Guild Wars 2

I suggest rotating the match-ups within the top 1-3 tiers, 4-6 tiers, etc. Playing the same two servers every week gets a little repetitive. Even if a tier 2 server gets smashed by JQ the glicko rating won’t be affected that much and I can guarantee there will be a lot more active WvWers in all the tiers knowing that they get to match up against a variety of new guilds/servers. I think it will spark a lot more interest not knowing exactly who you will be matched up against every single week.

While the points you’ve made are true, there is the other side of the coin, which is player morale, particularly in lower tiers where people aren’t as WvW motivated. Sure, a t3 might enjoy a week being smashed by t1, and learn some stuff – but a t8/9 server is not going to enjoy, in the long run, a week of being smashed by a higher server. Within the first few hours people will realize they’re going to lose the week, and the server will be dealing with 50% population at all times for the rest of the week, and a lot of sad pandas staying out of WvW for the next few matches as well. None of this is fun for the dedicated players on these servers. I usually miss reset, but i get on a few hours after – i’ve seen the aftermath of a bad first few reset hours, and its a massive loss of population during times the maps are usually bustling with active players.

Also, if you introduce this the glicko system would go, idk why you need to consider it.

You could not be more wrong. If JQ or really any T1 server dropped down to T3 lol the T3 servers would never leave spawn. When a T2 server drops down to T3 it is bad enough and the other servers are barely able to compete if at all. Rotating between the 3 tiers wwould just be stupid. The second a T3 server saw they were going to be put against a T1 server they would just quit for the week. They may fight over the weekend but when it is no fun because you are spawn camped all day and night no one will play.

Do you really we need more people playing in T1 and T2 right now? And honestly, please don’t change the Glicko system just yet.

Convenant.7092:

Do you really we need more people playing in T1 and T2 right now? And honestly, please don’t change the Glicko system just yet.

Exactly.

How long did FA dominate T3 before moving up and at the time you guys were barely a T2 server. Now if TC or FA moved down it would be utterly ridiculous. Can you imagine T3 vs T1 lol.

Ok, then maybe the match-ups should be randomized by every 2 tiers (1-2, 3-4, etc.)? Or am I wrong in thinking that fighting different guilds/servers every week would be a good change of pace for the WvW community?

While a T1 server might actually ROFLSTOMP a T3 server, the matchup may prove beneficial to the T3 server depending on how well they in fact do against the T1 server.

The glicko experts can chime in here, but if the T3 server did better ‘than expected’ against the T1 even while losing by a lot, it could gain points for the week.

Not having different competition to gauge each server against really hinders Glicko’s implementation from what I hear. Servers need a chance to test their skills periodically against other servers so Glicko can work better as a whole.

Maybe for the lower tiers. But there is such a huge discrepancy between the coverage of T1/T2/T3 that the matches would be blowouts. Mixing and matching even T1/T2 would not be a fun match. We have been stuck with a T1 server before for many weeks and they just dominate with their 24 hour coverage.

Mad Rasputin.7809:

While a T1 server might actually ROFLSTOMP a T3 server, the matchup may prove beneficial to the T3 server depending on how well they in fact do against the T1 server.

The glicko experts can chime in here, but if the T3 server did better ‘than expected’ against the T1 even while losing by a lot, it could gain points for the week.

Not having different competition to gauge each server against really hinders Glicko’s implementation from what I hear. Servers need a chance to test their skills periodically against other servers so Glicko can work better as a whole.

I don’t think this is how it would work though. When a server is being dominated for the most part a lot of the “fair weather” WvWers won’t play that week after they see it will be a domination. Especially if they know it will be short term and then go back to normal. This will just end up creating a bigger discrepancy.

Ruprect.7260:

Maybe for the lower tiers. But there is such a huge discrepancy between the coverage of T1/T2/T3 that the matches would be blowouts. Mixing and matching even T1/T2 would not be a fun match. We have been stuck with a T1 server before for many weeks and they just dominate with their 24 hour coverage.

