Guild Wars 2

It seems Anet is stuck on the Glick (or however it is spelled) system. I would like to propose a little solution to the stale match-ups I am always reading about (like T8, where I am).

I think adding an auto-movement feature that moves a server up for 3-4 consecutive wins and also moves a server down for 3-4 consecutive losses, no matter if their rating is gaining or slipping, would really help out.

This will allow the Glick system to do it’s thing yet still let a server that deserves to move up or down that opportunity to show whether they belong in the Tier above or below. If they do not belong there they will quickly settle back into the Tier they were in. If they do belong in the other Tier their rating should adjust fairly quickly.

Obviously the auto-movement would not be able to move a consecutive loss server out of T8 or a consecutive wins server out of T1.

At the very least it will give the servers a week or two of a new server in their Tier until the other server moves back into that Tier.

What do you folks think?

Edit: Please people, this is not for re-hashing old ideas that did not take a hold. Please opine away on THIS idea. If enough people think it is worthwhile then Anet may notice and think about it. If this idea sucks then it will fall down the list like all the other ideas.

The problem in there is the rating of the server that get moved (which would need to be adjusted). Let’s use T8 as exemple:

SF move up since it already wond enough weeks. HoD move down.
SF have only 907 rating against 1005 from HoD.
Unless SF make 100 rating points, it will move down (provided that HoD doesn’t points).

That would need some major changes.

The best way to fix stale match-ups is to introduce new 2 server maps to go along with the regular 3 server maps. Keep in mind NO solution will ever fix the top 2 servers and the bottom 2 servers. Anyway, here was my idea.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/An-Idea-to-Fix-Stale-Match-ups/first#post1508443

But that would be the point of it. At the very least, for a week, there is a new match-up. And if that server does deserve to be in the new Tier then it would make up those points in that week. Or the server that moved down because the other one moved up sucks and does not make the points to move up.

This wasn’t a suggestion to fix the Glick ratings or system but to refresh some match-ups when it is needed.

Thanks for the input so far but please read my Edit on the OP.

While I am generally not in favor of winner-up/loser-down schemes, the version proposed by the OP actually has some merit. It would greatly help to reduce the inherent flaw of the Glicko-2 rating system in a tiered environment that causes tier locking. To be honest, I don’t really see a downside to his proposal.

3 or 4 weeks?

most matchups i’ve been in i’ve noticed our wvw population goes downhill in a matter of days not weeks or months if we’re in a matchup we are losing horribly.

it doesn’t take a whole month of playing a bad game for me to want to quit.

in gameplay time 1 week of not fun is long enough for me to want to bail. 2, 3, or 4 is right out.

Totally agree with Straegen. The servers that are stuck with unbalanced matchups will not magically gain balanced matchups from this. They’ll just get unbalanced matchups with different names in red. The servers that are currently enjoying balanced matchups… well, I find it hard to believe that they would welcome a sudden unbalancing of their tier. In the end, the problem that ANet needs to solve (which I hope they are truly working on) is how to ensure that WvWvW has a greater balance between servers with different coverage. ex: NA T2,3,4

Those tiers that are unbalanced greatly would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

that is enough evidence to call tier 6 an anomoly.

in which case, kitten those guys. i don’t care if their tier gets a bit of a balance shake up so that everyone else might fight a different red server here and there.

Straegen.2938:

This idea doesn’t really fix much since IMO the staleness isn’t about server selection but about population imbalances and unfair fights. This system will push servers up that aren’t able to compete, push servers down that will dominate, the blue team will probably stay “stuck” as it is today in many tiers and the top and bottom server will still have nowhere to go.

This most certainly would alleviate population imbalances and unfair fights. The servers that are pushed up will have won 3-4 CONSECUTIVE times meaning they are dominating their Tier but can’t get that little extra rating to move purely by the Glick system. You have no way of knowing they wouldn’t be able to compete until they actually get in that Tier and show their stuff.

The servers pushed down will have lost 3-4 CONSECUTIVE times meaning they are being dominated in their Tier but can not move purely by the Glick system. Again, you have no way of knowing if they will dominate the lower Tier until they get there and show their stuff.

The middle team will then have a chance to face at least one new opponent, giving them the chance to move up or down in that Tier. This benefits all parties.

And that last sentence makes no sense. The auto-movement will make sure that the bottom or top server will move if they are dominating, so they DO have somewhere to go with 3-4 consecutive wins.

Straegen.2938:

Look at T6 where balance is found. I am sure those servers want to keep that tier in tact as long as possible.

This idea has come up a few times in different incarnations before. None of the ideas proposed have “stuck” mainly because any change likely requires weeks of programming and testing.

