3 Day matches
1 2
Point advantage is determined that way because of imbalanced server population coupled with the fact that points are awarded evenly even when there isn’t an active fight. That won’t change with a 3 day match up. That aspect is still broken with a 3 day match up. All a 3 day match up system does is make the ranking system more volatile.
How about a match that runs from Friday to Sunday and one Monday to Thursday?
I’d also like to point out that I don’t want free transfers to end. I want them to be more restricted to prevent people abandoning ship or smurfing. 60hr match ups sounds like a good idea, but again its a band-aid fix to the problem I’ve already listed. Fixing those core issues should lead to more even matches, which would solve the OPs issue while allowing enough time for a come back to actually happen and come-backs are a great thing to witness.
(edited by Xpiher.5209)
I like weekday (M-Th) and weekend (F-Su). Anything else is too convoluted and confusing.
/sign
even better imo would be the idea to have 3.5 day matches and 2 seperate ladders based on weekend/weekday rather than region putting twice as many servers in the pool competitive matches would be much higher likeliness of happening
(edited by Helathir.3647)
Due to thread dilution by a spam poster we need the strong points of this on page two.
Current state of WvW :
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/3-Day-matches/first#post438496
Sokars post (this one is not linking for me but is two postes down from the link above, last post on page 1) :
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/3-Day-matches/page/2#post438573
Read those postes in full to get the idea of why this is needed and why this is better for everyone that plays guildwars 2. As far as comebacks goes when a tier one server transfers to a tier 5 level, you will not be seeing a comeback, it is just not going to happen, also, once a game is where these 15 servers matchups are at, there is no comeback going to happen, to think it is, is lying to yourself, if a comeback was possible they would atleast have SOME land, but are having trouble gaining any. Also, around say tomorrow or the next day, some of them could give up the land almost entirely to the other two servers equally and still win the matchup.
I must’ve missed the sign that said it was a fire sale.
(edited by R E F L H E X.8413)
The quote button is missing again…
I didn’t say 2 weeks was perfect, just that 3 days was too short
The only reason I disagree with 3 day matches and prefer 60 hours is because 3-day matches will always end at the same time of day and favour the server that can muster the forces to be there for the last few hours.
Population unbalance leads to one server able to build orbs and thus get even more powerful
Population unbalance has nothing to do with being able to capture Orbs. While I agree that the Orbs need to be changed, they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Server population/time zone distribution isn’t fixed by a 3 day match. This is what causes servers competing in higher or lower tiers than they should
Time zone distribution and server population are two different things. 60 hour matches solves the time zone issue because no time zone is favoured by the match starting or ending at the same time each week. I’ll get to population below.
3 day matches doesn’t fix the bandwagon issue
The primary cause of the “bandwagon” is people having nothing to do for three or four days every week. Instead of being too bored or frustrated to go out to WvW what is being suggested here gives people a reason to stay on their server.
Perma out manned isn’t solved by a 3 day match length, if how well the first day goes largely determines the out come of a match. And like I said, if your server quits due to losing after a day or two it deserves to lose.
If a server legitimately out-numbers your own then the match is going to be over in a couple of days and you’ll be matched up with another server. Morale is different. What you describe as “perma outmanned” is a result of nobody bothering to go out there because fighting is pointless when the winner was decided days ago (also, it’s worth mentioning bot’s may well be playing a part here, whether filling up player slots so that you don’t have enough actual people to make progress or by being the cause of the outmanned buff in the first place… for all you know there might be 10 players and 40 bots on the other side.) Shorter matches will lead directly to better morale and more players wanting to be out in the borderlands more often. “We’ll win next round” is a lot more attractive when the next round is tomorrow instead of next weekend.
Points being awarded the same throughout a match’s length when some times are less populated by every server than others is not fixed by a 3day match up. This part of the reason why how well you do during the first 2 days determines the out come of a match. If you can take over the entire map without a fight you will have a large point lead instead of what should be a small one.
Again, the first couple of days of the matches right now are played on the weekend which is the peak period and the only time of the week when a majority of players can play for extra time. You are far more likely to see someone sitting up for 24 hours straight playing WvW on a Saturday than a Wednesday. With shorter matches this means that no two will play the same way because of the numbers of weekend players. A match that starts on Tuesday morning and ends on Thursday night will play out very differently to one that starts on Friday night and ends on Monday morning. “Night capping” (I’m Australian so it’s more like “day capping” for me) is a problem because of the length of time of the matches. It’s very rarely a significant issue on the first few days because any points gained or lost overnight can be quickly made up. It’s when you have a week of night-capping that a small difference in points compounds into an unassailable lead.
Dragonbrand – Reforged Vanguard [ReVa]
Kyxha 80 Ranger, Sokar 80 Necro
Niobe 80 Guardian, Symbaoe 45 Ele
Kyxha 80 Ranger, Sokar 80 Necro
Niobe 80 Guardian, Symbaoe 45 Ele
(edited by Sokar Rostau.7316)
Agreed, 2 week servers will kill WVW completely, and you’re not in the right mind if you don’t agree.
