory....

edit: my english is....

Scown-dog · Apr 01, 2006, 04:12 AM // 04:12

500+ guilds have problems? Last week i guested for my friends guild, rank 650ish. Suffice to say we beat evo.

lucifair · Apr 03, 2006, 01:50 AM // 01:50

My guild is currently spending the rest of the season training a team for next season. The reason is because we completely relied on 8 good people, but only half would show up. When we got our main team we would be about rank 150 on average, but soon we had to choose between doing GvG's every night with not very good players, or not at all. Our rank dropped to 300 which is completely unacceptable.

We formed the baby guild about 2 days ago to train new people, and we are rank 530 with it (rating 1108), and this is with players who had never GvG'ed before. Half of our team is very experienced, the other half have barely GvG'ed before. How would a guild like this be classified, some very strong players (who have been invited to top 100 guilds) and some newbie players. Thus i dont think you can generalize that a rank 500+ guild has problems, also an amazing guild who wins almost all of their battles and who only battles on the weekend wont get very high on the ladder. maybe only 250, yet they are a top guild.

Generally your views are pretty correct, but their are quite a few special cases out their that go against what you are saying.

minor · Apr 03, 2006, 03:45 PM // 15:45

I'm glad that level the level of play has improved so that being in the top 1000 means something, sorry if i offended some with general comments. However several people have said that they either beat a top 100 team and are ranked very low, or as others have stated, they should be higher , but their best players aren't on enough, so on and so forth. My response to the 1st point is to lol, thank you, if your guild beats a top 100 guild it proves squat. If you play that well consistently you will move up the ladder. If you stay lower, then you victory was a fluke. As for the, we can't always use our best crowd, if your best don't come to play often enough you lose rank its just so. But if your team is really good the ladder will make up<somewhat> for your inactivity as long as you still play enough.

wheel · Apr 03, 2006, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by minor

I'm glad that level the level of play has improved so that being in the top 1000 means something, sorry if i offended some with general comments. However several people have said that they either beat a top 100 team and are ranked very low, or as others have stated, they should be higher , but their best players aren't on enough, so on and so forth. My response to the 1st point is to lol, thank you, if your guild beats a top 100 guild it proves squat. If you play that well consistently you will move up the ladder. If you stay lower, then you victory was a fluke. As for the, we can't always use our best crowd, if your best don't come to play often enough you lose rank its just so. But if your team is really good the ladder will make up<somewhat> for your inactivity as long as you still play enough.

Simply being in the top 1000 does not "mean something." In this season, it meant that you scored 1045 rating or more. This can be achieved in 3-5 battles depending on your win/loss record, but since you'll be battling teams about at your skill level, it won't be hard. That's not an indication of anything. Random chance could account for 3-5 victories, especially that low in the ladder.

Vindexus · Apr 03, 2006, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Your position on the ladder isn't all about player skill, it also includes how much time you can spend farming rating. So basically to get high on the ladder you need to

1) Be good.
2) Play a lot.

So if you only meet criteria one, don't say that you deserve to be higher up than you are, because you don't. You may be good at Guild Wars, but that's only half the battle of ladder climbing.

Edit: Fixed typo.

icemonkey · Apr 03, 2006, 09:12 PM // 21:12

you farm rating not fame on the GvG ladder