Different incarnations, but not this one. Sure T6 is balanced but apparently not the others. And with the movement only happening after 3-4 consecutive wins/losses, it will give that server a chance to move and show they might belong there.

This is not a perfect solution at all, but there never is a perfect solution for this kind of thing. What this does is allow a server that (for whatever reason) is making no movement despite dominating/being dominated for consecutive weeks.

JaironKalach.4938:

Totally agree with Straegen. The servers that are stuck with unbalanced matchups will not magically gain balanced matchups from this. They’ll just get unbalanced matchups with different names in red.

So what is the problem with going from one unbalanced match-up to another? They are already in one, adding a fresh face might just change things up.

JaironKalach.4938:

The servers that are currently enjoying balanced matchups… well, I find it hard to believe that they would welcome a sudden unbalancing of their tier. In the end, the problem that ANet needs to solve (which I hope they are truly working on) is how to ensure that WvWvW has a greater balance between servers with different coverage. ex: NA T2,3,4

Pretty much everyone on the forums agrees that only T6 is truly balanced. 1 Tier out of 8 doesn’t support leaving the other 7 with unbalanced match-ups.

Population balance can never really be “solved”, people want to be on servers with their friends, guild, or jump ship to “winning servers”. You can not force people onto servers they do not want to be on. Charging them currency (in game or not) prevents some or most transfers to high population servers but that is about all Anet can do. If they can figure out how to force people to leave their servers for one’s they don’t want, that would be amazing.

There is no problem with going from on unbalanced matchup to another. But I will say from experience that adding a fresh face is not helpful. I know that T3 isn’t happy with its revolving doors. Pretty sure T4 isn’t happy with the revolving door yaks/mag. Also pretty sure that T2 teams haven’t been happy with their revolving doors, either.

I agree that population will always fluctuate. But I disagree that population imbalance necessarily has as dramatic of an effect as it does now. I can think of one terrible suggestion that could severely reduce the impact of population imbalance, already: cap each BL at 5 players from each team. Sure, the reasons why this is a terrible idea are immediately evident. But population advantages would certainly no longer carry the weight. Most servers can field 20 people in WvW all the time. Okay… so now that we’ve established that it’s possible, we should figure out how to solve the population imbalance problem in a way that doesn’t suck, instead of coming up with yet another way of ensuring that the drubbings are still terrible.

Since you’ll probably yell at me for not having a counter proposal, here it is: Instead of having an outmanned buff, reduce queues based on the number of enemies available in the BL. Alternately, track exactly how much the outmanned buff and increase the AoE cap in relation to how outmanned you are.

fivekiller.1432:

3 or 4 weeks?

most matchups i’ve been in i’ve noticed our wvw population goes downhill in a matter of days not weeks or months if we’re in a matchup we are losing horribly.

it doesn’t take a whole month of playing a bad game for me to want to quit.

in gameplay time 1 week of not fun is long enough for me to want to bail. 2, 3, or 4 is right out.

It would have to be something in that kind of time range. If the time frame was shorter then the fix would have to come at the Glick level, which it seems Anet doesn’t want to do.

The problem of fair-weather players leaving WvW when things get tough has nothing to do with this. Shame on them for abandoning their fellow players but you can not tell someone else how to play their game.

LOL. Lots of people here who apparently are incapable of reading comprehension. Both the title of the thread and the text of the OP talks about trying to mitigate STALENESS … not imbalance. They are two entirely different things, and imbalance is not going to ever get fixed without a complete overhaul of WVW to go away from server versus server matchups.

JaironKalach.4938:

There is no problem with going from on unbalanced matchup to another. But I will say from experience that adding a fresh face is not helpful. I know that T3 isn’t happy with its revolving doors. Pretty sure T4 isn’t happy with the revolving door yaks/mag. Also pretty sure that T2 teams haven’t been happy with their revolving doors, either.

I agree that population will always fluctuate. But I disagree that population imbalance necessarily has as dramatic of an effect as it does now. I can think of one terrible suggestion that could severely reduce the impact of population imbalance, already: cap each BL at 5 players from each team. Sure, the reasons why this is a terrible idea are immediately evident. But population advantages would certainly no longer carry the weight. Most servers can field 20 people in WvW all the time. Okay… so now that we’ve established that it’s possible, we should figure out how to solve the population imbalance problem in a way that doesn’t suck, instead of coming up with yet another way of ensuring that the drubbings are still terrible.

Since you’ll probably yell at me for not having a counter proposal, here it is: Instead of having an outmanned buff, reduce queues based on the number of enemies available in the BL. Alternately, track exactly how much the outmanned buff and increase the AoE cap in relation to how outmanned you are.