Before the week matches, I was even dreading what would happen, and even with server transfers costing, it would still just kill wvw.
WVW needs to go back to 24 hour matches, or it should be 3 days like the OP said… Something short so it can stay fresh, and keep people in wvw because after 3 days, they usually give up if they are on the losing team, and if IT WERE 24 HOUR MATCHES, it would push them all to try to win that match and keep them there, and if they lose? So what, a new match starts and you can try hard again instead of having to wait a week before a new match starts, or 2 weeks if this crazy idea is implemented.
I am from HOD, and at the moment will have to wait about 3 weeks, maybe even 4 before I consider going into wvw because lets face it.. We don’t belong in tier 1, or even tier 2 in my opinion and 3 might be cutting it… But I feel we are a tier 4 server now, and we will see, but yeah gotta wait.
The quote button is missing again…
I didn’t say 2 weeks was perfect, just that 3 days was too short
The only reason I disagree with 3 day matches and prefer 60 hours is because 3-day matches will always end at the same time of day and favour the server that can muster the forces to be there for the last few hours.
I agree with you. If match up times are reduced below a week then they need to start at odd times if ANET also cannot mess with population in some way
Population unbalance leads to one server able to build orbs and thus get even more powerful
Population unbalance has nothing to do with being able to capture Orbs. While I agree that the Orbs need to be changed, they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes it most certainly does. If two server time zones are incompatible, the server that has more people playing on the other server’s off time will able to easily get the orb. So say a match starts at 0000 GMT – 8. Well then a server with a high Oceanic presence will be able to easily capture the orbs when faced against server with little to no Oceanic presence. Now say a match starts at 3PM PST. Well a server with high NA presence is matched up against servers with EU or Oceanic presence, but little to no NA presence. The NA server will be able to easily get the orbs. Obs = power.
Server population/time zone distribution isn’t fixed by a 3 day match. This is what causes servers competing in higher or lower tiers than they should
Time zone distribution and server population are two different things. 60 hour matches solves the time zone issue because no time zone is favoured by the match starting or ending at the same time each week. I’ll get to population below.
I like your idea better than the OPs, but I’d rather ANET simply spread out time zone population around to the different servers some way. If they aren’t able to or can’t do it then this type of solution will help in that regard. Doesn’t mean that its not a band-aid fix
3 day matches doesn’t fix the bandwagon issue
The primary cause of the “bandwagon” is people having nothing to do for three or four days every week. Instead of being too bored or frustrated to go out to WvW what is being suggested here gives people a reason to stay on their server.
I disagree. The primary reason the bandwagon issue exist is because transfers are free and instant, and people hate losing. Restricting free transfers also gives people a reason to stay on their server by forcing them to. Which needs to happen to get any kind of server community going anyways. If people stuck around for 2 matches then the ladder wouldn’t be as broken either, which isn’t solved by reducing match up times. Smurfing and Bandwagoning will still exist with shorter match up times.
Again, the first couple of days of the matches right now are played on the weekend which is the peak period and the only time of the week when a majority of players can play for extra time. You are far more likely to see someone sitting up for 24 hours straight playing WvW on a Saturday than a Wednesday. With shorter matches this means that no two will play the same way because of the numbers of weekend players. A match that starts on Tuesday morning and ends on Thursday night will play out very differently to one that starts on Friday night and ends on Monday morning. “Night capping” (I’m Australian so it’s more like “day capping” for me) is a problem because of the length of time of the matches. It’s very rarely a significant issue on the first few days because any points gained or lost overnight can be quickly made up. It’s when you have a week of night-capping that a small difference in points compounds into an unassailable lead.
As I’ve said, that lead shouldn’t exist period. The reason that lead exist is because points are rewarded evenly. When you are outmanned and own structures you should be award more points. When you outman and own structures you should get less points. So when a server is able to take over a whole map unhindered they shouldn’t get nearly the numbers advantage that they do get. If its set up in the proper way a server that has no competition when it plays while the others do should hardly get any points. A smaller lead directly counters the morale issue.
With a 60hr match up time, servers benefit by getting easy wins still for playing against structures instead of players. The only difference is that they lose the same way sooner. It doesn’t fix the problem.
Lets fix these problem first, because they’ll lead to a better experience overall even with a shorter match duration. If you don’t tackle these issues all you get is a shorter match time with broken mechanics and an ever more erratic ranking.
Why not have the best of both worlds? Divide the future two-week WvW format into chunks. Please bear with me while I type this out. It makes sense in my head, but I’m going to try to explain it clearly.
Per matchup, there would be 3 three-day rounds and 1 five-day round. Each round would have one defending server and two attacking servers. The defenders would start with 100% ownership across all maps and the attackers would try to steal and hold objectives from the defenders (or each other… backstabbing/cut-throat is totally fair play). Score is only tallied at the END of the third day based on what you own at that final buzzer.
