User talk:Coran Ironclaw/Champion Draft

People will /roll it

Bad idea, re: passing out champ points for every match. People will /roll for them the same way they did commander points.--24.206.111.186 08:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The same way as GvG players can do it now, the same way as they still can do it on HB.Coran Ironclaw 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The title will lose prestigue

renamed from "Not a needed change"

The last prestigious title left for PvPers is the champ title - glad is for RA/TA (which nobody takes seriously), and hero title is even more a joke; masses of people that are bad at the game get r10 and higher just from running gimmicks. GvG isn't like that (aside from hexes, which were left untouched for far too long) - skill-less players can't just run a gimmick build and farm points like crazy.
The exlusiveness of this title should be preserved; imagine a PvE guild full of "Champions" simply because they managed to beat other teams with flare warriors and barrage rangers. If anything, make a separate title track; leave this one to be prestigious. -166.122.31.2

I would be glad to see a separate title track, i am sure that will make everyone happy. But i am not sure what anet is thinking about that, they didn't want to make that for gladiator title. Now if they don't want, I see no problem if a pve guild has many players with "champion 1". You might/will be champion 7 or 8 and you know and everyone else knows that they can't have that, that is your exclusiveness and prestigue. Furthermore, make numbers, it is difficult to get the champion 1 if you are below 1010 rating, it would require you around 500 gvg wins which would be around a year of daily night gvg, that is no longer a pure pve guild. Coran Ironclaw 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Champion title track will be kept with high end gvg. There should be no reward for playing poorly.

Not good for attracting casual and PvE players

Let's face it. It fails. You mention how this will attract PvE grinders... well hate to say it but it will not. Let's see... a PvE grinder can choose between buffing some PvE title which actually means something, or grind Champion title which.. means nothing, and he will gain it slower than real PvPer, and no one in PvE will care about his title and no one in PvP will care about his title either (because it can be grinded). Your solution to Champion title *might* keep current PvPers keep PvPing but it will do absolutely nothing to attract new casual/PvE players to GvG. The solution to that is giving fun items for wins, and weapon/armor skins to *all* not just elite ATers. Until that happens, ANet can try with all those patches, they can lower Hero limit to 7 in GvG, they can increase balth faction 100x, they can do whatever they want, but you *wont* attract casual players to GvG just as you want attract anyone to PvE if you say "hey guys, PvErs from now on wont get any gold in the game unless they do Domain of Anguish and kill Mallyx". Servant of Kali 07:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am all up for fun item rewards also and weapon/armor skins wont be bad either. But according to my game experience this change would attract many pve players, beacause all titles means something to them (or at least to most of them), sure there will be a lot of whine from them that this is extremely hard to obtain (even with the proposal 2). But eventually grinders transforms themselves into good (if not experts) gvg players. I have seen that transformation before, currently it is difficult to attract more and their only answer is "I get nothing if I do gvg, you are not in a rank that wins champions points". Coran Ironclaw 14:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, if you're a *PvE* player, why would you choose to go on maxing a *PvP* title instead of one of the other PvE titles (and lots of those exist, with high max requirements)? Also, your proposal aims at a certain group of players called grinders, and you hope they will grind a bit PvP too. In other words, you want to stimulate PvP with grind. That's a major flaw, it was a reason why I never liked HA and why I considered HA one of the worse PvP areas in the game. I'd rather stimulate PvP with fun factors (ie, fun items, armor and weapon skins etc) than any form of grind, and this title would be a grind, nothing more nothing less.

That's one thing. Another thing is that your points are *already* beaten by practice. Do you see PvErs grind Gladiator title? Not really. Do they even try? Not really. Do they grind ranks in HA? Few, maybe, but in general not really. Therefore what makes you think that they will grind Champion title the way you put it?

