User talk:Raine Valen/Musings/Title Decay

Max title displays Gold if it's current, Silver if current is one or two below, Bronze for 3-5, and Grey otherwise. Current tile (if displayed as current and not max) is blue. IMO.  Raine  - talk  04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, so instead of having to grind just as much in the first place, you have to grind more often, too? That doesn't fix the problem at all. - Auron 05:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The main problem is titles that confer benefits. If someone wants to grind r8 lightbringer because he's bored or stupid or something, he can, but he should never be made more powerful than someone who doesn't do the grind. That's ANet's most prominent title failure, but they've had several. A few other title failures are called "drunkard," "sweet tooth," and "party animal." - Auron 05:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad those don't confer any effects...yet. Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 06:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "the tiers would have to be adjusted for the rest"; I'd have the first ranks reduced to "win a few, get a low title". Certainly not like they are now.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  06:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * total /unsigned. That will just advantage people who have more time to play per day and people will still grind them out. I would prefer it if titles worked like citation indexes for scientists, something like your rank was equal to the highest win streak that you had achieved at least that number of times, so to get G5 you would need 5 win streaks of length 5. That way randomway would only get you maximum R3 and RA would get you maximum G12 or so. The system is still not ideal (scientists bitch about it all the time), but it's better than what we have. Misery  13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should give an example scale, I'll use Gladiator. Each tier would be, say, 20 points (you'd lose 2 points at your tier daily, which isn't huge). To get g1, one would have to win one match 20 times at worst, or win 6 rounds once (1+2+3+4+5+6 points would give them 21). To keep r1, they'd have to win one round twice per day. That's just enough to indicate that a person casually plays arenas, and isn't great at it. If they were to then stop playing arenas, after 11 days, they'd still have g1, but it would show up silver. To get to g15, a person would have to win 15 rounds 20 times (in addition to making g14), at worst. At best, 1+2+3+4+5+6 (r1) +6+7+8 (r2) +8+9+10 (r3) +10+11 (r4) 11+12 (r5) +12+13 (r6) +13+14 (r7) +14+15 (r8) +15+16 (r9) +16+17 (r10) +17+18 (r11) +18+19 (r12) +19+20 (r13) +20 (r14) +20 (r15) would get you r15; that's a 35 streak from nothing. Also, that's assuming that excess points don't carry over to the next tier. Assuming that those points did carry over, 1+2+3+4+5+6 (r1, 0 excess) +0+6+7+8 (r2, 0 excess) +0+8+9+10 (r3, 6 excess) +6+10+11 (r4, 6 excess) +6+11+12 (r5, 8 excess) +8+12 (r6, 0 excess) +0+12+13 (r7, 4 excess) +4+13+14 (r8, 10 excess) +10+14 (r9, 3 excess) +3+14+15 (r10, 12 excess) +12+15 (r11, 6 excess) +6+15 (r12, 0 excess) +0+15+16 (r13, 10 excess) +10+15 (r14, 4 excess) +4+15+16 (r15, 14 excess); 31 wins would do it, from nothing. To keep up r15, a player would have to win 2 15 streaks daily, or 2 16 streaks every 3 days, or 1 17 every 3 days, and so forth. With no 15 streaks, the title would turn silver after 10 days, and with no 13 streaks, bronze after 30 days. But they'd still have g15. Of course, those are all extreme cases, and assuming that each tier were 20. But the point is, titles wouldn't require farming, but would reflect how good a player is. I'd also like to see a ladder for other forms of PvP (why should teams of g9s fight unranked teams?), but that's a separate issue.  Raine  - talk  21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a wall of maths that doesn't really say much other than if someone played 8 hours a day they would still have a better title than someone who played an hour a day but was much better. Making it decay just means that this problem doesn't accumulate to become even worse over 3 years. Misery  21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An hour averaging 10 wins would give a better title than 8 averaging 5. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you have just explained parts of it poorly, because rereading the main page along with the wall of maths has shown me that your suggestion for how points should work is almost identical to mine, except mine makes higher titles exponentially harder to obtain but permanent, while yours would really require people just to play every day consistently to advance the higher ranks. Misery  21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily every day ("To keep up r15, a player would have to win 2 15 streaks daily, or 2 16 streaks every 3 days, or 1 17 every 3 days, and so forth."), they'd just have to keep 20 points every 10 days, whether it be in one go or in 20. And the titles would still be permanent, they'd just indicate whether or not a person were consistently performing at that level.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  21:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See, that's exactly why I am opposed to it, I only TA like once a month. I would need HORRIFICALLY LARGE STREAKS to get any sort of title. At least with the current title system they are becoming worthless so you need connections to get anywhere worthwhile. Misery  22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you made it to ten wins once, you'd be g2. And it would be silver most of the time (gold once per month).  Ofc, that's the same as someone who only made it to round 3 every time, but considering that you don't, in fact, TA more than casually, why should your title say that you're more than a casual player? [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, assuming what you said there and I got to 10 wins every time I DID TA, why should I be lumped in with people who get 3 win streaks every time they play? Doesn't make sense very much. Misery  22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you went in once every 3 weeks and won (your rank + 6) times, your title would actually advance (albeit very slowly). A month is just a horribly long time, and a rare circumstance.  However, compared to the current system, where winning a 10 streak per month would give you g1 in a little under 3 years... it doesn't look so bad.  So, currently, that player would be lumped with people who've never even heard of RA.
 * The difference would be that you could say, "Hey, team, let's go another round" and raise your title, Mr Never-wins-past-round-2 could never advance past r2, ever. Technically, you'd need 20 10-win streaks in half as many days to make r10 (and to keep it current), which really isn't a lot.  It's just the once-per-month that kills you, in either system.  Even with your system, it'd take you 10 months to make r10.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, title decay would be a bad idea imo. People who have lots of titles would have to work harder to keep them all. The essence of a title is that you've done something enough, and now you're done. Not to keep sinking time and money into it. (Treasure Hunter, Wisdom, and Lucky, for instance - I've worked for the benefits, I shouldn't have to farm extra to keep them.) Just my opinion. -- Gah [[Image:User Gah My Name Cant Fi Echomending.jpg|19px]] Eat my uber regen.  16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

