User talk:Ryan Scott/gladiatorchanges2

From Guild Wars Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Currently System is good.

Please, don't make any changes with gladiator title and stay with currently which is good and shows u spent much time to do this title. If any of above proposition will be added to game then gladiator title will have nosense.

Extra additions?

how about using option 1 as this will encourage new pvpers into the game but with 1 change

if a player does not use any skill or make contact with the enemy, that player LOSES a gladiator point. just to nerf leeches. :)

I don't understand this entirely. Do you feel because in 5-win streaks, since you get more points, Gladiator becomes worthless? We're giving current title holders more points than we're increasing the title by to compensate for the difference. The goal is to both make it more accessible (but not a gimme) to newer players, not punish players for not being on a team that can't take 10 wins in Randoms, and encourage teams that can't win ten to stick together for 5. Do you have any suggestions for making these goals work out? Ryan Scott 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if i will must to choose of all options only number 2 is good. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:89.174.120.180 .

If if you gave current title holders more points to compensate for the difference what about the people who got 5 win streaks in the past? I don't think there is a need to change the point system, 10 wins means something, you can get a lucky run but usually its skill, if you were lucky with your team. Leavers are the big problem now, and deserter penalty should discourage and lessen that problem. By lower the amount of points needed to rewarding 5 or even 1 wins you create a problem similar to aspenwood, leeching. A leecher will be VERY unlikely to get 10 wins as 3 vs 4 is a huge disadvantage. If you reward smaller streaks it becomes more worthwile to leech. 58.110.140.124 10:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Uhh GoGo 3

Yawn* Im a scrub that didnt notice Proposal 3 could have an eventual point earnings cap... if thats the case my friends have convinced me its the best choice, for reasons that could be found in Torp's Post. With that in consideration all of the below is now not worth anyones time to read.--Berserk 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 2 seems to be the best choice to please actual Gladiator title holders while still heightening the excitement for newcommer's. Unlike Proposal 1 it won't be vulnerable to 'Enter Battle' bots (sadly there were quite a few of these in the Dragon Arenas this past weekend) I really like the idea of the Deserter System! Awesome really... more Monkless Glad Pts ftw! Proposal 3 seems tempting but I'm just not feeling it. We've already shortened the march to glory (and yes it going to save gladiators and new competetor's alike alot of nerve racking frustration...somtimes for hours or days at a time) but lets not decrease the value of the dollar... I'm not quite sure how the TA/RA populations are going to change over time... But I just feel that lack of competetion at a partical times of day shouldn't accelerate Title Builders... Usually when you go for 30-50 wins or more you'll be fighting several of the same teams and players multiple times... and if they aren't a rivaled threat looks like you'll either be feeling bored, lucky, or way too arrogant. So YEP my vote goes to Proposal 2! --Berserk 23:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)(IGN Berserk Arts)

Number 2 or 3 for me, but DEFINITELY not #1. My grandma can earn a high level Glad title with that one. --arredondo 22:29, 13 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)

ckjy's above statement got me thinking.. As a Subjugating Gladiator who loves TA I wrote that I would prefer proposal 2 over 3 basically because I didn't like the fact some shameless fools could grindout the kind of TA meta we've seen in the past... capable of polishing off random teams, or even considerabily organized teams, within 50-90seconds, sometimes thoughtlessly... All because they choose to play during slower hours... But in turn, I'm now considering all the future implements of what the Arenas are to become. Comparing Propostal 3 to farming fame makes wonder why TA wouldn't have a bracket system as well, if these guys are in there earning extraordinary amounts of gladiator points per win because of their consecutives... Don't they deserve to be aknowledged as well? An observer mode for some of the highest consecutive teams seems ingriuging but I doubt it would be popular...But what are we to expect to see from 4on4 combat in the future?? Hopefully GWEN is offering us a new arena map or two, and then theres GW2... What a party of 4 could see on an all new battleground..Monster NPCs??..4on4on4on4??.. whatever is to come I cant help but wonder if it will merit an observer mode. To be honest I don't know how the Gladiator title is expected to evolve into guild wars 2, but I heard word that GWI Account Titles will be transferable to GW2 (I hope its true so Hardcore Gamers like me won't feel like their 4,000hours spent on GWI goes uncredited).. someway some how, the question is when do us Hardcore Gamers plan on getting that Legendary Gladiator status?--Berserk 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider that proposal 3 would most likely attract more organized/skilled teams to TA, and the "shameless fools" would have less chance to rake up a bunch of points. Also, an increased population in TA would minimize the "slow hours" option 3 ftw imo --Torp 23:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 4

I'd like to see a combination of proposals 1 and 3 and a suggestion I saw over at GWOnline of not rewarding points for the first match.

  • 1st match gives no points
  • Starting from match 2 Every win gives you 1 point.
  • Players get points for streaks. Players get 5 points for each 5 consecutive wins.
  • Every additional 5 wins gives you a bonus point (plus the original 5 for 5 wins). 10 wins = 6 bonus points, 15 = 7 total points, etc. This would be capped at 10 for every 5 win streak to keep it from getting out of control.
  • Multiply current player points by 30.
  • Multiply each rank by 20

So, 10 wins would get you 20 points:

Proposal 4: Progression Table

Wins Points Awarded Bonus Points
1 0
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1 +5
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1 +6

Players who can sustain longer win streaks, continue to get the 1 point per win, but also get greater gains for their efforts: (numbers listed here are total cumulative points gained at this number of wins)

Proposal 4: Cumulative Points Progression Table

Wins Total Cumulative Points Win Streak Bonus
1 0 0
5 9 +5
10 20 +6
15 32 +7
20 45 +8
25 59 +9
30 74 +10


After 30 consecs, the bonus points would be capped at +10


I like the idea of removing the first game from the point system, as it encourages players to stick with their team for at least 2 matches, rather than just winning one, and leaving, winning 1 and leaving etc. Hopefully by the end of match 2, they'll be willing to try and stick it out untill match 5. Then match 10 etc. Greyf0x 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that this seems like the best idea so far, and much better that the "official" proposals. It not only prevents leechers, but also will make people want to stick around for longer runs if you don't get a monk, since it's not uncommon for such a team to get at least 5 wins. --Supertrek32 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Fierce Gladiator)
Interesting idea. What do you think of proposals 2 and 3? I feel they solve this problem, since they don't reward points for a single victory, but still allow the no-monk team to get points too. Ryan Scott 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My preferences of the existing 3 proposals are: 3, 1 and 2 in that order. I like the concept of cumulative progression for the win streaks, similar to the way you get progressively more Fame in HA. However, at the same time, I do think that the arenas, especially RA, would benefit from having points rewarded per win as well. With my suggestion, I think both styles would be rewarded. As for no-monk teams winning points, in all honesty, I think that's more of a percieved problem, than an actual one. In my experience, a team of 4 good offensive players stands at least some chance against a team with a monk, simply by sheer killing power. The larger problem as I see it, is the fact the people are unwilling to even try for a win. If a new penalty system is introduced to disuade players from leaving mid fight, that should help, but there's not much to stop them leaving after their first win (I'd hope people aren't penalised for leaving after a win...) to try and find a better team (with a monk perhaps). By making them play for at least 2 games, they've interacted with the team for a bit longer, and are hopefully willing to carry on trying for 5 wins. Greyf0x 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My preferences right now are sitting at 3, 2, and then 1, primarily because I feel 1 cheapens the title a lot for the TA players and turns a more "hardcore" title into something that becomes an over-time title, like fame is now. I'd like to maintain some of the challenge in the title to more of a success rate as opposed to a gradual curve over games played. Great feedback though, keep it coming :D Ryan Scott 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of points per win, however not for the first couple. Make it so a team has to win say 3 before they start to earn. Then from 4 to 10 they earn a point per win, and then from 10 to 20 they earn 2 per win etc. You see where i'm going. This will eliminate the one single most annoying factor of the gladiator title and that is the "So close! 9 wins! all for nothing!" that can happen. Making the first 3 wins not count would make it so the points had to be earnt not grinded, but it would reward per victory which is better for the player. --ChronicinabilitY 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I really like best this hybrid idea, proposal 4, because it addresses most issues. It forces ppl to stand for at least 2 games in order to get a point reward, it gives high enough incentives at 5 and 10 consecutive wins in order to motivate teams to move forward and it probably makes more sense to go for more consecutive wins rather than grind for just a small number of wins with a small number of points but maybe faster time. --Krothal
Proposal 1 was the first idea, but the TA community was extremely concerned that this could cheapen the title, and I think they have a point there. Proposals 2 and 3 are designed to lessen that aspect and retain the skill-based nature of the title, while still easing it up and making progress more fluid. I'm not saying Proposal 1 is out, but I want to let it be known we have two player bases involved here, so I think it's important to examine the impact on both. Ryan Scott 08:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think this only benefits ta players capable of doing 11+ win streaks, without that it is the same as proposal 1. Do designers want the high tiers be reserved for ta only? Coran Ironclaw 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My preferences are 4, 2, 1, 3. I think 3 is not a solution about leavers.

