I don't mean to derail here, but although I think that "taking a free ride on someones tail" is in every aspect not legit, most (Naxx-)Raids/Guilds did the same thing with BWL-epics back then and it was not made such a big deal, although the buyers didn't "earn" the epics eather.
I guess it was tolerated by the community because, in contrast to arena ratings, they didn't take anything from uninvolved players.
There are far more than 25 teams over 1900 in the Nightfall battlegroup. There are 342 2v2 teams, 235 3v3 teams, and 128 5v5 teams all over 1900 rating. This is far, far more than you're claiming will meet a 1900 criteria.
I specifically said my server because the comparison was to the old HWL system which was one per server. You are correct that I said 25 when I meant 35. Keep in mind that many of the same players occupy top spots in all brackets.
On the other hand, K'T is a strong server. What about poor Anvilmar? It was released ~ a year ago, well before the xpac. It would have ZERO 5v5 or 3v3 teams qualify, and only 2 2v2 teams. In other words, after a month and a half or so, the situation would be WORSE then the HWL grind in terms of players with access to the highest level items.
honestly a good friend o' mine and myself are offering such services, too, as a pvp-hearted player, respeccing for every raid is very expensive and so are flasks/consumables/pots etc. i do not think that i am ruining anything, it is at least some good practice for eventrealm participation
I really don't think it's a separate problem all its own. If by taking action A you are intensifying reaction B, then it can't really be seen as two separate things. On the one hand, I think ratings requirements would screen out that 70 blood elf rogue running around in greens of the Bandit and the season 2 weapons, but on the other hand it would eliminate honest but less-skilled PvP'ers much like myself who would still like to get one of those weapons, however many weeks down the line.
So you're saying Torch of the Damned should drop off Gruul?
Originally Posted by oldmandennis
I specifically said my server because the comparison was to the old HWL system which was one per server. You are correct that I said 25 when I meant 35. Keep in mind that many of the same players occupy top spots in all brackets.
On the other hand, K'T is a strong server. What about poor Anvilmar? It was released ~ a year ago, well before the xpac. It would have ZERO 5v5 or 3v3 teams qualify, and only 2 2v2 teams. In other words, after a month and a half or so, the situation would be WORSE then the HWL grind in terms of players with access to the highest level items.
If said players transferred to K'T would they get better, would their arena ratings magically go up? So why does it matter what server they play on.
If said players transferred to K'T would they get better, would their arena ratings magically go up? So why does it matter what server they play on.
I suspect the point he is trying to make here is that newer servers have lower pops and less progression in PvE and PvP. As a result you have a "rich get richer" syndrome coming into play, especially when you factor in the smurfing. If you have 2-3 top teams on K'T offering smurfing services and many folks on K'T taking advantage of it, then there are going to be quite a few folks on K'T with a substantial gear advantage over any team from a less progressed server. The honest folks on those servers will be stuck at a lower rank due to their inability to beat smurfed teams and the less than honest folks won't have the opportunity to smurf at all.
If you think about it, the folks offering smurfing services are offering high-quality epics at rock bottom prices. For 600-1000 gold you can hire someone to get your 2v2 or 3v3 score to the point wher you can get 2 or possibly 3 pieces of T5 quality armor in short order, or a single T5 weapon. Heck, crappy purple world drops go for more than that on my server. Thats a pretty strong incentive to smurf (along with the ancillary "benefit" of being able to make a comment on the state of PvP play on the Blizz forums without being shouted down by idiots for your sub-2000 rating).
I'm one of those folks who doesn't really mind someone running around in greens with a T5 weapon if they spent literally months saving up points. I do have a problem with someone farming a few thousand gold and getting that weapon in 2 weeks based off the work of others. (In a competative environment at any rate, its not a big deal in raid because you are not hindering anothers progression by your success).
I suspect the point he is trying to make here is that newer servers have lower pops and less progression in PvE and PvP.
What prevents them from being good in PvP? Pretty much only 1 thing given that TBC was basically a gear reset and that's a lack of skill. So basically you're saying that people who wipe on Gruul for long enough should get BT caliber epics, as long as they're willing to wipe on him for 1 hour a week for 3-4 months.