Would it not be fun and challenging to be matched up against a T1 server? Or even for the fun fights against different guilds and players in your respective time zone? Like a couple posts above, it actually helps out the glicko rating. By the way, the only server with true 24 hour coverage is JQ so no reason to be scared.

Rogi.8720:

I suggest rotating the match-ups within the top 1-3 tiers, 4-6 tiers, etc. Playing the same two servers every week gets a little repetitive. Even if a tier 2 server gets smashed by JQ the glicko rating won’t be affected that much and I can guarantee there will be a lot more active WvWers in all the tiers knowing that they get to match up against a variety of new guilds/servers. I think it will spark a lot more interest not knowing exactly who you will be matched up against every single week.

What fun would it be to have to face JQ on week 1, BG on week 2 then SOR on week 3?

declan.3968:

Rogi.8720:

I suggest rotating the match-ups within the top 1-3 tiers, 4-6 tiers, etc. Playing the same two servers every week gets a little repetitive. Even if a tier 2 server gets smashed by JQ the glicko rating won’t be affected that much and I can guarantee there will be a lot more active WvWers in all the tiers knowing that they get to match up against a variety of new guilds/servers. I think it will spark a lot more interest not knowing exactly who you will be matched up against every single week.

What fun would it be to have to face JQ on week 1, BG on week 2 then SOR on week 3?

None!

We faced BG/SoR in T2 for weeks. BG completely dominated T2 and SoR picked up some guilds and wrecked us for a few weeks before they moved up.

Edit: Don’t get me wrong we had some fun but it gets old being dominated week after week.

Rogi.8720:

Ruprect.7260:

Maybe for the lower tiers. But there is such a huge discrepancy between the coverage of T1/T2/T3 that the matches would be blowouts. Mixing and matching even T1/T2 would not be a fun match. We have been stuck with a T1 server before for many weeks and they just dominate with their 24 hour coverage.

Would it not be fun and challenging to be matched up against a T1 server? Or even for the fun fights against different guilds and players in your respective time zone? Like a couple posts above, it actually helps out the glicko rating. By the way, the only server with true 24 hour coverage is JQ so no reason to be scared.

What server are u on Rogi. I can tell you that BG and SoR have full 24 hr coverage they may be a little weaker at times than JQ but the coverage is there I can tell you from experience. JQ just has better coverage 24/7. It would be fun to have some variety but rotating dominations through the tiers is not the way to do it. That would not be fun for anyone.

I am on SoR and I can tell you that during our Oceanic/Sea/EU we can hold 2 out of the 4 maps with a floating force between both. BG has the same dilemma. JQ’s SEA and EU coverage is unreal with an 80 man zerg on every map. We know TC had some recent guilds transfer as well so I wouldn’t be knocking your own server.

Rogi.8720:

I am on SoR and I can tell you that during our Oceanic/Sea/EU we can hold 2 out of the 4 maps with a floating force between both. BG has the same dilemma. JQ’s SEA and EU coverage is unreal with an 80 man zerg on every map. We know TC had some recent guilds transfer as well so I wouldn’t be knocking your own server.

We are strong EU and slightly better SEA/Oceanic than we used to be, I still think we would have a rough time with SoR/BG. I’m not knocking us I am just being realistic. Do u not remember being BG’s kitten for months lol. I can’t imagine that was fun for you guys.

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

What about switching and mixing it up a bit between NA and EU T1 with T1 and etc.
How about making a new map where T1 from both regions can play on. Something like 6 servers, and in the same time keeping the other borders with the 3 server cap. I got to say it’s getting a bit boring facing the same opponents.

Ohliufff.8160:

What about switching and mixing it up a bit between NA and EU T1 with T1 and etc.
How about making a new map where T1 from both regions can play on. Something like 6 servers, and in the same time keeping the other borders with the 3 server cap. I got to say it’s getting a bit boring facing the same opponents.

This would actually be a good idea.