I see the point, giving points for each win really cheapens the title. but it also is great for people who only play from time to time. you can fix that by making the gap between 1 win and winning streak bigger. just multiply the streak-based score with 5 and give only 1 point for each single win, 2 for flawless. With that every win is rewardet, but to get beyond the first title you need streaks or you´ll play a long long time. With other words: for people having the title, most points come still from streaks, but even single wins are rewarded a bit. I think that would please both sides. Sir Astaroth 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The only ones i like are 4 and 1 ,in that order not the 5 wins ones cause most teams can't make it that far.

[edit] A slight problem with the increases....

I've noticed a problem with the way the amount of player points and the rank requirement are being multiplied. I'll use Proposal 1 as an example, though this applies to all proposals:

Lets say right now, you have 25 points, which is EXACTLY Rank 1.

Your points are multiplied by 30: 25 * 30 = 750 And the Rank 1 requirement is multiplied by 20: 25 * 20 = 500

You see the problem? It leaves you with more progress towards the next title than you'd have now.

Multiply BOTH the Rank Requirement AND the Player Points by the SAME number, so a person's percentage of progress doesn't change, only the numbers change.

That way, your points would be 750, AND the rank requirement would be 750. No change for the people who have the title.

What do you guys make of this? Sora267 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes into consideration the individual matches you would have one on the way to get there -elviondale (tahlk) 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's actually the idea. In any of these examples, it is harder to the Gladiator title under the current system than it will be under the new one. To compensate, we're giving current players a boost to reward their "harder earned" points. How many 9-streaks have current players been unrewarded for? :) Ryan Scott 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I get it now. My friend and I were sorta unclear on that. Thanks! Sora267 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One other major RA problem needs fixing

PLEASE make a truly random routine for putting teams mates together in RA. There are players who time their entry into RA so they end up on the same team with their well co-ordinated setups. All of these other changes you posted just allows these guys to cheat for Glad points even faster than before. Can anything be done about this at the same time these other ideas are implemented? Thanks! --arredondo 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good point, and I hope you'll consider this in the implementation of the new RA game mechanics. Too often players go to a international district with a team of 3 or 4 and are able to join a RA match. Having the randomness factor implemented in a proper way should be considered. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I really agree with this - people have been sync joining to give themselves an advantage since GW was released. Here's another thought, any system where the timer is visible to the player lends itself to sync joining. If you're not on the same timer you just cancel and restart until you're both on the same countdown. I don't know what to do about that, but that's how people game the system. --Tankity Tank 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you do when for example 4 monks end up together? Leaving will be punished, not doing anything (leeching) will be punished and with 4 (half) decent monks there is no way they would die. They just have to hold out for 15 minutes when the time limit kicks in?88.159.130.14 23:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Berry Hoodlum

IMO, if the entire team /resigns then don't punish them - but don't reward the other team with a win either. --Tankity Tank 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
There is always a noob who doesn't resign... --YukoIshii 11:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Ryan can you confirm that RA is truely random? It's not to do with syncro teams but the fact that the game seems to have a preference to who gets certain teammates and who doesn't. This may just be me whining, but only when i play monk do I get 2 or 3 other monks on my team all while a friend of mine (who is not playing monk) gets none (at roughly the same time). It seems to me that say the more points you have made as say an Assassin the less likely you are to get a monk at the same time, again I could be wrong and seeing a conspiracy where there is none... -Crazy
Yep, it's truly random. Rolling a dice 100 times, and getting a 1 60 of those is still random -- just bad luck :) Ryan Scott 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Touch leavers, no Title!

If u chose 1st option, i want 100 fame for killing zaishen's in HA. Better make VOTE system (3-4 reported leave's means ban for pvp for 24 hours) for leavers than touching Gladiator title... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.205.54.144 .

Without a title adjustment, we're essentially punishing players for maximizing their points, which is counter-productive. Leavers and leechers are a big problem in RA, AB and FA (to varying degrees). If we leave the title alone, we really can't fix leavers. If you have an issue with the Gladiator numbers or proposals, please provide some explanation as what you don't like, why you don't like it, and what you'd like to see instead. Ryan Scott 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 3, thumbs up. Proposal 1 & 2, thumbs down.

Proposal 1 lends itself to title farming (grind a lot of RA and track up faster than TA players). Proposal 2 doesn't reward streaks as much and would slow point acquisition by good teams, it also feels just grind friendly enough that I think you'll have title grinders farming international RA rather than building TA teams. Proposal 3 seems closest to the current system while also rewarding long streaks (ie: a well built/highly skilled team).

It seems like prop2 & prop3 reward skilled players more while prop1 rewards grinding more than skill. Honestly, I'd still be happy with 2 (it's better than the current system IMO) but I'd much prefer 3 and I'd go with 3 given the choice. --Tankity Tank 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Option 1, but remove teams from RA.

Option 1 I think is head and shoulders above the rest.

But I do think its a mistake that you get stuck in a team in RA. RA is all about random, why should you stay with the same team. Make it about individual achievement, and randomise the team after every match.

That way if you get 5 in a row, its cos of you. Not because you kept raging till you found a team you like. Sadie2k 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing! If they did that, then the Gladiator title should be reset and apply ONLY to RA play. Give TA another title to work towards. --arredondo 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
One thing we're not doing (for a number of reasons) is seperating the Gladiator title. If we did, this would be easy -- proposal 1 with anti-grief would be the way to go. However, we're working to find a solution that works for both RA and TA. Ryan Scott 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the random team thing, this way it's more "Random", Team Arena's would be no problem because every team makes a balanced sort team, although i think after 10 cons. wins you shouldn't zone to Team but stay in Random that way it stays fair, then option 1 is fun and fair. Tomoko 10:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, this can be done (the random every battle) without a need to separate the title or star over. If you can get the proper data you can get the measure total effort of obtaining points for every rank in ta, that evaluated you can get a proposal for ra that equals the quantities. I dont have time now to explain better. I will be back later. Coran Ironclaw 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting?

Should we create a voting page for the 3 proposals or do you just want verbal feedback? Of course a voting page would only represent the opinion of the GGW Wiki Community but it could still be a valuable source of feedback. --Primeval 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think game design is a democracy ^_~. This seems more like brainstorming to me. --Tankity Tank 01:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was I'm just interested in the general opinion of the GWW Community instead a couple of people who left some ideas about changing the proposals --Primeval 01:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
A vote doesn't say the same thing that a constructive post does. A vote says yes/no/maybeso while short opinion pieces state both preference and the reasons behind it. I'm not bashing the idea, it just doesn't seem that helpful compared to what's already happening. Let it go for a while and let the designer call a vote if that's what he wants. --Tankity Tank 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting a lot of use out of the open discussion format -- I don't find a lot of value in polls, as numbers are skewed to a small portion of the playerbase. Ryan Scott 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Option #1, with changes, reasoning, and math!

First, changes:

a) Make the first match of an RA attempt not count towards the title

b) Increase the existing point conversion from 30 to 45

c) TA wins give 2 points for a single match win instead of 1.

Next, reasoning:

a) To discourage leechers and prevent the title from being easy-ish to farm with simply re-joining and hoping you get lucky. It's the easiest solution and requires no moderation.

b) See the math.

c) While I don't play in TA, I know there are tons of folks who do and would like a little extra reward for it. A little, but not too much. While TA is definitely more organized, there is something to be said about "thinking on your feet" and coming out victorious that can only happen in RA.

Last, Math!

I currently have 68 glad points, and earned every one of them. By the new system, one Glad Point is proven worth 10 wins + 2 five-win streaks. That's 20 points, and they are giving 30.

Let's say one person who plays well, and always wins 80% of the time.

Let's say he presses "Enter Match" 100 times. In each round, he'll win a set amount that will go onto the next round, and lose a set amount that gets discarded.

Number of wins/losses at that round level:

(1) 80.0 / 20.0 (2) 64.0 / 16.0 (3) 51.2 / 12.8 (4) 41.0 / 10.2 (5) 32.8 / 8.2 (6) 26.2 / 6.6 (7) 21.0 / 5.2 (8) 16.8 / 4.2 (9) 13.4 / 3.4 (10) 10.7 / 2.7

So, for his 100 attempts, he got a grad total of 10.7 Gladiator points, which we'll round up to 11. In total, he played 446.4 matches... 357.1 wins, and the rest losses. For reference, at 5 minutes a match (a conservative estimate), that's about 37 hours of time invested.

