User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Community and Website/Feb 2009

Archives by Topic
Random Chatter Wiki Topics Game Related Topics Community & Website Product Information Misplaced Topics, Etc.

Fixing matches in mAT

In the last mAT rawr and zero fixed the match by making a conga line ( http://i42.tinypic.com/swb5oh.jpg) instead of fighting. Why did they do that? Because: "Also, rawr/zero drawed because it'd insure them both a spot in the final 16. If they hadn't drawed vE would have had one of their spots instead." http://guildwars.incgamers.com/showpost.php?p=5478575&postcount=95 I think both have to be punished for cheating. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:84.57.251.154 (talk).

So you quoted someone who doesn't know what he's talking about as if it was the actual reason? The reason why they drew was because it was a way to protest the terrible tiebreaker system of both the matches themselves and for deciding who gets top 16.

I'll be discussing this with the team this week. Do you have any other thoughts or suggestions besides that they be "punished"? --Regina Buenaobra 00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Change the system so that stalemates/draws go into "sudden death" matches, so that this never happens again? (may be infeasible, I dunno, but if the code for VoD is still laying around...) Vili 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Most swiss tournaments, like in chess and Magic: the Gathering, allow intentional draws during the swiss rounds. I don't see why this is a problem. 74.218.240.78 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with this either. This isn't cheating, this is a strategy they decided to use. A decision of questionable morality, but I don't think that any actual "cheating" was done...they both decided that it would be better if vE wasn't competition, and they had the power to make that a reality based on their position.-Warior Kronos 03:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Manipulating a ranking system is an offense in all competitive games. However, if you were to punish rawr/zero for this and you wanted to be consistent, you'd have to punish everyone who's ever been on a 3-way map in HA. ~Shard 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is of questionable morality. However it does not break the rules as they currently are. If you want to make it impossible in the future you should update your MAT system. As shard said, 3 way battles in HA have almost always been like this. Kelvin Greyheart 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is against the rules, the Guild Wars Universal Tournament Rules (which apply to all tournaments in-game) state:

"Players/guilds are expected to behave in a respectful and sporting manner at all times.'

Players/guilds are expected to not participate in any form of ladder manipulation. Ladder Manipulation is defined as any actions taken to alter the rankings or ratings of the tournament ladder that deviate from guilds actually playing and completing battles. Throwing matches or getting your opponent’s to throw them to you are examples of ladder manipulation because ratings and rankings are changed without actual game play taking place.

Players/guilds that do not fulfill their responsibilities as described above may be subject to review by the ArenaNet. Such a review may result in loss of event prizes up to account suspension or revocation."

Bolded the important parts, but by not playing the battle and altering the rankings of the tournament (as mentioned, vE would have won a spot had rawr and zero not forced a draw), is against the rules ArenaNet as set out for all their tournaments.

Listing Chess as an example is very bad btw mr IP, as Chess is the only widely played sport that allows such a system of any person being able to draw at any time, and is actually in the rules of the game, same goes for M:TG. Guild Wars, while inspired by M:TG and chess (to some degree), is *not* those games, and never has had a rule that states "you may draw at any time you wish." or anything similar.

That said, Regina, I think besides forfeiting both guilds (it seems right, especially considering MORE guilds in-game are doing this during the ATs now.) and giving GeAr the gold, that you should also discuss possible ways of changing the tie breaker mechanics to prevent draws. I think the simplest thing to do is to simply make the highest ranked guild win by default at draw during ATs & MATs, and make the lower ranked guild get an automatic "loss". It isn't pretty, but it won't waste a lot of resources and it will discourage people from drawing, especially from guilds like Rebel Rising where people are guaranteed to lose if they attempt it. The sudden death idea would be a good one, but people are drawing from inaction (conga line), so Sudden Death is a moot point. While 3-way HA is similar, there is no rules that govern HA beyond the Rules of Conduct that affect all of the game (don't exploit, etc.) DarkNecrid 05:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove the tiebreaker entirely (bad system from the get go), make the lord walk out but without VoD - easy gvg fix. Gvg needs to have a definite "end" mechanic, but preferably one that doesn't destroy the game like an arbitrary tiebreaker system with hidden gauges that makes GvG more like a roulette than a GvG. VoD used to allow hyper-defensive rawr-esque builds to ball for 18+ minutes, then using the bonus damage magically granted to them by VoD, get kills via spikes. With the removal of VoD, these builds have been forced to take additional damage, but at the same time, the lord walking out was removed - you fixed one thing but broke another. Make the lord walk out as usual (with or without NPCs - at this point, the bodyguard is a piece of trash) and let the match have a definite end that way.

Obviously, every guild caught violating the rules of the tournament needs to be disqualified/punished. Repeated instances should lead to an outright ban. It's catching on already, ANet - you need to nip it in the bud early. This isn't something you can wait three months to fix. Nevermind, izzy is apparently pissed off about it already. It should get fixed pretty quick <3 -Auron 10:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{RI}Great suggestion Auron. The only thing I see wrong with it is that ATs&MATs are on a strict time limit schedule, and your posted idea has no mechanic for making sure a game ends at 28 minutes in favor of one team or another. Even if both lords walk out, both teams could still conga line and just heal his damage so no lord dies at 28 minutes, and this would break the AT system. It would help the tie breaker mechanic immensely but you still need a "draw" mechanic at 28 minutes for the AT system. Higher rank autowins or some such. It's really the only thing I can think of as I can't think of a mechanic that would fairly cause 1 team to win over another that couldn't be abused in some way, otherwise. DarkNecrid 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Both teams lose at 28 mins in the event of a draw, just like TA. Run your fortressway then. Misery 11:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IDK, I thought of the same thing but it screws up the elimination playoffs by giving 1 guild a bye (since they'd have no opponent) instead of all the matches having to be played, seems kinda dumb. Granted, this would probably never happen if you made both guilds lose, but you never know. DarkNecrid 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Same thing would happen if someone forfeited, so I don't really see the problem. Misery 11:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Lords were to walk, then they would eventually meet and fight. Damage would be done and even with healing and damage prevention, you should still end up with more aggression on one side or the other which would trigger a win for someone. However, if you're both walling the lords off with a conga line, then the Lords cant get past you anyway so the walking mechanic doesn't solve the problem. In all fairness, the solution should be that if there is a draw at 28 minutes, then both teams lose. If for some reason there needs to be a winner, then the lower ranked guild should win, not the higher. There's no reason a top 10 guild should be handed a victory for managing to draw with a rank 1000 guild. Mr J 11:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually proposing throwing out the aggressiveness mechanic all together as I know a lot of people have problems with this "invisible" mechanic, but strong point about high rank vs low rank. I feel that no lords being killed resulting in a loss for both teams would help address the passive defence problems seen throughout GvG, people would lose a lot for a few weeks till they got the point that they actually had to kill the other team. Misery 12:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since aggressiveness is such a vague mechanic I can't really say whether it's a good or bad thing, but it should definitely be made more transparent or be removed/replaced. My piece on that, though, was a reply to DarkNecrid's comment about "Even if both lords walk out, both teams could still conga line and just heal his damage so no lord dies at 28 minutes, and this would break the AT system." The aggressiveness mechanic would come into play there and hopefully decide a winner. Mr J 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a Carrier's Defense-like effect, but it would be broken if the Guild Lord had it.Pika Fan 12:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr J, since teams are intentionally drawing, they would just coordinate a build that would let them easily Enchantment & Weapon Spell spam the guild lords to keep both lords @ no Aggressiveneess, resulting in a draw game. 71.113.173.198 13:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That would work so long as aggressiveness doesn't go into the negatives but really they could just do what they were doing and continue blocking the lord in the starting area for the same effect. Mr J 13:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Players/guilds are expected to behave in a respectful and sporting manner at all times." As if ANet ever cared for that: Ranking is forbidden under that rule. I doubt they'll take any action.

