Guild Wars 2

Sylvyn.4750:

Dayra.7405:

Jeknar.6184:

Well, that means we’ll still have at least 2 more weeks of CD/SF/DH…
Oh well, at least there still hope.

That’s that big question should you hope for SI+ or SoS+ instead of CD+ or fear it …

This is true and also points out how populations are still not balanced. The other 2 server pairs in T4 probably can’t compete with any server pair moving into T4. Ideally all server pairings should have close enough populations that it takes skill and coordination to be at the top, not just having the most blobs.

CD faced SoS almost every week last merge and I can say that SF could compete evenly with them. SoS also recently lost one of there NA fight guilds when they were already suffering numbers wise in the NA timeslot. As for SBI its tough to say, we were merged with SBI last merge and they have a few pugmanders that can coordinate a map well but they didn’t have overwhelming numbers like the CD 4 merge currently. CD moving up would be best for SF/DH.

Yeah, we (GoM) were merged with SoS last round and heard that they were going to lose at least one core group. SoS sometimes had a hard time keeping up with SBI prime time blobs, but their OCX people kept the points up. Maybe those SBI blobs were mostly CD? Guess there is only one way to find out how their coverage has changed. :-)

Sylvyn.4750:

it takes skill and coordination to be at the top, not just having the most blobs.

ha
ha
ha

shiri.4257:

Thank you Anet, with this time line. CD can now open it’s warchest of gold ore. We’re looking for NA guilds to be competitive vs FA/MAG if we move up. There will be an alliance meeting this Friday before reset at 630pm PST. Will have agenda up on CD website by tonight.

I don’t think you’ll be seeing FA or MAG anytime soon… By the time you go up, Maguuma will problably have swapped with no one else than Yak’s Bend, everybody most loved server.

I hope you are ready for some intense siegewars should you swap with SBI instead of SoS.

I’m curious on how 4 servers got smashed together to begin with.

Jeknar.6184:

Sylvyn.4750:

it takes skill and coordination to be at the top, not just having the most blobs.

ha
ha
ha

I did say “ideally”, but we know that’s not reality.

If you have to manually adjust the rating system, that implies the rating system is not suitable!

Jeknar.6184:

shiri.4257:

Thank you Anet, with this time line. CD can now open it’s warchest of gold ore. We’re looking for NA guilds to be competitive vs FA/MAG if we move up. There will be an alliance meeting this Friday before reset at 630pm PST. Will have agenda up on CD website by tonight.

I don’t think you’ll be seeing FA or MAG anytime soon… By the time you go up, Maguuma will problably have swapped with no one else than Yak’s Bend, everybody most loved server.

I hope you are ready for some intense siegewars should you swap with SBI instead of SoS.

I’ve been against YB in the past and facing JQ and YB currently, JQ are far worse siege humpers than YB. These guys are building open field arrowcarts constantly, even when they have significantly more people. In SMC, it’s like a siege factory. A few days ago after we took it, we found 6 AC all nearly stacked on top of another at the NW inner gate with a bunch of other things like shield gens and catapults nearby. I don’t understand why JQ seems to get away with all their siege humping but for some reason YB gets blamed instead.

Because when a lie spoken enough, it become the truth.

Every server are guilty of something but what spread like wildfire all depends on the minor yet vocal group, even if the vocal group is wrong but as long as a “lot” of people are saying it, people will believe it and then will repeat after them.

The YB of late is nowhere near what it was a year ago.

You can perhaps call my own personal experiences a lie, yet I question how much time you spent yourself playing both on and against YB.

Chris Barrett.3280:

Currently some worlds, such as Crystal Desert, are stuck in what’s come to be referred to as “Glicko hell”. This is where a few worlds’ Glicko ratings drift off from the rest of the group, leaving a wide enough gap that those drifting away won’t be matched up against the rest.

To help prevent stale matchups, we’ll soon be able to artificially adjust Glicko ratings solely for the purpose of matchmaking.