Let's see the effect of grind-approach in PvP. In Random Arenas, a grind for Gladiator title created a problem of leavers. A grind in HA created button-mashing generic builds and the trick was in playing a lot, because it pays off. The result was that HA metagame was much worse than GvG TA and RA one. A grind in GvG back then created suddenly a lot of spike (or heavy presssure kill or be killed) builds which farmed the ladder. In Fort Aspenwood grind for Kurzick/Luxon title (as well as amber/jadeite) created a serious problem of leechers which killed the arena. Servant of Kali 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Max title?

"if you're a *PvE* player, why would you choose to go on maxing a *PvP* title instead of one of the other PvE titles" Servant of Kali. I never talked about trying to max the title, any semi-intelligent pve player would understood that maxing this title it is not possible without tranforming you to a completely hardcore gvg-almost exclusive player (and that does not change with my proposal). Coran Ironclaw 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Grind in pvp?

"your proposal aims at a certain group of players called grinders, and you hope they will grind a bit PvP too"Servant of Kali. I wrote "pve grinders" because that is what pve players are used to do, to grind. And for an instance they do not accept to do anything that does not reward their time, so the idea is to give that incentive pve players are used to so they do not reject the idea of doing gvg just because they are not receiving anything in exchange.

"you want to stimulate PvP with grind. That's a major flaw, it was a reason why I never liked HA and why I considered HA one of the worse PvP areas in the game" Servant of Kali. Grind it is not exclusive for pve players, pvp players tend to grind a lot also, but if an gamestyle becomes unfun because of grinders then that is a flaw in the gamestyle design. For example if hero title grinders makes ha unfun the problems are not the grinders or the title but the ha flaws that allows gimmicky builds to win.

"I'd rather stimulate PvP with fun factors (ie, fun items, armor and weapon skins etc)" Servant of Kali. While i would love to have the fun factors rewards, I really fail to see any reason to why pve players will be more attracted to gvg with them than with the champion title. Let me explain: you propose to types of fun factors: fun items, and weapon skins. Fun items means very little to pve players because they can obtain them in festivals, if that fun items would have some value to them they would be sold a lot in cities for gold but they are not. If you change that "fun items" to "consumables" that have an utility in pve, then pvp players are rewarded with a useless thing for them and pve players does not really have to do gvg to obtain that because they can obtain consumables with gold (doing their pve grind), if you try to solve that making the amount of consumable rewards worthy then you will have tons of pve player who really dont care about gvg but grinding it to obtain the items, making it a worse scenario than the one you describe my title proposal will do. On the other hand, weapon skins would be for pvp character only, and pve players care nothing about them, because they use only their pve characters.

Let me make one sentence clear: Any kind of reward good enough to attract people to its gamestyle will create grinders. So saying that you dont want grinders is the same as saying that you prefer to not introduce new rewards. In my opinion, the wisest decision is to create a well designed reward system that rewards everyone but rewards a lot more the skilled ones, as my proposal 2 does (see below). (pardon the redundant words)

"and this title would be a grind, nothing more nothing less." Servant of Kali. I completely disagree, I did not design the proposal 2 lightly, but i prefer to continue repling you and explain this latter (see below). Coran Ironclaw 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PvE players grinding other pvp titles?

"Do you see PvErs grind Gladiator title? Not really." Agree. "Do they even try? Not really." Disagree. "Do they grind ranks in HA? Few, maybe, but in general not really?" Agree, but they do try. I have seen many pve players trying ra/ta/ha because they want a plus in their title repertory but they quit and there is one reason why pve players quit ta/ha: random pairing. TA and HA are gamestyle extremely hostile to new players, they invest a large amount of time preparing themselves just to be teared appart by the experienced players. That creates a whole pesimism feeling and normally the groups disband after the first try, the conclusion for a pve player is that they are wasting their time there. In gvg you do not have a completely random pairing but an Elo rating pairing, which helps a lot while in the learning curve, they might lose the first battles but because of that their rating will decrease and it will be more probable to be paired with similar skilled players, which yields to a fun battles and some wins, making them to receive a double incentive (fun and champion points).

