The number of guilds tanking is ridiclous. Right now 18 guilds are participating in the tournament and only 4 of them are playing and not forfeiting in the first round.
This means that 22,3 % of the guilds intend to play after applying for the tournament.
So you ask, why is this a problem?
1, It takes away one match from the tournament which could change the results.
2, When there are a lot of guilds playing, the tournament system creates more groups, so the already low number of playing guilds gets separated once again.
How could this be fixed?
1, Don't let guilds join tournaments under 950 or so rating.
2, Take away the -25 modifier for forfeiting.
AFK Guilds in GvG Tournaments
keli
Missing HB
Well the only annoying part for me is the 5 round AT for something which could be 3... Having 3 hours tournament everytime is a bit boring , especially considering most fights , even vs good guilds , rarely last more than 15mn , thus we 're waiting more than playing generally....
In my opinion , the only sense of removing -25 from tournament could be a good idea considering people would think they lose a zkey by registering .... Not letting guilds joining could be harsh for a very small minority of players in my opinion though....
In my opinion , the only sense of removing -25 from tournament could be a good idea considering people would think they lose a zkey by registering .... Not letting guilds joining could be harsh for a very small minority of players in my opinion though....
UnicornStampede
Gold seller guilds want to tank to be able to sync each other for boxes. They really didn't fix the problem, since people had multiple accounts, banning one does nothing. And all they have to do is wait 3 more minutes each match. But now real guilds get griefed a box by teams resigning before 5 minutes.
5 round ats where you only play 2 real matches is a joke.
5 round ats where you only play 2 real matches is a joke.
Artisan Archer
It's very, very boring. The last b AT my guild entered, we lost the first round , got a bye the second round then we beat a afk guild, lost again and beat another afk guild the last round. We only really played 2 (~10 minutes each) rounds in a THREE HOUR tournament.
Also, in the end, we got second place in the AT (mind you, there were 6 other decent guilds actually playing in our group). These forfeit guilds are messing the tournament up to a point where not being afk means you get second place. They prolong tournament unneccaserily to 5 rounds (of which we only really played 2) and they use it to manipulate matches on the ladder with low rating. Since you can't really ban them all it seems, why not adress the root of the problem and use Keli's fixes.
Thank you.
Also, in the end, we got second place in the AT (mind you, there were 6 other decent guilds actually playing in our group). These forfeit guilds are messing the tournament up to a point where not being afk means you get second place. They prolong tournament unneccaserily to 5 rounds (of which we only really played 2) and they use it to manipulate matches on the ladder with low rating. Since you can't really ban them all it seems, why not adress the root of the problem and use Keli's fixes.
Thank you.
keli
Only 6 guilds have been participating in the B tournament. Are the other tanker guilds banned? Anyway, nice to see they are gone.
floor
Original post includes the idea most people would like to see implemented. If you are under 950 rating (even 1000 is fine) you may not register for a tournament. I'd personally prefer to see it at 1000 rating to prevent the people from just creating random guilds and entering them because they have "funny guild names" and the other usual rubbish that happens.
You can argue that this discriminates against lesser ranked guilds, and yes this is true, but quite honestly, since when did sub 1000 rating guilds even want to play AT's in the first place? There might be 1 or 2 instances of this per month in a B AT occasionally, but its hardly a problem.
You can argue that this discriminates against lesser ranked guilds, and yes this is true, but quite honestly, since when did sub 1000 rating guilds even want to play AT's in the first place? There might be 1 or 2 instances of this per month in a B AT occasionally, but its hardly a problem.
deluxe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by floor
Original post includes the idea most people would like to see implemented. If you are under 950 rating (even 1000 is fine) you may not register for a tournament. I'd personally prefer to see it at 1000 rating to prevent the people from just creating random guilds and entering them because they have "funny guild names" and the other usual rubbish that happens.
You can argue that this discriminates against lesser ranked guilds, and yes this is true, but quite honestly, since when did sub 1000 rating guilds even want to play AT's in the first place? There might be 1 or 2 instances of this per month in a B AT occasionally, but its hardly a problem. |
Sub1000 guilds can't win a game in a AT anyway, so why allow them in there.
Missing HB
Although it's true, i don't really like the fact to not allow a few players to not be able to register an AT simply because they are bad.... Wouldn't simply removing the -25 stuff or eventually put a minimum ladder points fix everything , considering :
- Most guilds registering are just willing to tank to farm chests
- It's still a way to make an AT exist , i.e i already in past registered a sec acc guild so that there were 5 guilds for that AT( pretty much boring when the only AT's you can do are empty because only 3 guilds are showing up...)
- Most guilds registering are just willing to tank to farm chests
- It's still a way to make an AT exist , i.e i already in past registered a sec acc guild so that there were 5 guilds for that AT( pretty much boring when the only AT's you can do are empty because only 3 guilds are showing up...)
fowlero
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Missing HB
Although it's true, i don't really like the fact to not allow a few players to not be able to register an AT simply because they are bad.... Wouldn't simply removing the -25 stuff or eventually put a minimum ladder points fix everything , considering :
- Most guilds registering are just willing to tank to farm chests - It's still a way to make an AT exist , i.e i already in past registered a sec acc guild so that there were 5 guilds for that AT( pretty much boring when the only AT's you can do are empty because only 3 guilds are showing up...) |
I'd agree rating limitation would definitely be the better choice. Low rating guilds do not AT as is anyway, if at all they enter one get battered and don't enter again. Doesn't harm the status quo.