But how does not adding a fresh face help? All that does is leave thing stagnant since the Glick system isnt moving the servers.

I completely get what you are saying about the population imbalance in WvW (sorry, for some reason I was stuck on whole server population). But the solutions to fix something like that would be major code/engine re-write.

What I am proposing is to allow there to be some movement for servers that are outmatching or being outmatched in their Tier. And to do that with a limited amount of code change. I know it is not a fix-all but until they go with something besides Glick and/or major code/engine re-write I think this is a decent way to prevent stale matchups from going on and on and on.

If the servers that are moved by this solution do not belong in the Tier they are moved into they will quickly move back to the Tier they were in. But at least they will have had a change of scenery for that week or two.

Cactus.2710:

LOL. Lots of people here who apparently are incapable of reading comprehension. Both the title of the thread and the text of the OP talks about trying to mitigate STALENESS … not imbalance. They are two entirely different things, and imbalance is not going to ever get fixed without a complete overhaul of WVW to go away from server versus server matchups.

Thanks Cactus. That is exactly what I am trying to do, mitigate staleness as much as possible. I know it can never go away completely but we can try!

Matches are stale because we’re finally getting the tiers balanced as close to perfect as we’ll get.

I don’t understand why ppl complain about matches being “stale” when the only alternative is blowouts.

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

It would have to be something in that kind of time range. If the time frame was shorter then the fix would have to come at the Glick level, which it seems Anet doesn’t want to do.

The problem of fair-weather players leaving WvW when things get tough has nothing to do with this. Shame on them for abandoning their fellow players but you can not tell someone else how to play their game.

First. There is nothing wrong with suggesting things Anet may not necessarily be keen on if it is a good suggestion. Anet may be working under a bad paradigm and that could always change.

Second. The problem of fair-weather players has everything to do with stale matchups. As I pointed out earlier players abandoning the game is a problem with stale matchups. It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to just ask we simply “shame” players who stop playing a game they do not find fun.

That would be the epitomy of bad game design.

You are discussing a systems problem. If you focus narrowly on just a few aspects of a system and seek to change the system you will invariably screw the system up.

and as far as the alternative to what we have now being blowouts. it isn’t an alternative if it is the present situation. it would just be more of the same.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Matches are stale because we’re finally getting the tiers balanced as close to perfect as we’ll get.

I don’t understand why ppl complain about matches being “stale” when the only alternative is blowouts.

If the Tier is balanced then one server will not be winning or losing 3-4 weeks in a row. So this would not affect your balanced Tiers unless the the Tier above or below has a server that is dominating/being dominated. And if that Tier is really that balanced the server that moves in will move out very quickly and the server that moved out would be right back in a week or so. Seeing a new opponent for a week or two is not that bad of a thing.

And this will prevent blowouts (such as T8) from happening EVERY week. Blowouts are most certainly NOT the only alternative to stale match-ups. They are one, sure, but not the only one.

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

But how does not adding a fresh face help? All that does is leave thing stagnant since the Glick system isnt moving the servers.

Because it’s been my experience and that of everyone in the T2, T3, T4 matchup threads that it doesn’t matter who is participating in the blowout, being in a blowout is not fun. And besides which, moving things more frequently just sets up revolving doors. For instance, T7 will never see a T1 server. Instead they will see two different servers that are regularly losing the T6 matchup.

The problem is that while there are 8 tiers of play, there are actually currently 9-10 tiers of coverage. This guarantees that the majority of matches are blowouts. And a blowout really doesn’t feel different when it’s a different set of faces.

JaironKalach.4938:

And a blowout really doesn’t feel different when it’s a different set of faces.

It does if you aren’t in T8.

The reason being, if you are on the red team in a blowout it is a very different situation from being on the green team.

Yak’s Bend for example yoyoing between red in T3 and green in T4 has a very different experience in each of those tiers.

whereas obviously the T8 blowout red servers never dip down and become green so they wouldn’t know about that.

As does Maguuma. Honestly, this week and last week both sucked.

fivekiller.1432:

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

It would have to be something in that kind of time range. If the time frame was shorter then the fix would have to come at the Glick level, which it seems Anet doesn’t want to do.

The problem of fair-weather players leaving WvW when things get tough has nothing to do with this. Shame on them for abandoning their fellow players but you can not tell someone else how to play their game.

First. There is nothing wrong with suggesting things Anet may not necessarily be keen on if it is a good suggestion. Anet may be working under a bad paradigm and that could always change.

Second. The problem of fair-weather players has everything to do with stale matchups. As I pointed out earlier players abandoning the game is a problem with stale matchups. It is both unreasonable and unrealistic to just ask we simply “shame” players who stop playing a game they do not find fun.

