Tombs Ladder
qwe4rty
I think some sort of Tombs ladder is needed. Discuss:
unienaule
Interesting idea, except every time you enter, you are guaranteed an eventual loss.
Luthor
Actually I was thinking about the same idea.
It could only be done for guilds.
The more they win in Hall of Heroes the higher they get on the ladder.
The counter only counts up wins at Halls, so it doesn't matter if you lose.
This will also influence guilds to do more HoH, because if they just form PuG's they won't get any recognition.
It could only be done for guilds.
The more they win in Hall of Heroes the higher they get on the ladder.
The counter only counts up wins at Halls, so it doesn't matter if you lose.
This will also influence guilds to do more HoH, because if they just form PuG's they won't get any recognition.
Navaros
A Tombs ladder that has fame bonus incentives based on your ladder rank (ie: rank 50 or above on the Tombs ladder gets you plus 2 fame bonus for every map you win) would be an awesome idea.
romO
im not going to support this because then it could become a matter of how many people are in the guild. whereas in gvg, usually only the best players are allowed to play and they make assurances of winning, in tombs you can grab anyone and go at any time of day and stand a chance at winning hall. the guilds with the most people will simply be running constant groups and will end up winning more hoh than the smaller, more skilled guilds.
and navaros that seems like kind of a terrible idea because it will just widen the fame gap and give players that have an easy time gaining fame naturally another incentive which really isnt necessary.
and navaros that seems like kind of a terrible idea because it will just widen the fame gap and give players that have an easy time gaining fame naturally another incentive which really isnt necessary.
qwe4rty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by romO
im not going to support this because then it could become a matter of how many people are in the guild. whereas in gvg, usually only the best players are allowed to play and they make assurances of winning, in tombs you can grab anyone and go at any time of day and stand a chance at winning hall. the guilds with the most people will simply be running constant groups and will end up winning more hoh than the smaller, more skilled guilds.
|
Think of it like Warcraft III where there is the 1v1 Solo ladder, and the 4v4 Random Team ladder. Everyone agrees, the solo players are better, but they still have more than one ladder.
romO
i see what you mean qwe4rty and i respect your opinion, but it just seems like it might be an annoyance to most skilled players when the most skills guilds are farther down the ladder and the guilds that simply play the most and have the most members are at the top. in warcraft III, the ladder was based on wins and losses and the way that this tombs ladder was suggested, the assumption was that only hoh victories would count toward a guild's ladder rating and rank. thus, even 4v4 random ladder required a lot more skill in individual games, and each game was very important because a win vs. a loss meant a huge turnaround in rating.
qwe4rty
yeah, it would be kind of hard, because each HoH battle isn't a "single" Enter Mission. Its a chain of wins. Not like WCIII where it was one game at a time, win or lose.
Just an idea to throw out there, I'm sure the Dev's could find a way to do this a lot easier than what we have said so far.
I just really want fame to = fame, not wins
Just an idea to throw out there, I'm sure the Dev's could find a way to do this a lot easier than what we have said so far.
I just really want fame to = fame, not wins
Navaros
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qwe4rty
I just really want fame to = fame, not wins
|
That's a great idea, but a Tombs Guild ladder would not give that.
Best way for fame to equal fame, is to make an individual player ladder based on fame points. And people with the same exact number of fame points as each other would be ranked higher based on who got that much fame first.
Hannibel
/not signed
i think the only ladder should be put in other than gvg ladder is a single player ladder based on fame
i think the only ladder should be put in other than gvg ladder is a single player ladder based on fame
qwe4rty
That would be an idea as well.
To extend my last post, I was thinking about a way for a Tombs Team ladder. It can't be based soley on wins and losses, because you have to take into account level of skill. GvG, WCIII, most ladders are based not only on Wins, but Rating, or Experience.
To determine this in a tombs group, maybe have a formula which adds the whole teams collective rank, and that will give some idea of a challenge rating in determining how much Experience (or whatever, don't know what to call it). However, the ladder won't be based on this collective rank.
Just an idea to throw out there.
And just to have a little bit more input, if you guys disagree (or even agree), fine I respect that, but if you could, add a little bit of why. It will go a long way to furthering a productive conversation.
Thanks
To extend my last post, I was thinking about a way for a Tombs Team ladder. It can't be based soley on wins and losses, because you have to take into account level of skill. GvG, WCIII, most ladders are based not only on Wins, but Rating, or Experience.
To determine this in a tombs group, maybe have a formula which adds the whole teams collective rank, and that will give some idea of a challenge rating in determining how much Experience (or whatever, don't know what to call it). However, the ladder won't be based on this collective rank.
Just an idea to throw out there.
And just to have a little bit more input, if you guys disagree (or even agree), fine I respect that, but if you could, add a little bit of why. It will go a long way to furthering a productive conversation.