For example, if we use this for NA’s lowest tier of worlds (T4), bumping them up to be just below T3’s ratings, they’ll have a decent chance of being shuffled into T3 during matchmaking. Given the ratings today, an adjustment we might make for July 29th could look something like:

T3:
- Maguuma: 1,838
- Sea of Sorrows: 1,777
- Stormbluff Isle: 1,767
T4:
- Crystal Desert: 1,512 (plus-185) = 1,697
- Sorrow’s Furnace: 1,398 (plus-130) = 1,528
- Darkhaven: 1,366 (plus-100) = 1,466

However, note that this artificial adjustment is invisible to anything but matchmaking. So if a T3 world doesn’t beat a T4 world significantly, the T4 world’s actual Glicko rating will increase more than usual, while the T3 world’s actual rating will decrease more than usual. Both worlds will also have increased deviation and volatility after. This is all because the T4 world’s lower rating means to Glicko “this world is expected to lose significantly to that T3 world”. So in an upset where this doesn’t happen, Glicko both makes larger adjustments to rating, since it was shown to need change, and increases deviation/volatility, to tell itself on the next round that these worlds haven’t settled into their most accurate rating yet.

I have a question: Will the ratings be increase before or after glicko calculate the changes for the matchup end? When you guys increased ET and FC ratings in the past, they were increased before glicko made the calculations, which made them be close enough to SF rating, which allowed SF to gain rating and move up. Giving more rating to CD than to the other two before glicko calculate the end of the match will problably drain rating from CD.

Chaba.5410:

The YB of late is nowhere near what it was a year ago.

You can perhaps call my own personal experiences a lie, yet I question how much time you spent yourself playing both on and against YB.

The feedback was pretty conclusive from all who played against YB. YB now are not what they were in the days when T1 was BG/JQ/YB

Chris Barrett.3280:

Currently some worlds, such as Crystal Desert, are stuck in what’s come to be referred to as “Glicko hell”. This is where a few worlds’ Glicko ratings drift off from the rest of the group, leaving a wide enough gap that those drifting away won’t be matched up against the rest.

To help prevent stale matchups, we’ll soon be able to artificially adjust Glicko ratings solely for the purpose of matchmaking.

Why not simply acknowledge a mistake was made in the linking and redo them?

Buy Some Apples.6390:

If you have to manually adjust the rating system, that implies the rating system is not suitable!

Additionally what is the extent of manual interference involved. Is it going to be a case of subjective opinion

Roxanne.6140:

Buy Some Apples.6390:

If you have to manually adjust the rating system, that implies the rating system is not suitable!

Additionally what is the extent of manual interference involved. Is it going to be a case of subjective opinion

Good point, how is the adjusted glicko going to be calculated?

Maybe Glicko ratings shouldn’t be artificially adjusted at all. Just use plain old Glicko to determine server rank. Then winner up and loser down can be used to improve match making. For each tier boundary have a 25% chance that the winner and loser will be swapped.

This approach is simple and there are no long term side effects from artifially adjusting Glicko. This solution also can’t be manipulated by players (looking at you tier1).

Bumping the glicko to get CD+ out of t4 isn’t going to help much, because of how the balance was done t3 is probably still bigger than t4 populations. Maybe SoS+ or SBI+ will drop down but that’s not going to stop the clubbing from happening.

Since we’re now at the point where you need to mess with glicko to get out of this situation it might be a signal to just reset it. Start resetting glicko every new link period so servers tart at t1 2000, t2 1900, t3 1800, t4 1700. 300 point gap instead of 700. Every new link resets where the population is at for every server involved, so why not reset glicko as well to make it easier for them to settle into their own tiers faster.

Xenesis.6389:

Bumping the glicko to get CD+ out of t4 isn’t going to help much, because of how the balance was done t3 is probably still bigger than t4 populations. Maybe SoS+ or SBI+ will drop down but that’s not going to stop the clubbing from happening.

We all saw this story before… Everyone saying that SF shouldn’t leave T8, that they would just get stomped at T7 and that the server that dropped to T8 would just stomp it like SF did. When it actually happened, SF stomped T7 harder than they did to T8 and GoM who had dropped from T7 lost their match on T8.

Just let the swap happen and we talk about that later, ya?

The current tier system is ineffective because of the mismatch between the server linking system and historical glicko. Anet need to either:

A) Reset glicko to ZERO every time the server links change

or

B) Record separate glicko for each server and each linked combination gets the total glicko for the combination of servers involved.