Regina, I find it somewhat disappointing that Anet ignored the fact that this form of tournament manipulation has been going on in Hero Battles for over a year now. It's so common there that as a top 100 player you're almost guaranteed to have players asking you to draw a match in any rated tournament. Now it happens once in GvG and it's suddenly a huge issue that has to be solved. Had anyone actually bothered to look at the situation in HB then Anet could have found a solution to prevent this from happening in GvG. --Draikin 20:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hero Battles is still considered by many in the community to be a lower level form of play. Yeah, it's pretty bad there too, I personally watched the game where people ran stuff like Stone Dagger eles and just sacced themselves in the finals, but ultimately it is a bad game mode with bad mechanics that is pretty much given up on til Izzy can dedicate all the time he wants to fix it (which will be never at this rate). That and it is harder to track all the cases on a case by case basis because many HBers change their name they use to fight with like....every AT. I doubt you can list every single case of it from every single AT/MAT in the history of Hero Battles. Even if you had watched it from the first case, I doubt you can do this. Even then, you'd have repeats from the same account. GvG is substantially easier to track, you have 8 people doing it who almost never ever change their names. Someone says Rebel Rising and someone can name their entire core and it'll never ever change unless if they guest Reflected or whoever. Much easier to track guilds like [rawr], [zero, and holz&gg and the other guilds who are doing it, because they each consist of 8 entities, all agreeing to do this, who never ever change their names. Hell someone could just say Polly and Tommy forced a draw in the mat and we'd know it is Rebel Rising and Survival Rate.

That doesn't make what happens in the HB ATs any less wrong, mind you, but Hero Battles is full of mechanic problems in the first place. (Namely people who want you to just /roll because the mode sucks so bad they'd rather just get it over with for the +1 or 2 to the title than play it.) DarkNecrid 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing names shouldn't make it any more difficult to track them for Anet. Of course I couldn't list every time this happened since it happens in every single HB AT and that's not even an exaggeration. That's only because Anet allowed it to happen. I know there are plenty of other problems with HB (that are also being ignored), but this particular problem is something that could and now did occur in GvG. Had Anet listened to some of the complaints from the HB community they could have prevented this from happening, but it's too late for that now. At least I hope that whatever solution they come up with to prevent this from happening again will be implemented for HB as well. --Draikin 09:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a meeting with Izzy and Linsey to discuss and come to a consensus on what action we will take. We're going to take action on this issue with the first scheduled build in February. I don't have details for you at this time. We all agrees that both guilds involved broke the rules, and there will be consequences. --Regina Buenaobra 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wild guess, capes are given to the guilds with the next build? So the consequence will be no cape and reward points for rawr and zero. Like they care. :) (Ate of DK 02:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)).

apparently the outcome of this issue has been decided, but i want to mention that what rawr and zero did makes perfect sense. it's been done in professional soccer matches as mentioned by the book freakonomics. there is no incentive for the 2 teams to try to eliminate one another when they will both advance. if this is unwanted behavior, incentivise the system so that this won't happen again. but don't punish them for doing only what rational economic behavior calls for. --VVong|BA 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Will GG, holz, and the HB players who have done this for the past few months also receive the same punishment or are only rawr & zero being targeted? I havn't heard any talk about what will happen to the others involved, but it seems like you aren't concerned with anyone besides rawr and zero. With those impressions, I can't help but see anet using rawr as sort of a martyr to try and dissolve the impression that rawr has influence with anet employees in such a subjective light. --WiggleWorm 04:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others, they need to be punished. The big thing, as I agree with WiggleWorm, is that rawr and zero are being targeted. Hero battles are a mess. I don't think rawr is really a martyr, they're just one of the most popular guilds in GW, so obviously people are going to notice. I agree that they need to remove the tie feature. It serves no purpose. All other pvp that I know of does not tie. It's either you win or lose. Ties just mess up rankings and need to be tossed. If neither team loses life, they both lose. This is so much more motivation for people not to manipulate rankings since their main objective in cheating is to win. --adrin 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that rawr and zero both deserve some sort of punishment. But I think that no one should take gold not even gear because the outcome could've been different, for all we know vE could have won the MaT. So I think what should happen is that rawr and zero are wiped off the ladder, Reward points taken away, and banned from the next MaT as a punishment.

It's anets flawed mechanic thats at fault here not the guilds. I agree with Wong, if anet wants to punish someone for this they should punish themselves for the flawed game mechanic they incorporated into the game. Give guilds incentives to play competitively not punishments for abiding by flawed tournament mechanics! -- Salome 05:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RP's have already Been given out, so they wont get them taken away, and well if anet does decide to do anything they will have to do the same for any Hero battle Tie or something, IMO take the gold cape from rawr and give it to GeAr :D. that would work imo, --Wild 06:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

@Salome: you sound like that guy who said that it wasn't his fault that he used a gun, because they exist to be used. It is the maker of the gun that has to be punished. 145.94.74.23 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's anets flawed mechanic thats at fault here not the guilds. I agree with Wong, if anet wants to punish someone for this they should punish themselves for the flawed game mechanic they incorporated into the game. Give guilds incentives to play competitively not punishments for abiding by flawed tournament mechanics! This is a classic example of when someone doesn't have a point so they blame the source of the problem. If arenanet forced stricter rules as you apparently think need to be added, you would probably whine and cry about that too. There's no game mechanics in that situation whatsoever. It's like saying that if two teams in basketball decide to stand around and not do anything for sixty minutes besides pass to the opposite team and not shoot baskets, that it's the NBA's fault. Um, no it's the players who abused the game. I agree with the IP post before me. If you have a point and reasonable suggestion for a solution, post it. Don't blame the game for something the players did in it. Also, if guilds didn't have incentive to play in AT's they wouldn't, but obviously there's some reason to play since they do it. --adrin 09:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well what ever they do the better do more then just remove there trim and rps. and they should also do something to address the people who "bet" on them in the reward hose. Also who cares about HB its the worst pvp in the game, it simply needs to just be removed and swapped with a costume brawl style arena where the skills change each month. instead of this who can roll higher/ who can hero micro better with meta bars. also what ever anet decided to do to the two guilds should be rather server because you can be reported for saying something like shit and get banned for that the next day and this is Far worse shit then inappropriate language.75.165.102.138 09:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Person above this isnt a Discussion on if HB is bad and if need to be replaced. Its been mentioned because its been abused like this in the same way for ages. Go into the last round in the top 8 of the AT Face another top 8. Both want to stay there? tie ur opponent so u both stay, or dont one win one losses, one stays on doesnt, yeah its cheating others out of the reward, but really its playing the game, be as it may, its abusing the rules, So really thats all the happened in the MAT its just tieing to make sure they both got through, and yes it cheated the other guilds in 17th and 18th out of a chance in the top 16, but if u look at tie breaker points before that round i think zero and rawr both had more then the other 2 anyway. Wild 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the same as how people act in football games. 62.133.217.136 10:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen two football teams form a conga line in the middle of a match. I have seen the New Zealand Cricket team decide to lose badly to South Africa when it became evident that they could no longer win the match so that South Africa would get a bonus point and get through to the finals instead of Australia who was a more feared team and it was thought that South Africa would be easier to beat in the finals. There was talk of barring the New Zealand captain from the sport for life, it was eventually determined that it was more an error of judgement than willful manipulation so he got away with a temporary suspension and a hefty fine. As a side note, New Zealand lost that final, that's karma for you. Misery 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