Thanks
One and Two
They would have to fix tombs before they even thought of making a ladder for it...
And it would need to say losses and wins, cus just wins is stupid. You could just run 20 tombs groups at once and jump to the top of the ladder...
And it would need to say losses and wins, cus just wins is stupid. You could just run 20 tombs groups at once and jump to the top of the ladder...
qwe4rty
I'm thinking more along the lines of a Group Tombs ladder, rather than a Guild Tombs ladder.
The problem with doing the ladder just based on wins and losses is that it doesn't take into account the other teams skill level. Hence my idea for somehow adding all the players collective rank to determine some type of *challenge* rating. Wins/losses will still be recorded, just not the solo factor of determining rank.
This is by no means the only, or even the best solution. What would ya'll do besides wins/losses.
The problem with doing the ladder just based on wins and losses is that it doesn't take into account the other teams skill level. Hence my idea for somehow adding all the players collective rank to determine some type of *challenge* rating. Wins/losses will still be recorded, just not the solo factor of determining rank.
This is by no means the only, or even the best solution. What would ya'll do besides wins/losses.
Navaros
You can't really record a win/loss ratio in Tombs because it is not a fair determination of legitimate losses.
There are a few Altar maps on the way to the Hall, and on each of them that are not 1vs1, luck plays just as big of a factor in losing or not as skill does.
If the two other teams gank you, you are dead. Period. Only way you won't be is if they are both incompetent teams.
So how are you gonna count a "loss" against a team that got ganked by 16 players? It wouldn't be fair to do so.
There are a few Altar maps on the way to the Hall, and on each of them that are not 1vs1, luck plays just as big of a factor in losing or not as skill does.
If the two other teams gank you, you are dead. Period. Only way you won't be is if they are both incompetent teams.
So how are you gonna count a "loss" against a team that got ganked by 16 players? It wouldn't be fair to do so.
qwe4rty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Navaros
You can't really record a win/loss ratio in Tombs because it is not a fair determination of legitimate losses.
There are a few Altar maps on the way to the Hall, and on each of them that are not 1vs1, luck plays just as big of a factor in losing or not as skill does. |
tomcruisejr
the pinnacle of GW pvp is GvG, quality pvp that is.
Tombs PvP should not be ladderized coz most of the time, you guys arent facing an organized team.
quality = ladder = GvG
Tombs PvP should not be ladderized coz most of the time, you guys arent facing an organized team.
quality = ladder = GvG
qwe4rty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tomcruisejr
the pinnacle of GW pvp is GvG, quality pvp that is.
Tombs PvP should not be ladderized coz most of the time, you guys arent facing an organized team. quality = ladder = GvG |
Also, please read the entire topic before you post something like this. If you had, you would have noticed my idea for basing challenge rating of the team on the cumalative rank of the whole team (or something similar). This way, it's not just counting wins/losses. Your post lost a lot of credibility to me when you said that.
BTW: Not all guilds are organized
glenn_rolfe
Bad idea to make a tombs ladder. It doesn't even make sense since the majority of groups are PUG's
what they really need to do is vary some of the map objectives in GvG instead of just hold flag kill guild lord.
I agree about the greastest competition being in GvG (quite obviously). But I'm annoyed that anyone inside the top 50 is just a ranger spike guild.
(Ok, i'm sure there's a couple that don't always run it, but not many)
Makes you wonder about the world tournament when everyone is just going to rock up with ranger spike.
what they really need to do is vary some of the map objectives in GvG instead of just hold flag kill guild lord.
I agree about the greastest competition being in GvG (quite obviously). But I'm annoyed that anyone inside the top 50 is just a ranger spike guild.
(Ok, i'm sure there's a couple that don't always run it, but not many)
Makes you wonder about the world tournament when everyone is just going to rock up with ranger spike.
tomcruisejr
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qwe4rty
Also, please read the entire topic before you post something like this.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qwe4rty
I think some sort of Tombs ladder is needed. Discuss:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qwe4rty
So whats the point of not having Tombs then? Should it just be abolished?
|
i found it funny when people were suddenly "im rank 25. im the greatest pvper there is"
qwe4rty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glenn_rolfe
Bad idea to make a tombs ladder. It doesn't even make sense since the majority of groups are PUG's
|
I don't always Tombs with Guild, I do with friends who aren't in Guild, and see no reason not to have a Tombs ladder.
Ristaron
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glenn_rolfe
Bad idea to make a tombs ladder. It doesn't even make sense since the majority of groups are PUG's
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tomcruisejr
Tombs PvP should not be ladderized coz most of the time, you guys arent facing an organized team.
|
But he is correct, most teams are PUGs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qwe4ty
I just really want fame to = fame, not wins
|
What I think you're getting at: you want to be 'famous' for 'kicking ass' in Tombs, and being able to flaunt a high rank.