Rogi.8720:

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

People here keep trying to tell you that players lose interest even faster when getting blown out. Maybe you don’t believe it or maybe you just can’t comprehend, but almost anybody in other tiers will tell you the same thing.

For sure ANet needs to come up with a different way to to set up matches in WvW, but simply brute forcing matchups is not it. My preference would be for ANet to assign handicap points to each server at the start of a match. Weaker servers would have to fight to preserve their lead and the stronger server would have to fight to overcome it by the end of the week. The advantage of such a system is that theoretically almost any server could be equitably matched with any other server if the handicaps were properly set. A server’s score for the week would be their handicap plus points earned that week, and their resultant ranking would be a function of whether they did better or worse than expected.

I didn’t originate this idea but it’s the best I’ve seen so far. Matches wouldn’t be set purely by tier. They could be a random threesome comprised of servers ranked within a certain range of each other … say a range that spanned the equivalent of maybe two or three current tiers. I think it would have a better ability to give us more equitable matches with greater variety, and breaking tier locks would allow the rating … and therefore handicap … systems to be more accurate.

The really interesting part of this approach is that it might actually be the easiest of all to implement from a coding standpoint. The handicap could be some simple function of the Glicko-2 rating, the actual matches could be set by a simple RNG formula that spans a few tiers, and it seems rather trivial to simply add the handicap to a server’s score at the reset.

Cactus.2710:

Rogi.8720:

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

People here keep trying to tell you that players lose interest even faster when getting blown out. Maybe you don’t believe it or maybe you just can’t comprehend, but almost anybody in other tiers will tell you the same thing.

For sure ANet needs to come up with a different way to to set up matches in WvW, but simply brute forcing matchups is not it. My preference would be for ANet to assign handicap points to each server at the start of a match. Weaker servers would have to fight to preserve their lead and the stronger server would have to fight to overcome it by the end of the week. The advantage of such a system is that theoretically almost any server could be equitably matched with any other server if the handicaps were properly set. A server’s score for the week would be their handicap plus points earned that week, and their resultant ranking would be a function of whether they did better or worse than expected.

I didn’t originate this idea but it’s the best I’ve seen so far. Matches wouldn’t be set purely by tier. They could be a random threesome comprised of servers ranked within a certain range of each other … say a range that spanned the equivalent of maybe two or three current tiers. I think it would have a better ability to give us more equitable matches with greater variety, and breaking tier locks would allow the rating … and therefore handicap … systems to be more accurate.

The really interesting part of this approach is that it might actually be the easiest of all to implement from a coding standpoint. The handicap could be some simple function of the Glicko-2 rating, the actual matches could be set by a simple RNG formula that spans a few tiers, and it seems rather trivial to simply add the handicap to a server’s score at the reset.

A handicap system would not work either, well not the way you just described it.

A T1/T2 server vs a T7/T8 server = T7/T8 server never leaves spawn. T1/T2 server could camp them at all 3 exits for 18-24 hours/day.

If a server can’t leave spawn a handicap will not make a difference.

Now if you were to say do this with t1/t2 and t3/t4 and so on, this may be possible. You could maybe even do T1-T3 with a handicap and so on.

Rogi and Catus you’re both right. Stagnant tiers get boring after awhile and blowouts suck. Both cause the loss of players.

And that handicap system sounds like a great idea. It would probably actually encourage more people on the lower server to play to see if they could hold out. And even if you were getting “blown out”, it wouldn’t seem as bad.

But the matchups would have to be limited to a range on either side of your server. Having a T7 server all of the sudden matched up with a T1 server wouldn’t work.

Rogi.8720:

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

Pfffft, not scared I don’t think we would be camped all the time. I think we could hold our own against any of you guys but it would be a blowout in the end.

I will agree that the same matchups will eventually get old. Hopefully there is enough volatility with new people starting the game and some quitting that we can keep new matchups every now and then.