Regarding RA, they do quit trying it because the current title does not provide an incentive for new players there, because while they are learning, receiving a single point is extremely difficult and gives the feeling you are wasting your time because you are not receiving any reward. This situation has been adressed by anet and an fix is being cooked.

Now, you could counter-argument everything i said, by bringing the HB example. Pve players do not tend to grind commander points even when HB has elo rating, and the title is very accesible (rewarding every win). Well, but i guess the answer is the same as to why you didn't even mention it, because hero battle just plain ... is just too boring.

Furthermore, there is another reason why pve players will want to prefer gvg over ra/ta/ha: to improve its guild. Ironically, most high end gvgers do not care about their guild, but most pve players feels that connection and that sense of guild improvement and there is only one way in gw to improve your guild: gvg. kurzick/luxon faction is alliance improvement not guild. Coran Ironclaw 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Grind problems in pvp gamestyles

"In Random Arenas, a grind for Gladiator title created a problem of leavers." Servant of Kali. Then the problem are the leavers. Anet has already adressed it, and a fix is being cooked. "A grind in HA created button-mashing generic builds and the trick was in playing a lot" Then the problem are the overpowered builds or the map designs that allows the no-skills ones to win over the skilled ones or to be in a very similar level. "A grind in GvG back then created suddenly a lot of spike (or heavy presssure kill or be killed) builds which farmed the ladder." And that was countered with good strategy (split vs spike) and good skill balance. "In Fort Aspenwood grind for Kurzick/Luxon title (as well as amber/jadeite) created a serious problem of leechers which killed the arena" Then the problem are leechers, Anet has already adressed it and a fix is being cooked. Coran Ironclaw 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I do get your point but don't you get it? All that ANet does is "addressing the issue". It reminds me of politicians who never do anything unless they really have to, but they always address the issue. My point was that grind in PvP has created numerous problems in every arena, and that ANet has not solved a single one of those. Since they don't intend to solve issues, my vote is: at least don't create more problems. Servant of Kali 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They have not been "adreessing the issue" for too much, I only knew about them addressing the leechers and leavers problems since about a month ago with the proposals on gladiators title change. You are in your right if you want to whine to anet if they dont fix the problems, but problems on other gamestyles are not an argument against this proposal because none of them would apply on gvg, save for the spike and "lot of pressure" but in regard to that jade island has already been fixed and skill balances have been made, the only thing remaining (in my opinion) is the "heroway" which is being discussed on several topics (I really hope heroes to be banned from gvg, instead of that make reliable henchies at disposal: good balanced skill bars and good stuff, but that is another topic). So, if you don't have a problem (with a reason) that will arise in gvg with the implementation of my proposal then you don't have an argument.

Furthermore, The only way to "not creating more problems" is to not reward gvg player at all. Then the only players that will stay are because they want to have fun, BUT since other parts of the game reward your time that numbers of player will be reducing more everyday and it will eventually die, is that what are you suggesting? I do prefer to keep suggesting changes and to keep pressuring anet to fix arisen problems. Coran Ironclaw 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Grindable vs skilled titles

Now I am in position to explain about grindable vs skilled titles:

A Grindable title is one which does not takes into account the skill level of the gamers who spend time adquiring it. The best example in game is the lucky/unlucky titles, which your skill level matters nothing so you can even be afk in the rings, but even those titles could be said that has skill in some degree because they require money (getting the money is part of the title effort too) and the time for obtaining money depends on your farming skill (arguable also, but take this just as an example), a pure grind title would be a title that registers your hours played with your character, now you could afk it and it requires no money. Even such a title is being requested here age titles

A Pure Skill title would be one which takes no time to max it, but requires to do a difficult task. There is no such a thing on gw, but an example would be a title for beating a super polymock master (providing you can access him without fighting the other ones).