Sorry to boycott, but the last thing we need right now is more elitism in tombs. Let the people who don't PvP incredibly often (and don't have organized guilds to party with) show their colours, then current organized guilds will see their competence and invite them.
And, if you want to be 'famous', join a prestigious guild and play with them often in prestigious events against other guilds. There isn't another way short of leading a new guild with a powerful team you can prove yourself in by beating other good guilds in PvP (whether tombs or GvG).
But I'll say with certainty, fame is going to remain the amount of victories you have in tombs, and not anything else.
/not signed
qwe4rty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ristaron
ladderized?
But he is correct, most teams are PUGs. |
PuGs won't be on ladder
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ristaron
I don't understand... fame is how many wins you have, nothing else.
What I think you're getting at: you want to be 'famous' for 'kicking ass' in Tombs, and being able to flaunt a high rank. Sorry to boycott, but the last thing we need right now is more elitism in tombs. Let the people who don't PvP incredibly often (and don't have organized guilds to party with) show their colours, then current organized guilds will see their competence and invite them. And, if you want to be 'famous', join a prestigious guild and play with them often in prestigious events against other guilds. There isn't another way short of leading a new guild with a powerful team you can prove yourself in by beating other good guilds in PvP (whether tombs or GvG). But I'll say with certainty, fame is going to remain the amount of victories you have in tombs, and not anything else. |
I sorta see your point about elitism, and I agree, it's stupid, but having a ladder won't change the fact that groups will ask for "R3 or higher only please"
Thing is, the people who advertise this "R3 only" are the PuGs. THere the elitists because "I have an emote and you don't"
This ladder is pretty much for the people (friends or guilds) who like to do Tombs to have something to be proud of
qwe4rty
Anything other comments, problems, suggestions?
Goonter
Ive stated this many times and I think it would help tombs a lot.
Leagues.
You would have rookie, minor, junior, major, veterans and professional leagues.
You qaulify for a league by your rank.
So a rank 0-2 would be rookie league on up to rank 12 for professional leagues.
Player could join any league dispite thier rank, but for incentive, lower ranked players would not recieve any added bonus for playing in leagues above them and higher ranked players would recieve dimishing rewards for playing in leagues below them.
So a rank 9 player would recieve no fame, faction or items at the end in a rookie league. This would be to keep high ranking players from "farming" newbies.
I think this would help players to combat on equal level.
So getting run over would be a little more difficult for newer pvp'ers or you can usually expect a challenge if your a vet.
Plus, there would come a point when rank farming tactics would lvl off and fail to reward players that dont play complex and adapting builds.
Im not certain about a tombs ladder, but I do agree that more than one ladder would be nice for competition.
There have been lots of suggestions like GvG matches that require havesting and managing resorces or best 2 out of 3 deathmatchs with skill reajustment between matches.
With more oppertunitys to be in a top 10 ranked ladder I think maybe more guilds would compete in GvG.
Leagues.
You would have rookie, minor, junior, major, veterans and professional leagues.
You qaulify for a league by your rank.
So a rank 0-2 would be rookie league on up to rank 12 for professional leagues.
Player could join any league dispite thier rank, but for incentive, lower ranked players would not recieve any added bonus for playing in leagues above them and higher ranked players would recieve dimishing rewards for playing in leagues below them.
So a rank 9 player would recieve no fame, faction or items at the end in a rookie league. This would be to keep high ranking players from "farming" newbies.
I think this would help players to combat on equal level.
So getting run over would be a little more difficult for newer pvp'ers or you can usually expect a challenge if your a vet.
Plus, there would come a point when rank farming tactics would lvl off and fail to reward players that dont play complex and adapting builds.
Im not certain about a tombs ladder, but I do agree that more than one ladder would be nice for competition.
There have been lots of suggestions like GvG matches that require havesting and managing resorces or best 2 out of 3 deathmatchs with skill reajustment between matches.
With more oppertunitys to be in a top 10 ranked ladder I think maybe more guilds would compete in GvG.
Kep
Just an Idea, maybe it should say in your Guild Status how many times your guild has won hall of heroes, would be a nice idea. Ascended Valour has won 7 times, but nothing to show for it except photos.
Clusmas
When you enter tombs it makes no secret of the fact it is a TOURNAMENT! So I agree; some sort of Tombs ladder certainly is needed.
Hannibel
only tomb ladder i think it would be a good idea would be an individual ladder, for top 1000 players with most fame, have a ladder like the guild ladder, but it shows the fame of a person, and if your the leader of the party in a tombs group, and it's a pug, maybe it should say the there ranking.