I would kind of like to see split weekend/week matchups; with the week being current tier system, weekend being a short alternate system (random? restricted random such that t1 never fight t8? just separate tiers so that a server can be t3 weekend warriors /t8 during the week?)
The glicko system could probably use the alternate scores to help break tier lock, it would still give you ‘balanced’ long matches, and it would be nice to have some shorter/more intense matches, with more varied opponent. Also; more reset nights.

The glicko score represents WvW population over the course of a week, nothing more. Once you realize this you also realize that mixing up the tiers can only result in massive losses by the lower ranked servers and absolutely zero competition for the higher ranked servers. It’s not like Division 1 schools playing Division 2 schools where they still have the same number of players on the field.

The difference in zerg sizes from tier to tier is quite noticeable. The difference in coverage is staggering. The ability to populate several maps at one time is almost game-breaking.

The servers are basically ranked by population right now due to the glicko system. At most I think Anet should consider some manual manipulation to fix the obvious failings of the system when they occur. And besides, who doesn’t enjoy a bit of manual manipulation from time to time?

Ruprect.7260:

Cactus.2710:

Rogi.8720:

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

People here keep trying to tell you that players lose interest even faster when getting blown out. Maybe you don’t believe it or maybe you just can’t comprehend, but almost anybody in other tiers will tell you the same thing.

For sure ANet needs to come up with a different way to to set up matches in WvW, but simply brute forcing matchups is not it. My preference would be for ANet to assign handicap points to each server at the start of a match. Weaker servers would have to fight to preserve their lead and the stronger server would have to fight to overcome it by the end of the week. The advantage of such a system is that theoretically almost any server could be equitably matched with any other server if the handicaps were properly set. A server’s score for the week would be their handicap plus points earned that week, and their resultant ranking would be a function of whether they did better or worse than expected.

I didn’t originate this idea but it’s the best I’ve seen so far. Matches wouldn’t be set purely by tier. They could be a random threesome comprised of servers ranked within a certain range of each other … say a range that spanned the equivalent of maybe two or three current tiers. I think it would have a better ability to give us more equitable matches with greater variety, and breaking tier locks would allow the rating … and therefore handicap … systems to be more accurate.

The really interesting part of this approach is that it might actually be the easiest of all to implement from a coding standpoint. The handicap could be some simple function of the Glicko-2 rating, the actual matches could be set by a simple RNG formula that spans a few tiers, and it seems rather trivial to simply add the handicap to a server’s score at the reset.

A handicap system would not work either, well not the way you just described it.

A T1/T2 server vs a T7/T8 server = T7/T8 server never leaves spawn. T1/T2 server could camp them at all 3 exits for 18-24 hours/day.

If a server can’t leave spawn a handicap will not make a difference.

Now if you were to say do this with t1/t2 and t3/t4 and so on, this may be possible. You could maybe even do T1-T3 with a handicap and so on.

Please reread my post where I suggest handicapped matches that “spanned the equivalent of two or three current tiers”. Last time I did the math a span of two or three tiers would not pit a T1/T2 server against a T7T8 server, but maybe things are different in your world. All it would require is that the system randomly span the equivalent of two tiers (i.e., T1 to T2, T2 to T3, T3 to T4, etc) for it to break the tier locking problem. And if a T2 server is capable of continuously spawn camping a T3 server, then all hope for fresh, equitable server-based matches in WvW is lost anyway no matter how they are arranged and the only possibility for fair matches is to switch to some sort of instanced setup.

Maladon.5760:

The servers are basically ranked by population right now due to the glicko system. At most I think Anet should consider some manual manipulation to fix the obvious failings of the system when they occur. And besides, who doesn’t enjoy a bit of manual manipulation from time to time?

Manual manipulation of matches without some compensating factor doesn’t fix any failing … it adds to them. A “fresh” match that is an obvious blowout right from reset is a match that in effect doesn’t even get played because most players … on all sides … won’t even bother.

