Guilds Tanking Guilds In AT's

Guilds such as r999999 made solely for the purpose of tanking other guilds, need to be banned.

Its purely a breach of ladder manipulation and it needs to be stopped.
QQ got hit for ladder manipulation, and so should these guys.

If the guilds were bad, I would not care.

But GOOD tanking guilds have a player base of a good amount of players that you can't mess around against. (not to mention a few asian farmers)

Note to mod of Guild section:
Post why you are going to delete it or at least send me a message.

oh. comparing qq ladder manipulation to now? I forgot that rating meant something now.

Its okay norad, I was expecting you to troll this thread anyway.

How are you?

I brought up two valid points. How is that trolling? The ladder rating actually matter back when QQ got punished for it, and thus action was needed to be taken on them. The ladder rating doesnt mean anything anymore, so why does it matter?

I'd just like to clarify once again that QQ never manipulated the ladder. This was a fact that Mike Gills admitted, and is a common misconception.

Okay, continue.

Thank you Tommy, my apologies.
I guess that gives my claim less evidence to compare to...

But non the less, [Best] is a form of ladder manipulation that is strictly prohibited in the rules.

It's not a matter of if rating matters or not.
There is no rule saying, when rating matters - ladder manipulation is prohibited. But when rating doesn't matter, violate as many rules as possible.

Your logic is flawed norad.

My statement stands.

I Lol'd when I saw this. Help me post a message in the Hero Battle section about banning hero battlers who tank too.

I'd like to, once again, thank Izzy for implementing such a feature. After repeatedly being given -25s and nothing being done about tankers, I decided to tank myself thanks to the forfeiting system in the AT's. This way I don't have to hurt my win:loss record.

My .02 cent suggestion:
Lose all QP when you forfeit a tourney. This still doesn't solve people tanking right after mATs, but it is fairly easy to implement.

Bad. A team could legitimately have an err7 2-3 days before the mAT, and losing all their QP is just dumb.

The whole idea of losing -25 is just dumb. Who cares if there's all these extra guilds signed up? If Anet wants to reduce AT length, just make the next round start when all teams are done playing or something.

To expand a bit on what norad said, tanking is just a side effect of our matches. We byob 99% of the time, and as a result we take a ton of losses. As norad stated, the ladder is currently meaningless, and thus manipulating it is equally meaningless. The only thing rating effects in GvG at all is people over 1200 having the ability to win champ points, but I'm pretty sure nobody that is serious about gvg cares about champ points anyway. I don't believe there is even an equivalent in hero battles, though I don't play hb, so correct me if I'm wrong. Afaik, the hb title is ignorant of rank.

Comparing what happens today to what QQ was accused of (note I did not say they were guilty) is comparing apples to oranges. I was in Fishmongers at the time and spoke out against the tanking that was going on, but in retrospect everything that went on was ladder manipulation in one form or another, which just spoke to the flaws of the ladder system (a big reason it was replaced). Guilds back then would go in at certain times to avoid other guilds, or in the hopes of playing against certain guilds. Everything that was done was done strategically in order to farm the most rating. With the current AT system, you know who you’re playing ahead of time and on what map. You also have to have 14 day members – which doesn’t prevent ringers and smurfing, but certainly helps. Good guilds will take rating losses from time to time, and even a big loss. But if you are constantly getting “tanked,” then you obviously aren't as good as you think you are and don’t deserve to be that high on the ladder in the first place.

In conclusion, people need to find something else to whine about. Win your at’s, get your qp’s, and do well in the monthly. Ignore “rating” and “rank.”

You just said what norad said except with more elaboration.

Rules are rules. No matter what opinions are held in regards to rank and rating.

My statement still stands.

It's not necessary that something be implemented, but more of we know of the guilds that purposely are there to AT to tank. It's just a matter of banning those guilds.

Thanks.

You're right. The ladder IS meaningless. You are not rewarded for being rank 1 on the ladder. So what if you get win a tiebreaker of points are even? The points of a guild are hardly ever the same. Since the pairings are supposedly random, and rank apparently does not matter when being given tiebreaker points, it doesn't make a difference whether you're rank 1 or rank 20,000 in GvG. In Hero Battles, it does, though, because you can tank to rank 20,000 and then change your account name. How would you complain if [best] was able to change their guild name too and then you won't even know who they are, and thus you may go in overconfident. There's a taste of what hero battles is like for you.