What prevents them from being good in PvP? Pretty much only 1 thing given that TBC was basically a gear reset and that's a lack of skill. So basically you're saying that people who wipe on Gruul for long enough should get BT caliber epics, as long as they're willing to wipe on him for 1 hour a week for 3-4 months.
Please read the rest of my previous post. A few points:
1. We are not talking about the raid game, we are talking about PvP. They are 2 very different animals. The loot a raid group receives from Gruul is not dependent on how many other raid groups dropped loot that week.
2. This thread is about smurfing, not about "PvP welfare epics." For good or for ill Blizzard decided to move to a points based system that allows folks to save up points to spend on whatever their little hearts desire. The question we are dealing here is with the integrity and fairness of that system.
3. In WoW PvP is not only about "skill," gear is a major component. A mediocre team in full gladiator gear is going to roll an above average to good team in honor/dungeon blues. (A truly terrible team in full gladiator might lose to an outstanding team in honor blues, but the skill disparity would have to be enormous). The problem with smurfing is that ratings become meaningless and folks achieve high scores irrespective of skill. It harms smaller servers because players on those servers don't have the opportunity to smurf themselves, thus they are beaten by less skilled teams in better gear, that the less skilled team did not earn.
4. Not everyone has been playing the game for 3 years or playing arena since the start. There needs to be a level playing field so new players can advance.
What prevents them from being good in PvP? Pretty much only 1 thing given that TBC was basically a gear reset and that's a lack of skill. So basically you're saying that people who wipe on Gruul for long enough should get BT caliber epics, as long as they're willing to wipe on him for 1 hour a week for 3-4 months.
Are you arguing that people who consistently wipe in BM or SH shouldn't get access to ILevel 115 blues just for being able to repeatedly queue to AV and get smacked around for 20 minutes? Or is it different 'cause those aren't purple?
4. Not everyone has been playing the game for 3 years or playing arena since the start. There needs to be a level playing field so new players can advance.
You had me till right here. No there doesnt need to be a level playing field for people who are just starting to catch people who have been doing it for awhile. They should spend the same time grinding BG's, playing games that others did. The fact of the game is there is always going to be better gear and rewards to players who are better and put more time into their character. Since the only way to upgrade you character is with these rewards you are going to have an advantage if you are one of these players. The only other way to access these rewards is to pay with gold, basically trading one resource for another. Is it fair? No it isnt. Is it wrong, I dont think so. As much as I hate the cliche, it is just a fact of life that if you have the money you can usually get what you want.
Are you arguing that people who consistently wipe in BM or SH shouldn't get access to ILevel 115 blues just for being able to repeatedly queue to AV and get smacked around for 20 minutes? Or is it different 'cause those aren't purple?
I'd buy that. Make it so the losing side gets 0 honor other than the kills they can scrounge, raise kill honor, and move all the epics to the gladiator vendor.
You had me till right here. No there doesnt need to be a level playing field for people who are just starting to catch people who have been doing it for awhile. They should spend the same time grinding BG's, playing games that others did. The fact of the game is there is always going to be better gear and rewards to players who are better and put more time into their character. Since the only way to upgrade you character is with these rewards you are going to have an advantage if you are one of these players. The only other way to access these rewards is to pay with gold, basically trading one resource for another. Is it fair? No it isnt. Is it wrong, I dont think so. As much as I hate the cliche, it is just a fact of life that if you have the money you can usually get what you want.
Let me restate that, becasue I think I phrased it poorly. I'm not suggesting that anyone spend any less time grinding BGs for gear, I am suggesting that good players who have not played since the beginning need an opportunity to catch up. A system that bifurcates the population into "folks who have played for 3 years" and "scrubs" is not very well designed as new players get discouraged and quit. That is not good for the PvP or raid game because new blood needs to be brought in to deal with attrition.
I'm not sayig it should be easy, but it should be reasonably attainable. If folks adancement is slowed to a crawl because all they are playing against are smurf teams that serves as a pretty high barrier for entry. Much higher than folks who have been around a while had to overcome.
To address your second point, many folks will not even have the opportunity to pay someone to rank them unless they are on the 1-2 top servers in a battlegroup. In theory folks interested in their PVP game would have to roll or tranfer to those servers to take advantage of the smurfing to advance. Not good for server load on the high pop server or for the playerbase of the low pop server.