By the old system, he got just under 11 points. By system #1, he would have earned:

357.1 + (5)x(32.8) + (5)x(10.7) = 574.6 points

This means that, for people who win 80% of the time, the conversion rate would be about 10.7:574.6, or 1:54.

And if you win less than 80% of the time, that number goes up. Way up. If the first round of an RA attempt doesn't give any points, then 45 is about the equivalent number to use. The conversion will only happen once, and this new title will be around forever.--Skye Marin 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This will take me more than the time I have right this second to analyze and digest all this, thanks for the feedback, I'll get back on this. Ryan Scott 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start interval

Proposal 1 is going to kill the place. First it will be flooded with grinders, then when the value of the title sank below lightbringer, nobody will bother going there. The other two are relatively ok, but their efficiency against leavers is questionable.

  • Idea: why don't you increase start interval time from 30s to 2-3mins? No point leaving when you cant start a new run and leavers will pay dearly with their time if they want a balanced team (or even better: increase start interval only for ppl waiting to enter in districts and keep it 30s for the winners). (EDIT: the heading above the proposals are different on your talk page and on your user page, so I did not notice that you are planning a "deserter" system that targets directly the leavers with the time penalty. Great.--Brainless Thought 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
  • Another (small) idea: giving some value to Balthazar faction may also help keeping players in their team (currently it is useless after UAX).--Brainless Thought 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
IF they give some value to balty points, i want back my like 1 million points i couldn't store nor spend. --YukoIshii 11:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would gladly sacrifice my own lost 1 million if I could use the next one million... --Brainless Thought 04:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] opinion

I am so glad to see a discussion on this.

- Leavers: if a player leaves a RA battle prematurely due to anything other than a victory, loss, or resignation, that player has a 2 minute "penalty" before being able to re-enter RA. Not too harsh of a penatly, but enough to discourage perfect-team hunters, or at least slow them down to a pace comparable to the honest random players.

- Leechers: anyone who does not move an inch (regardless of skill usage) for an entire battle, is removed from the team without a victory and sent back to the lobby. It's still fair even to unfortunate slow loaders, since they still did not earn that victory.

- Changing titles: there needs to be some sort of minor bonus for TA play. My guildmates never bother because their chances are just as good by going at it in RA.

Prop 3 looks good to me. It caters more to the interests of TA players looking to be rewarded more for longer streaks. Whereas prop 1 seems to deal solely with the issue of leavers, and 2 I don't really see the validity of.

I'd like to see 3 with a slight difference though. If the reward increment was given at every 10 wins, instead of every 5, it would require a bit more effort that i think should be there.

5 wins = 1 point 10 wins = 2 15 wins = 2 20 wins = 3 25 wins = 3

etc.. My suggestion would be to have the reward cap at 40 wins, making each additional 5 wins past 40 be worth 5 points each.

10 and even 20 win streaks are too often the result of no competition, or making use of a simple farming build that's strong in the meta at the time without anyone getting a good chance to retaliate with a counter build or different tactics. During the length of a 40 win streak, there's almost always strong competition somewhere in the mix that takes solid play and coordination to overcome. The extra points at that point are much better earned, in my opinion. As far as the leaver situation goes in RA.. The people looking to be rewarded might have more motivation to seek out the greater reward potential in TA, and RA will revert more back to the casual practice area that it should be.

Also, I'd like to thank you for you efforts in this, no matter what the outcome. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.252.134.10 .

[edit] Leech fix that would not only be handy in RA or PVP alone

A very easy way to fix leeching not only in RA but everywhere would be a /votekick system. Give everyone in the group the option to start such a /votekick [name] and if everyone but [name] himself votekicks him to, remove the player from the group. This would kill leechers both in PVP and PVE. 134.130.183.235 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Big problem with that is /votekick Joe Bob Joe pm to Joe Bob Joe, haha noob, I just kicked you from my party now you can restart 'X' mission from the start!66.227.230.154 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It screams for an opportunity in griefing, and has obvious flaws. What if there are two leechers? The best solution is to deny rewarding abusive behaviour, like leeching and quitting. Simply not giving points for winning the first match in RA would go a long way at both conserving the title and preventing quitters and leechers. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Skye Marin .

Two problems there; you never see two leechers in one group (it's... extremely rare) and RA already doesn't give rewards until you win 10 consec. AB gives much better rewards for leeching one round (one battle), but a leecher in RA will cause the team to lose somewhere along the line. -Auron 06:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaver Penalty

None of the 3 Proposals really hurts leavers, Number 1 is just the best to get all others not completely pissed off. Here one thing i would do:

  • Add an "Leave" button to RA Matches wich allows to regularly leave the match at the next good moment (This is most likely the end of the current match when a new player can be assigned to the group).
  • Reconnecting should always work (even if you are just kicked off after you reconnect), reconnecting makes a connection-loss not count as irregular leaving (Everyone may have a problem with his pc sometimes, reconnecting shows the will to stay).
  • All Accounts get an counter of wins wich is not resetted by losses, only irregular leaving a match resets the counter.
  • Multiply all points by (Counter/5)rounded up with a cap of 5.
  • Use the scores from Proposal 1
  • give 1 extra score for "flawless" victorys

What should that do? You need to have 25 wins to have your counter at maximum, then its all the same as Proposal 1, only the numbers are 5 times bigger. It just really hurts if you irregularly leave matches as the counter is reset, then you only score 1 point where all others score 5, making it a really bad strategey to leave matches in any other way then loosing or clicking the regular "leave" button. "Everlasting Matches" with overheal on both sides can be left regularly by using /resign wich causes a regular loss. Leeching to fill this counter does not really help, as it takes much too long if one irregular leave resets it. Leeching Points also isnt really going to work, as team with one afk are likely to loose. If an leecher-Problem comes up, remove the score from the first match or add /votekick to RandomArenas. Its also an nice idea to reward flawless victorys, that doubles your base score rewarding active players. Sir Astaroth 09:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just changing the title won't work for leavers. If there is no monk or the team mate warrior is use mending for example, people tends to leave, it's a fact. They think there is no chance to win even a single match. I suggest a "Leaver Penalty" wich "Increase leaver enter battle counter by 30 seconds" every time they leave, a message can say "your penalty expires in: (count down)". This will not affect casual leavers but it will for serial leavers that are looking for the "right" party. It maybe add more balance into RA games being the parties really random. This along with proposal 1 (just dont add points for the first battle but add it later maybe at the second win, this will avoid leechers). The "leave party after the match button" as suggested above is also fine but I may add it later after monitoring the situation. --Alex Silverfox 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there has to be a penalty for such leavers. Why? Let's see. By my guess, those morons don't even go for glad. points, and therefor all of the proposed solutions would be completely irrelevant! Those "noobs" rather go for batha. points, as they cannot really hope to achive a single glad point in their low level of game knowledge. That's why I think that there must be more than a new title system. Furthermore I personally don't think adding 30secs to the counddown would help enough. Is there any reason I don't see why you don't give them a 10 minute ban from PvP or something like that? That ban would trigger upon leaving a game while it is not over or while the gametimer has not yet hit 1 minute (not including pre-game countdown). I really don't see a reason why you did not add this 2 years ago. --Ineluki 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all experienced players do "party jumping" until they find what they like. This is the first cause of party leaving. By leaving a party 'cause of disconnection or any other reason 10 min pvp ban is too much. Adding 30 seconds to countdown for every abnormal leave is the way to go. If it was by accident, you've got 30 seconds more, not that much and it's not really a problem instead if you jump let's say, for example, 4 parties, you've to wait 2 minutes before the normal "Time until the mission starts" countdown(or even to be let to press the enter the battle button). If it's not 30 seconds, maybe also 1 minute penalty. This penalty should expire after one hour from when they left, if it's not programmable this way in terms of costs, then also increasing the penalty to 2 minutes for every single leave is doable. Going too high would kill random arenas. That's why this change has to go along with one of the proposal of changing this title: in average random parties doesnt last for long, having not the option to choose either will repopulate Team Arenas or will make people flee. --Alex Silverfox 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You're able to leave a game safely after the game is over -- all we're punishing for is leaving before the game is over. If you have the occasional disconnect/kick the cord out/etc, we're not going to account for that. Ryan Scott 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see an actual penalty for leavers AS WELL as the cool down timer. In arenas in Factions, lots of people leave the arena and switch to another one, or don't mind a 30 second cool down - in Fort Aspenwood and AB you will probably be waiting 30 second anyway. A 500 faction penatly doesn't sound horrible to me but it probably does to other people. The point is there needs to be discouragement for people from leaving and it needs to be strong. I guess we will know more about how well the coming methods work when they arrive. 58.110.139.72 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

Proposal 1 looks good on paper and indeed it would remedy people leaving during the battle, but it makes the title track too easy to complete and turns the title into something that doesn't require as much skill to gain in it.