I really think they need to bring back some kind of reward for being higher ranked, for example by having less random pairings in the single elims of a tourney (best vs. worse type of thing).

This is more for mid-level guilds that know they have zero chance of top 16'ing the monthly. Rank bragging rights (and some Zaishen keys) is about all they can achieve. Your latest monthly AT rank doesn't determine who shows up on ladder/obs/match screen.

As to your first statement, I agree - rules should be enforced. What I'm trying to say is that we're not out to tank people. Because we run so much byob our rank is trash. Does our actual rating/rank accurately reflect the sum of our skill? I think that's a definitive no. However, the 8-10 of us have become disenchanted with regular 8 man gvg, and prefer to enjoy ourselves with byob, and random gimmick builds that epicly fail. Therefore, we lose probably 90% of the time. As such, I don't see that we're breaking any rules. We're not in a top 10 guild using second accounts to tank and smurf to lower our opponents ratings.

As to your second statement, yes, the sheeple of the world look up to the people at the top. If we wanted/cared about being held in high regards due to our rank, we'd probably play 22 hours a day and run normal 8 man builds to get on page 1 of the ladder. However, we could care less about status and what the scene thinks.

Bottom line - we enjoy our play style, and it allows us to have fun in guildwars gvg. If there are people out there intentionally smurfing and tanking, I'm on your side. We're not one of them.

You make very valid points and a good attempt at a defense.

But your abuse of the AT system and constant -25s nullify any claim that you aren't here to tank guilds. Sure maybe its not your sole purpose. But it is a side affect and you are using the AT system to abuse your ladder rating.

Awesome you found a guild that BYOB's and enjoys playing this game. You can't convince me that the result of some good players playing random gimmicks causes your rating to get that low. After a while you just get -0. the only way to tank further is abuse of -25s.

Thanks for your attempt though, it did claify some points that others may not be aware of about you guys.

iirc there are no -25's from ats due to us registering POST monthly AT. that being said, BEFORE the -25 clause was implimented our rating was lower than it currently is due to playing with 3-4 people and henchies and legitimately losing matches(we play a lot of matches ). So reaching that low of rating, legitimatly playing in the automate tournaments, and legitimatly winning should be punished? ohh ok

you would be suprised at how many guilds are extremely low on the ladder, with ratings of SUB 850. We dont normally play anything but stupid shit to occupy our time on the ladder as the ladder means jack crap. As for hitting -0's i think you need a rating difference of around 450 or something, which doesnt happen that often.

TBH im not sure if u are complaining about losing rating in at's, or the -25 when forfeiting at's clause. I understand that the -25 clause is dumb, but it is neither here nor there imo. It is probably not going to be changed, and doesnt exactly affect the situation you have described

frankly i would be more upset my guild lost to a bunch of nubs, than getting a -23

You have conflicting viewpoints and I'm confused by what you're trying to achieve in this thread.

So my question to you is do you really care about "ladder manipulation" (whatever that means in today's Guild Wars) or do you just want to see [Best] banned? I also noticed you forgot to include [OG] in your list of guilds with "a player base of a good amount of players " who tank themselves purposefully in the AT's.

But see, if the guilds weren't good, you would agree that this issue would have never been brought up. It's the fact that some guilds are good that cause reason for concern. And you know that.

lol, OG is rank 380ish? That's not really tanking yet. But if they are forfeiting to get -25s, then yes you would be correct. I was not aware that were doing so.

So your assumption that I'm TRYING to get [Best] banned is fail. Bye.

Best had a rating of less than 800 or so, before this -25 rating loss was implemented. I know that because i played against them before that .

There rating is so low because they play games with 4 henchies. Do you really expect them to win any matches like that? Another question for you. Have you ever played Best?

I really don't see what the problem is. If 4 people are standing in their GH they grab them and screw builds add 4 henchies and join a rated battle.
They aren't tanking on purpose. So could you please explain your point properly, because I really don't get what you mean.

Do I expect them to win? No, and I know they don't either. So what does that mean? Do you know? Or is that just another thing you don't understand? Because its all quite clear to me.

You don't see what the problem is because you just don't seem to be understanding anything in this thread.

Have I ever played [Best]? On an AT situation I have, unlike you. I do believe different people's viewpoints on the situation are confusing you. So you sir, should try and understand the points being made properly.

I'm glad to see you think OG should suffer the same fate as Best then. At least you're (somewhat) consistent.