@Adrin Really mate as a brief aside your recent posts (well actually almost all your posts since you joined the wiki) have been aggressive and attacking of other users, you continually make dismissive smug comments with little to no evidence to support yourself. Please in the future engage in discourse in a civil manner as your current post style is a good way to go about getting yourself banned eventually. Back to the point at hand, I understand the IP's point, however this is not gun law and trying to use one line of logic across the board although very Kantian isn't very helpful in this instance. Simplly put their was no incentive for those 2 guilds to try to win that match due to the game mechanics that anet had for the tournament. The tournament needs changed on a much more fundamental level. You can not force guilds to "Play to win", if 2 guilds want to mess about that's their choice and they should be allowed to do so, instead of dolling out punishments, Anet should look at what allowed it to get to this point and then change the mechanics of the tournament to accommodate for this. Personally I advocate removing the tie system as it was flawed from the very beginning and make it that the team that has done the most dmg wins and if both teams have done no dmg then both teams are out. However in reference to punishing guilds etc... No rule/law should ever have retroactive effect. One should always be able to be aware of a rule beforehand (note that doesn't mean that one has to be aware of the rule for them to break it or that ignorance is a defense but just rather that they should at least be given the chance from reading the rules to tell that they are indeed breaking one with their actions). Their is nothing expressly in the rules about this and the rule quoted above I think you would have to be stretching somewhat to apply to this instance. Again on another side note, do I think what the two teams did was right? NO of course I don't, however I also don't think they should be punished for just doing something I find morally dubious, as one should not impose their own ethics upon another as long as that person is abiding by the rules at hand. -- Salome 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is expressly written in the rules. To reiterate; "Players/guilds are expected to not participate in any form of ladder manipulation. Ladder Manipulation is defined as any actions taken to alter the rankings or ratings of the tournament ladder that deviate from guilds actually playing and completing battles. Throwing matches or getting your opponent’s to throw them to you are examples of ladder manipulation because ratings and rankings are changed without actual game play taking place." It specifically states that they should not purposely deviate from playing and completing battles nor should they deliberately throw matches to alter the ratings and rankings without gameplay happening. Mr J 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet those rules are apparently meaningless when talking about HB. It is irrelevant that Anet doesn't appear to care about HB. If they do this without doing something about it in HB, they are using a double standard. If they are not actively enforcing rules in HB, they have essentially said, this rule is for formality purposes only. Do I think what the guilds did was correct? I would generally say that I find it objectionable and that it should not be possible, and should be punishable. Yet I feel that punishing them for doing something that has, as previously mentioned, essentially been given the green light is too far. It is simply a matter of precedent. Anet has set a precedent with their treatment of HB, and until they start actually enforcing this in HB, they are hypocrites if they enforce this here and now. Kelvin Greyheart 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally agreed with Kelvin! -- Salome 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ANet doesn't go looking for rule violations. They rely on reports by users. This violation has been reported, is a clear violation and should be actioned appropriately. If reports have previously been made against someone for rule violations in HB or elsewhere that have not been acted on, then that is wrong. -- Inspired to ____ 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also as a wee aside, neither team threw the match, they just drew. They waited out the timer and ran about and thus arguably they did indulge in "gameplay". I'm not saying I agree with their actions but technically they did abide by the rules stated above. They did not throw the match and nor did they get anyone else too. I will admit that it is ladder manipulation but then you can't force people to play competitively if they don't want to. They are not smurfing and they are not role deciding they are just choosing not to fight. Which is a valid tactic all be it one of dubious virtue. -- Salome 15:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take your technicalities and cram them imo. Arenanet doesn't seem to care and I can't say I care much for "technicalities" either, this isn't a court of law. Misery 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As inspired said, you can only complain about the HB problems if you've reported them and Izzy, Regina, etc, have replied with "So what?". AFAIK they haven't said that and the reporting of this sort of thing in HB is almost non-existant. In response to your aside, Salome, refusing to try and win a match is throwing the match whether you want to admit it or not. You shouldn't continue arguing that they were "technically" inside the rules because they specifically mention that teams are expected to play and complete the battles. Neither team attempted to fulfill the objectives of killing the opposing team's Guild Lord or accumulating maximum death penalty on the opposing team. Even if you don't want to admit any of that, you've still freely admitted it was a form of Ladder Manipulation, which, once again, is specifically prohibited. Mr J 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, since when has the threat of hypocrisy ever been a valid reason for not doing the right thing? Mr J 15:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As holding one guild up to a higher standard than the others just because its RAWR is completely unfair, no one should be made a scapegoat. I would much rather see ANET fix the faulty mechanic than see RAWR punished. Also they did both "play and complete the battle" just not in a conventional manner, more in a conga-type manner. The only reason I'm putting this viewpoint forward is that I don't want anet to do what I think its going to do, which is keep its flawed mechanic and then put in a disincentive to utilize this mechanic, rather than just going directly to the source and fix the thing properly. It's a cop out response and doesn't address the true issue. As said before I don't condone what the guilds did and if anet wants to punish them for it, I won't lose any sleep over it, however I do feel the mechanic needs fixed rather than punishments applied. -- Salome 16:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look further up both Mr. J and I have been discussing possible fixes to the mechanics to prevent future reoccurances, which would be very, very easy to mask. The ball is in Arenanet's park. I'm sure they know by now that many many people dislike the tiebreaker mechanic anyway. Misery 16:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's nothing to do with Rebel Rising or any standards anyone expects from them. People would be reporting this regardless of the guilds that did it or the guild who got short-changed. Mr J 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(RI)As inspired said, you can only complain about the HB problems if you've reported them and Izzy, Regina, etc, have replied with "So what?". You have just effectively validated my statement. I personally have not reported HB stuff (since I played it maybe 50 times total and grew bored because *insert 500 reasons here about AI, map glitches, rolls, etc*), but I know, and know of several people who were relatively high ranked who did report these issues and got no followup whatsoever. Kelvin Greyheart 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but nice try. I have not validated your point at all. In order for your point to be validated, you will need to provide proof of reports of this kind to ArenaNet staff with a response from them saying that they will not be taking any action. And not that they will take no action because of lack of proof, but that they will take no action because they do not consider /rolling or intentionally tieing a breach of Tournament rules. Mr J 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So telling you that people have sent in reports with screenshots of chat dialogue with information regarding time, dates, peoples ranking, etc, not receiving a response, and then seeing the same person asking them the same thing next match is inadequate for you? As far as getting actual documentation goes I will say that you will have to trust me (I won't bother throwing around the assume good faith jargon, and will try to explain the difficulty of the task you demand of me). I really don't care if you trust me or not. Of the three people I know who explained what they did in any real detail to me. All have stopped playing as of several months ago. I had the phone numbers of two, both of which have moved (one, no idea why, other military). I had the email of the person whose family was military, but he has not responded in two months so I honestly have no way of knowing what happened, or where he is. The third person communicated exclusively ingame or through the php forums he hosted, which went offline 4-5 months ago. I cannot provide such information easily, if at all. Kelvin Greyheart 16:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit: In this context, no reply is essentially the same thing as saying it isn't a problem, or is viewed as only a minor problem at best. Kelvin Greyheart 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be blunt here. No, it's not adequate. Assume Good Faith does not cover believing your stories about tickets raised with ANet that never recieved any kind of response. AGF DOES cover me assuming you have noble intentions, which I do, but if you don't have non-anecdotal evidence for your claims that ANet were told about specific cases of rules being broken in HB and have chosen to ignore them, then you have no leg to stand on for your claims.