That would be the epitomy of bad game design.

You are discussing a systems problem. If you focus narrowly on just a few aspects of a system and seek to change the system you will invariably screw the system up.

and as far as the alternative to what we have now being blowouts. it isn’t an alternative if it is the present situation. it would just be more of the same.

I am not discussing an entire systems problem. Again, I am not proposing this as a fix-all for the current system. This is to try and make things more dynamic for the match-ups where a server is dominating/being-dominated 3-4 weeks in a row.

Fair-weather players affect WvW, of course. But there is no way you can make someone play something that isn’t fun for them. Plus, if a server is losing WvW players because their server is being dominated, then moving their server to a lower Tier will help get them back, at least for a short time.

To discuss a change to WvW system to resolve all the perceived problems is not something I would ever want to do unless I am being paid for it. Because it would take a very long time and too much thinking.

Straegen.2938:

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

If the Tier is balanced then one server will not be winning or losing 3-4 weeks in a row. So this would not affect your balanced Tiers unless the the Tier above or below has a server that is dominating/being dominated. And if that Tier is really that balanced the server that moves in will move out very quickly and the server that moved out would be right back in a week or so. Seeing a new opponent for a week or two is not that bad of a thing.

And this will prevent blowouts (such as T8) from happening EVERY week. Blowouts are most certainly NOT the only alternative to stale match-ups. They are one, sure, but not the only one.

The only tier that has no movement is T8. The current system already shuffles servers each week:

1 week ago: T1, T2, T3, T4, T6, T7
2 weeks ago: T3, T4
3 weeks ago: T4, T5
4 weeks ago: T3, T4, T5

Next week (speculation): T3, T4, T5, T6

We already have movement in tiers with T1 and T8 being the more stagnant tiers. Really only SF and JQ is suffering the staleness brunt of glicko2. The problem isn’t tiers it is population imbalance in different time zones.

Ok, so the problem here is you are not actually reading what I put down or you do not care. If you really think population imbalance is the problem, take your arguments over to that thread (yes, there is one). We are not discussing that here.

If there already is movement, great. Nothing about any of this will affect those Tiers then, will it? So your arguments against this mean nothing as that is not what I am trying to address. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and it is not productive for anymore.

I am addressing stale matches due to a server winning or losing 3-4 consecutive weeks and they are not moving due to the Glick system not working. This system could work along with the Glick without major code/engine re-write.

Straegen.2938:

Cactus.2710:

… and imbalance is not going to ever get fixed without a complete overhaul of WVW to go away from server versus server matchups.

I disagree. My suggestion above works inside the existing framework with relatively minimal changes. It would change the duration of matches (which they can do and have done previously) and changes how a server lands in a tier (population count during that time rather than weekly score). It also completely resolves most “staleness” complaints.

Again, this thread is about discussing the OP proposal. Please start your own thread to discuss your ideas. Not saying they are invalid, they just don’t belong on this thread.

Straegen.2938:

Cactus.2710:

… and imbalance is not going to ever get fixed without a complete overhaul of WVW to go away from server versus server matchups.

I disagree. My suggestion above works inside the existing framework with relatively minimal changes. It would change the duration of matches (which they can do and have done previously) and changes how a server lands in a tier (population count during that time rather than weekly score). It also completely resolves most “staleness” complaints.

I ignored your suggestion because it can too easily be gamed. Lots of servers have huge disparities in coverage from hour to hour so any particular server could find itself in a high tier from, say, 2 PM to 10 PM and in a low tier from 10 PM to 6AM. All it would take is for players to shift their operating schedule a couple of hours to roflstomp a weaker server at reset and set up the map for easy defense the rest of the match. Or a server could deliberately shift their population time-wise for a day or two to distort the rankings for a particular time period, and depending upon the scale factors ANet used in the Glicko-2 formula the distortion could last longer than the time it took to distort it (i.e., shifting populations for two 2PM/10PM shifts in a row might cause a lingering effect for several days).

You’re making the same mistake that ANet did … assuming that player populations would be stable. ANet assumed that populations would be stable server to server, while you’re assuming they would be stable time period to time period. You’re both wrong.

Straegen.2938:

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

Ok, so the problem here is you are not actually reading what I put down or you do not care. If you really think population imbalance is the problem, take your arguments over to that thread (yes, there is one). We are not discussing that here.

If there already is movement, great. Nothing about any of this will affect those Tiers then, will it? So your arguments against this mean nothing as that is not what I am trying to address. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and it is not productive for anymore.

I am addressing stale matches due to a server winning or losing 3-4 consecutive weeks and they are not moving due to the Glick system not working. This system could work along with the Glick without major code/engine re-write.