In gw every title combines to some degree skill and grinding, while pve titles tend to have less of the skill factor, pvp titles tend to have more a high degree of both factors, because even if you are the most skilled player in the game it does take a lot of time to max a pvp title. Let's now look into my proposal, as you can see skilled players are rewarded a lot more than no skilled ones. I could say that for vD (guild rank 1) obtaining the 750 champion points needed for title tier 1 would take very little, but lets make numbers (you may skip the numbers part and see the conclusion in bold), they has today (22sept) 1699 rating so, lets not complicate ourselves with equations and we can use the values in table for 1700 rating, since this ladder has been started they have obtained 631 victories in more or less 255 days which leads to a 2.5 victories per day, since they are rank 1 they can only receive a rating change of 1 per win, then according to the table they would receive 29*2.5~72.5 champion points per day in average, then they would take ~10.3 days, but we are not considering the tournaments extra points, for this month they already have 51 QP, that means they do a lot of tournaments, lets simplify to 2 per week and lets suppose they win 3 battles, for each battle they will be wining 129 points but we must quit 29 points because we already considered the win as normal by the previus analysis, so they win 600 extra points per week, thats ~85.7 points per day (you can see that they are actually wining more point for doint tournaments 2 times per week that with the normal battles) so the sum will be ~158.2 points per day, then they would take ~4.7 days in average for obtaining 750 champion points.

Now let's make the same for a bad skilled guild who spends the same time in gvg (you can also skip to conclusion in bold), saying that they have less that 1010 rating, they will have a leser win rate, but since i dont want to discuss about their rating I will put the same as vD (aproximation by excess), so this will lead also to an aproximate value of 2.5 victories per day, now they are not in rank 1, so they can have a rating change of 1, 2 or 3. Let me consider 1.5 as the average value then they will gain ~3.75 champion points per day, and they do not gain extra points in tournaments (they are beaten) then they will take ~200 days in average for obtaining 750 champion points. As you can see this title proposal greatly takes into consideration the skill of the gamer, and that's makes it not a pure grind title.

I designed the proposal this way so pve players will initially try to grind the title, that will required to unify its guild and to get used to gvg daily, then pve players will realize that this title is not too grindable, then 2 things can happen, 1. they do not like gvg and prefer with pve (they return to pve). 2. they do like gvg, they continue to do pve but daily at night they do gvg then some months later they achieve champion 1, but that's not all, they also improve and little by little they scale in the ladder and becomes good players contributing to the gvg richness and community. I know that because i am leader of a guild that does that, even when we do not have this reward. And i do know other guilds who just need a little push: Coran Ironclaw 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A help for pve guilds to gvg

Finally let me share some of my game experience: I have been leader of an alliance for a year and a half, and while in that position many guild leaders have come to me for advice because they are in a very common situation: They are a mainly pve guild, who does not like ha or ta because of the reasons explained above, but it happens that some members (and almost always officials) around 4 or 5 wants to try gvg, but they cant find the rest to create a group because the others just reply "I dont receive anything while doing gvg" (I refer to them when i say pve-grinders). This proposal has the intention to help those guilds to feed that grind hunger so they are willing to try gvg, they receive an incentive and if they like they become a pve-gvg guild.

I hope my 4 hours prepared reply helps. Coran Ironclaw 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This idea seems pretty good it may not necessarily attract a pve player but I could see a more casual pvp player being attracted to gvg because of this. Doesn't seem like the title would lose its prestige either because the people who have the prestigious champ 1-6(i think 6 is highest someone has maybe 7 could be wrong) will just have a higher rank in the title than someone who would have champ 0 otherwise. I see a lot of midrange-low range guilds lose hope and this would add some more incentive to get into gvg.--75.36.182.59 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ty for reply =) Coran Ironclaw 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Readem's comment about smurfs or something