Rob Roy The Divine
i'd go for teh rating thing, but then my guild would never get into a game cause we're bad and have never had amazing rating QQ
but something does need to be done, cause of 50 guild forfeiting = 2 groups in at's = 5 game at's = impossible to steal players to guest
but something does need to be done, cause of 50 guild forfeiting = 2 groups in at's = 5 game at's = impossible to steal players to guest
floor
maybe remove the 1 week restriction for playing AT, and instead replace it with like 1025-1050 rating minimum requirement? Again this doesnt necessarily prevent anyone who would like to enter from doing so, and at the same time encourages a certain level of ladder activity, even if just initially.
This also allows for smurf/pug guilds to enter into AT's more easily, particularly lower ranked teams are often hesitant to enter without all of their "core" team online, so encouraging pug groups to form, might increase the number of teams playing a bit.
This also allows for smurf/pug guilds to enter into AT's more easily, particularly lower ranked teams are often hesitant to enter without all of their "core" team online, so encouraging pug groups to form, might increase the number of teams playing a bit.
keli
they are back >< 26 guilds joined, only 5 are playing
Gruff
I don't think the rating requirement should be implemented, as the AT should be open to any guild that wants to play regardless of how good their rating is.
After one or two forfeits, couldn't the system auto adjust how many rounds it is played over based on the now known active participants?
After one or two forfeits, couldn't the system auto adjust how many rounds it is played over based on the now known active participants?
floor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gruff
I don't think the rating requirement should be implemented, as the AT should be open to any guild that wants to play regardless of how good their rating is.
After one or two forfeits, couldn't the system auto adjust how many rounds it is played over based on the now known active participants? |
i can understand ur point about discriminating against the low ranked teams, but ultimately they could AT at present, and they never do. The fact is these teams are not confident enough to actually enter the tournaments so therefore dont bother. Even the B AT which is the least competitive of the the lot, rarely has "low rating" guilds in it, because even the guilds in the B AT are too high ranked for them to feel its worthwhile participating.
Restricting someone from doing something that they dont do already, changes nothing from what i can see. A guild that aspires to play tournaments, should be learning from their mistakes and making use of guests etc, and in doing this theres really no reason why you would ever have rating under 1000, let alone 950... The guilds gvging under 950 rating who are not syncing, are primarily casual guilds and PvE teams playing for fun who have no interest in tournament play.
I also dont think ur second idea is very implementable at all, not only would that probably be very difficult to code, but the main problem is the teams entering causing 2 groups to be formed. Not many people actually mind 5 round AT's, they are just a bit tiresome when there is only 6-7 guilds playing in each group, rather than 15 all in one group....
Missing HB
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by floor
Restricting someone from doing something that they dont do already, changes nothing from what i can see. A guild that aspires to play tournaments, should be learning from their mistakes and making use of guests etc, and in doing this theres really no reason why you would ever have rating under 1000, let alone 950... The guilds gvging under 950 rating who are not syncing, are primarily casual guilds and PvE teams playing for fun who have no interest in tournament play.
|
So , then if i remove playing on morning because noone is , playing at that hour because " only pros " do , when shall those people play ??
From my guild and team view , sure there's no reason we'd have under 1000 , but from an other point of view , that's not so easy
Our Virus
I think what should first be fixed is regular gvg. I mean, today I watched a match between guild rank 2 against rank 900 something. Really? There were no other guilds that were trying to gvg that would be a better fit for each guild?
Artisan Archer
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Our Virus
I think what should first be fixed is regular gvg. I mean, today I watched a match between guild rank 2 against rank 900 something. Really? There were no other guilds that were trying to gvg that would be a better fit for each guild?
|
floor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Missing HB
Right now , the only thing we faced for 2 hours were top120 guilds ( although we were playing in a quite low rating guild)... So yes , obviously no reason we should have rating under 1000.
So , then if i remove playing on morning because noone is , playing at that hour because " only pros " do , when shall those people play ?? From my guild and team view , sure there's no reason we'd have under 1000 , but from an other point of view , that's not so easy |
Its like banning someone from voting, who has never voted in his whole life. I understand that people enjoy having a choice, but it doesnt change anything.
floor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Our Virus
I think what should first be fixed is regular gvg. I mean, today I watched a match between guild rank 2 against rank 900 something. Really? There were no other guilds that were trying to gvg that would be a better fit for each guild?
|
The system itself is actually not flawed, it works perfectly fine, it just relies on a large critical mass of players in order to function optimally, with the current state of ladder being dead for around 18 hours a day, during those hours the long waiting times do mean that beginners are paired up with pro's on a regular basis. But this is better than the alternative which is to not find an opponent at all. Playing the game > standing in the gh.
Silverblad3
Never realised it was that bad till this weekend. Our guild was playing in a Tournament, our Group A had 18 teams, 15 teams forfeit and we still had to play 3 hours with only 3 teams in our group. What a joke! 1 team was afk so we only had 1 other real team to play. Group B was also similar, with I think only 4 teams playing out of 19.
Kick out the forfeit teams and work out the tournament and groups again. Really is bad.
Silver
Kick out the forfeit teams and work out the tournament and groups again. Really is bad.
Silver
coil
is it true that the pool of RP's increase depending upon the number of guilds entering? if so, shouldn't we be glad someone is putting in afk guilds, so long as they dont cause a split?