View New Content

Rate Article

Access Removal

Posted in: News by Tyveris, 19 November 2007 - 03:49 AM

19 Comments

Because the season is now coming to a close, we are under the assumption that everyone is on at least one of their regular teams. We believe that now seems like a reasonable time to reevaluate current access as players with access at the end of the season will maintain it for approximately the first three weeks after the season starts.

In the interest of keeping the content in the forums as excellent as possible, we ran our armory update scripts removing access from those who no longer meet requirements. If you believe this to be an error, please PM with any details on why you should not have lost access.

Please do not take this personally as it is just an attempt to help keep the forums functioning in the way they were originally intended. This will be a semi-regular thing until the end of the season, after which we will be testing a new heuristic to help determine forum access.

Thanks

Posted in: News

Promoted from Access Removal

Comments

#1 Kamikazeoi

Members
Posts: 37

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:30 AM

Tvyeris, out of curiousity will Gladiators next season still get instant access?

#2 Tyveris

Premium Junkies
Posts: 6889

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:31 AM

Yes.

#3 Bustuarii

Members
Posts: 112

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:40 AM

It would be interesting to know how many people lost access and how many kept it. I believe that people who reach 2000 generally go up over time, not down, and thus that only a very few amount of people actually lost access.

-Bustuarii

#4 Tyveris

Premium Junkies
Posts: 6889

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:45 AM

The number was 286, but I don't know how indicative of the future this is. A lot of accounts that lost access seemed to be older/inactive. I agree most people will go up over time so this [I]shouldn't[/I] cause any problems.

#5 Ebonics

Members
Posts: 185

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:05 PM

i think instead using a rating next season for access, it should be rank imo. top 100 maybe at all times. personally im for revoking alot of people's access cause im tired of hearing useless and insignificant or retarded babble or w/e u wanna call it. basically people who act like they know what they're talking about, but dont. i rather have an [B]intelligent discussion[/B] with other [B]gladiators[/B] than [B]arguments[/B] with [B]idiots[/B].

#6 Guest_Alphatier_*

Guests

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:36 PM

You think someone on #110 of Bloodlust is worse than #99 of emberstorm ? (just an example)

Why emberstorm gladiators will be good, too, #100 doesn't mean good

#7 Ebonics

Members
Posts: 185

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:40 PM

[quote name='Alphatier']You think someone on #110 of Bloodlust is worse than #99 of emberstorm ? (just an example)

Why emberstorm gladiators will be good, too, #100 doesn't mean good[/QUOTE]

#100 was just an example i was throwing out there, but you seemed to miss my point. ratings will keep changing , while rankings will still hold same value. so why not set a standard thats solid.

#8 Pazuit

Members
Posts: 108

Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:29 PM

[quote name='Ebonics']#100 was just an example i was throwing out there, but you seemed to miss my point. ratings will keep changing , while rankings will still hold same value. so why not set a standard thats solid.[/QUOTE]

You may have knowledgable players on servers that prevent the proper team from being formed, or have 1-2 proper teams and not enough people directly interested in going high within the rankings for new teams to perform well.

RP servers come to mind, in general, a lot of people aren't very good, but 3-5 teams can break 2k. They're limited by their options, which isn't something that happens on larger servers, where more people are interested. One or two out of those 3-5 teams has enough of a common mindset to push 2100-2200, etc.

#9 soujeh

Junkies
Posts: 104

Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:40 PM

Oh, I didn't even know there were requirements on this forum. That's awesome man, really. Filters out a lot of crap. Out of curiosity, what's the requirements for keeping your account ?

#10 Tyveris

Premium Junkies
Posts: 6889

Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:54 PM

[quote name='soujeh']Oh, I didn't even know there were requirements on this forum. That's awesome man, really. Filters out a lot of crap. Out of curiosity, what's the requirements for keeping your account ?[/quote]
Same requirements for gaining access which currently is on a 2k+ team or gladiator from the previous season. We are planning to change it slightly for next season and I will outline how once we finalize something.