Solving variety doesn’t necessarily solve any significant problem other than T8/SF and likely creates more. The side effect of forced variety would likely make a lot more players miserable by pushing their servers into tiers they don’t belong or want to be in.

No matter how many times we try to point it out nicely you don’t seem to be… what did you say… “not actually reading what I put down or you do not care.”

Well, if what you typed was actually discussing the point of the OP I might actually consider thinking about it. Since you are not discussing the reason for this thread, there is no reason to care for what you are saying. The title of this is “Fixing Stale Match-ups” which, ya, variety does help fix.

And again, it is “forced” variety only if a server wins/loses 3-4 weeks in a row. It is not like this would make a server jump around all the time. Once a month, MAYBE. If you lose 1, win 1, lose 1, win 2, then nothing is “forced” on you.

I don’t see the need for this.

Really, it isn’t going to fix anything and probably create more problems.

You are not factoring in population which, even if you don’t think it is a factor, it really is. No one in T3 will want to compete with JQ or BG and anyone placed in T1 without a population to compete will just get steam rolled.

Whoever is the steam roller won’t care where they get their bags and whoever is the pavement will probably not want to play unitl they get to a more population balanced match.

T1 for example. You would have Kenaing replace SoR. While BG and JQ won’t notice much difference in who they steam roll, Kenaing will.

Another thing to consider is that when a third server stacks for T1, you would have that server swap with another. When that happens, a balanced match would be lopsided and the server that replaces the one that gets bumped will get crushed and the server that got bumped would obliterate where it got placed.

Coverage is a factor.

Bad idea.

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

I don’t see the need for this.

Really, it isn’t going to fix anything and probably create more problems.

You are not factoring in population which, even if you don’t think it is a factor, it really is. No one in T3 will want to compete with JQ or BG and anyone placed in T1 without a population to compete will just get steam rolled.

Whoever is the steam roller won’t care where they get their bags and whoever is the pavement will probably not want to play unitl they get to a more population balanced match.

T1 for example. You would have Kenaing replace SoR. While BG and JQ won’t notice much difference in who they steam roll, Kenaing will.

Another thing to consider is that when a third server stacks for T1, you would have that server swap with another. When that happens, a balanced match would be lopsided and the server that replaces the one that gets bumped will get crushed and the server that got bumped would obliterate where it got placed.

Coverage is a factor.

Bad idea.

You are forgetting tiers which will never be balanced, such as T5.

Gab Superstar.4059:

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

I don’t see the need for this.

Really, it isn’t going to fix anything and probably create more problems.

You are not factoring in population which, even if you don’t think it is a factor, it really is. No one in T3 will want to compete with JQ or BG and anyone placed in T1 without a population to compete will just get steam rolled.

Whoever is the steam roller won’t care where they get their bags and whoever is the pavement will probably not want to play unitl they get to a more population balanced match.

T1 for example. You would have Kenaing replace SoR. While BG and JQ won’t notice much difference in who they steam roll, Kenaing will.

Another thing to consider is that when a third server stacks for T1, you would have that server swap with another. When that happens, a balanced match would be lopsided and the server that replaces the one that gets bumped will get crushed and the server that got bumped would obliterate where it got placed.

Coverage is a factor.

Bad idea.

You are forgetting tiers which will never be balanced, such as T5.

And he is forgetting that population balancing is not what is being discussed here. And the other points he tries to make he does not support, he just states. So no discussion taking place, just saying this is how it is. Lame.

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

And he is forgetting that population balancing is not what is being discussed here. And the other points he tries to make he does not support, he just states. So no discussion taking place, just saying this is how it is. Lame.

You are being obtuse in what I am saying.

I am not forgetting anything.

I am saying that because of population imbalances are a factor in what is fun and not fun for people to play.

Read and think. Don’t be so stupidly dismissive just because you don’t think it is a factor.

Wether you realize it or not, population imbalances is a problem that this idea will just exacerbate.

This idea is a very bad idea.

LOL, now you are just being silly.

Maybe the eighth time will work for you. This is not about population imbalance. Is there a population balance problem, yes. But that is not what this thread was created to discuss. You want to talk about that, create a thread or go to the existing one.

I will dismiss what you are saying because it is not relevant to this thread. I never said it was not a factor, it is just not pertinent to this discussion on this thread.

I find it funny you keep dismissing the auto-movement idea just as you accuse me of dismissing your population imbalance argument. Again, such a double standard.

So to recap, I never said your ideas were not valid, they are just invalid to this thread.

And love the not-so-subtle way you keep trying to insult me by calling me “obtuse” or “stupidly dismissive”. Does your arm hurt from patting yourself on the back that much?