Cactus.2710:

Ruprect.7260:

Cactus.2710:

Rogi.8720:

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

People here keep trying to tell you that players lose interest even faster when getting blown out. Maybe you don’t believe it or maybe you just can’t comprehend, but almost anybody in other tiers will tell you the same thing.

For sure ANet needs to come up with a different way to to set up matches in WvW, but simply brute forcing matchups is not it. My preference would be for ANet to assign handicap points to each server at the start of a match. Weaker servers would have to fight to preserve their lead and the stronger server would have to fight to overcome it by the end of the week. The advantage of such a system is that theoretically almost any server could be equitably matched with any other server if the handicaps were properly set. A server’s score for the week would be their handicap plus points earned that week, and their resultant ranking would be a function of whether they did better or worse than expected.

I didn’t originate this idea but it’s the best I’ve seen so far. Matches wouldn’t be set purely by tier. They could be a random threesome comprised of servers ranked within a certain range of each other … say a range that spanned the equivalent of maybe two or three current tiers. I think it would have a better ability to give us more equitable matches with greater variety, and breaking tier locks would allow the rating … and therefore handicap … systems to be more accurate.

The really interesting part of this approach is that it might actually be the easiest of all to implement from a coding standpoint. The handicap could be some simple function of the Glicko-2 rating, the actual matches could be set by a simple RNG formula that spans a few tiers, and it seems rather trivial to simply add the handicap to a server’s score at the reset.

A handicap system would not work either, well not the way you just described it.

A T1/T2 server vs a T7/T8 server = T7/T8 server never leaves spawn. T1/T2 server could camp them at all 3 exits for 18-24 hours/day.

If a server can’t leave spawn a handicap will not make a difference.

Now if you were to say do this with t1/t2 and t3/t4 and so on, this may be possible. You could maybe even do T1-T3 with a handicap and so on.

Please reread my post where I suggest handicapped matches that “spanned the equivalent of two or three current tiers”. Last time I did the math a span of two or three tiers would not pit a T1/T2 server against a T7T8 server, but maybe things are different in your world. All it would require is that the system randomly span the equivalent of two tiers (i.e., T1 to T2, T2 to T3, T3 to T4, etc) for it to break the tier locking problem. And if a T2 server is capable of continuously spawn camping a T3 server, then all hope for fresh, equitable server-based matches in WvW is lost anyway no matter how they are arranged and the only possibility for fair matches is to switch to some sort of instanced setup.

Either way I was agreeing with you. I apologize I missed the part where you said tier range. I was pretty much reiterating what you were saying then.

Cactus.2710:

Maladon.5760:

The servers are basically ranked by population right now due to the glicko system. At most I think Anet should consider some manual manipulation to fix the obvious failings of the system when they occur. And besides, who doesn’t enjoy a bit of manual manipulation from time to time?

Manual manipulation of matches without some compensating factor doesn’t fix any failing … it adds to them. A “fresh” match that is an obvious blowout right from reset is a match that in effect doesn’t even get played because most players … on all sides … won’t even bother.

Manual manipulation of the matchups should be made with the intent of avoiding blowouts. In all honesty though, I think most people realize glicko is basically a bandaid fix at best. WvW is too dynamic for a system like glicko to ever work properly. Anytime a player quits the game, transfers, or even decides to do pve for the week it weakens the validity of the score. The constants in the equation are now different from the constants that have thus far contributed to the rating. A rating which, by the way, has way too few data points in the first place.

For glicko to be effective the player/server has to put forth a consistent effort. That’s easily achieved in chess, while impossible to achieve in WvW.

If WvW is ever going to be competitive from top to bottom the system is going to have to be much more dynamic. The ability to predict population trends as they are happening, instead of allowing servers to freefall for months, is very important.

The only scenario where either system makes sense is if a magic wand was waved and all 24 servers had a similar number of people across all timeslots, making the matchups from week to week purely a matter of who played the strategy better or wanted it more. That’s never going to happen, nothing close to it will ever happen, because the system can’t be designed that way.