Also, stop using abhorrent logic. No reply could mean anything. A failure to deliver the report email (or even the response to it) for example. That's why if you really cared about your report, you would chase it up to ensure it was received and/or actioned. Mr J 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear. No feedback on a report, and then seeing the same people doing the same thing a month or two later doing the same thing. How else are you going to/can you take that? As far as followups go, since I was not the one who sent the tickets, and the people involved only gave me somewhat limited information I honestly cannot comment other than I vaguely recall a mention of someone complaining, but it is not enough for me to work off of. I say it happened and the only reason that I stand by my claim is that I saw screenshots of the initial tickets, and that I deem the 3 people in question trustworthy. It is not the first time that a support ticket has gone unanswered (other than automated bot runs), so logically I would assume that they don't always answer them. Kelvin Greyheart 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You vaguely remember three people complaining. Strong convincing argument. Misery 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall one person complaining about not getting any feedback and saying he was going to bump his ticket. I do not recall if this was in reference to these particular tickets or not. The timeframe was similar. That has little to no bearing on the rest of my arguement. Kelvin Greyheart 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that subsequently the people were actioned for the original reports, you really have no idea what happened. In any case, those people should be actioned and if this highlights that problem, that's good. Misery 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(RI)At least two of them were active and doing the same thing months afterwards. That was about when the person in the military family quit playing (after comming up against two people again, in the same day). I have no idea if they were ever actioned. However, in my mind, the severity of that time gap throws serious doubt on any action being taken on at least two players. I do not know that they were never actioned agasint, but evidence indicates otherwise. Kelvin Greyheart 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you know your friends submitted a ticket and then somewhere in the range of 30 to 60 days you see the people your friends reported doing the same thing? And from this you determine that they were never blocked for their original offense or somehow otherwise punished? By all means, believe your friends, but making allegations based on trust and assumptions isn't productive. Mr J 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in arguing about this, Anet was aware that people broke the rules in HB and they never took any action against it. Punishing the guilds in question now for doing something that HB players have been doing since the Commander title was introduced is wrong, plain and simple. The only reasonable thing they can do is to start to enforce the rules from now on. --Draikin 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that in certain wars, there were certain countries committing war crimes. How do you take action against those people who committed the crimes unless someone tells you who it was? You can't. ANet doesn't hire someone to sit in Obs all day and watch people play HB and then hit them with the ban hammer when they catch someone. They rely on player reports. I'm sure Regina or Linsey could provide numbers relating to reports of abuse, how many were legitimate, and how many resulted in disciplinary action. All you and Kelvin seem to be able to provide is anecdotal evidence and anecdotal evidence of people getting away with murder in HB doesn't mean anything when there's solid evidence of a specific case of rule breaking in GvG. Mr J 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So even if people at Anet see these things happening, they don't have to take action unless someone reports it? --Draikin 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Not even remotely. Mr J 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just find the whole affair disappointing. But I too agree that the writing has been on the wall for a while now. Abuse of the system has a certain 'inevitability' and familiarity has clearly bred an unhealthy contempt from some for GW Zilken 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

i am sorry but WHO CARES ABOUT HB the hole thing has been bad scene they introduced it and izzy knows that. "Hero Battle Love: I've been pushing for some hero battle tweaks all most had some in the build this week, but ended up pushing on it. I think the format needs some real love and a rework much like GvG's VoD did. (This is pretty much on hold until I find more time as GW2 is taken over all my time)" and i think a part of why no one brought it up is because its soo broken, and that it has been like that from the start. and its only 2 people compared to 16.75.165.102.138 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with HB is not tracking users, or reporting them, or anything else you can conjure up. The problem is HB is boring, plain and simple. It's an MMO, and yet it's just two people fighting? Kind of takes the "massive" aspect out of it. A costume brawl or "sealed deck" style PvP would be a much better alternative, but to change HB into that this late in the game would certainly ruffle some feathers. 75.165.102.138 is right, that its been broken, and probably won't be fixed (like a lot of other things in the game at this point). So, I propose a solution to those that think drawing in the GvG AT is a problem--have the two Guild Lords roll dice. Whichever loses the roll forfeits the match (rerolling if a tie), and life goes on. It's no less fair than their treatment of HB at this point. --Seventh 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How come saying "nigger" gets you banned straight away, but nothing is done or said by anyone when you cheat in a monthly tournament and win because of it.

How can you compare racism with not competing in a tournament in the correct manner. That's absolute idiocy. Could we please stick to the topic at hand. -- Salome 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please not post about an issue of which you have next to no knowledge, Salome? You've got entirely too many posts, most of them off-topic, and they're just cluttering up the discussion. Comments like "neither team threw the match" make it obvious you didn't watch the match or look at any pictures of it, nor have you read any of the threads relating to the topic at hand. Please leave the discussion to the folks who have a clue about it :< -Auron 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much text, but no one has asked what really, really matters:

Are the points for the Xunlai Tournament House predictions going to be given considering rawr in the first place, or will the points be considered after they have been disqualified? ; ) Erasculio 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

None of my posts have been off topic Auron, I'm sorry you feel that way but really you make far too many assumptions about others. I both watched the match and have read the threads relating to this issue. The term throw a match means to deliberately lose a match, technically here no one lost. This is a case of match fixing I grant you, but not match throwing. Please Auron in the future try harder to understand, and I know this is terribly hard for you, that if someone simply does not agree with you, is does not make them wrong and that to throw half concealed insults at people is rather unfitting of any user, in particular a sysop. EDIT: notice how even this post was related back to the core topic at hand. -- Salome 17:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh. Just change draw to: One random team automatically wins. Problem solved (mostly) ---Boro 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Salome, the term 'Throw a match' does not mean to purposely loose, it means purposely not winning. At least that is how I was raised. You have to admit that purposely drawing a match to ensure your own position while knocking out someone who worked for that position is wrong.

DarkNecrid's idea of having one team auto win in case of a draw using rank is probably the best idea. But I think it should be the lower ranked team that should move on. The higher ranked team has the expectation on winning.--Dunyas 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunyas I can link you to the dictionary site if you would like the definition, but semantics aside, I agree completely with you that what they did was wrong on a moral and ethical stance and I think they should incur some penalty for match fixing. However Anet's apathetic stance towards behavior like this on HB has already set a bad precedent, not to mention the fact that the tie system is flawed and needs changed. ANET should fix the flawed system and give incentives to win rather than punishing people for using the system as it stands IMHO. I know alot of people disagree and that's a valid viewpoint too and one I understand, just really all they are guilty of here is a very minor case of match fixing which has been taking place to a much bigger level in HB since it's inception and anet has done nothing about it. Seems unfair to make an example out of RAWR just because of who they are. -- Salome 19:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again who cares about hb it is the worst form of pvp in the game right now and needs fixing. and erasculio one of the ips brought up that point and is the most important of all the questions being asked here.75.165.102.138 23:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be punishment to the guilds who did this. ANET constantly seems to favor rawr and the top guilds and seem to take action when they make a fuss and give them special privilages. They should be held equally accountable under the rules and given bans, becuase it seems ANET has 2 standards. One for people in top guilds who have gotten to know ANET staff and everyone else. Regardless if they fix the system or not people should be held accountable. Stop caring only when the top players make a fuss, and stop giving them special privilages.--129.21.100.156 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. Anet DOESN'T favor [rawr]. They are held equally accountable under the rules, and they are given bans. When Awowa's account got hacked he had to remake his characters, and someone ended up taking the name "Awowa Classic". The only thing that I could possibly see as "Special privilages" is they got their gold cape back. They still had to work for the rating though. Personally I think the draw mechanic should be fixed, and the cape taken away and given to [GeAr] and possibly not being able to participate in the next mAT or something. I'd like to point out too that the majority of people are focusing on [rawr] while people forget that [zero] was there too. 67.60.164.172 05:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No-fucking-way-goldcapes-to-gear, 0 goldcapes in that mAT is anything. I wont make any longer argue about "why" because for those who understand anything of high-end gvg it's obvious. End of my part. 91.152.187.234 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a rule that Guilds with developers as members are not allowed to participate in any tournament. This was ignored for rawr and later removed.

Are [rawr] and [zero] in the same alliance? I wouldn't kick an alliance team out of the tournament and rather help them. That's what I have an alliance for, to help each other out. Alliance teams have been ganking in the Hall of Heroes for ages and I don't see any reason why Alliance teams shouldn't help each other in GvG. But again my first question: Are [rawr] and [zero] in the same Alliance? (Ate of DK 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).

The guild Survival Rate [Zero] is in Rawr's alliance. -- Salome 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance [zero] Misery 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance [MUCH]. Imo, Alliance Guilds are allowed to help each other. (Ate of DK 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).