No Smurfing makes this auto fail. Smurfs ownzzz Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Coran Ironclaw 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it allows us to occasionally see iQ. Otherwise they will never play rated. We will also lose QQ, FFs, and quite a feq other good guilds. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 21:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Because it allows us to occasionally see iQ" the current state or the implamentation of this proposal? is that bad? or good? why? I don't get the point. what do you mean by we will lose the other good guilds? Coran Ironclaw 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a few points

Overall i think the idea is.....OK.....not amazing but not bad. I too agree a new title would be better but knowing Anet that is very very unlikely to happen. Fisrtly, would the scale of points increase respectively based upon the rating change? because for an AT that gives you +20 or so rating your earning around 400 points, that does seem excessive. Also the smurfs idea would need to be looked at, because yes they would earn less points, but the matches would be over so fast that it may be a faster way to 'grind' those titles. People may start to run Win Fast/Lose Fast builds to simply get the points quickly, if they start to lose they just /resign and go again. And i think there would be a huge amount of PuG GvG guilds around, i'm still not sure whether this is a good or bad idea, but i can imagine Temple of Balth being spammed with "LF 1 WoH R3Champ+ for guest gvg" throughout the day....fun? Yes! but i'm not sure thats what GvG should really be. --ChronicinabilitY 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With the proposal there is no way to earn 400 points from a single match. But yes, the reward increases respectively with the rating change. For example, a 1400 rating guild wins an AT match vs a top guild, to earn 20 rating points the beaten guild actually needs to have ~1640 rating according to today ratings that would be ~#28 winning vs #1 or #2, looking at table on the proposal they win also 140 champion points. I designed the proposal to incentivate the ATs, because of hours of AT I think the normal situation is a guild to do two AT per week. Here I made numbers about how many points the top guild would win during a week by daily normal gvg, and how many points by AT and they are on a similar level, and I find it fine since AT is very competitive.

About the smurfs, they could do quicker gvgs yes, but how much rating do you expect a guild of such a nature to have? Suppose a 1500 rating guild has a smurf of 1050 rating with a win fast/lose fast build, even with such a build battles tend to go like 10 minutes and they will be winning between 10 and 13 points per win match, with their normal guild battles will go normally 20 minutes but they will be winning between 26 and 33 points per win match. So I don't see the use for the smurfs, but that can be tested.

About the "LF 1 WoH R3Champ+ for guest gvg" . If that is yelled is because a guild needs someone to play gvg, they will prefer to play with their guild but I actually find very nice if that actually start happening since that would mean people is again interested in gvg. Eventually those pugers will join to form a guild. Also, there is the restriction of 4 guild players. So, I don't find bad finding that couple of players you need from your alliance or from temple of balthazar. Coran Ironclaw 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your table for calculating the amount of points so yes 400 is undoable, sorry. As for Smurfs the problem is if people start running smurfs as actual ways to win, (whereas now they are mainly used for testing new players or new build ideas) then they will undoubtedly gain champ points faster. On average a GvG match is with most decent guilds these days at the top is expected to last til VoD, therefore your looking at around 24 or so minutes depending on how quickly one team can break the other...but with people smurfing the matches may last 10 minutes (probably a lot less to be hoest though.) Now if you work on these figures then with the decrease in points it probably works out quite even....the problem is this....the smurf IS going to win (90% of the time!) Because they are players much superior to their opponenets. If they play with their regular Rating 1,200 guild then the opponents are much better and therefore the win is not guaranteed, and with a guaranteed win gives guaranteed champ points, no matter how many. This is why i think PuG guilds will spring up, they'll probably climb the ladder until about rank 400 or so and then simply disband and start a new one. The reason i think this will happen is because it's such an attractive prospect: Stress-free GvG's with easy win's for champ points! I know i'd be there! --ChronicinabilitY 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You might have a point in there. ¬¬ ok remove the word might. I need to change some things. The problem is I can't adjust the ranks as I want, I can only multiply them all by a constant number. I would like a separate solution for smurfs just as leavers were dealt in ra. But that's difficult... Coran Ironclaw 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)