User talk:Ryan Scott/gladiatorchanges1

Hey everyone, I wanted to post a bit on the wiki and say hi :)

While I got to spend some time doing skills and balance earlier this year, I've moved over to working on dungeons for Eye of the North. We're doing some interesting things to make dungeons stand out a bit from EAs and missions, adding some exploration elements, epic-style boss encounters, things like that. Design overall has been a lot of fun and really rewarding. -- Ryan Scott 12:07, July 13th 2007 (PST) I made a user page! Wooo. Ryan Scott 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Found another one, quick throw a Corsair's Net before he run's away! ~ Kurd [[Image:User Kurd sig.png]] 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Provide Feedback for the Gladiator Changes on this page.

Gladiator changes
The goal of these proposals is to ease the requirements of a great team in Random Arenas to acquire Gladiator Points, but not to devalue them to Team Arena players or make them an "over time" reward. Gladiator has become one of the more hardcore titles and we feel that it should take more than playing a lot of games to achieve it. Proposals 2 and 3 are adjustments with this in mind.

Also, we're going to be implementing a "Deserter" style system that punishes leavers in random formats with PvP downtime. This will only be applied to the problem areas, so TA, HA, and GvG players will not have to worry much about this. That being said, since we're disallowing players to leave and join repeatedly to get a team capable of 10 wins in RA, we felt we needed to take the cap down. These changes will go hand-in-hand.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that we're also adding mechanics for punishing leechers and a time limit on RA/TA games to stop runners.

There are three current proposals.

Proposal 1 Updating Current Title Holders:
 * Every win gives you 1 point.
 * Players get points for streaks. Players get 5 points for each 5 consecutive wins.
 * Multiply current player points by 30.
 * Multiply each rank by 20

Proposal 1 Table

 Proposal 2

Updating Current Title Holders:
 * Every 5 wins gives you 1 point
 * Every additional 5 consecutive wins gives you 2 points.
 * Multiply current player points by 4
 * Multiply each rank requirement by 3

Proposal 2 Table

Proposal 3


 * Every 5 wins gives you 1 point
 * Every additional 5 wins gives you a bonus point (plus the original 1 for 5 wins). 10 wins = 2 total points, 15 = 3 total points, etc. This would be capped at 3 or 4 for every 5 win streak to keep it from getting out of control.
 * Multiply current points by 5
 * Multiply each rank by 4

Proposal 3 Table

For reference, here is the current track we’re working with:

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ryan Scott.

Initial Feedback
Please, please do not turn the gladiator title into a grindfest. If you use Proposal 1, that's exactly what it will become, and it will be insulting to every serious gladiator out there. Please do not destroy the one of the two worthwhile pvp titles. Proposal 3 is probably the best one, but proposal 1 deserves the biohazard signs, police tape, and hazmat suits to approach.

Archieve the current title and make a new one with the new setup. Add a ladder or player listing somewhere for the new system and start from 0 on it. I wouldn't even see any harm in giving "max title" credit for everyone above a certain rank (up to ANet to choose what rank).

If the way to gain points is to be easier then you need to start over....... --STINGER 13:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * trying hard to undetstand this. so why do the people who worked hard to get the "hard" glads start over?Penguincontact 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the Gladiator title track based like the Hero? Get points for consecutive wins, like fame. So more consecutive wins=more reward? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.0.104.142.
 * -Because the Gladiator title is not the Hero title, and it shouldn't be. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.46.247.159.