So because New Zealand is a British colony with allied armed forces we are allowed to throw rugby matches to them in the world cup? K. That makes sense. Misery 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing apples with oranges. There are enough examples in RL-sports where people would play a draw so both advance. Like Champions League soccer? One team will simply not risk losing and the other is allready qualified and doesn't waste energy for next matches and uses a B-team... Happens all the time... The UEFA can't force them to play for a win. Neither can Anet force a guild to play for the win if a draw is sufficient. If teams lose because of such a draw doesn't care to the UEFA, neither should it to Anet.(Ate of DK 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).

Big difference between fielding a B-team and playing defensively and forming a conga line. If you listen to justification I don't think I have heard either side say "because they were alliance members we wanted both of us to advance". Misery 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Logic tells there is no other reason to play a draw than to advance to the next round. They wouldn't be playing if they didn't want to win would they? (Ate of DK 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).

Sportsmanship. Should they have hacked the opponents vent server to guarantee a win? Would anyone like to check the rules to see if that is specifically excluded? Misery 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If two football teams decided to form a conga line instead of playing, the referee could (and likely would) start handing out yellow cards for unsporting behavior or delaying the restart of play (page 35). Could also probably call offsides for a conga line. If you skip to page 114, you'll see that "acting in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game" counts as unsporting conduct. So yes, UEFA would care, as it damages the reputation of their game, which means fewer viewers/attendees, less money, etc. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sportsmanship. Should they have hacked the opponents vent server to guarantee a win? Would anyone like to check the rules to see if that is specifically excluded? Misery 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sportmanship, often unwritten rules of fair play. People expect others to follow these rules but you can't force them to do so. You'll always meet people who do anything to ensure their victory. I always hated the fact that Alliance teams gank the third team in the Hall of Heroes, isn't exactly fair play, but Anet allowed it to happen for years. So, in GvG, some people will do anything to secure themselves for the next round. Like my example on soccer, the team that finished 3rd could have been 2nd if nr1 was enough of a sportsman to play with full force (A-team). Passing the ball around for 90 min isn't a foul. Let's say that [rawr] and [zero] saved us time to discuss if running around for 20min without using a skill is a foul. (Ate of DK 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)).

The problem is there are 2 standards when dealing with a problem in GW regardless of what the problem is. The first standard is action is taken based on issues that effect the entire community and to help improve game experience as a whole. The second standard is when a guild favored by the developers gets special treatment to fix a problem they have and undermines the community as a whole. While the people in the top guilds deserve respect and should be honored, it should not be done by twisting and breaking the rules that the whole community abides by. They purposely rigged the tournament forcing a specific outcome by manipulating the system. They should be held accountable under the CoC and EULA for this and given an appropriate punishment that is known to the whole community. They are trying to go around the system that is set up for everyone, the support tickets, and are manipulating the game to get the changes they want. While such changes are good, they should follow the system that is in place for everyone to use, like this message board, support tickets, forums, ect. Since they are breaking the rules and manipulating the system so clearly, their punishment should be clearly laid out, or if there is no punishment it should be EXPLAINED and SUPPORTED by the past discision by ANET in similar situations and not by the player's status in game. Giving them an exception is the same as using 2 different rule systems because there is a pattern of such actions. Make the rules and punishments clear and not behind closed doors, because that creates mistrust in a system that is not perfect. You don't have to make it a community decision but you should make the punishment and reasons why public because this was a very public act. And unfortunately sometimes punishments have to be given out for the appearance of impartiality regardless of the situation. But no matter what make the decision and reasons behind it PUBLIC, EXPLAINED, and SUPPORTED.--129.21.239.36 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"I just had a meeting with Izzy and Linsey to discuss and come to a consensus on what action we will take. We're going to take action on this issue with the first scheduled build in February. I don't have details for you at this time. We all agrees that both guilds involved broke the rules, and there will be consequences. --Regina Buenaobra Image:User_Regina_Buenaobra_sig.png 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC) " ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 21:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The punishment for cheating in GVG is death! They are worthy of death and the people that condone that action are just as guilty. Loves to Sync 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

that's a rather... robust indictment coming from someone who's handle indicates they also like to push the envelope of what's proper behavior in gw. unless of course u're saying that tongue in cheek in which case bravo to u. =P --VVong|BA 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wongba stole the words from my mouth. lol -- Salome 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Vanquisher of QQ. --Riddle 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section Break

I have read and taken on board all of the points raised here in this discussion, as well as posts on the forums, and I have spoken with players about this in PMs and emails. I have communicated your opinions and perspectives to the rest of the team here. Linsey and Izzy have also communicated with players and gotten their perspectives. Martin has also weighed in as well with his views based on communication with players and his own judgment. We as a team have been following this in the community. We have discussed the issue with other folks in the company. The majority of points you all have raised here were also raised in our discussions. We have been trying to take into account the different perspectives involved in this issue when making a decision.

We have been drafting a message that will explain the reasoning behind the decision we make. It will be public and you will be free to discuss it and/or to send us a message about it.

So there's a small update to make on this: Linsey has been out sick for the past two days. There are a few more details we need to discuss before the draft is finalized enough to get other internal folks to weigh in, suggest changes (if needed) and sign off on it. So that is the state of things on the ArenaNet side at the moment. --Regina Buenaobra 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being open and public about the decision regardless of what it is. --129.21.100.156 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regina- There are many who will laugh, and some who will be angered at the wrath that anet has unleashed upon the, as you put it, cheaters in your game. Some have been banned for much less, such as simply saying a naughty word. It has taken around two weeks for anet to come to the decision of a slap on the wrist, and I say this is not only a joke but an embarassment to not only you but your entire company. Please don't insult me or anyone else in this game by thinking that the punishment you have laid out to a guild who, again according to you, "knowingly broke the rules" was worth wasting 2 weeks of time over. Your punishment, if you can call it that, did nothing but amuse the parties involved (rawr and zero) and piss off everyone else. As for the "future violations will cause a larger punishment" please change that to "as rawr was involved, we didn't want to punish them at all, but since you people kept bitching we came up with the thing that would be best compared to a slap in the face, but if any of you lesser players attempt anything like this we'll fuck you up" for better accuracy and clarity. Regards --falcon176 21:04 6 February 2009 (UTC)

QQ much? --VVong|BA 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am totally disgusted with the so called punishment these teams received. It is totally meaningless if they don't lose rank or tournament rights for a minimum of a month. -- Wyn 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rank doesn't actually matter to them as much as it would have in the past (say during the iQ days). The cape trim (status) matters more to them because it's the only in-game symbol of their win record. Banning their accounts from play for a month wouldn't have had much of an impact either; who doesn't have multiple accounts or smurf guilds to play on? There were a number of factors we had to consider in making this decision. Not just the rules and our documentation of the events, but also the greater context. Please keep in mind that we also have access to records and information that you do not, so we alsoe used this to make our decision. We tried to balance this decision with all of those other factors. We knew that we wouldn't be able to please everyone with this decision. We tried to be as fair as possible, and tried to weigh all the related factors. --Regina Buenaobra 22:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ANet bans everyone else for policy violations from things like swearing to spamming, and all of a sudden you're saying bans don't work? What's preventing any of those people from hopping on a second account and continuing, since, using your own words, "who doesn't have multiple accounts or smurf guilds to play on?"

You guys really need to work on your spin doctoring. The favoritism here is blatantly obvious - why do you bother banning anyone in the game if they can just hop on an alternate account? The rules just suddenly stop applying to rawr? It's obvious to anyone who has PvP'd that removing the cape trim doesn't matter at all, especially since rawr is going to get it back next month whether or not they even participate. You're really just inviting guilds to repeat their performance, since honestly, this punishment is a joke.