Then, a new three-day round would begin with one of the attacking servers becoming the new defending server and starting with 100% control. Again, the score will only count at the end. Then, one final round after that so the last server can have their chance to defend.
Once all three rounds have been completed, it’s a 5-day brawl with 15-minute interval scoring as it is now. Each server will be reset back to 0 points and begin with equal ownership of the maps, but would also be granted an arsenal of free siege/upgrades/supply/etc depending on how many total points they accumulated during each of the first three rounds. So, even though all three servers will start the final round on equal footing (hopefully keeping interest up on losing servers), the servers that performed well will be rewarded with a bit of a tactical head-start. Of course, that might all backfire if the other two servers decide you look like you have TOO much of an advantage…
A sample two-week period could go something like:
Mon/Tue/Wed – Red borderlands
Thu/Fri/Sat – Green borderlands
Sun/Mon/Tues – Blue borderlands
Wed/Thur/Fri/Sat/Sun – The epic finale
That’s the basic idea. I’d like to see it eventually go one step further and make it possible for an entire server to be eliminated for the remainder of the matchup if they lose all their territory in the FINAL round, but I don’t think the player base would go for that. It’d be incredibly intense, though.
As I’ve said, that lead shouldn’t exist period. The reason that lead exist is because points are rewarded evenly. When you are outmanned and own structures you should be award more points. When you outman and own structures you should get less points. So when a server is able to take over a whole map unhindered they shouldn’t get nearly the numbers advantage that they do get. If its set up in the proper way a server that has no competition when it plays while the others do should hardly get any points. A smaller lead directly counters the morale issue.
I kind of agree with the general sentiment here and, a couple of weeks ago, suggested a system where all servers start on an equal footing and get bonuses, to players and NPCs, based on their holdings. A server which controls the majority of locations gets less of a bonus, and has weaker NPCs, than the servers that control less locations. This makes it harder to hold locations and capture new ones for the winning server and easier for the losers to cap’ and hold… until they start winning.
What you are continually ignoring, however, is that this thread is about a very simple solution to many of the problems facing WvW. Change the clock. That’s it. Will it fix everything? No, it won’t. But it will fix most of the major problems by reducing their impact. What you are talking about is far more complex than simply resetting the clock and will take much longer to implement and test. ANet could change the match timers TODAY. There is no testing of any kind required. It is as simple as changing your clock for daylight savings. Actually, that’s not entirely true since Dragonbrand was stuck with the exact same match-up for over a week when it was supposed to change every 24 hours, but presumably that issue has been fixed now. Changing how Orbs and the Outmanned buff work and changing how points are accrued is something that involves far more work and testing.
In fact, for changes to Orbs, etc., to be properly implemented we will need shorter matches anyway. To use my example from earlier, ten matches at 60 hours each works out at around three weeks, but ten matches at a week each works out at almost three months. Isn’t it preferable to have a change that can happen NOW rather than to endure another two, three, or ten weeks of how WvW is at the moment while we wait for them to implement a change? And then they finally implement changes to the Orbs, Outmanned buff and points. What would you rather? Three weeks of dealing with a mechanical change that will almost inevitably be buggy and/or overpowered, or three months of it? That timeframe could amount to six months before WvW is “fixed”.
Again, changing the length of matches is a very simple and elegant solution to many of the problems we are currently facing. Every single solution offered to every problem with WvW is more complicated than simply changing the timer.
Dragonbrand – Reforged Vanguard [ReVa]
Kyxha 80 Ranger, Sokar 80 Necro
Niobe 80 Guardian, Symbaoe 45 Ele
Kyxha 80 Ranger, Sokar 80 Necro
Niobe 80 Guardian, Symbaoe 45 Ele
3 day matches will not solve anything if not make it worse. Weekend and weekday matches have completely different characteristic. Some servers are very good during weekends but have poor performance during weekdays. If you make it 3 day matches, win/lose will be heavyly dependent on the weekend/weekday ratio of the match. Therefore this will not be an indication of being better at pvp.
Blacktide>>Yafes>>Asura Engineer
Again, changing the length of matches is a very simple and elegant solution to many of the problems we are currently facing. Every single solution offered to every problem with WvW is more complicated than simply changing the timer.
The problem is changing the timer doesn’t fix anything. It simply leads to more match-ups. That band-aid fix may be ok for you, but it still leaves the ranking system pointless due to the host of other issues. And yes, I’d rather endure 2-3 months worth of half finished WvW games than get this band-aid fix.
3 day matches will not solve anything if not make it worse. Weekend and weekday matches have completely different characteristic. Some servers are very good during weekends but have poor performance during weekdays. If you make it 3 day matches, win/lose will be heavyly dependent on the weekend/weekday ratio of the match. Therefore this will not be an indication of being better at pvp.
This
1 2