 * I'm retarded I read the news page and not the whole one here. Deserter thing will be implemented, great! I don't think there is a need to change anything else. 58.110.140.124 10:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposal #1 is pure grindfest, don't do that one please. Right now, if you suck, you're going to have a reaaal difficult time getting to 10 wins even with a good team. That's good. Maybe slightly too difficult (not that I mind, I have plenty of glads). But giving points for each win is a no-no since EVERYONE will be able to get plenty of glads if only he can press Enter battle many times. Especially unless leeching is solved, except this to encourage leeching in RA. Servant of Kali 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Every Single one of these proposals fails so badly in its original intention its amazing. I would explain, but you wouldn't listen anyway. Sword.wind. 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

These changes are horrible, please don't water down the only true performance based pvp formant in GW its the only one except gvg that you can't advance in just by showing up. Right now when you see a gladiator you see someone who actually earned a title based on skill. not just logging in and sticking it out grinding away. Abandon these proposals they have no purpose. RA is the most popular arena you have why are you trying to change it? Its full every day at all hours people like it, don't blow it. Thanks. Shadowspawn X 09:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more Random Comments
I am a casual RA player. I don't quit to find a new group. I try to work with whatever group I end up with. I usually end up winning the first round, unless someone else quits. Some teams I end up in, I go quite a few rounds. The biggest problem though, is at the end of the 8th or 9th round, one of them gets disconnected (due to problems on their end, or because they just have to leave). This wouldn't be such a problem if they had a suitable replacement, but that rarely occurs. As of current rounds, It takes about 30-40 minutes to get 10 consecs with an average team. The current system, although great for people who have time to quit and rejoin until they find a perfect group, is not a good way for me(a decent player) to gain title points. I've had ten 8-9 winning streaks in the last week, but no 10 win streak. That means no title point for me, and time waisted were it not for balth faction. The proposals look good, but maybe a good modification to proposal 1 would be gain title points by every other win, or even every third win. This would provide a way for people who are trying to get there but just don't have the means to prosper, and at the same time would keep the leeching down a bit. What's worse, leechers? or people always quiting... Drives me nuts when they quit and you see them going against you in the next round *apologies on the rant. --Kyle van der Meer 04:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * QFT. You speak truth. I have the same feeling about the 8th/9th round defeats... not counting all the time needed and end with no result. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:84.222.234.5.

From a regular gladiator
As I often play TA and RA to gain my glad title, I am currently against all three proposals. The current system makes it difficult to achieve a glad point, and therefore makes it a respected title. A 10 game win streak is worth the pain, and to lower it, will degrade the title even with the proposed compensation.

As the proposals seem to be an answer to the leavers of RA, then perhaps more direct actions should be considered. Here are my ideas:

-Based on the above, the faction gained is still proportional to the current system, but rewards players for staying a full match.
 * 1) 1 For each game completed, win or lose, players recieve 50 Balthazar faction.
 * 2) 2 For each game won, players recieve 50 Balthazar faction (for a total of 100 faction per Victory)
 * 3) 3 For each flawless victory, players recieve an additional 50 faction (for a total of 150 faction)
 * 1) 4 For each game left, before game is over, any player that leaves will be deducted 100 balthazar faction and/or suffer a 2-minute time-out (applys to RA only).
 * 2) 5 If a player is not with a full 4-person team, he or she has the right to leave without being punished regardless if the underadvantaged team is a result of disconnect, leaver, etc.
 * 3) 6 For each 5 consecutive wins, players recieve 1/2 glad point in RA only. This is to encourage people to stay for at least 5 games.
 * 4) 7 No additional balthazar faction is awarded for a 5-consecutive winning streak.
 * 5) 8 Keep the current point system in place, but allow half points to be awarded.

I feel that even my idea of awarding 1/2 point for 5 consecutive wins will hurt the title, but I also feel that it is an adequate compromise that damages the title's name the least. I do not speak for only myself, but for all people who hold a gladiator title and earned it by getting the full 10 win streaks. It is unfair to them and myself to lower the standards of the title. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:170.215.154.72.