Proposal 2 is a better balance and may very well reduce the amount of leavers. Obviously it wouldn't completely stop them, but it is certainly more appealing to stay for 5 rounds then (very roughly) 30 minutes to make it to 10. - Spinner Sun.

Proposal 2 would be the best and better at stopping leavers if there was a bigger reward at 10 wins like 4/5 points.(Marsc 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Another two cents worth...

There are several problems with the Random Areas with the biggest causes being the fact that they are not entirely random and that a serious amount of effort is required to achieve any headway on the title track. People keep leaving until they ¨randomly¨ find a good team or rather they just try to sync join in the first place. Some things I have read seem to suggest that people think the changes to the title track are the method to stop leavers but the way I read this thread, the plan is to address this problem by punishing people for leaving and as a result the way the track works would benefit from being changed.

I like ¨minimising leavers¨ as an idea and I also liked the suggestion above that the team is randomised at each match. If both are combined then there will be no point in leaving to find a better team and a sync join will be only relevant for one match. Also, you won't need to get kicked over to Team Arenas after winning significantly.

I think that Proposal 1 is excellent in that it makes Random Arenas more attractive in a number of ways. It means that it would not take as long to get started and would not require so much time to be dedicated to attempts to achieve at least some advancement on the track (whilst still requiring that same time and effort in order to obtain a high rank) We have had many instances of people being unavailable to assist other Guild members or delaying Guild events because they ¨have got to six wins and look like we might get to ten¨. If you achieved something for every win then more people would be inclined to participate on a less intense basis and would dip in and out if they have a few minutes spare.

Also, if you get commander points for every win in hero battles why shouldn't you get gladiator points for every win in Random Arenas?

One other option I liked from earlier in the thread is that the points for longer winning streaks can be increased (like in HA I suppose) and therefore the higher levels in the track could require more points to achieve. This would seem to cater to both sides in that in order to gain the higher levels in a sensible time frame you would need to keep winning lots (as you currently need to do to get anywhere) but those that wanted to dip in and out (or could not spare the amount of time in one sitting which is currently required) would also see a tangible benefit (other than fun of course). It would also more generously reward those capable (or sufficiently inclined/dedicated) to achieve a 70+ winning streak.

Blitz

[edit] thanks anet

the increased attention and in the gladiator title is killing ta hounds. as people are forming guilds to literally run around on ta maps. with arcane echo/mimicry/shadowform sins, 4 evasive rangers, or 4 highly armored warriors. 30+ minute matches are glorious. the gladiator title is prestigious and glorious we know. but dont make it easier, and you know it is making it easier.

10 in a row streaks require a group's build in ta to be fast and efficient. 5 minute matches would but a glad point at 1 hour including the time to find an opponent after each match. so its ideal to be as efficient as possible and put matches at 1-2 minutes. to factor in losses in streaks and lagging out and unable to find your requested match stuff. making any win worth something in the gladiator title track would only make things a defensive battle. not one with fun and edgy build designs that arn't about wasting 15 minutes in a match with aegis chains, wards, and spirits.

keep the glad title as it, and create a sister title. one that can be achieved in ta and ra, but uses the proposals above. as 1 point per 10 win streak and 10 points for 10 wins in which you can win individually are not the same. it is true that the people that have the talent for ta will progress faster and farther. but the gladiator title wasn't created to be progressed by anyone right? just like the survivor title and the defender of ascalon? one shot or no shot deals? i dont understand the change of heart in this. especially with all the problems in pvp already. get ready for the 2 restoration paragons, bonder, and spirit spammer to wait teams out for 30+ minutes for 1 point... proposed names for sister title:

(pugio-latin for dagger. gladiator is latin for sword)
pugio
Fierce pugio
Mighty pugio
Deadly pugio
Terrifying pugio
Conquering pugio
Subjugating pugio
Vanquishing pugio
King's pugio
Emperor's pugio
Balthazar's pugio
Legendary pugio

(Lives of the Twelve Caesars)
1st caesar
2nd caesar
3rd caesar
4th caesar
5th caesar
6th caesar
7th caesar
8th caesar
9th caesar
10th caesar
11th caesar
12th caesar

(gladiator through school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#Training )
novicius
sacramentum
paloi
ludus matutinus
ludus gallicus
ludus dacus
ludus magnus
auctoramentum
collegia
lanista
Doctores

TA takes more talent and being nice to fellow human being. while RA is kind of cut throat emotional pain. the pain trying to figure out why people think there is a better 8th skill than a resurrection signet, or why res when your the only one left with 10hp, etc, etc.

if the two titles were split it would clearly show the difference in difficulty in the 10 sin streak = 1 point compared to 1/10 of an original point per win regardless of streak. if anet is willing to lower their standards on this. i would like to see a chapter of a book of secrets given out per quest in elona in which 10 = one book. same with the amulet of the mists. maybe partial gems for the quests inside the doa since pug groups dont always succeed. partial points when people dont completely cap a shrine in alliance battles?Penguincontact

Interesting proposal, but we're not looking at separating or dividing the Gladiator title right now. Instead, the idea is to find a single title ranking system that maintains a skill-based feel of it now, while allowing some more access to it for casual players. Essentially, having this title should be easy -- getting it high should be hard. Ryan Scott 20:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
since you clarified the intent it makes sense. I was under the impression that anet was just trying to make it easier and keep people interested until gw2. but easy access, but hard to get 7+ makes more sense. with all my contacts within the core TA community says everyone is dreading this. we will take advantage obviously of the bonuses. but i think even the glad(1) title is way more prestigious and skillful than almost any other pvp title except the champion title. i see a rank 10 hero and i think, i bet he has a cool emote. i see a rank 5+ glad and i think he must be nasty at whatever class he plays. thanks for the timely replyPenguincontact
it may be important to consider talking with people from [wins] and [STEP] since they are the old remnants of [jzta]. [jzta] is the guild that build ta into what it is now. obviously mutiplying the current glads by 1 more than the projected title rank multiplication is a start.Penguincontact
Do you feel the prestige is maintained if only the elite TA players have high Glad titles, and casual players have the title, but a low level? Ryan Scott 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
absolutely not. the prestige is in the fact of the talent needed to even start the grind of glad streaks. its not something you can luck into 25 times to even get the 1st title rank. everyone who is chin deep into this ta stuff took all the punishment of ra and learned their way to success. with basically fractional points per win there would be no need to learn. people will stay in their arrogant and defensive ways in ra and ta. thus drawing the same crowd that leaches in AB battles and fort aspenwood. this same crowd wants things handed to them as such as every generation seems to inherit more of this trait. i understand what you're trying to do. but once again the only way to keep the gladiator title the most prestigious title besides champion title is to leave it the way it is. i've always seen the gladiator title as the more accessible champion title, as you don't need to have a guild with high rating and be able to beat highly ranked guilds which are al smurfs of like iQ anyways. every loss in ta/ra teaches us something, and still people don't want to bring reses and refuse to not bring healing hands or mending. making stupidity, rudeness, and arrogance rewardable would not be in the best interest of the game. loot scaling thinned out the pve crowd, and glad dilution would thin out what is left of the pvp people who arn't in the exclusive gvg circuit. especially now since HA players are siphoning over to TA.
FOr the people who have played TA ever since the title came out, these proposals will destory over an years worth of work. isn't it the same reason why anet won't lower the treasure hunter and wisdom titles? let everyone put survivor streaks together, and everytime you die you restart? why dilute the only title people can actually obtain with dedication and effort and be proud of?Penguincontact 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I do have to kind of agree here. I'm not a TA player (i have 19 glad's) but i have a friend who is and believe he is Glad5 atm. His title actually means something, he has never HA'd seriously as far as i'm aware and doesn't have hero ranks to show, but his glad rank does show this. The reason being the title itself IS respected. If it becomes easy to access (and therefore get points) There is nothing to show a difference from a R5 who got there with 30 game streaks, or one that got there grinding 5 game streaks. The title as a whole would be seen as grindable and people wouldn't respect it. --ChronicinabilitY 05:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If anet is serious about accessability to the glad title, and want to make it a marketing point for the next 6 months then fine. everyone knows its not about access to the title. its about getting people interested long term until gw2. in the meantime make other titles more accessable. People don't want to HA for 4 years on select l33t teams to get high in that title either.
Everyone in the TA community is more concerned about the increase in Griefers in TA. People that just join with complete guild groups to run and evade the other team until they quit for 30+ minutes.
Augury of Death(taking long enough to nerf), Dancing Daggers(taking long enough to nerf), Ride the Lightning(thanks HA people for exploiting TA with this), Painful Bond(promotes camping), aura of displacement(Griefer), shadow form(Griefer), arcane mimicry(Griefer), death charge(Griefer).Penguincontact 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like no more responses from Ryan means that anet has settled on an idea, and are working to code it. wonder which path they took.Penguincontact 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case is a little sad. There is still plenty to do, excellent ideas keep coming. And i have not finished my article yet. Coran Ironclaw 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Share out the monks better