Please read the rest of my previous post. A few points:
1. We are not talking about the raid game, we are talking about PvP. They are 2 very different animals. The loot a raid group receives from Gruul is not dependent on how many other raid groups dropped loot that week.
PvP is balanced around PvE.
2. This thread is about smurfing, not about "PvP welfare epics." For good or for ill Blizzard decided to move to a points based system that allows folks to save up points to spend on whatever their little hearts desire. The question we are dealing here is with the integrity and fairness of that system.
Would people smurf at all if there were no PvP welfare epics? Or to crystalize it more, if PvP occured with premades what are the odds smurfing would occur? Would you care if it did?
3. In WoW PvP is not only about "skill," gear is a major component. A mediocre team in full gladiator gear is going to roll an above average to good team in honor/dungeon blues. (A truly terrible team in full gladiator might lose to an outstanding team in honor blues, but the skill disparity would have to be enormous). The problem with smurfing is that ratings become meaningless and folks achieve high scores irrespective of skill. It harms smaller servers because players on those servers don't have the opportunity to smurf themselves, thus they are beaten by less skilled teams in better gear, that the less skilled team did not earn.
The worse you are the more pvp is about gear, the better you are the more pvp is about skill
4. Not everyone has been playing the game for 3 years or playing arena since the start. There needs to be a level playing field so new players can advance.
A good player rerolling would have much more of a problem grinding out reps/professions/heroics/etc than gearing out in their gladiator epics.
Perhaps. But I think Blizzards vision was to have them exist as almost 2 seperate entities (hence the introduction of resilience).
Originally Posted by XI-
Would people smurf at all if there were no PvP welfare epics? Or to crystalize it more, if PvP occured with premades what are the odds smurfing would occur? Would you care if it did?
1. Probably not. Would you Raid if the gear you received was not measurably better than what you are wearing?
2.+3. Not sure what you are asking here.
Originally Posted by XI-
The worse you are the more pvp is about gear, the better you are the more pvp is about skill
Why not test that empirically? I imagine you are an outstanding player. You and a friend re-roll and level to 70 and then arena in some greens and a few honor blues. Be sure to play prime-time on Thursday/Friday night when the smurf teams are out in force. Please tell us your results.
I'm not sure what your thesis is here. Is it: "People in epics are by default better players than people in greens?"
Originally Posted by XI-
A good player rerolling would have much more of a problem grinding out reps/professions/heroics/etc than gearing out in their gladiator epics.
This is true to some extent and I think a by-product of the arena system is that it gives these folks a chance to get at least some gear that can be used for PvE advancement. (Even if it is not optimal). It will still take a long, long time for a new player at 1500-1600 rating to get a full set of gladiator gear.
There is never going to be a system for all people. Its the same with dkp no matter how fair your system is some one usually comes out on the short end of stick. If it is between the new players or the long timer players getting the short end, I think I am ok with it being the new guy. As for a way to level the playing field, there is one, grind honor. You can level to 70 and grind a full set of blue and epic pvp gear for every slot without stepping inside an instance, grouping or entering an arena. Is that grind easy or fun, nope, at least it is there.
You had me till right here. No there doesnt need to be a level playing field for people who are just starting to catch people who have been doing it for awhile. They should spend the same time grinding BG's, playing games that others did. .
Speaking as a raid/guild leader, this is the worst thing that could possibly happen. People do leave this game -- with the expansion, a good 1/3 of our guild were suddenly freed from WoW's spell and flitted off to parts unknown. Guilds from top to bottom need a constant inflow of well geared participants to fill positions emptied out by real life or boredom.
If Blizz makes it easier for people who are 'new' to catch up -- perhaps only to the 75% or 85% level, but catch up -- to the average raider/pvper within a few weeks, that is to the benefit of everyone. Raiding guilds and pvp teams get a fresh supply of talent. The players themselves get a sense of reward and equality -- the absence of which would cause them to go play Guitar Hero instead, leaving the talent pool. Blizzard gets more subscription money, causing them to be able to release high end expansions faster and better with more testing.
If nothing else, that last point should be incredibly critical for everyone who reads this board.