 * Valid points (and the reason we pulled back on the original proposal 1 to begin with), but this unfortunately doesn't solve the problem for a few reasons;

* Half-points aren't possible (we'd have to instead double points across the board, which would be doable) * It uses Faction as a reward, which is much like XP for PvE players -- a tertiary reward. * It uses Balth faction as a punishment (UAX players will care little). I'll be upfront, and say while I do believe invalidating the Gladiator title is the thing we're wanting to avoid here, I'm not willing to sacrifice all progress with it to leave it alone. I understand how hard Gladiator is to get currently, it's really the only title I personally, as a player, have strived for. This also means the hard work players have done for this title is quite the status symbol within that community, especially within TA circles. One thing I would be more open to is increasing the current title holders' amount by more, to compensate the new numbers (150% doesn't represent this) better. I also feel we need to break the mindset of just having the title being a big deal -- the new status symbol becomes to get it high, while newer and casual players can peck away at it. I definitely appreciate the concerns of the TA community and want to do what we can to accommodate the hard work they've done. Do you have another number (say, under proposal 3) that would be more palettable? My overall idea is to make Gladiator easy to attain, hard to get high, as a player under proposal 3 will really have to start doing streaks of >10 to really make progress after rank 2 or 3, which is arguably even more difficult than it is now. Ryan Scott 11:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of all three of the proposals, Proposal 3 does sound the most reasonable, and the most palettable cap would be 3, but with having it become in effect at 20 wins. For example, 5 wins=1 point; 10 wins=2 points; 15 wins =2 points, 20 wins= 3 points. Another possibility would be to up the glad point awarded based on each additional 10 win-streaks, 5 and 10 wins awarding 1 point each; 15 and 20 wins would receive 2 points, etc. with a cap of 3 points per 5-win streak.

I do feel that a 2-minute down time does need to be implemented to the first leaver of RA(see ideas #3 and #4). TA should not have such, obviously, because groups are formed prior to clicking "enter battle." --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:170.215.154.72.


 * You need to multiple both the points and the ranks by the same number as to not create a difference in the percentages!!! Using proposal 3, a person with exactly 25 points will need an equivalent of 10
 * less glad points to earn the next title.  50-25=25 glad points until r2    25*5=125   Under Proposal 3  200-125=75 points until r2   converting back, 75/5=15 points, which is a full 10 points less!!!!!! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.46.247.159.
 * If you read the rest of the page you'll see that they intend this to reward people who already have earned glad points the "hard way". --Tankity Tank 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep gladaitor as it was, because changes will be unfair for experienced players and gladiator tittle will be nosense.
 * If that changes whould go live the only tittle which is worth anythin in pvp will be champion(but without reset of ladder it's becoming more easy. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:89.76.120.95.
 * You write "The goal of these proposals is to ease the requirements" and Andrew Patrick on guildwarsguru.com forum writes "The intention of this change is not to make the Gladiator Title easier to achieve". Don't you see a contradiction? In fact proposed changes make gladiator title much easier to obtain, so degrade it's value. Aena 14:23, 14 August 2007 (GMT+2)
 * Sometimes things get lost in translation -- if you're asking from the horse's mouth, then I'm the horse :) The comment below for Crazy's idea pretty much sums up the goals and what we're faced with. Ryan Scott 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no problem why the gladiator title should not remain a hardcore title. I love the idea of punishing leavers however I see no reason why this system should require you to "relax" the gladiator title requirements. If you designed the system so that if you leave the match before it is finished you get a punishment but if you leave the team during the countdown between matches you got no punishment I think the annoyance of leavers would be much less. This way most potential leavers would stay the match (so as not to get a punishment) and if he/she leaves after the first match the rest of the team will get a new player and hence have "better" chances of further success. -Crazy
 * It is a two-fold change -- one portion is that when we say "don't leave the game early, or we'll punish you," we can't say "the only way to maximize your rate of earning points is to leave and get a good team." The other portion is that yes, we feel Gladiator is a hardcore-only title right now, that exists in a hardcore and casual portion of the game at the same time. We are going to make Gladiator a more accessible title with any of these changes, that's a given. The question isn't "if," but "how" and "how much"? An idea I was thinking of was making Proposal 3 and making the cap for Glad points earned go higher than 3 or 4. This rewards the best teams the most, (and that's the goal) while allowing small, gradual progress from the casual crowd. Ryan Scott 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would opt for proposal 3, if it reads 5 consecutively wins. The first one is not good, because winning one game is not an achievement. Even if you raise the Gladiator points for the ranks, it would only favor the one, who can get that first win in the fastes way with the least effort; ever and ever again. The third proposal is a good compromise, because five wins is somewhat of an achievement and you get more points for longer streaks. Balwin 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that proposal 3 with a progression and cap similar to HA's fame system would be ideal. Players should be rewarded for particularly long streaks, separating the gap between RA/TA grinders who only play for five wins, and guilded/organized groups that seek to play for the long haul. ckjy 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Punishing leavers and runners is a good idea. But the current proposal is unlikely to solve any problems. Proposed: Punishing leavers and making rewards at 5 consecutive wins. What I think will happen:
 * 1) 1 faction farmers & leechers will increase. just have a bot program repeated click enter battle.  Due to leaving penalty, people are forced to give free fame to farmers and leechers.
 * 2) 2. Instead of thinking, "can I get a winning team to win next 10 matches?", it will be "can i get a team to win next 5 matches?"
 * 3) 3. Just because you force someone to stay does not make a losing team a winning team. Having played many random matches, a quick look at primary/secondary profession combo on your teammates will give you a fairly good indication of your winning chances/chance of glad point.  Currently, a good player only leaves because he/she believes the team is lacking and will not win even with his help.  With a leaving penalty, it will just force the good player to get food/snack and hope his your team quickly losses in a 4vs3.  God forbid if there are super defensive characters on your team that just drags on matches.  You can force someone to stay, but you can't force someone to play.  No point playing in a team that you know will lose even with your help.  It would be total waste of effort and pointless.
 * 4) 4. New glad system will greatly cheapen any previous earners of glad titles. It is much easier to win 5 in a row than 10 in a row.  Example: Let's say you have 80% chance to win each game you play, at 5 in a row chance of getting glad is 0.8^5=32.8%.  At 10 in a row, it is 0.8^10=10.74% A huge difference!.  It would be better to create a different title for the new RA system and convert the old title to TA only.