People don't leave because they're looking for a "perfect" team, they leave for one of two reasons: no monk; or 2-3 of them and no damage. I think the system should attempt to share monks out more evenly between teams. It wouldn't solve the leavers issue altogether, but could cut it down a lot. It would also promote more interesting and competitive play, and serve as a better introduction to PvP as a whole. Errr 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While it does kind of defeat the purpose of having the arena called "Random" arena, I actually think it would be a good idea. Shendaar 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If a Monk's influence on the battlefield didn't, on average, have a MUCH greater impact than all the other classes then we wouldn't have the current problem. No one quits because they don't have a Necro on the team. We may have to wait until GW2 for better impact balance a class has on the field than the others - tht's if Arena.net recognizes and is determined to fix this problem. --arredondo 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I know quite a few monks who leave if they don't have a balanced team, and a curse necro is extremely useful. So distributing monks will not necessarily solve the problem. --Brainless Thought 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Beware, however, that having a monk primary does not prevent the player from having a different and unusual monk build that does not include healing. Part of the RA experience is trying things out, and restrictions based on class alone could force each class to play this game in a given way, which is probably not the Developers' intent. Economist 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that of now the engine lists resto ritus as healers as much as monks. However, stupid people don't see that and leave either way! --Ineluki 09:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages

Hello Ryan, do you know that you can also create subpages in your namespace? Especially for the gladiator title discussion, it can be beneficial to create a subpage for that at User:Ryan Scott/Gladiator Title changes and it's discussion page User_talk:Ryan Scott/Gladiator Title changes. A good example of using subpages is Izzy's talk page with various subpages for different topics. For general questions, people can then use your 'main' talk page (this one) and for specific topics you could create subpages. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 13:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I'll try to set this up when (if?) I get a free moment. Ryan Scott 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My point of View

Heres is what i think about the current system:

The system should be updated, no matter what option is the best;

The leavers should be punished, for leaving the game, i give an example -1 point for leaving the game during the battle or before start, not after finish the battle ( players may need to leave :P )

Afk'ers, also should be punished, because if the system is going to be updated to one the options, i think that the numbers of afk'ers will increase. People, that was leavers, dont want to be punished to leave the game if they dont like the team, so they only have 2 options, or fight with the team or simple afk and die quickly, this peolple should be punished

One of the most important things to do is to update the system of choosing the teams, example: sometimes in a battle is not fair, my team not have a monk, and the opposite team with 2 monks or 3, this means that every random team need a monk, to be fair.

Other think that should be keep it in mind is that, if a team have 5 consecutive wins they could be play against a TA team,that is not unffair, but sometimes, at 1st or 2nd game we are fighting against a TA team, ohh man that is completly unffair.


Now about the possible options:

Here i give my example about the current system, and the possible update system.

Actually, my account have 16 points, so i need 9 more points to get the 1st tittle, this means that i need to win 9 groups of 10 victories in a row to achieve the tilte, so "90 more victorys" to get it.

Option n. 1:

If this options was the one to be implemented my 16 point will be multiplied for 30, that will be 480 points, this means that i need 20 more points, so i need 10 more victorys in a row to achive the 1st title (5+5)+(5+5)=20, much more easier than the current system, because actually i only get 1 point for 10 victorys.


Option n.2:

so, with my actual 16 points, i get 64 points, i need 11 more points to get the first tittle, to get that points if i only do 5 consecutive wins, i need 55 more victorys to get the 1st title, but if i get 10 consecutive wins each time i play, for every 10 consecutive wins i get 3 points, so i only need 40 more victorys, harder than the 1st options.

Option n.3:

if this was the winning option i will get 80 points, to get that 20 points i need to, if i only get 5 consecutive wins, i need to win 100 more time in RA to get the 1st title, but if i do 10 consecutive wins i get 3 points, i need +/- 65 victorys,

Final statement

i like the first option, because atm im a ocasional player, i only do PvP(GvG or RA) in gw, i dont have much time to play, and RA always belong to people that are doing is first steps in pvp, or for occasional players, not to people who play 5 or more hours a day, for that people there are other things better than RA, so if this is for peoaple who are doing is first steps in pvp, i think would br gratefull to have a pvp title easy to get, something that i could get without staying hours in front of computer, And that's it, this is only my opinion about current state of RA and possible updates.(Supermax / talk)

[edit] And what about monks? By Lvsitani

Hi... In my point of view the main problem is the lack of monks and some times the excess of them...I think the most easy way to settle this (i think) is to some how Anet slove the problem putting 1 monk per team... normaly when i play has monk 80% of the time i have 1 or 2 more in the team... when i play has other char, maybe 2 out of 10 times i get a monk on the team... I think the main problem is that... you want to reduce leavers, random the teams better... and you have no leavers... then just blaim the monk if the thing goes wrong xD ...

[edit] Skilled Players vs. Dedicated Players

If the Gladiator title is to be given any importance at all following the proposed changes, I believe that a distinction must be made if it is supposed to be a Skill Title or a Dedication Title.

As it stands now, it is very much possible for a casual player that plays twice a week for, say, 3 hours a pop, to get more Glads than a kid that plays over 8 hours a day, simply because such kid lacks the stamina necessary for 10 win streaks.

That is because to win 10 times in a row means that you are able to consistently beat teams of more or less skilled players, while coming across 5 weak teams in RA and getting a glad point without any real challenge is a real common event. By playing 10 matches in a row you are far more likely to meet an opposing player which has a counter to (at least some part of) your build and dealing with those sticky situations is what being a Gladiator is all about.

If you reduce the win count required for a Glad from 10 to 5, you will not have 2x more points gained by the overall population, you will have like 100x more points gained. By allowing such a thing you are encouraging less balanced builds which unlikely to be solid in the long run but that can just pull off a 5-winner (as long as there is no enchantment removal on the other team!)

It is my opinion that if points are to be distributed to smaller streaks and this is to remain a Skill Title then the bonus points awarded to large streaks need to be extremely high compared to smaller streaks. You can be a Cartographer if you really want it, but not everyone is supposed to be a Gladiator - it should not be a grind, but a challenge.Economist 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the conundrum -- we want to maintain Gladiator as a skill title, but we want to make it more accessible also. My thought is you make the "slow gain" easy...5-win streaks isn't asking much, and give the lion's share of the goodies at streaks 10 and beyond. This way, high-skill teams can rake it in, while low-skill teams and players can pick away at it. I do want the title to be easier -- I don't want to devalue it in the process. Ryan Scott 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to discriminate players as far as gaining points is concerned? If a Gladiator Level 0 were to accrue one point every 1 win, a Gladiator Level 1 were to accrue one point every 2 consecutive wins,..., a Gladiator Level 9 were to accrue one point every 10 consecutive wins and so on then the players starting out would have an easier time, while keeping a sensible degree of challenge for the higher levels. Economist 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting approach. I'll toss that around and see if any ideas spark as a result. Ryan Scott 23:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Consider making the title progression linear if you're gonna pass that around. :) (Terra Xin 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
I don't think there would be an issue with balanced builds considering it is RA. Archangel Avoca 20:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Same title for TA and RA - this has been stressed throughout the discussion. I have personally had consistent 7 win streaks with a team of invincieles in TA. Should I get a Glad for that? I think not, because this build is not sustainable in the long run (one Gaze of Contempt and bye bye). Economist 12:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My ideas

Teams on RA should be as balanced as possible. Not balanced teams are the main reasons why players leave the game. Teams with no healer, or 3 healers have no chance to win (or to complete rounds quickly).

