0
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
Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:30 AM
#2 Tyveris
Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:31 AM
#3 Bustuarii
Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:40 AM
#4 Tyveris
Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:45 AM
#5 Ebonics
Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:05 PM
#6 Guest_Alphatier_*
Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:36 PM
Why emberstorm gladiators will be good, too, #100 doesn't mean good
#7 Ebonics
Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:40 PM
Alphatier said:
Why emberstorm gladiators will be good, too, #100 doesn't mean good
#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
Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:29 PM
Ebonics said:
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
Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:40 PM
#10 Tyveris
Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:54 PM
soujeh said:
Here are the official rating requirement rules in case anyone is curious:
http://www.arenajunk...ncement.php?f=4
#11 jug
Posted 19 November 2007 - 09:08 PM
#12 Guest_Alphatier_*
Posted 20 November 2007 - 12:36 AM
Ebonics said:
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
Posted 21 November 2007 - 02:19 AM
Alphatier said:
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
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
Posted 21 November 2007 - 02:26 AM
#15 Kaizhi
Posted 21 November 2007 - 03:42 AM
#16 Guest_Alphatier_*
Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:29 AM
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
Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:34 AM
Xyo said:
last thing we need is for the boards to become a popularity contest.
Earthshock: the only silence that silences the caster for nearly as long!
#18 Wonder
Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:56 AM
#19 efa
Posted 21 November 2007 - 11:07 PM