Go back and read Shmanka's post on guru. He's correct - nobody cares about cape trims and nobody has in years. If that's your idea of punishment, however light, it shows how little you understand the PvP community. You can wave your little "insider information" flag around, but if you really had insider information, you'd know how much of a silly slap on the wrist this cape trim bullshit really is. -Auron 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Denying a cape, and striping a cape for one month is nothing. They aren't even getting a ban/guild ban? Capes are a status symbol, but beyond that it doesn't matter. The trimmed capes are like the rank titles. They are used to show off, but not having them is not going to hurt them. Their punishment is beyond a total joke, its an excuse for favoritism. Dominator Matrix 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well from the other side of the camp, I will concede that the "punishment" is extremely minor in nature, however I didn't think what RawR and Zero did warranted account bans. Maybe a guild ban from participating in the February and March tournaments for their actions, but really I think the judgment was fine. I'm not exactly sure what people wanted to happen to RawR/Zero for this somewhat minor infraction. Trying to compare this event to others being banned for bad language is really faulty logic. Also taking away rank from RawR is pointless, as basically they are a very good GvG guild and they could have earned back, in a very short time, anything that was taken from them. I will admit this is a very restrained response on the side of Anet but then it's a first infraction, so that seems fair enough to me. In short I'm happy with the judgment. :) -- Salome 23:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) WTB:1)140 QP req for the mAT for the guilds involved. 2)For all offenders involved, if they leave a guild, have an extension of the 14-day minimum rule to 28 days. 3)Fixing the tie-breaker system. --Riddle 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Syncing RA.

It used to happen occasionally, but now it's THE thing to do in RA. Whereas before, you might have seen a couple of synced players, now you will faced synced teams. Is it against the rules? Well, I don't know simply because I haven't seen any rules specifically regarding syncing in RA. Is it okay? Well, it shouldn't be, at any rate, but based on Anet's response to it, it looks like there really isn't anything wrong with it.

Guess what? People still sync RA. Often.

Is it against the rules? Well, I don't know simply because I haven't seen any rules specifically regarding syncing in RA conga-lining through GvG. Is it okay? Well, it shouldn't be, at any rate, but based on Anet's response to it, it looks like there really isn't anything wrong with it.

Guess what? People still sync RA. Often.

And that's all I've to say on that, specifically, because I don't know anything about football or chess or ladder manipulation.

But I do read into skill balance a lot.

If you want to know my views on a lot of things, they're not hard to find. Basically, it boils down to this:

Skill balance is terrible and has been terrible for a long time now. The PvP community isn't really overjoyed with the situation, but, in spite of this, very little is being done to remedy the situation (as far as we know, in this case).

It's not a matter of "they're working on other things"; they still update things that don't need to be updated. But SF, Palm Strike, Lingering Curse, WS, VoR, Cry of Pain... Untouched. The current meta pisses off a lot of PvPers (though I'm sure there are plenty of people loving "

5 0.75¾ 4 Off-Hand Attack. No prerequisite. Does +30 damage. Always a critical. Cannot be blocked. Cannot miss. Inflicts Cripple."), but very little has been done about it and very little is being done about it; they nerfed Pot (albeit slightly), not SF.

A lot of people don't like it, but... so what?

The fact is, there hasn't been much in the recent past to show that the PvP community is being taken seriously.

What made you think they were going to start now? Were you all surprised? Really? Raine - talk 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.teamquitter.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11108 : "We were officially removed from one full season of play because Vanquisher asked Black Rose Gaming to resign (which they didn't). ....." COngratulations, you punished trying to cheat harder than actually cheating. I have to agree with Wyn!

Really? It doesn't sound like Wyn at all. She must have been really mad when she wrote that. 145.94.74.23 12:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you didn't back up your decision at all, which I find really disappointing. You didn'y even make it clear what happened to them. Regardless of anything else that has happened that puts me off the most. Would it have been that hard to post an explanation along with the punishment. By doing it this way it seems like you havn't put much thought into it to support your decision. Even if you speant time, it is not appearent, and easily reconizable to the GW community. On a side note I had to go to Rebel Rising's own site to find out what happened...that is really lame.

In regards to the punishment, it is inconsistant with past infraction you have punished. AGAIN we see the special favor ANET bestows on top guilds like rawr. It shouldn't have been a surprise that ANET did this, but I was holding out some hope. Past guilds have recieved over a year ban from GvG for exploiting in game mechanics. rawr went a step further conspiring and manipulating in game mechanics but they get a less punishment. Thinking about it, it is not the punishment that is the problem it is the lack of openness. People like me, who follow the rules, can only guess and get second hand information on punishments that are given out. While ANET does that to the extent with a number of infractions, it just dosn't appear like they are fair about it. There is a reason most courts in the world are open to the public and the punishments put onto record. The reason is, that even if the punishments are 100% fair, the lack of openness leads people to believe something is not right. When you have such public offenders like rawr, that is the time when you most need an open system. But since the open system has not been in place the whole time it makes it very difficult to benchmark where their punishment is in the harshness scale.

So I am going to put forth a solution rather than just complain. The solution is 3-fold. The first step would be change the entire punishment/law system in guild wars by making it open. This means that punishments for specific actions are posted on some sort of site. So while people's accounts could be protected they could be asssigned a numbers. Then each number lists the crime and the punishment recieved. It could be as simple as account 29752 was spamming chat for the 3rd time, punishment: 1 week ban. This will allow people to benchmark their punishments while protecting people who get punished. There must be a similar system already in place in the support services and with some tweaking an open website could be set up.

The second step would be to set up a special sort of board for really public infractions. By putting known ANET workers and someone from the community on the board, they can bring up precedent and look at similar cases and make a public discision known and a reason published. Since the offenses would be of such a public nature the punishments would also have to be public. A good way to think of this panel is like the supreme court, they don't address most issues, but the ones that are really important and set a precedent they would make a decision in. If a new type of infraction comes up they can dicide on the punishment accordingly. So while their involvement will be rare it will be crucial to supporting an open system.

And lastly, make sure that the annoucement of a punishment corresponds to when the punishment is put into place. It is very distrubing how that happened and degrades any system you have in place. These are just suggestions, but I didn't want to just complain I wanted to put forth a solution. Model the system you use off what works, you don't need to reinvent the wheel.--129.21.100.156 14:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From Regina: "Rank doesn't actually matter to them as much as it would have in the past (say during the iQ days). The cape trim (status) matters more to them because it's the only in-game symbol of their win record"

I an absolutely stunned that an employee of Anet would make a comment like that publicly. Regardless of the fact that the statement is 100% true and accurate, it still should not come out of the mouth of an anet employee because it can easily be viewed as proof that even employees and developers know full well that the quality of their product has diminished. It almost feels like an admittance of guilt as far as I can see. I almost want to ask "and why does it not matter to them anymore as it would in the iQ days?" I'm curious what your response might be as to why the state of the game has changed so much in that lackluster direction...but then again, the cape is just as lackluster, considering that you don't even need to GvG or PvP to get one these days, you can buy them for 11,000 ectos like DF was.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

i had 2 different reactions to your team's choice of punishment. the first one is pretty sad. i was suprised that anet actually did something. they actually recognized something is wrong and went out to deal with it. secondly, however, the punishment was a total joke. i get my account banned for 3 days because my name is butthole mctigger, but they get no ban at all? thats a fucking joke. the gold trim is removed for a month? who cares. white wasabi bought a gold trim for 11k ectos. plus, they're going to get it back! your excuse that they have smurf and second accounts so banning them is rediculous. that makes my ban for the word butthole seem worse than theirs, and i don't have a second fucking account!1!@one! if they have second accounts and smurfs, they can just manipulate the ladder on those!

i have total /agree with yasmin on this one. saying people don't care about rank is basically saying people don't care about the game anymore. but don't you dare think that it is the players' fault for that. we liked the game back in the iQ days. it is not the player's fault people stopped caring, it's the fact that ARENANET stopped caring about balance, support, and bugs that still exist since launch. your first response was ::I'll be discussing this with the team this week. Do you have any other thoughts or suggestions besides that they be "punished"? --Regina Buenaobra 00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC) looking back at that it makes me laugh. at the time, i didn't know that the live team had no idea how to punish people, i just thought that you were working on it. now with this punishment, i can see your real idea of what discipline is. here's a suggestion.. give them a kick in the ass by removing their capes permanently, instead of saying you'll ban them in the future. if anet can admit that people don't care about the game, can they at least admit that it was their fault? --adrin 20:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rebel Rising [rawr] will have their permanent gold cape trim removed for a period of one month.