The chief problem with RA is that you have a group of hard core players mixed with casual players. It would be better to create a separate new title geared towards the casual players group and make RA more friendly to new players. The new title should abolish consecutive wins and reward based on wins only. That way, you avoid the "do I have a team that can win the next x games" players. If you are going to penalize leavers, penalize and fix the leeching problems first(Start with fort aspenwood). Otherwise you will just hear complaints of leechers/farmers/idlers. The old more hardcore pvp title should be moved to TA. That way TA players won't be affected so much by the new dramatic changes to RA.--Efreeti 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this isn't possible (as stated in a few other threads), would you agree that making it easy to attain, hard to max out would be a viable solution? Proposal 3 with a raised cap would allow great TA players to distinguish themselves, while allowing more casual players to at least make progress towards something. Ryan Scott 11:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In proposal 2,3. Does 5 wins means consecutive?
sorry but I dont see the word consecutive there, and i think many are assuming they are. If the answer is no, then what is the real difference between 1 and 2? The 2 seems that only will have "hidden" points. Coran Ironclaw 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Guild:Guardianes Del Honor
 * Yes, 2 and 3 award for 5 consectutive wins. Ryan Scott 21:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Two Titles?
An idea i posted on the guru forums a while ago, is one of splitting the gladiator title into two separate titles, similar to how the skill hunter title was split.

This would be a suitable is proposal 4 as i see it


 * Every 1 win gets you 1 gladiator point
 * Every 10 wins gets you a "pit fighter" (first name that comes to mind) or some other name for a title received entirely from multiple chains of long runs in RA/TA
 * Move current gladiator points to the second title
 * multiply the current number of glad points by 10 (1 for each win) and have people go from   there with the new title.