Match-ups get stale, people get bored, stop queueing.

The battle is over a piechart. The scoring system isn’t interesting and adds little drama. There’s not much of a comeback mechanic. There is no final, win-condition mechanic other than the piechart.

Kill two birds with one stone. One week out of every month jumble up the matchups within 1 tier of each other. Then change the scoring system and win condition to something new. This way you can test out different scoring mechanics and different ways to play WvWvW while also freshening up the matchups. The outcomes of these weeks don’t apply to server ranking, but will have some other reward. Their purpose is to have a way to test out new ideas and keep the matches from dying out under the weight of their own monotony.

One week, you could have the win condition be owning Stonemist plus 4 keeps. Each time you attain this goal, you get a point. Most points win.

Another week, you could split the week up into sections. Weekend prime time, weekend off-peak, weekday prime-time, weekday off-peak, and Stonemist caps. Winning one of the categories grants you a point. Most points at the end of the week wins.

Another week, you could have Stonemist closed off the entire week. Instead, you have a special supply turn in inside your home Borderland’s main keep, and your EB’s main keep. Supply turned into there goes towards a special siege and buff that is unleashed on Thursday at noon. From Thursday at noon until Friday at 4pm pst, Stonemist Castle is open to be invaded. You then put forth all your built up special supply to capture Stonemist Castle, which is now worth 1,000 points per tick.

Boom, WvWvW isn’t stale anymore.

The solution is the consolidate the servers and remove Tier 8 completely.

actually it would be cool to have a map where people from all servers could join in while stuck in queue or just for fun(and i’m sure this would make queues too) Guilds and friends could choose which color they wanna join.
the stale matchups are burning people out atm.
or add an arena or something…just something that spices things up…i’d love to meet some guilds from other tiers.not just t2 and t3 guilds…
also add some random stuff to wvw…random fight events or weather conditions

nightfend.4072:

The solution is the consolidate the servers and remove Tier 8 completely.

not a good solutions in my opinion as some people like their server..i’d be extreemly mad if anet would take our tier out and merge them…imagine TC/FA and DB merge XD

The only problem I see is with T8.

Sorrow’s Furnace 260 872 -4.573
Eredon Terrace 132 383 +12.046
Ferguson’s Crossing 107 670 -10.764

This is so messed up. If your server is winning, there should be ZERO chance that you would stand to losses rating. This “not winning by enough” thing is getting out of hand.

SF is about 100k rating away from HoD. HoD stands to loss 9k rating this week while SF losses around 4k. So overall SF gained 5k rating on them. Assuming this trend continues, it will take 20 weeks for SF to overtake HoD. That’s like HALF A YEAR! >_>

selan.8354:

nightfend.4072:

The solution is the consolidate the servers and remove Tier 8 completely.

not a good solutions in my opinion as some people like their server..i’d be extreemly mad if anet would take our tier out and merge them…imagine TC/FA and DB merge XD

I agree, this would most likely just create the same problem in T7.

CHIPS.6018:

The only problem I see is with T8.

Sorrow’s Furnace 260 872 -4.573
Eredon Terrace 132 383 +12.046
Ferguson’s Crossing 107 670 -10.764

This is so messed up. If your server is winning, there should be ZERO chance that you would stand to losses rating. This “not winning by enough” thing is getting out of hand.

SF is about 100k rating away from HoD. HoD stands to loss 9k rating this week while SF losses around 4k. So overall SF gained 5k rating on them. Assuming this trend continues, it will take 20 weeks for SF to overtake HoD. That’s like HALF A YEAR! >_>

Completely agree.

i dunno, seems like a workable idea but…

it seems like its a bandaid focusing on variety instead of something deeper focusing on preventing bad matches.

variety isnt what we need, whether we crave it or not. balanced matches are. i think preventing gaps in rating is a more long term solution.

insanemaniac.2456:

i dunno, seems like a workable idea but…

it seems like its a bandaid focusing on variety instead of something deeper focusing on preventing bad matches.

variety isnt what we need, whether we crave it or not. balanced matches are. i think preventing gaps in rating is a more long term solution.

I completely agree. This would be a band-aid for sure. But something like this could be worth looking into until they can actually fix the population balance issues, etc. so that stale match-ups do not exist (hopefully).

well i think… i think that something more substantial than a bandaid wouldnt be significantly more or less work.

i mean you could soft reset ratings for essentially no work for a temporary fix, and design a floor and cap for rating and a framework for future automated soft resets (in the event that a ratings gap develops) for slightly more work.