I have a few ideas how to improve Random Arena chosing player system:

  1. Number of characters of the same profession in a team should be limited.
  2. Introducing a more advanced filter based on a main attribute would be an interesting option(i dont mean primmary attribute) e.g. no more than one Monks whose main skills are Protection Prayings.
  3. Cap based on chosen elite skills (no more than 1 Shadow Prison assa, no more than 1 Zealous Benediction monk)
  4. Cap based on character duties e.g. no more than 2 meele fighers (character with 3 or more meele attacks counts as a meele fighter), no more than 2 healers, spirit spammers, etc.

Beginners would benefit from these changes too as they would learn how to construct proper teams and what are the differences between PvP and PvE teams. On the other hand balanced teams are more likely to win their battles on Team Arena.


About Gladiator Title changes

Proposal 1 will make that title worthless. Proposal 2 and 3 seems more sensible. It would not make this title easy to achive but progress in gaining this title will be easier to be noticed. From Proposal 3 will especially benefit experienced players who need lots of points but can win a lot of battles as well.

There is one more thing.

To help beginners, they should not meet more experienced players in their first battles. I mean in first battle they should fight against another 'first battle team' (if possible), in battle 2-5 they shouldn't meet teams which scored more than 5 rounds. On the other hand, that could make players play only first 5 rounds to gain easy point (this can be prevented by incresed bonus at round 10 e.g. 3 (+2) points instead of 2 (+1) - according to proposal 3).

81.102.136.222 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Damra

i believe and hope anet would not try to make things easier just for beginners. te whole point is to get better by playing better competition. not to create favorable matchups so you can lvl up faster in the title...Penguincontact
Quite the contrary -- without new blood into PvP, the hardcore will slowly decline, eventually dying out entirely. This is why most hardcore-only games have a small cult following for a long time, but run out of steam quickly as far as an active, thriving community (Tribes, Tekken and Team Fortress are excellent examples of this). Hardcore-only ideals that span the entirety of the rewards base for a system will eventually strangle out the very community that likes it that way. Like it or not, hardcore players need new blood to continue having opponents. Matchmaking (as we see it within most competitive games) is a great way to allow players to have better games and learn at a reasonable pace, and keeps veteran teams from blasting through opponents who provide no real challenge. This fosters community and also improves competitive play. Ryan Scott 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drek's Dumb Ideas for improving the RA/TA experience

Better Matchmaking Make the RA teams... less random, but not based on the monk class. I've had success running with teams with rits, paragons, eles, etc as healers. I've had success running with teams where every member had self-heals, but no dedicated healer was present. For example, the game could try to give each new team around 10 to 12 healing skills across all bars. (this would also reward players who take less defensive builds, since they'd be more likely to end up with a dedicated healer. That could be good for the gameplay.)

The game could use some quick, dirty matchmaking. Put RA players with high PvP titles on the same team, and face them off against other teams with high PvP titles. This is more fair for newer players (since they'd be more likely to face newer players). It could be a less frustrating more competitive experience for vet players. And it could extend into TA.

Give TA the better reward I think at least a few of the leavers are people trying to spike the entry timer to get on a specific team. Solution might be to make the reward for TA a bit higher, to provide incentive for teams forming in the proper arena.

The Move to TA The move to TA can be frustrating if you've come in with less wins than the rest of your team, esp since most RA teams choose to break up at 10 wins rather than go on to TA. Instead, a player with 10 wins should be reslotted back into the RA's random queue, keeping his streak (and again re-slotted at 20 wins, 30 wins, etc). If an entire team of four has 10 wins, an NPC could appear to allow the players to opt into TA -- if everyone opts in, the team moves to TA, otherwise everyone's reslotted into RA teams.

Replace Droppers, Leavers, Leechers, people who fail to load, people who sac themselves to death If a person drops during the countdown or within 30 seconds of the match, replace him with a hench for the duration of the match. For the new leech system, consider players who kamakaze or sac themselves to death in short order leechers.

Nerf spirit farms in 4 man modes only Spirits make for esp. boring matches in 4v4. A global effect across all 4 player arenas (including HB) punishing large concentrations of summoned creatures could make for more dynamic gameplay.--Drekmonger 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Whom it May Concern...(by Torp)

After looking at all three proposals, punching lots of numbers into my calculator, and using a little bit of logic, I have decided that I am in favor of option 3.

Here's why....


  • Option 3 gives easy access to more inexperienced players by lowering the streak to 5, yet at the same time it rewards the more advanced players who play for streaks of 20 and 30 in TA.


  • Option 1 is too vulnerable to leechers and "invinci tanks" and would devalue the title even with the 5 win bonus points. For example, i walk around today with more than 400 gladiator points under my belt,most people who see my title think wow that guy must be pretty good to win more than 400 streaks of 10, if it was to be changed to option 1 people would be thinking "oh look at that nubby farmer he must leechbot while he sleeps because theres no way he's that good"


  • Option 2 is tempting, but unlike proposal 3, it doesnt give a substantional bonus to players winning in Team arenas. A team arena team wouldnt benefit any more than an RA team until they got to 10, and then they would only get 1 extra point per 5, I don't know about some of the other TAers, but with option 2 i would still spend most of my time in RA dominating less skilled players whilst i farm glad pts.


  • With Option 3 it would allow the truly hardcore TAers like me to extend their titles further, while still allowing less skilled players to pick up a few points here and there, which would be ideal for gaining experience with the 1st few easier tiers of the title. It would also help to keep the more skilled players like me in TA (because of the consecutive bonus) so that there would be less pressure on the newcomers in RA

--Torp 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is where my head's sitting on it as well. Three is my favorite because it allows the hardcore to play hardcore (and be appropriately rewarded for it) while not increasing the barrier to working towards the title slowly. So far, this is the reason I think proposal 3 is the best solution to both issues. :) Ryan Scott 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah some of these points wern't clear untill I was in TA today.. Im pretty much 100% up for Proposal 3 as long as there's an eventual cap applied after so many consecutives. Gogo popularize competetive TA ~_~--Berserk 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
i recommend its capped at 3pts (otherwise things get unreasonable) thanks for seeing it my way berserk =) ~~torp
I've been seeing several suggestions for VoD in RA/TA and have put some careful thought into the idea. As I recollected my memories of past grief builds...a rit spirit grief build (as well as many others) would only benefit from VoD, theyre already high defense would be barely neutrailized whilst their damage putput is increased, only boosting their chances to win. I suggest that an implemented sudden death be implemented at 10:00minutes instead. This would be far more advantageous to the non-grief builds, seeing as they wouldnt have to worry about hard-resses from the grief build --Torp 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 1 mixed with proposal 3

As a player I like proposal 3 the most, but I think #1 would be better for the game overall. RA is really important for the PvP-community, because nearly every PvP-player started there. With #1 maybe more PvE-guys give RA a try, because they go in with the title in mind and possibly discover "Hey, this stuff is fun, I want more of it" and go find a GvG-guild etc.

Could you mix #1 with #3 maybe and add the consecutive boni like in #3? So you get 1 point each win, additional +5 for 5 consecs, +10 for 10 consecs, +15, +20 (capped). This would reward skillful TA-players alot.

Number 1 would fight the cause of the whole problem with gladiator-points in RA, rather then it's symptoms - leavers. Then again, I really don't know what you are planning to do against leechers, because people *will* program bots that follow players and cast something from time to time.


Sorry for my english and thanks for finally trying to fix RA. --Selber 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC), PnH

[edit] Why I Prefer Option 2 Over Option 3

First off, let me just say that I don't think option 1 needs to be considered anymore what-so-ever. As has already been discussed it makes the title far too farmable and cheapens the whole experience.

Moving on, this is why I like option 2: I enjoy TA, but I am also human and don't enjoy sitting there for 40, 50, 60 game runs. Those take hours with little room for breaks in between matches. It just all becomes quite tiresome. What I want to be able to do is stop to take a break at 30 without feeling like I'm wasting the glad point bonus that I've grinded up, and option 2 allows that to happen. Making it to 10 wins and beyond for the double glads is an easy 20 minute task that most TAers can accomplish with regularity, and not something I feel anyone would really mind having to do over again were they to pause their run.

However, that 20 win grind for quadruple glads proposed in option 3 is a longer, more treacherous affair. I think option 3 creates a "shop till you drop" feel for the TA, that once you've reached 20 you'd be a fool to stop because you'd be giving up the quadruple glads you spent 40 minutes attaining. Maybe I'm just too casual, but I don't like that one bit. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Paris .

[edit] A random browser's thoughts

I've played a decent amount of RA and TA (r2 glad), and most of those points have been hard earned. I've had a lot of 8-game and 9-game streaks cut short by a superior team, and that makes the points I do have all the more precious. The current method of obtaining gladiator points should not be altered, as this severely depreciates the hard work that a great many people have put forth to scrape up points.