This is like giving an Olympic steroid user his medal a month after he wins. Oh wait, that's not what it's like - that's EXACTLY what you did. Take an example from the olympic judges, people who have functioning brains, and think to yourself "What would prevent this from happening in the future? I know, let's not punish them. That will teach them."

Who came up with this punishment? This is the kind of punishment I'd expect parents to give a 5 year old. You've just set a great example for all gvg guilds. Right now they're thinking "We can cheat and get away with it," and that's exactly what they will do.

We feel that removing cape trims rather than resetting their rankings sends a stronger signal to the guilds involved

Stronger signal? Stronger than what? Patting them on the back?

...being lenient in this first offense

First offense!!?!??!?!? Are you fucking retarded? This is not the first time they've manipulated the ladder, and it's not going to be the last time either. They will keep doing it because there's no punishment for it. That's why people leech in FA/JQ/AB - there is no penalty for it whatsoever. If you want players to follow the rules, there have to be rules. Rules are only rules when they're enforced.

We will also be updating the tournament rules to provide more clarity on this issue.

How will you do that? This is a direct quote from the universal tournament rules:

Players/guilds are expected to not participate in any form of ladder manipulation. Ladder Manipulation is defined as any actions taken to alter the rankings or ratings of the tournament ladder that deviate from guilds actually playing and completing battles.

rawr and zero aren't idiots like the people who fabricated this imaginary punishment. They're terrible players, but they're not idiots - they knew it was ladder manipulation. You know what these guilds are doing right now right? They're laughing their asses off. I bet they're in vent right now saying something like this "haha, omg I almost thought we were gonna get punished for this." At this point I'd bet many people are wondering if the morons responsible for this shitty ruling are also responsible for the shitty game balancing. It works about the same way - you don't have a clue how to fix anything, so you roll dice. This week they happened to land on "take away cape trim" and "charr necros in presear dont cause degen"

please contact the Community Team at community @arena.net...

That email doesn't work. I've been sending complaints to that address for a month now and haven't gotten a response, automated or human. I think a better email address for arenanet to advertise would be wedontcareaboutourplayers @arena.net ~Shard 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't even understand how the word "punishment" could apply to such a joke... It appears now clearly that rawr can do whatever they want. Wouldn't it have been easier to just add "above rules do not apply to rawr" in the EULA instead of disappointing us with this so called "punishment"?Ysalis 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems ANet have completely ignored the golden rule of business: The customer is always right. King Neoterikos 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope thats /sarcasm there. otherwise i can steal from best buy because i'm a customer. even though it's against the rules. --adrin 09:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

a few things first and foremost i have started calling Anet Failnet because that is a more proper name for there company. with bugs and other things that should have been fixed or changed years ago are just getting change now like the change to hall of monuments from toon based to account my question is why wasn't this a thought from the start i mean REALLY. secondly this "punishment" isn't a punishment at all. here they ban the guild Pen island [dong] Because the Tag is inappropriate for the game and yet they don't take the time to add dong to the list of unacceptable names for guilds. so they keep remaking it yet another EPIC FAIL by Failnet. any how woo a removal of cape trip is a joke for the reasons people have stated above. but i get the logic behind it and why it was done: and that is because Failnet changed the way GVG was played And it WAS THEM who Failed to add a tie breaker, or just have better game mechanics for a tie. also notice how the Statement about this isn't on www.guildwars.com or that they didn't bother to make a post on any form site it was people who came to the wiki that got the word out to the fan sites. the only way you could find out what happened to them besides word of mouth was to come on to this wiki which half of the player base dose not visit they use the other one then come on to either Regina's Journal or Linsey's Journal just to find the response. like i REALLY do like Guild wars its just some times i wonder if arenanet even plays this game, and feel like if i was in charge of anet for just one month i could do a better job of managing the game and make changes to the game that would make since and would be long over due like a market some much needed nerffs to skils and a new concept for failnet BUFFS TO SKILLS THAT HAVE NO USE.75.165.102.188 13:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We are aware of how contentious this ruling was. We knew that there wouldn't be 100% agreement on the decision. I've brought the feedback here to the rest of the team. Many of the opinions have already been raised to the team. All the emails regarding this issue have been brought to the attention of the team as well.

This discussion seems to be devolving. Suggesting that I am "retarded" or swearing at me isn't going to change the decision, and it won't make me more inclined to listen to your perspective. Please keep this in mind for the future. --Regina Buenaobra 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider this discussion closed: we have already taken your comments and disagreements on board, I have reported them to the team, and we will keep these views in mind in the future. However, we believe that a measured response to the incident was appropriate, given all of the circumstances involved, the rules issue, the AT system, the state of the game, and so on. --Regina Buenaobra 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Urgent problem in ladder (please read asap)

(Originally wrote to Izzy but since "Brains12" removed it (http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright&oldid=1242197) and towarded me here, I'm re-posting it here then. Only looking into it can't be enough after all this time.)

In short: Certain group is abusing ladder by playing under-r100-champrated guilds against eachother at time when there aren't other such ranked guilds playing (so they wont show up in observer). They farm champpoints this way.

Easy solution suggestion: Make observer wider - r200 and under for example or if possible "all championrated guilds" and ban those players actively.
Way how this'd work: Even if they'd get new accounts, buyers begin not-wanting to be part of the abuse in fear of ban->their funding goes awry->they can't anymore ebay keys/ectos and buy new accounts so their system collapses and problem fixed

Harder and ineffective solutions: Track down those players and ban accounts(through logfiles, but they might have enough accounts and just buying new ones), change ladder mechanics to hinder their farm 1 guild/day or something (would not change anything but make it slower for them)

This has been noted by Arenanet staff and confirmed by Izzy before (twice) (link to it: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright/Izzy_Talk_Archive_20#WTS_Champ_Points) but according to these: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10341980 it hasn't changed enough at all. The easy solution suggestion I made+banning could stop it. The quicker this problem is fixed the better, there has been too long time "thinking how this could be fixed" (compared to farm/abuse they've done meanwhile).

I really hope you reply to this after it's been towarded and staff from ANet ends it, because it has ruined Champion titles for long enough and it is clearly organized ladder abusement. Thank you for reading this. 91.154.10.64 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have let the Live Team know about your feedback, and provided the links you supplied. --Regina Buenaobra 23:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed this. The two guilds gvg at dead hours to ensure mutual confrontation. Usually one team resigns at the first encounter and then the other one resigns at the next one to keep both guilds in champrange.