At present “guest” servers don’t gain glicko so when links are changed the new server combination has a population and skill level that is now different to that which earned the glicko used to rank them. This population flexibility is the whole point in the linking system. However this is NOT reflected properly in the matches because the tiers are based on glicko ratings that have only a partial relevance and this creates artificial glicko walls. To get around this Anet tries to make matches a bit more random… but if we’re going to get random matches why bother with tiers?

Properly implemented tiers can encourage and motivate players, so I think they’re worth keeping if they can be done right.

I frankly don’t understand how the “ratings” can be valid in any way other than in the current matchup.. I mean how can it determine how a server moves up or down when that host server may or may NOT have the same servers linked to it in 2 months or less?

Seriously, what’s the point of ratings, points, win, lose, etc… WvW has really just become a place about fights these days. Nothing else really matters at all since the points really aren’t an indication of any one server, period!

Xenesis.6389:

Bumping the glicko to get CD+ out of t4 isn’t going to help much, because of how the balance was done t3 is probably still bigger than t4 populations. Maybe SoS+ or SBI+ will drop down but that’s not going to stop the clubbing from happening.

I put a couple of alts in those tiers. One has been on ET for about 6~ months now. One, I put on SoS a week ago. CD would stomp T3 hard. SBI and SoS would struggle against T4 servers atm during the weekdays. CD right now has a similar population to YB or FA.

Roxanne.6140:

Buy Some Apples.6390:

If you have to manually adjust the rating system, that implies the rating system is not suitable!

Additionally what is the extent of manual interference involved. Is it going to be a case of subjective opinion

I suspect the lowest tier is always going to need manual interference now and then, as it is hard for any server in that tier to stand on the shoulders (points) of the other two servers to climb into the next tier when the distance to the next tier is as large as it currently stands. The overall points just aren’t there to allow that to happen. The gap needs to be bridged so that a T4 server can move up into T3 and latch onto some higher glicko ratings to keep the whole ladder healthy. If they are then matched back into T4, their higher rating boosts up the scores of the other two T4 servers as well.

Again, I would suggest, as others have, that we just move to a winner up, loser down system…so much easier and adds at least a bit of variety to the matchups compared to what we have now with the tier gaps gating server progression.

We’ll see I guess, haven’t touched my t4 alts in over a month. Last time a t3 was in t4 it stomped them, SBI+ 417k DH+ 273k NSP+ 263k, but that was just one week back in april, the t3 match that week FA+ 396k SoS+ 317k HoD+ 252k. I know, a lot of population have moved around since then.

This a temporary solution, if they have to do this every time they relink might as well reset the ratings when they do.

Chris Barrett.3280:

Currently some worlds, such as Crystal Desert, are stuck in what’s come to be referred to as “Glicko hell”. This is where a few worlds’ Glicko ratings drift off from the rest of the group, leaving a wide enough gap that those drifting away won’t be matched up against the rest.

To help prevent stale matchups, we’ll soon be able to artificially adjust Glicko ratings solely for the purpose of matchmaking.

For example, if we use this for NA’s lowest tier of worlds (T4), bumping them up to be just below T3’s ratings, they’ll have a decent chance of being shuffled into T3 during matchmaking. Given the ratings today, an adjustment we might make for July 29th could look something like:

T3:
- Maguuma: 1,838
- Sea of Sorrows: 1,777
- Stormbluff Isle: 1,767
T4:
- Crystal Desert: 1,512 (plus-185) = 1,697
- Sorrow’s Furnace: 1,398 (plus-130) = 1,528
- Darkhaven: 1,366 (plus-100) = 1,466

However, note that this artificial adjustment is invisible to anything but matchmaking. So if a T3 world doesn’t beat a T4 world significantly, the T4 world’s actual Glicko rating will increase more than usual, while the T3 world’s actual rating will decrease more than usual. Both worlds will also have increased deviation and volatility after. This is all because the T4 world’s lower rating means to Glicko “this world is expected to lose significantly to that T3 world”. So in an upset where this doesn’t happen, Glicko both makes larger adjustments to rating, since it was shown to need change, and increases deviation/volatility, to tell itself on the next round that these worlds haven’t settled into their most accurate rating yet.