Speaking as a raid/guild leader, this is the worst thing that could possibly happen. People do leave this game -- with the expansion, a good 1/3 of our guild were suddenly freed from WoW's spell and flitted off to parts unknown. Guilds from top to bottom need a constant inflow of well geared participants to fill positions emptied out by real life or boredom.
If Blizz makes it easier for people who are 'new' to catch up -- perhaps only to the 75% or 85% level, but catch up -- to the average raider/pvper within a few weeks, that is to the benefit of everyone. Raiding guilds and pvp teams get a fresh supply of talent. The players themselves get a sense of reward and equality -- the absence of which would cause them to go play Guitar Hero instead, leaving the talent pool. Blizzard gets more subscription money, causing them to be able to release high end expansions faster and better with more testing.
If nothing else, that last point should be incredibly critical for everyone who reads this board.
It is already super easy to gear up in this game. Prof epics, arena weapons, Karazhan, Gruul and Mag. If you are a new player and want to play at a high level you can get the gear easily with a time investment. However it is much harder to get the skill or experience. You might just recruit off of armory links, I dont. There are always going to be players to get it is whether you are going to attract them. I think your last point is kind of stupid. Blizzard getting more subs isnt going to speed up end game content or help it get better testing. They make plenty of money as it is a hundred thousand more subs isnt going to get Sunwell out faster or better tested than it would have been.
Perhaps. But I think Blizzards vision was to have them exist as almost 2 seperate entities (hence the introduction of resilience).
But that's not how it is implemented. PvP items, particularly weapons, are always inferior to the cutting edge PvE equivalent.
1. Probably not. Would you Raid if the gear you received was not measurably better than what you are wearing?
2.+3. Not sure what you are asking here.
Yes, since I did it for a long time anyways. Also I don't think these questions are very difficult or complicated. Or to crystalize it more, if PvP occured with premades what are the odds smurfing would occur? Would you care if it did?
Why not test that empirically? I imagine you are an outstanding player. You and a friend re-roll and level to 70 and then arena in some greens and a few honor blues. Be sure to play prime-time on Thursday/Friday night when the smurf teams are out in force. Please tell us your results.
I spent a lot of time last season using a T1 weapon/blues/greens, against ppl with T2 weapons/KZ epics, and then Stormheralds/etc at the end of the season. So I'd say I have a pretty good idea of what you can expect. Also I think to be able to compete with trash level 65 greens is unreasonable. If you took your lvl 65 greens to SSC, what would you be able to accomplish? There's a certain point that you can go on skill, my point is a very good skilled player who exhausts non-arena based options could easily achieve a 2000 rating team.
Or you can look at the Overrated people who rerolled onto Tichondrius at the end of last year, and still managed to get over 2000 on a very competitive BG.
This is true to some extent and I think a by-product of the arena system is that it gives these folks a chance to get at least some gear that can be used for PvE advancement. (Even if it is not optimal). It will still take a long, long time for a new player at 1500-1600 rating to get a full set of gladiator gear.
Because players who linger in the 1500-1600 point ratings are NOT VERY GOOD. How much T5 can players who can't beat Gruul achieve?
Not really. It could be that those players aren't playing the right class, or the right spec. There is a surprising number of pretty good players at that level.
So you're saying Torch of the Damned should drop off Gruul?
What an odd statement to try and put in my mouth. PvE and PvP are very different in regard to their idea of progression. Not that it's going to convince you, but I do think that things should slowly get easier to reward decent but not outstanding guilds that can stay together. That doesn't mean that the torch should drop off of Gruul, but the continual improvement of badge rewards, the impending release of ZA, and the ability to get decent items over time through PvP without an exclusivity check all make the game more enjoyable for the vast majority of players who are not in cutting edge guilds. There's a big difference between being months behind and never being able to see content.
If said players transferred to K'T would they get better, would their arena ratings magically go up? So why does it matter what server they play on.
I shouldn't have brought my server into it because its a bad example, especially since it is such an outlier. The point was to get closer to an apples to apples comparison between the old HWL system and the proposed 1900 cutoff. When you take into account that HWL was one per faction per week per server, and there are 20 servers (at least in my BG), and there are probably fewer then 2,000 people above 1900 and that those people are relatively static, the two systems are roughly comparable in terms of exclusivity.