I think it's pretty sad and since it's quite recent meansures should be taken to empeach this before it becomes a widespread gvg habit. 212.198.133.95 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A coordinator for the italian community

Hi Regina, i know well that the italian community is much less extensive than the community formed by english-speaking countries and that the recent restructuring of NCsoft West should discourage me from asking, however ... there is any chance of seeing one day the coordinator for us? Do not ask just for Guild Wars, but in perspective, even for Guild Wars 2 ... Thanks for your possible answer. -- San Matteo 09:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi San: A decision to hire an Italian community manager is partly based upon how big the Italian player community is. Unfortunately, the Italian player community is not big enough to justify to the company that we should hire a community manager for Italian. If the Italian player community grows to a similar size, for example, as the French player community, it is something we would consider. --Regina Buenaobra 22:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, thank you very much for your answer Regina, good job to you and all the staff :-). -- San Matteo 22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Understaffed

Hey Regina,

I've noticed that a lot of the responses you give involve things along the lines of "we're understaffed", "we're too busy", "not high on the priority list", etc. While I'm sure it's been brought up tangentially before, I thought I would ask directly: does ANet/NCsoft plan on hiring more people to ease the burden? It seems like that would be a win-win situation, as it would take pressure off overly busy employees like yourself, and also be a symbolic gesture to the Guild Wars community that "Anet cares" or such. Now of course I don't know anything about running a company etc., so there are probably extenuating circunstances, reasons why this hasn't been done already, and so on. But I'm just another player throwing out a random question, so...meh! Vili 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

my bet is that they are not hiring anyone right now because of how the US economy is right now.75.172.42.47 06:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are planning on growing the onsite Community Team here at ArenaNet.

In the meantime, let me give you some insight. The ArenaNet community team has always been smaller than what it was before I joined. We had three people working community at ArenaNet just before I joined (one part timer), for a total of six globally. In the first months of my work here, we had four community managers on the team, including me. In October, that number was down to three after Julien moved on to another job. After today's news, the community team is just me. However, the changes will spell growth for the ArenaNet community team in the long run, and it's better for the company as a whole in the long run. In the short term, I'll have more on my plate.

To give you some deeper insight into what it's like for me here... I work about 40 hours a week. I usually go over 40 hours, and I don't get paid more for it. I try not to be a workaholic, for my general health and sanity. In the videogame industry, community managers often get burnt out, and they can get burnt out in a relatively short span of time compared to other jobs in the industry. There's a joke among us community managers in the games industry that if you're able to stay in this job beyond two years, you're completely insane. I don't think that regularly working more than 8 hours a day is healthy or sustainable in the long run, not if you want to have a healthy life outside work and maintain good family relationships.

I spend about 8 hours a day, 5 days a week working. I spend anywhere between 4 and 12 hours a week in meetings. I receive 100 - 150 emails per week to just one public-facing community email address. There are four community-related public email addresses I manage. I also have a work email address, which I use to communicate with my coworkers -- I receive between 25 and 100 email messages per day. Depending on many factors, the time it takes to parse the information and compose and respond to messages can vary. Some messages need more information before I can reply, and that information either has to be found, or awaits the action of other coworkers. I have made my MSN Messenger address and my Xfire IM address available to players precisely because I cannot spend every single second of my workday in-game, but I still want to be accessible. During specific events, my workload significantly increases.

I summarize player feedback, forum threads, and so on. I am also heavily involved in research activities related to the games industry, community strategies, social media, Web 2.0, etc. Community isn't only about fluffy and soft needs, but also about hard numbers and metrics, so there's been a lot of research activity on my plate for the past several months. I also consult with other functional departments. For example, I work closely with website content and marketing efforts. I also work closely with the Live Team. I coordinate with Localization and to get our Developer Updates translated. I manage the entire editorial process for the Developer Updates, and this process can take some time. These are just a few of the things I'm involved in.

I check about half a dozen forums, the wiki, my GW Google Alerts, and my GW-related RSS feeds. On the forums, I reguarly receive Private Messages, which like emails, vary in terms of the time it requires for me to respond. I typically spend between 2 - 3 hours a day reading all the forums and the wiki, though that number can vary depending on what and how much I have on my plate and how high priority those things are. Since I don't read and participate in just one forum, it's difficult to maintain what many players feel is an 'acceptable' volume of post count, and it's difficult to avoid criticism that I'm favoring one forum or another because I am actually spread pretty thinly over the various different places I participate in and read.

And those are just things I do when we don't have a big workload. Every single hour of my day is precious. With the changes at NCsoft West, this means my workload will ramp up pretty significantly. I'll be working closely with my colleagues to make all our workloads manageable.

You've probably noticed in my message that it says we're going to have an in-house community team at ArenaNet, one with bilingual CMs. Right now I have no news on that front. Stuff is still settling with NCsoft West, and until that happens, I don't have information on who will be joining me here.

Anyway, I just thought I'd put my thoughts here since this workload stuff seemed relevant to your question, and I thought maybe you'd like a glimpse into the work that could be affected in the short term. I think it's important to keep in mind that this situation is by no means permanent. When we get the new team started up here at ArenaNet, it'll mean more changes, but I'm confident that we can all adapt.

--Regina Buenaobra 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A job like yours is always easier in the minds of the players. I doubt that many realize what it's like to work for a company (Scott Addams' books on officie life should be madatory in High School). I can only speak for myself, but during the past 2 years, I have really gotten the impression that you're trying your best with the little reasources that you have. Sure, there are always issues, but I never doubted that they were because of lack of effort on your part. 145.94.74.23 07:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I typically work 10-12 hours a day for extended periods. I'm in a bit of a quiet period at the moment So I'm only doing 7-9 but during busy periods 13 hours is easily achievable, about 18 hours is my worst. I can attest that after this period I am completely batshit insane and don't recommend such work to anyone. You say that lasting more than two years in your line of work is impressive Regina, people in my line of work tend to work past the retirement age and not because they have to. Why are people in my line of work able to kill themselves and keep smiling? I'm not going to say something like because my job is more fun, because it's really not, it has it's good moments but it has it's damn frustrating moments. It's probably because I don't have to deal with people in the general public and to put it quite simply, people are dicks. Best of luck Regina, I know I would be far less polite and professional if I had your job. Misery 08:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are extremely lucky to have your job. 40-50 hours of work a week is absolutely common for workplaces, especially now. To get paid well and do something you enjoy is one of the luckiest things to have. People are digging ditches in the rain or scrubbing toilets for less than minimum wage. Millions of people are now out of a job from downsizing/layoffs (myself included) so to even have a job at all is lucky. I hope you cherish every moment you get to work. I do think, as with numerous other companies today that they need to keep a fair amount of people staffed. It boggles me that with the millions of sales of guild wars, that there would be one person for the entire community for USA.

So my question is, is the budget for guild wars 1 completely burnt out? I watched some of the Q&A interviews from PAX last year on youtube and it seems like alot of Phinney's answers were, "oh we don't have the money for it, or it's too expensive" This was a year ago. I know GW1 is an old game, but you still gotta put money into an online-based rpg (i'm not gunna call it an MMO sorry). I know it's not as big as wow, or lotr, but there are games like Atlantica and Perfect World International that are completely free to download and play with no fees. So if the server maintain isn't as big of a deal, is it the staff? Where is all the money? --adrin 08:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were handling finances for ArenaNet, I think it would've gone down already. Why in the world would you put any more money than absolutely necessary into an old game that nobody's paying anything for? Especially when they're committed to developing a replacement! And I guess you also don't understand how the free-to-play business model works with regards to where they get their profit from. -- ab.er.rant 15:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere have I expressed any emotion about my workload one way or the other, except optimism that things will be better in the long run.

I will say this about the changes: I'm quite gutted about it all, but nothing of what I am feeling compares to what everyone in NCsoft Europe is feeling. There are a lot of other emotions that I can't express publicly... But you know, as Martin said to me early this morning, "There's always a light at the end of the tunnel" yeah it's a cliche, but it's better for all of us to try and stay optimistic than to wallow and panic.

It's not just the community teams in Europe who have been affected. We also have the web, creative, localization, and other functional teams. This means that it's not just the ArenaNet Community Team (odd to call myself as a team O_o) who will be affected. It's also web and others. We're going to be trying our hardest to make the impact as minimal as possible, but in the short term, we hope and ask for your patience and understanding. --Regina Buenaobra 18:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there and yes it's better to be optimistic. It's way better than being negative. Best wishes to those who unfortunately had to go - hope they go on to something else that they will find fulfilling. – Barinthus 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

@aber, thx for the NPA violation =) --adrin 06:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)