However, I do agree that a number of the other strategies proposed for reducing leaving in RA and running in both RA and TA should be put in place. The idea of making it less convenient to leave a game and immediately join another (when your original team was a full 4-person team) such as by implementing a set time-out period, could be effective. This still has the loophole of forcing a disconnect (as might be done using the Windows task manager), but it would at least create an inconvenience, motivating players to stay for the remainder of the first match. Alternatively, people that stay for the duration of a match and leave during the interval should still be free to do so. However, I don't think a penalty in terms of faction points (or some such thing) is necessary, as some people genuinely need to leave during a match, and should be able to do that without fear of losing points (only not being able to gain any from the current match).

The time limit on RA and TA games would be effective for deterring runners. 5 minutes is most likely too short, while 30 is clearly too long. I think 10 minutes would be a fair compromise in this regard.

The option of creating a separate title track for individual wins and gladiator points is also viable. As some people have previously mentioned, everyone starts out in RA. It is the nursery of many new builds, and a primer for the rest of the PvP game. For those less experienced, less committed, or who simply don't have the time or desire to earn gladiator points, another title track might be an added incentive to joint the fight. And it doesn't hurt the "prestigious" nature of the gladiator title track. Indeed, if the gladiator title track were devalued (so to speak) by making points easier to earn, I might abandon RA and TA altogether and work on the intact HA title. 74.249.209.199 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add another few note to my previous comments. The team composition in RA does seem to be skewed at times. This is mostly likely due to me noticing when my team has 3 monks, and paying no attention when it doesn't. It's something to look into, but I'm not nearly as concerned about it as the gladiator track. Also, it would be nice if I didn't have to reconnect when a new build for Guild Wars comes out that makes no changes to skills, attributes, or PvP maps. I've had a fair number of good runs interrupted by updates that turned out to have absolutely nothing to do with the PvP aspect of the game. Not sure if that's something that could be fixed, but it would make me, and the people that I've played with during those frustrating interruptions, rather happy. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.249.209.199 .
Ryan mentioned that there is going to be a time limit to stop runners. This probably means that both teams will be kicked out of the arena and I think that this is not entirely fair. In RA it happens occasionally that 3 or even 4 healers are in one team. With the new "deserter" system they may feel obliged to fight even more than before. Obviously, very few RA teams can overpower 4 healers. Similarly in TA it is entirely possible (it happened before) that a team that lost repeatedly against another team gets upset and brings 4 mimicry assassins not to win but to break the run of the team who beat them so many times. In order to avoid these situations the following rules could be implemented:
  • the team with higher party moral wins after 10mins
  • +100% damage after 10mins--Brainless Thought 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Getting the point: Fixing leechers

While this should fix the mess in RA, realize that this is going to make the leecher problem worse AGAIN in some zones by further preventing players from bailing out of games without a full team to get a real one.

Leechers need to be fixed, and the solution needs to punish inaction, not punish people who simply lose the match, which is actually punishing people simply for being on the same team as leechers just as much as the leechers themselves. Now those people are about to be punished further??

As long as you can click a button, go eat a sandwich, and come back 5 minutes later with more faction than you did when you clicked the button, especially the full faction amount for winning occasionally, people are going to leech.

World of Warcraft recently came up with a somewhat-awkward but effective solution to the problem: Users can be "reported AFK" which gives them a debuff lasting 30 seconds, and if they don't enter combat by the time it expires, they're marked with a new debuff that prevents them from gaining honor until they enter combat. Similar automated solutions would also be possible, the easiest just being not giving any faction to someone who's been within earshot range of the opening spawn point for the entire game, more complex ones being checks to see if they're actually attacking or using abilities on anyone.

Whatever solution is cooking, please ensure that it distinctly targets leechers and inaction, not the winning or losing team, or some other gross misfire. Riotgear 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problem i see with that is for people who are UaX. They dont need faction. Instead of faction, i would do glad points. Also, it shouldnt be combat, cause a monk doesnt do combat, he/she heals. It should be the use of 2+ skills. i do like the idea of reporting people AFK and giving a debuff (cant say hex/enchant, cause it can be removed by game mechanics).--68.193.12.177 05:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title progression that rewards skillful playing, fixes leechers and gives incentive for newbies

This was my suggestion posted on GWO. I made several lenghty posts about the subject with reasoning behind changes. I believe this would help to solve leecher problem before it even has chance of happening.(link)

Many have been complaining that giving fame for simple one-round victories will cheapen the title, as anyone can farm that much and just restart instantly when team fails for any reason. For this illustration I'm going to use a "poor" player or leecher who is winning one match at the time by lucky shot and "good" player who is winning matches in 10-victory streaks.

Proposed system: (1 point per victory, for every 5 consecutives 5 points more)

Poor player: 1 win, loss 1 win, loss 1 win, loss 1 win, loss 1 win, loss --->Result is 5 points gained for 10 matches

Good player: 10 wins in row --->Result is 10+5+5 = 20 points gained for 10 matches

Now difference between skillful 20 points and lucky 10 points is not very huge, is it?

Improved system: (same point progression as fame)

Poor player: 1 win, loss 1 win, loss 1 win, loss 1 win, loss 1 win, loss --->Result is 5 points gained for 10 matches

Good player: 10 wins in row --->Result is 1+2+3+4+6+8+12+16+20+24 = 92 points gained for 10 matches

Difference between lucky 5 points and skillful 92 points is huge as it should be. The more wins you get in row, the better player you are, which is the basic premise of gaining gladiator points on old system. Because higher tiers require more and more points you actually have to consistently get 10+ or 20+ consecutive streaks to get them, because farming 1-3 point victories takes absolutely ages. That's how it goes in HA too.

Correct penalty system for leavers is done through hampering the potential to get gladiator points. As said before, some players are abusing the fact that you can leave and re-enter until you get a team you feel is capable of getting the maximum possible consecutive victories in row. Of course this isn't fair for those who stick with their original teams until they are defeated. There are also players who have slow connections and occasional disconnects. Solution is not to apply hard justice like limited access to service i.e. bans for leavers, because there can be false positives.

Players participating in Random Arenas should acknowledge the nature of random encounters and not try to twist the luck to their favor. Good random arena builds therefore pack a degree of self-reliance among other things if Monk is not present. This is the vision that should be encouraged.

How about this: Whenever player leaves a team before match has ended, that player's account receives a mark used for determining points gained for victories. For every 2 legitimate losses player's account loses one mark. This is used to clear the "reputation" and also negate effects of unintended disconnects. When account has 5-10 marks it can not gain any points for victories.
---> those who want organized teams are better off playing in Team Arenas.

Miscellaneous suggestions:
- To combat leechers 1-2 first victories should earn no points, but rather give them later for 2nd or 3rd victory.
- Victory of Death time at 10 minutes should be put into play to prevent stalemates.

Achievement comparison on old system and new system:
If 96 points equals ten consecutives, then first level gladiator would be 96 * 25 = 2,300 points on new system. Difference to existing system is that smaller consecutive streaks (as well as longer!) are rewarded better and system isn't so rigid ten-or-nothing.

When counting consecutive victories it would be like this: (percentages are to compare achievement to standard gladiator point on our current system)
1st win: 0/96 (0%) <---\
2nd win: 0/96 (0%) <----*see note
3rd win: 6/96 (6%)
4th win: 10/96 (10%)
5th win: 16/96 (17%)
6th win: 24/96 (25%)
7th win: 36/96 (38%)
8th win: 52/96 (54%)
9th win: 72/96 (75%)
10th win: 96/96 (100%)
15th win: 272/96 (282%)
20th win: 472/96 (491%) <--- **see note
50th win: 1672/96 (1741%)

  • No points for first two victories to prevent leeching. Points for first two victories would be given at 3rd win.
    • This means that getting 20 consecutive victories is considered to be as difficult as getting 10 consecutives five times. (and rewarded as such)