There are really only two systems that can work without more fundamental structural changes to how WvW servers and maps are populated. One is the current Glicko system, which over time tends to place servers in comparable coverage tiers. If you look at the scores this week, then for the most part they’re as close as they’re going to be. At time of writing, no server has double the score of any other server in their matchup. So, in theory, this system is good for point tallies since each server should feel some capacity to do well against their current adversaries. On the other hand, if your matchup is truly even then you’ll be fighting the same people for basically eternity, which bores some players.

The other system is a winners move up, losers move down, 2nd place stays system. This would imbalance the tiers in terms of coverage, and as a result imbalance the point totals and cause blowouts in points, which frustrates some players. However you’d be facing different opponents each week, so while the scores may not be close, the engagements would seem fresh each week as you encountered each different group.

So you can either bore people or frustrate them, it’s a lose-lose proposition. Which is preferable will differ from person to person. Personally I never really minded when we’ve been losing by a large margin, since I knew I could always find something to do somewhere that would result in an engagement. I found it more boring to be on the server winning by a large margin. And I’ve found it most boring of all to be greeted with the prospect of fighting the same guilds and the same tired tactics week in and week out for eternity. Fights lose some of their sheen and mystique when you know what to expect from everyone you encounter. But then they also lose their fun when you field double or half as many as the enemy, so again it’s a lose-lose.

I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s more fundamental than changing merely the way matchups are calculated, and it comes down to some change to how WvW servers and map queuing are handled. Changes to the WvW Progression system that discourage larger groups would also present more comparable group sizes across tiers (just more groups in higher ones) which might help fights in general (most MMOs I’m aware of cut your XP for killing someone with 50 people relative to killing them solo, this one doesn’t, so zerging is the norm). I wish Devon luck figuring it out before too many more get burned out.

I agree.Fighting the same server over and over again will sooner or later end up in huge drama.if we are luck we will get 3 servers hating each other and fighting each other nonstop, while trolling them with whispers and gestures ….if you are unlucky u will face a constant 2v1(that is based on what has been said in the forums)for week after week after week.

My tier atm is balanced, but i would love to fight a few new servers as i am getting tired of the same guilds over and over and over and over and over and over again.Some people simply don’t wanna play until matchup changes.

I would love to rotate matchups…it’s getting boring!

Ruprect.7260:

Cactus.2710:

Ruprect.7260:

Cactus.2710:

Rogi.8720:

With the current glicko ratings, the current volatility of T2 and BG slowly losing their rating in T1 I don’t think you have to worry about being spawn trapped. After a few more weeks of fighting the same servers and guilds maybe you will change your mind. Guilds and even the fair weather WvWers get bored fighting the same servers every week. Slowly but surely people will lose interest if there is not some sort of variation week in and week out.

People here keep trying to tell you that players lose interest even faster when getting blown out. Maybe you don’t believe it or maybe you just can’t comprehend, but almost anybody in other tiers will tell you the same thing.

For sure ANet needs to come up with a different way to to set up matches in WvW, but simply brute forcing matchups is not it. My preference would be for ANet to assign handicap points to each server at the start of a match. Weaker servers would have to fight to preserve their lead and the stronger server would have to fight to overcome it by the end of the week. The advantage of such a system is that theoretically almost any server could be equitably matched with any other server if the handicaps were properly set. A server’s score for the week would be their handicap plus points earned that week, and their resultant ranking would be a function of whether they did better or worse than expected.

I didn’t originate this idea but it’s the best I’ve seen so far. Matches wouldn’t be set purely by tier. They could be a random threesome comprised of servers ranked within a certain range of each other … say a range that spanned the equivalent of maybe two or three current tiers. I think it would have a better ability to give us more equitable matches with greater variety, and breaking tier locks would allow the rating … and therefore handicap … systems to be more accurate.