new section
thank you for proving my point :) Also The title decay thing is intresting but it would just support more gimmicks.PvP titles actually have to go.Just reward different things like a special kind of faction or something similar like to the reward points you get now  Lilondra   *Poke*  15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see titles based on the skills you used and how often you used them.
 * "You gain +1 Brave points for activating Frenzy with no adrenaline!" [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Warrior's Endurance spike gogo Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be interesting, at the very least, to see what kind of titles people ended up with. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  08:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * people would proly go to isle or ra and just click frenzy now and then Lilondra  [[Image:User_Lilondra_Disrupting Dagger.jpg|21x21px]] *Poke*  06:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I understand your point of grinding Lightbringer and such, but the people who don't grind are getting it done with books/area-specific vanqs/etc. So it balances out, they're taking a little longer to get more LB power while at the same time getting other stuff done. In a sense you can get LB without even trying to get it. And there is just too much grinding in this game. Even with the maximum option... If I work honestly to get full ranks in my titles or whatever, and decide to take a break, I would come back to find everything gone.

I think this system would be interesting still, but here are my suggestions. It should be applied to titles that are currently way to huge, pvp ones especially, and those titles need to be scaled down significantly. I'm talking about Gladiator, Hero, Codicks, etc. PvP is about skill and commitment whereas PvE is about accomplishments and feats. It's a pretty huge task to get Legendary Vanq, Legendary Defender, etc. It's more about how much time you put into it. It would suck to go on a break and then come back and see "lol how dare you get tired of this". And maximum option wouldn't mean anything because it would become the "second rate" title compared to the current version.

This system would be a better compliment to PvP, similar to the month-long "prestige" cages that guilds get. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә    ѕνәи  Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 07:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)