--Toge 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't ask for my opinion but I'm going to give it anyway - I like what you have to say. I think it would be perfect... for TA. I still see people dropping to get a better team setup if streaks are rewarded (even with your marks system they get a few tries before they have to stop). RA should reward a straight amount for every single win and not reward anything for the first win IMO. It's random, and if you win more often then you are still winning more points than if losing or restarting. If the amount of points is trouble then double the point rewards for each battle won after the first. I really do like your ideas tho but I still think it would be better applied to TA than RA. --Image:User Vallen Frostweaver signature.jpg Vallen Frostweaver 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I very much like the idea of getting your reward EVERY game, not only every 5th or 10th game, and i very much like the idea of increasing rewards for more consecutives. The idea that rewards shouldn't start with the first fight but after two or three fight is nice, too. However, I think your proposed system is WAY to extreme, there should be cap on how much points you get for one single game, and it should be low. Otherwise, one run of luck leaves you with an incredibly high amount of gained points, and that should not be possible. My idea would be something like this:
1st/2nd/3rd fight: 0 points
4th fight: 1 point
5th fight: 2 points
6th fight: 3 points
7th fight: 4 points
8th fight and every above: 5 points
The current amount of glad points needed for the title should be multiplied by 30, as you get 25 for a winning streak of 10 victories. Something like this would be far more balanced. -- TeleTeddy
interesting ideas, don't understimate the amount of thought leechers and "griefers" will put into making everyone's lives miserable. "Griefers" are the new term given by TA guilds to the people who bring complete guild groups of shadowform/echo/arcane mimicry sins, 4 rangers, 4 warriors, 4 healers, etc...Penguincontact
Why not just turn RA/TA into HA altogether? noty /disagree--Torp 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why this ideas would encourage grieving any more than the current system, or even worse, a system where you need 5 wins. And Torp, no changes to RA/TA are being made. We're talking about the reward system, and yes, why not turn it into a system similar to HA? It's the better system. Adjustments would be needed, of course, but that's exactly what this is about: The idea is, to take the HA reward system, adjust it to RA/TA, and use it. A system that rewards every 5th or 10th fight instead of every fight is much more luck-based, and can be very annoying. TeleTeddy 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tele but i laughed when i read the part about the consecutive being luck-based. Also, anything that affects RA/TA (even the reward system) is still a change to RA/TA. If you like the HA reward system then go right on and map over to HA because if they changed it to this they might as well just merge it into HA because thats what it will become. Not only does it devalue the title. To you it might be luck-based, but to most high rank gladiators like me it's nowhere close. Sure some luck is involved, but most of my wins come from pure skill. If you can't handle the competetive play then heres two recommendations

  • practice alot and find a build that works
OR
  • go back to pve and grind some dedication titles rather than complaining about skill titles

--Torp 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain what I meant with my comment: Fighting in the RA/TA, eventually you will lose. Maybe there are some players who never ever will lose but stop voluntary every time they play, but the vast majority of players will lose eventually, so let's have a look at them: If you're good, chances are you get a decent winning streak before losing, but if you're unlucky, you encounter the one team that beats you in your first fight. We are of one opinion saying that making many wins requires a good team, however, I don't think failing requires a not-so-good team. It just needs bad luck. Having this in mind, I don't think a team making 10 wins should get significantly more reward than a team making 9 wins, as the 'required skill' is nearly the same. So, I didn't say the glad title system would be completely based on luck, I just said the current system is MORE luck-based than the proposed system would be, and therefor I'd like the new system better. No need to rage. Ah, and I play RA/TA for the fun of it, the reward is secondary. So playing HA is no option, I don't pick the place I play by the reward that can be earned. ;) TeleTeddy 09:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You guys are still forgetting the main focus. They want to change the focus from "I need to win the next X matches." to "I need to win THIS match." and by rewarding streaks more you are encouraging the prior and droppers. RA should totally be randomized every battle (never the same players with you) so as to make it really random and reward a straight amount - perhaps skip the first win reward though to annoy leechers. That would be truely random and exciting. --Image:User Vallen Frostweaver signature.jpg Vallen Frostweaver 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire, mon capitaine, we do NOT forget the main focus. The contrary is the case, as the most important change with this (proposed) system would be, that every single win is rewarded (except for the first few to annoy leavers, as you phrased it) - this way players will (hopefully) focus on winning THIS fight, but on winning the next X matches. Rewarding (or giving bonus points) every 5th or 10th fight causes the whole issue here, because many people are playing only to earn these points. True, the (proposed) system would reward winning streaks better than single wins, but this is what every single system does, including the three proposed by Ryan Scott. You can't change that unless you want the gladiator title to be time-based only.
The idea to totally randomize RA sounds fun, but I think it would be rather impossible to get a decent winning streak with that system. TeleTeddy 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
yet, the totally randomize ra idea it is the only suggestion i see here that really stops leavers. And the only idea i have read against synch, destroying it completely. All progressing proposals even increase the problem of leavers. But the main advantage of the totally randomize is that it is a different idea so it can be combined with a proposal. It will be rather a lot harder to get winnning streaks yes, but that can be easily be adjusted combining it with an adjusted proposal, like the this one from Toge. Or even increase the bonus per win further. Actually that totally randomize ra idea would be a lot easier to model because the independence on events can be adjusted with a geometric distribution. I would just need a probability of winning per glad rank. I am starting to like very much the totally random idea, and i dont see any major downsides.
Well, there are downsides. However, I don't dare yet to say whether they are major. Firstly, implementing a totally randomized RA would mean you have to change conditions to reach TA. No Newbie would be able to get five wins in a row, at least I think so. Yet, that is no big deal, the TA requirement of 5 RA wins in a row could be easily removed, and I would consider that a benefit, as I never liked it. There is, however, a second issue. I always liked the fact, that there grew some sort of relationship between the team members, while progressing to 10 wins. Most of you RA players will know that, the first two or three fights no one will write anything, as it is wasted effort and quite annoying to chat ever again with random strangers. But getting the impression that this team will do it, team members will start to chat and fool around, having fun. I always liked that aspect of random arena, and I would miss it. In a totally randomized RA you would truly be a single fighter, up to now it's more like a random team, if you know what I mean - On the whole, I think RA would be less fun. To me, that is, as I think RA is no place where you fight alone, but a place where you fight, if there's no one on your contact list to play (PvP) with. TeleTeddy 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree awarding that so many points for a more than 10 win streak. I think that would create an over extended difference from ra to ta. Coran Ironclaw 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the point, you're not supposed to go all the way up the ladder in RA, that's title farming. Title farming doesn't distinguish between the persistent wammo in RA and the skilled team player in TA, title farming is lame. --Tankity Tank 01:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a flaw there, just because you can go all the way up in RA, it doesn't mean that's a title farming. There is Skill in RA too. It is a valid pvp playstyle too. I would love to have the data to show with numbers (as i requesting on the statical analysis topic) I could show how much each proposal distinguishes between a low skilled level player from a high skilled. And most importantly there are many ways to increase or dimishing that "distinguishment". Actually here Toge create a big difference from proposal 1 increasing that distinguishment a lot, i wont disagree with that if i can't prove with numbers they are outraged, but I dont like the way you discrimine ra wanting to exclude it from the high tiers.Coran Ironclaw 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
AB, FA and RA don't require the same sort of social networking that any other form of PVP does. That makes them random, easily puggable and easily accessible to new pvp players. The competition in these arenas isn't of a consistently high quality solely because of that randomness. If I have a choice between playing with a team of people that I trust to play well and a team of 3 other random people I'm going to pick my team, and that means I'm not going to play random PVP. I'm not going to say that RA, FA and AB are invalid PVP forms but I will say that they don't take anything near the amount of team coordination or social networking that other PVP forms do (if only because the opponents are random too). Because of this I don't think RA, FA and AB should give the same high level of reward that TA, HA and GVG do. People who put time into forming skilled and coordinated teams should reap more benefits than people who just click "Enter Battle." You're obviously entitled to your own opinion but those are my reasons and I'm going to stick to them until I hear better ones. --Tankity Tank 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your reason and in that form I agree with you, i think ta is a higher level of pvp, and it "should" deserve a better reward. But Ra is still a valid pvp gamestyle, and if it has a title it should be able to get their max in it. I feel it is completely unfair to ra players to have a title and not being able to get their high tiers. The best solution I think is to split the title as many suggest but that brings many other issues and ryan has stated they dont want to do that. So, in my opinion, anet commited a mistake of putting the same title to two very different things as ra and ta are, and we must stick with it, both must receive the same level of reward. Coran Ironclaw 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely that RA players should be able to max this title; however, RA players don't have to do the work up front (forming skilled groups, building and maintaining the kind of social connections that allow them to TA and win glad points) so I think that they should do so at a reduced rate. I've played a lot of TA in the past, as well as a lot of RA, and TA involves a lot more work if you expect to win consistently. The rewards really need to scale with the effort expended. --Tankity Tank 09:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That more work needed to prepare themselves pays off already with the ability to win 10+ battles. Let's compare a high skilled ra player and a high skilled ta player. The ra player already knows his builds so he takes at most 5 minutes to enter battles, and he manage to get 40 consecutive wins, but since it is ra and everyone left at 10 streaks, he was forced to make 4 runs separately, he won 96x4= 384 points. Assuming a