Originally Posted by Amiable
I suspect the point he is trying to make here is that newer servers have lower pops and less progression in PvE and PvP.
Actually it's a bit of the opposite. I picked a server that I knew had been opened long enough before TBC for people to have hit 60. I think I picked poorly though, as it seems like an exceptionally poorly progressed server. The better comparison is probably to look at it as the whole battlegroup.
Yes, since I did it for a long time anyways. Also I don't think these questions are very difficult or complicated. Or to crystalize it more, if PvP occured with premades what are the odds smurfing would occur? Would you care if it did?
Ok, I'm obviously a bit slow, I still don't understand what you are asking here. Are you asking if Battleground PvP occured with premades? Or are you saying if all Arena fights had pre-determined equipment would I care?
Originally Posted by XI-
Because players who linger in the 1500-1600 point ratings are NOT VERY GOOD. How much T5 can players who can't beat Gruul achieve?
I think you confuse "NOT VERY GOOD," with "NOT AS GOOD AS YOU." You are in one of the best guilds in the game which puts you probably at the top 0.5% of the heap. That puts you way above average on the curve.
Now to bring the argument back around, why does this making smurfing OK? Isn't that allowing more folks who don't deserve their welfare epics access to them? Isn't giving the truly atrocious access to gear that rightly belong to the just very bad?
What an odd statement to try and put in my mouth. PvE and PvP are very different in regard to their idea of progression. Not that it's going to convince you, but I do think that things should slowly get easier to reward decent but not outstanding guilds that can stay together. That doesn't mean that the torch should drop off of Gruul, but the continual improvement of badge rewards, the impending release of ZA, and the ability to get decent items over time through PvP without an exclusivity check all make the game more enjoyable for the vast majority of players who are not in cutting edge guilds. There's a big difference between being months behind and never being able to see content.
The PvP equivalent of this would be dropping the rating requirements off gear in subsequent seasons. For example in S3 there wouldn't be a restriction on the S2 weapons, and the S1 gear would be on the honor vendor.
Originally Posted by Amiable
I think you confuse "NOT VERY GOOD," with "NOT AS GOOD AS YOU." You are in one of the best guilds in the game which puts you probably at the top 0.5% of the heap. That puts you way above average on the curve.
Your guild has very little to do with your skill in PvP There's plenty of people in DnT who are terrible PvPers.
Now to bring the argument back around, why does this making smurfing OK? Isn't that allowing more folks who don't deserve their welfare epics access to them? Isn't giving the truly atrocious access to gear that rightly belong to the just very bad?
There's 2 arguments. The first claims that smurfing is screwing people, especially lower rated people by lowering their ratings. First understand that one's rating is basically only a function of their last 100 games played give or take. Then realize that there's a lot more teams at the lower brackets so you see much more variety, so your odds of hitting a smurf are lower. If you look at the average team, 1500-1600, there last 100 games would be ~50-50. If they played 5 smurfs, and lost all those, odds are they would have lost 2-3 of those games anyway, and by moving their rating slightly lower they got more points for the games they subsequently won.
Then we look at the higher teams ratings. Let's say in excess of 2000. These teams will usually have win ratio's in excess of 70%. They are also much more capable of defending their rating, but they can play the same smurf team a lot more often. Let's say they get the smurf team 10 times, but because they're better than the lower ranks, they split. Now in the short run they still lose points, but it's much easier to climb back up because you can easily farm teams if you drop as little as 50-60points. I've personally seen this on my teams, but not due to smurfing, for example we lost ~50pts last week in 10 minutes due to 2 disconnects dropping us from ~2300 to ~2250, then we took a quick loss for ~17 so we were ~2230. We got back up to ~2300 but none of the game were remotely competitive. 6 point games turned into 9 points, despite the fact that we were rolling over these teams in less than 90 seconds.
The second is the welfare epic argument. Why do people smurf? Well they smurf because people are willing to pay for points. People are willing to pay for points, because they can spend them with no restrictions. Put a restriction on buying items, a rating requirement for example, and suddenly it becomes much harder to sell the points, if people can't use them. This also removes the welfare epics argument, and allows Blizzard to make the PvP epics better since they know the people who have them are 1. not as numerous, and 2. have demonstrated some manner of PvP proficiency.