EU’s lowest-rated world is still within its deviation of the lowest-rated world in the next tier up, making EU much less likely to receive artificial matchmaking adjustment on July 29th.

Why not just get rid of Glicko, this isn’t Chess, it’s nothing like Chess, so why create more work for yourselves. Do first up 3rd down, or any other scoring systems that have been recommended over the last few years that have fallen on deaf ears. You guys just refuse to acknowledge that this is not the type of scoring that Glicko is intended for, quit trying to bend it to fit when it clearly never will.

It’s like watching a child trying to force the Square through the circle hole. Glicko is not a circle.

Xenesis.6389:

This a temporary solution, if they have to do this every time they relink might as well reset the ratings when they do.

Everyone been saying that, but Anet don’t listen!

So, what are the current populations of each server?
How was T4 linked the way it was?
What was the pop prior to linking, what is current population?
How is this being made so difficult? K.I.S.S

population and server activity levels over 24 hours should be all that is needed to link these servers. why is it being made so ridiculously hard?
but yeah, agree with OP, system is being used improperly atm and no longer fits

Akkeros.1675:

population and server activity levels over 24 hours should be all that is needed to link these servers. why is it being made so ridiculously hard?
but yeah, agree with OP, system is being used improperly atm and no longer fits

yep. the tiers are locked in NA, it’s a snooze and there’s so many dead timezones that could be covered up with proper linking.

Chris Barrett.3280:

• Why have Glicko ratings?
  Strictly on the functional side of reasoning: matchmaking. No doubt within the space of all possible ways to calculate matchups in WvW (both pre-existing and unwritten) there exists one or more better solutions. Matchmaking in WvW is a very different scenario from what any matchmaking system I’m aware of aims to solve.

Ok, another question: Since we have to stick with glicko, why not reset the ratings when the links change since the population will be shuffled around? While I understand that it may cause some severe loopsided matchups (Not that we don’t have some happening right now) isn’t that a better solutation to the glicko walls between the tiers? The rating of the host servers no longer reflect their current population, even less with another world being linked to them.

Chris Barrett.3280:

• Will Glicko ratings be adjusted before or after a match?
  Glicko ratings are temporarily adjusted at exactly the time of matchmaking. The adjustment will never be visible. We’re not actually modifying any world’s rating, just preventing matchmaking from letting worlds drift away from the others.

• Why not just change the links again?
  World links change on a schedule to maintain some stability. Among other reasons, those who maintain voice chat servers don’t have to redo permissions every week. We also wouldn’t want to start shifting world links around on a subjective whim. The frequency of the schedule was previously determined by a public poll.

• Why have Glicko ratings?
  Strictly on the functional side of reasoning: matchmaking. No doubt within the space of all possible ways to calculate matchups in WvW (both pre-existing and unwritten) there exists one or more better solutions. Matchmaking in WvW is a very different scenario from what any matchmaking system I’m aware of aims to solve.

Other matchmaking systems, such as 1-up-1-down, have been discussed in the past. We’ve not previously been convinced that they’d be significant enough improvements to prioritize them over other work. One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.

Since alternate matchmaking systems require some of the same peoples’ time as the scoring improvements we’re currently working on, Glicko alternatives or adjustments may be options in future polls once the scoring improvement work is done.

1. Some of us would prefer mismatches to stagnant and stale matchups.

2. So long as you have transfers available, Glicko will always have problems. With open transfers available, the 1 up, 1 down system would actually work better, since it can compensate for massive transfers in a short period.

3. 1 up, 1 down, even with mismatches, would create better WvW participation on a weekly basis, guaranteed.

4. Glicko, combined with a lack of any incentive whatsoever to win a weekly matchup, will never work. Not ever. No matchup movement combined with the absence of any incentive to win is NOT ENTERTAINING.

Ultimately, that’s the problem.

Repair hammers aren’t going to repair that.

Chris Barrett.3280:

• Will Glicko ratings be adjusted before or after a match?
  Glicko ratings are temporarily adjusted at exactly the time of matchmaking. The adjustment will never be visible. We’re not actually modifying any world’s rating, just preventing matchmaking from letting worlds drift away from the others.