^ wouldnt force any pairing changes where you dont need to, a problem i think would arise any time a winner-goes-up loser-goes-down system works its way in.

like maybe a tier comes in w/ green winning by 10-20k for several weeks in a row. should green really move up out of such a close match? i dont think so, but they would be arbitrarily forced into moving up. and the server that moves down… there are (currently) huge walls in active population between servers, its not unlikely that the red server from the tier above is wayyyyy out of the league of the balanced matchup servers. which is exactly what the devs wanted to avoid by choosing this poorly embraced ranking system.

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

LOL, now you are just being silly.

Maybe the eighth time will work for you. This is not about population imbalance. Is there a population balance problem, yes. But that is not what this thread was created to discuss. You want to talk about that, create a thread or go to the existing one.

I will dismiss what you are saying because it is not relevant to this thread. I never said it was not a factor, it is just not pertinent to this discussion on this thread.

I find it funny you keep dismissing the auto-movement idea just as you accuse me of dismissing your population imbalance argument. Again, such a double standard.

So to recap, I never said your ideas were not valid, they are just invalid to this thread.

And love the not-so-subtle way you keep trying to insult me by calling me “obtuse” or “stupidly dismissive”. Does your arm hurt from patting yourself on the back that much?

Let me make it stupidly clear so you can understand.

Server A and B are in tier #. Server C gets put into tier #. Server C had a good time in tier % because the matches were even and population was well balanced.

Now, because of your suggestion, server C gets stuck into a match where they are out manned on every map just because they do not have a population to match either server A or B by itself.

Who the hell wants to play when they get outmanned on every single map just because the stupid system put them into a matchup that their server cannot hope to even match the numbers of even just one of the servers they are playing against, especially if they got taken out of a match that was quite balanced.

This is why your ides is a bad idea. If you were not so dismissive about it and thought about what you are actually suggesting, you would realize you will create an environment that is not fun for people.

I do not support any idea that is going to create an entire server’s fun to go to the toilet.

Try to not be so insulting yourself by dismissing arguments that are not infavor of your idea.

You are intentionally being obtuse or you are trolling.

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

Who the hell wants to play when they get outmanned on every single map just because the stupid system put them into a matchup that their server cannot hope to even match the numbers of even just one of the servers they are playing against, especially if they got taken out of a match that was quite balanced.

I hope you’re not implying that this doesn’t already happen.

During US East primetime, FC has across all four maps about half what SF has in EB. ET has about 2/3 to 3/4 from what I’ve seen during those time periods, but it seems both servers’ heads hit the pillow when 9PM US West rolls around while our west coast crew is still alive and kicking for another 3-5 hours.

silverfire.2547:

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

Who the hell wants to play when they get outmanned on every single map just because the stupid system put them into a matchup that their server cannot hope to even match the numbers of even just one of the servers they are playing against, especially if they got taken out of a match that was quite balanced.

I hope you’re not implying that this doesn’t already happen.

During US East primetime, FC has across all four maps about half what SF has in EB. ET has about 2/3 to 3/4 from what I’ve seen during those time periods, but it seems both servers’ heads hit the pillow when 9PM US West rolls around while our west coast crew is still alive and kicking for another 3-5 hours.

I’m not implying that this doesn’t happen already, just that the proposed idea will make that situation worse.

Frankly, I like it if we can have a close match. I don’t like to be able to steam roll my opponents because there is no excitement in it when I know we are most likely to win.

I also don’t care to be out manned and know that there is no way we can even field enough numbers to match the opponents zerg.

Other issues such as population imbalances need to be addressed before we could go to a system that was proposed, otherwise it won’t work well and would be a much worse alternative.

I just skiped all the posts as i have seen this thread many times b4 and let you know what the best solution/outcome from previous thread’s have been.

Put a floor/roof on the glicko system (min-900 max- 2150)<— example this would mean FC, ET and SF would jump to 900. next week SF has a 150k points blowout and gets a 100+ point bump due to FC and ET being = rating with SF. SF will move into T7 in 1-2 week’s. this means the lower tier servers can push there way out with 2-3 weeks of good games
This will also improve server moral for ET/FC (fighting new opponents) So what if GOM/HOD stomps us next week at least then ET/ FC will know:
1. We deserve to be in T8.
2. More variaty in opponents.
3. moral increace for our server.
4. not a long update for Anet (all they need to change in rating system is if a server hits max/min rating they dont lose more than that) E.G. FC at 900 rating lose get -70 rating and stay at 900.

The answer is in MORE WvW Teams.

Ok. Yes I said “teams” not servers, not worlds, but “teams”.

See the Glicko system is designed to create a profile of skill (or establish a number to reflect a skill level) of a single player. Hence why it is used for most PvP games, both on the computer and board games (Like chess). And is used with great results.