Here are the official rating requirement rules in case anyone is curious:
[url]http://www.arenajunkies.com/announcement.php?f=4[/url]

#11 jug

Members
Posts: 9

Posted 19 November 2007 - 09:08 PM

cool

#12 Guest_Alphatier_*

Guests

Posted 20 November 2007 - 12:36 AM

[quote name='Ebonics']#100 was just an example i was throwing out there, but you seemed to miss my point. ratings will keep changing , while rankings will still hold same value. so why not set a standard thats solid.[/QUOTE]

I totally get your point. It's still a wrong one. There are battlegroups with 22886 active 2v2 teams (bloodlust), and there are battlegroups with 6649 active 2v2 teams (emberstorm)

Do you want to say #100 on bloodlust is viable, while #100 on emberstorm is just as viable? While #100 on emberstorm is viable, but #101 on bloodlust (probably still better than #20 on emberstorm) is not?
That's just totally wrong.

Let's talk percentages, then it would be fair. Still, being 2000+ on certain battlegroups is so easy (I am actually 2000+ on 2v2 with some 170 resilience twinks), and also, certain classes have it more difficult than others. Certain specs, too. You will never be able to have the perfect conditions. A certain ranking is close enough, in my opinion.
Certain rankings is actually worse, I would then rather prefer higher rating requirements

#13 Ebonics

Members
Posts: 185

Posted 21 November 2007 - 02:19 AM

[quote name='Alphatier']I totally get your point. It's still a wrong one. There are battlegroups with 22886 active 2v2 teams (bloodlust), and there are battlegroups with 6649 active 2v2 teams (emberstorm)

Do you want to say #100 on bloodlust is viable, while #100 on emberstorm is just as viable? While #100 on emberstorm is viable, but #101 on bloodlust (probably still better than #20 on emberstorm) is not?
That's just totally wrong.

Let's talk percentages, then it would be fair. Still, being 2000+ on certain battlegroups is so easy (I am actually 2000+ on 2v2 with some 170 resilience twinks), and also, certain classes have it more difficult than others. Certain specs, too. You will never be able to have the perfect conditions. A certain ranking is close enough, in my opinion.
Certain rankings is actually worse, I would then rather prefer higher rating requirements[/QUOTE]

i see your point. but in that case, i guess there is no good way to set the standard since battlegroups vary all across. thats just like what people were saying bout xxx class should have stricter req. or w/e, thats shit imo tho. unless you wanna just restrict it to a certain top % like the gladiator system.

oh and also, its not so much as to "soandso from soandwhat is less ranked than xxx but better", its more of "lets keep the shit out of the forums" which is what i originally meant. so whatever way works, im down for that.

#14 Xyo

Members
Posts: 74

Posted 21 November 2007 - 02:26 AM

What might work better than rating requirements past this point would be allowing everyone to score people's posts. Like, on a scale from 1-5 or 1-10, and only allow people who offer real, constructive advice and appear to have a good knowledge of the game post in glad forum ^_^

#15 Kaizhi

Junkies
Posts: 91

Posted 21 November 2007 - 03:42 AM

heh

#16 Guest_Alphatier_*

Guests

Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:29 AM

That is actually a good suggestion Xyoii, although this could be exploited.

Problem is, as Ebonics said, there is simply no good system to determine forum access, cause 2100 resto druids can be as clueless as a 1800 hunter (maybe not post-patch ;) ). Then, you could be carried onto your 5v5 team and have low 2v2 and 3v3 ratings (I've played with paladins that got 1700 on all their other teams, our current one has like 1950).
Or they could just be deconstructive by flaming other people, insulting, not giving advice to newbies, etc.

That's where moderators come into play. Watching people's posts is important to see who should be able to post here and who not. Extremely annoying people will be giving warnings, "noobish" threads in other sections than "ask a gladiator" will be closed down.
Still a point system could be the way to make sure everyone is treated. Would be interesting how to make it unexploitable though, and I guess, the human mind will not be able to do so ;)
Maybe the moderators should have the ability to rate people? I don't know for sure

#17 gatoja

Junkies
Posts: 798

Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:34 AM

[quote name='Xyo']What might work better than rating requirements past this point would be allowing everyone to score people's posts. Like, on a scale from 1-5 or 1-10, and only allow people who offer real, constructive advice and appear to have a good knowledge of the game post in glad forum ^_^[/QUOTE]

last thing we need is for the boards to become a popularity contest.

http://tsericdown.ytmnd.com/

Earthshock: the only silence that silences the caster for nearly as long!

#18 Wonder

Members
Posts: 496

Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:56 AM

Agreed - whether someone is allowed to speak shouldn't hinge on everyone else's liking what they have to say.

#19 efa

Members
Posts: 69

Posted 21 November 2007 - 11:07 PM

Thats the way to do it and thats why I am here and no longer read the stupid blizzard warlock forum with over 90% noobs spamming there.