It is already super easy to gear up in this game. Prof epics, arena weapons, Karazhan, Gruul and Mag. If you are a new player and want to play at a high level you can get the gear easily with a time investment.
The point is, how much of a time investment? It's not a black and white issue -- there are shades of grey. Some people will stay for arduous grinds like arena weapons that will take newbies in greens many months to achieve. As far as Kara/Gruul/Mag goes, those tend to be run only occasionally in most advanced guilds now -- so gearing up through those is less likely at this stage in the game.
However it is much harder to get the skill or experience. You might just recruit off of armory links, I dont. There are always going to be players to get it is whether you are going to attract them.
Again, shades of grey. If you have more people in the pool, more of them will be good players. As I said, I have a couple of guys who were 100% attendees and highly great players who now spend their time playing Guitar Hero.
I think your last point is kind of stupid. Blizzard getting more subs isnt going to speed up end game content or help it get better testing. They make plenty of money as it is a hundred thousand more subs isnt going to get Sunwell out faster or better tested than it would have been.
Maybe it'll help. Certainly it doesn't hurt, just as adding +1 spell damage doesn't appear to make a noticeable difference, but is probably worth it over the long run.
If Player1 leaves Team (2250-1500)/5=150 he's contributed too.
New Team Rating is 2100
If Player2 leaves also, new team Rating is 1950.
The only reason I chose 1500 is that's the starting point of all team. And that's being nice.
You could use zero as the starting point in which the team would lose 450 pts. for one player with
100% of the games leaving your team.
Basically, your team loses everything it gained by having that players leave to level another farm team.
You could also make it only remove the points "IF" the player goes an joins another team. In case he
quit by acciendent.
You could put a two week cooldown (or longer) on re-joining the same team IF you quit and joined another team.
So if a player was on Team A, he quit Team A and joined Team B, he could not join Team A for two
weeks.
However, if he did NOT join Team B and quiting Team A was an accident there is no "cooldown".
The second is the welfare epic argument. Why do people smurf? Well they smurf because people are willing to pay for points. People are willing to pay for points, because they can spend them with no restrictions. Put a restriction on buying items, a rating requirement for example, and suddenly it becomes much harder to sell the points, if people can't use them. This also removes the welfare epics argument, and allows Blizzard to make the PvP epics better since they know the people who have them are 1. not as numerous, and 2. have demonstrated some manner of PvP proficiency.
Um, but then how are the players supposed to demonstrate some manner of PvP proficiency? Oh, right, by having a rating equal to or above a certain number, that those Epix Welfare Queens can't achieve on their own. So, uh, they'll be, like, TOTALLY discouraged from hiring a team to smurf them up a pile of points, 'cause it's not like that smurfing would get their rating up, or anything...
If Player1 leaves Team (2250-1500)/5=150 he's contributed too.
New Team Rating is 2100
If Player2 leaves also, new team Rating is 1950.
The only reason I chose 1500 is that's the starting point of all team. And that's being nice.
You could use zero as the starting point in which the team would lose 450 pts. for one player with
100% of the games leaving your team.
Basically, your team loses everything it gained by having that players leave to level another farm team.
You could also make it only remove the points "IF" the player goes an joins another team. In case he
quit by acciendent.
I think something like this is the correct solution though it will not happen. Blizzard is (correctly or incorrectly) worried about players blackmailing their team. I think just taking 75% or so of what you suggested would be reasonable but thats just me
so the equation I would suggest(not that it matters because bliz is obviously not going to take the suggestion)
if RATING > 1500
RATING = RATING - (.75 * (GAMES_PLAYED/TEAM_TOTAL_GAMES) * (RATING - 1500))
//GAMES_PLAYED = # of games personally played
//TEAM_TOTAL_GAMES = # of games played by the team while the leaving player was there
using that you can pad your number of games before the power levelers join. but you still get something from having good players that were on your team. So a power leveling team would be able to do very little compared to what they can currently.
I don't like the idea of a cooldown on joining/leaving a team. I don't ever want there to be a possibility that I can't play the game I'm paying for.
08/21/07, 7:57 PM
Similar Threads