The really interesting part of this approach is that it might actually be the easiest of all to implement from a coding standpoint. The handicap could be some simple function of the Glicko-2 rating, the actual matches could be set by a simple RNG formula that spans a few tiers, and it seems rather trivial to simply add the handicap to a server’s score at the reset.

A handicap system would not work either, well not the way you just described it.

A T1/T2 server vs a T7/T8 server = T7/T8 server never leaves spawn. T1/T2 server could camp them at all 3 exits for 18-24 hours/day.

If a server can’t leave spawn a handicap will not make a difference.

Now if you were to say do this with t1/t2 and t3/t4 and so on, this may be possible. You could maybe even do T1-T3 with a handicap and so on.

Please reread my post where I suggest handicapped matches that “spanned the equivalent of two or three current tiers”. Last time I did the math a span of two or three tiers would not pit a T1/T2 server against a T7T8 server, but maybe things are different in your world. All it would require is that the system randomly span the equivalent of two tiers (i.e., T1 to T2, T2 to T3, T3 to T4, etc) for it to break the tier locking problem. And if a T2 server is capable of continuously spawn camping a T3 server, then all hope for fresh, equitable server-based matches in WvW is lost anyway no matter how they are arranged and the only possibility for fair matches is to switch to some sort of instanced setup.

Either way I was agreeing with you. I apologize I missed the part where you said tier range. I was pretty much reiterating what you were saying then.

No problem … sorry if I sounded testy.

Maladon.5760:

Cactus.2710:

Maladon.5760:

The servers are basically ranked by population right now due to the glicko system. At most I think Anet should consider some manual manipulation to fix the obvious failings of the system when they occur. And besides, who doesn’t enjoy a bit of manual manipulation from time to time?

Manual manipulation of matches without some compensating factor doesn’t fix any failing … it adds to them. A “fresh” match that is an obvious blowout right from reset is a match that in effect doesn’t even get played because most players … on all sides … won’t even bother.

Manual manipulation of the matchups should be made with the intent of avoiding blowouts. In all honesty though, I think most people realize glicko is basically a bandaid fix at best. WvW is too dynamic for a system like glicko to ever work properly. Anytime a player quits the game, transfers, or even decides to do pve for the week it weakens the validity of the score. The constants in the equation are now different from the constants that have thus far contributed to the rating. A rating which, by the way, has way too few data points in the first place.

For glicko to be effective the player/server has to put forth a consistent effort. That’s easily achieved in chess, while impossible to achieve in WvW.

If WvW is ever going to be competitive from top to bottom the system is going to have to be much more dynamic. The ability to predict population trends as they are happening, instead of allowing servers to freefall for months, is very important.

I’d agree with all of that. Please don’t take any of my comments to mean that I defend the Gicko-2 system … at least not the way ANet is using it. I’ve written several forum posts in the past pointing out the significant flaws, the most obvious two of which are using it in a tiered environment with three-way matches. I do think that a handicap system might be the only way to possibly salvage a server-vs-server-vs-server system, but I’d never guarantee that even that would do the job. The only sure fire way to get fair matches that aren’t stale is to migrate to some sort of instanced method.

Ruprect I was just kidding about being spawn trapped. I have a lot of respect for you guys in TC. My main point is that matches become stale and people become bored fighting the same people day in and day out. I was just stirring the pot to see if anyone else had ideas about ways to keep the WvW community entertained. Fighting servers a tier below or above your current server seems like it would be fun…for at least a short time.

As has been said in other posts i think:
If you win the tier you move up one
If you lose the tier you move down one,
It seems that some servers get better coverage during certain hours/days/weeks
The current system is wrong- it takes too long to make any difference many players realise this- BUT if it was a per week basis it would be more INCENTIVE to Play Now

selan.8354:

I agree.Fighting the same server over and over again will sooner or later end up in huge drama.if we are luck we will get 3 servers hating each other and fighting each other nonstop, while trolling them with whispers and gestures ….if you are unlucky u will face a constant 2v1(that is based on what has been said in the forums)for week after week after week.