Thoughts? EDIT: how in the frog did i accidentally put my idea in a box? :S


 * Fixed your box :) We're not really looking at dividing or splitting the title at this point -- there's a number of reasons, from a production standpoint that this would be unfavorable for us to do. That being the case, we're trying to come up with the best solution that accommodates a somewhat faster point gain (in the form of lower streaks) and allows the title to retain its skill-based/hardcore nature. If we were able to split the titles, I think the solution would be an easy one. Ryan Scott 10:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exponential gains?
What would be the problem with linearly increased or even exponentialy increased gains every five or ten wins? Surely a team who achieve 100 wins one streak is better that a team who can get 20 streaks of 5 wins? Obviously there should be a cap, but I don't think a set value for each streak of 5 or 10 wins is as impressive as bigger numbers fro bigger streaks. Alternative 2 seems the best but it's still a little confusing, could you show the exact points numbers for say 20 wins in a small table to really clarify it? Maestro Ed 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I changed my mind, I want a hybrid of the original and alternate 1. 1 point per win and an additional 5 points for each streak of five wins. Your 5th wins gives 5, 10th gives 10, 15th gives 15, etc. Cap it at 50. This seperates those who can get five wins to get their 10 points (as with the first proposal) from those who can get a streak of 20 (which would net them 70 under this proposal) or 50 (which would net them a whopping, but well deserved 325)

RA/TA Time limit
I think you might also want to consider adding a timelimit/VoD for RA/TA to prevent unnecessarily long matches. To move players away from a defensive playstyle. Also, not being able to kill your opponent is another reason to leave a match, which with the new changes gets punished. --Just One More Thing 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is actually part of the overall changes as well, I forgot to mention that in the update. Good call :) Ryan Scott 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope griefer builds aren't rewarded for going the distance. --arredondo 22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah a time limit might be nice for runners and such... BUT!! (PLEASE CONSIDER) ocassionally you can truly be involved in a really good long lasting fight, why spoil the fun? And kinda like what Arredondo stated, if you even consider a time limit (VoD/SD/Whatever) griefer builds will only be gaining an upper hand here.. balanced teams would lose any advantage of mobility versus highly defensive heavy spirit+hex teams.--Berserk 17:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A simple solution to both issues would be to issue a time limit without a kill. I.E. if a kill is not registered for five minutes of play then the match will be over and whichever team has the most kills or most survivors remaining will win the match. --Gt_white_gold 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleasing Both Sides
in my opinion i think option 1 would be the best choice, because it lets new players get into the gladiator title with the 1 win 1 point system, and also has the 1 streak (5 wins) 5 points system for the more veteran and present title holders. This way we could give new pvp players (or veteran pve players) a smoother entrance to the pvp world without taking away the credit of those who worked hard to get the titles they now hold. But this is just my opinion. (IGN Py Gargus)
 * One word response to option 1: Leeches. --24.179.151.252 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As said in the below coment Anet could add some system to ensure that players are active to nerf leechers (Py Gargus)


 * I wouldn't think the time invested would be worth the rewards from most 3v4 matches. Still, I'd prefer Option 2 or 3. A 5 win streak is at least some recognition of good play and not just winning a match by default (say due to leavers). I would also like to see a 15 minute limit on matches with the win going to the team with most kills, or else a "loss" if both tied. (Bickety Bam)


 * I forgot to mention accompanying leecher methods will be a part of this update. We're ironing out the details, but this is already a problem in AB/FA and could become an RA problem after these changes if we don't put in some sort of mechanism. Ryan Scott 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats good to hear, leeching is the other serious problem in AB/JQ/FA/RA. Some kind of motion/skill use monitor/over x seconds to detect player afk, and disable any points gain/kick them from the next round would be a start. If both leeching and leaving are made less appealing then i think those PvP modes will become more fun. --Just One More Thing 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I started playing Arenas again recently as research and found leavers to be incredibly annoying. I'm looking forward to dealing with that so I can enjoy RA again myself :) Ryan Scott 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)