However, even if you used Glicko for single players, if you only had 24 players and put them in 3 person tournaments, you would end up blowouts, because the of lack of options. Simply put, you only have 8 tiers, so, people who should not fight, will end up fighting, because even if a player is too good for one tier, but not good enough for another, they have to be put somewhere, so a blowout will happen.

So when you have a mutable thing like a server that people can come, and go from. That people can opt to play or not play, that people can go to WvW and do whatever.

And you mix that with a painfully small number of these servers, and require larger (3 server) battle fields. This end result is, well, the inevitable end result.

So. What they need to do is add more “teams” as opposed to making them servers.

Make these teams like Sports Teams, so guilds can buy them, and keep the private, while some can remain public for the server as a whole.

With more teams on the field, Glicko would be able to make for better match ups.

Right now, the lowest scoring worlds will fight off, no matter how unbalanced the match up is, because that is ALL Glicko has to work with. Just like the top 3 worlds will fight, no matter how bad that match up may be, and on down the list. Which is where most of the problem stem from, is simply too few servers to allow for real motion.

If there were 300 “servers” for WvW, we would not have this problem as there would be a better chance for their to be many teams close to each other so that moving would be common thing, a solid win might move you up, a crushing loss would move you down, and blowouts would result in someone moving, not being stuck.

Ungood.3054:

The answer is in MORE WvW Teams.

Ok. Yes I said “teams” not servers, not worlds, but “teams”.

See the Glicko system is designed to create a profile of skill (or establish a number to reflect a skill level) of a single player. Hence why it is used for most PvP games, both on the computer and board games (Like chess). And is used with great results.

However, even if you used Glicko for single players, if you only had 24 players and put them in 3 person tournaments, you would end up blowouts, because the of lack of options. Simply put, you only have 8 tiers, so, people who should not fight, will end up fighting, because even if a player is too good for one tier, but not good enough for another, they have to be put somewhere, so a blowout will happen.

So when you have a mutable thing like a server that people can come, and go from. That people can opt to play or not play, that people can go to WvW and do whatever.

And you mix that with a painfully small number of these servers, and require larger (3 server) battle fields. This end result is, well, the inevitable end result.

So. What they need to do is add more “teams” as opposed to making them servers.

Make these teams like Sports Teams, so guilds can buy them, and keep the private, while some can remain public for the server as a whole.

With more teams on the field, Glicko would be able to make for better match ups.

Right now, the lowest scoring worlds will fight off, no matter how unbalanced the match up is, because that is ALL Glicko has to work with. Just like the top 3 worlds will fight, no matter how bad that match up may be, and on down the list. Which is where most of the problem stem from, is simply too few servers to allow for real motion.

If there were 300 “servers” for WvW, we would not have this problem as there would be a better chance for their to be many teams close to each other so that moving would be common thing, a solid win might move you up, a crushing loss would move you down, and blowouts would result in someone moving, not being stuck.

Yes this would help but IMO i dont want more “teams” just yet. I like it the way it is. put a floor/roof on the rating will fix the short and long trem problem’s of stail matches then implament “more teams” by placeing a no transferr to Very high pop servers. (random numbers cause i dont know but) say 800,000 ppl play on the 8 NA servers place a 100,000 account max on all servers and say JQ has 220,000 accounts. knowone can transfer into JQ untill there are less than 100,000 accounts. let ppl leave or stay as they please but eventualy (6 months to a year) the servers will even out.

i guess what im trying to say is: lower the max account limit on servers. i dont know numbers but i bet halving the max pop per server would help even things out. then add more servers.

Ungood.3054:

If there were 300 “servers” for WvW, we would not have this problem as there would be a better chance for their to be many teams close to each other so that moving would be common thing, a solid win might move you up, a crushing loss would move you down, and blowouts would result in someone moving, not being stuck.

i actually think that this isnt true.. i thought the same, but there are always the edge cases. example – queue times in LoL went up exponentially at extremely high and low elo. matchmaking forced pairings with drastically different elos because the community of same skilled players was far too small.

overall, with a larger competitor population, the issue seems easier to write off because a relatively small percentage of competitors get stuck on the edges instead of the 25% that currently fill the edge matches… but its still gonna be an issue. i do think a rating ceiling/floor could solve the issue (to an extent) and of course this games matchmaking doesnt need to care about anything like queue times in LoL as matches are always made instantly.

Those tiers that are unbalanced greatly would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
that is enough evidence to call tier 6 an anomoly.
in which case, kitten those guys. i don’t care if their tier gets a bit of a balance shake up so that everyone else might fight a different red server here and there.