My tier atm is balanced, but i would love to fight a few new servers as i am getting tired of the same guilds over and over and over and over and over and over again.Some people simply don’t wanna play until matchup changes.

I would love to rotate matchups…it’s getting boring!

THIS is where Anet made the mistake : SERVER Vs SERVER (sounds good but in practice things are getting slightly out of control (Especially EU where some servers are nation based)- Anyone would think Anet wanted to start a war)

THERE already existed within the game the element to create three ‘sides’ : The Vigil, Priory, and order of shadows and the battle of these 3, to be fought within each server.
NO more server animosity (sure there might still exist animosity within a server- but it WILL be friendlier)
There will be less Capping because of population time differences
More chance for GvG and G vs itself

Under Web.2497:

selan.8354:

I agree.Fighting the same server over and over again will sooner or later end up in huge drama.if we are luck we will get 3 servers hating each other and fighting each other nonstop, while trolling them with whispers and gestures ….if you are unlucky u will face a constant 2v1(that is based on what has been said in the forums)for week after week after week.

My tier atm is balanced, but i would love to fight a few new servers as i am getting tired of the same guilds over and over and over and over and over and over again.Some people simply don’t wanna play until matchup changes.

I would love to rotate matchups…it’s getting boring!

THIS is where Anet made the mistake : SERVER Vs SERVER (sounds good but in practice things are getting slightly out of control (Especially EU where some servers are nation based)- Anyone would think Anet wanted to start a war)

THERE already existed within the game the element to create three ‘sides’ : The Vigil, Priory, and order of shadows and the battle of these 3, to be fought within each server.
NO more server animosity (sure there might still exist animosity within a server- but it WILL be friendlier)
There will be less Capping because of population time differences
More chance for GvG and G vs itself

So the story is about how an alliance between three different groups can achieve huge things and in PvP, we will get these three groups killing eachother? How can you connect one to the other properly? It would simply have even less consistency with the story than the whole mist war(why are we fighting there again?) and also, the priory would probably be outmanned all day

I for my part wonder, how a fluent matchup system with randomized pairings would have affected server populations. People mostly migrated to the big tier 1 servers in anticipation of high coverage, great organisation, and most importantly, strong opponents and the right of being called the “number one”.
I still feel like a non-tiered system would have caused less bandwagoning, established more server pride and kept the server populations a bit more balanced overall.
That whole run for the big servers started because everyone wanted to play in tier one anyway.

First of all the current “ranking based on matches” plus “matches based on ranking” does NOT work anymore (it’s cyclic, with self-supported non-optimal equilibria). The tiers are frozen, and it even had a manual ANet intervention to enable a more adequate NA-T8.

Gicko-2 for ranking combined with winner up and looser down for match determination would work better.
(If the up-going must have more ranking-pts to go up than the down-going – as it is currently – it leads to a movement of point up the tier, the tiers get further apart, until no switch is possible anymore. If the looser would go down even when he still has more ranking this can be counter-balanced.)

Vigil vs Priory vs Shadows would be a strong violation of the GW2 story, wouldn’t it?
And it would be a third people per side than current WvWvW as each server has to provide all three fractions.

I think closes to WvWvW is Guild Alliance vs Guild Alliance vs Guild Alliance and if these alliances can be (freely) build and not only over server borders but even over EU-NA borders three problems of current WvW can be solved:
- severs with only a few WvW interested people: you are not alone anymore,
build an alliance with other people form other servers.
- 24/7 coverage: build you alliance right to get it.
- queues at primetime: it’s your choice how many people you add to an alliance
and your choice of the balance between coverage vs no queues.
Alliances have to be registered a little bit ahead of the start of matches, such that a match-builder-program can build matches based on strength (no of people and ranking based on previous matches) of involved guilds.
After the match the overall result of the match are propagated back to the guilds.
(I would be against counting results achieved in the match individually per guild as this would be counter-productive for team-play)

But I would like to have to server internal fights for a “server government” as well.