• Why not just change the links again?
  World links change on a schedule to maintain some stability. Among other reasons, those who maintain voice chat servers don’t have to redo permissions every week. We also wouldn’t want to start shifting world links around on a subjective whim. The frequency of the schedule was previously determined by a public poll.

• Why have Glicko ratings?
  Strictly on the functional side of reasoning: matchmaking. No doubt within the space of all possible ways to calculate matchups in WvW (both pre-existing and unwritten) there exists one or more better solutions. Matchmaking in WvW is a very different scenario from what any matchmaking system I’m aware of aims to solve.

Other matchmaking systems, such as 1-up-1-down, have been discussed in the past. We’ve not previously been convinced that they’d be significant enough improvements to prioritize them over other work. One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.

Since alternate matchmaking systems require some of the same peoples’ time as the scoring improvements we’re currently working on, Glicko alternatives or adjustments may be options in future polls once the scoring improvement work is done.

Thanks for replying instead of just having it deleted, the 1 up 1 down was only 1 suggestion. I’m all for any scoring system that works for this type of a match system. I personally have found Glicko to cause more problems than solutions and has been the root of many issues from day 1. I guess what I’m trying to say is, use something simple that does the job appropriately, K.I.S.S. I would rather see a 1 up 1 down system that brings variety (even if it’s only every other week) than watch Glicko continue to destroy morale and matchups.

you cant cover up dead timezone, without destroying prime timezone. reason being that all servers that have specific off hour timezone have a healthy amount of prime population. you can’t link in such a way that it don’t overstack the prime and kill it with queues.

as for the glicko, they might need to manually adjust it since some of the glicko gap is too large, so large that it takes a overwhelming victory to move up. however, if they are not adjusting it manually, it can possibile mean that numbers between the tiers are actually significantly different from each other

SkyShroud.2865:

you cant cover up dead timezone, without destroying prime timezone. reason being that all servers that have specific off hour timezone have a healthy amount of prime population. you can’t link in such a way that it don’t overstack the prime and kill it with queues.

as for the glicko, they might need to manually adjust it since some of the glicko gap is too large, so large that it takes a overwhelming victory to move up. however, if they are not adjusting it manually, it can possibile mean that numbers between the tiers are actually significantly different from each other

I forget where the post is, but an Anet guy mentioned that they’re going to manually adjust the ratings on the 29th.

Chris Barrett.3280:

We intend to have a poll in the future asking if players would prefer that Glicko ratings be completely reset with each relinking of worlds.

Oh, that’s good. I’m pretty sure this pool will have a favorable acceptance.

RyuDragnier.9476:

SkyShroud.2865:

you cant cover up dead timezone, without destroying prime timezone. reason being that all servers that have specific off hour timezone have a healthy amount of prime population. you can’t link in such a way that it don’t overstack the prime and kill it with queues.

as for the glicko, they might need to manually adjust it since some of the glicko gap is too large, so large that it takes a overwhelming victory to move up. however, if they are not adjusting it manually, it can possibile mean that numbers between the tiers are actually significantly different from each other

I forget where the post is, but an Anet guy mentioned that they’re going to manually adjust the ratings on the 29th.

It’s on this thread, problably a few pages back.

Chris Barrett.3280:

One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.

This, in my opinion, is a weak argument. The teams on the boundaries between tiers are there for a reason, so they should expect to win in the lower and lose in the upper. That’s exactly how it SHOULD work. Now if the jump at a single breakpoint is so severe that it ruins things for both tiers, then the problem isn’t with the matchmaking but with the servers themselves.

In my opinion, relegation / promotion is simply so superior to what we have now that I wish we already had it.

farfnarr.1859:

Chris Barrett.3280:

One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.

This, in my opinion, is a weak argument. The teams on the boundaries between tiers are there for a reason, so they should expect to win in the lower and lose in the upper. That’s exactly how it SHOULD work. Now if the jump at a single breakpoint is so severe that it ruins things for both tiers, then the problem isn’t with the matchmaking but with the servers themselves.

In my opinion, relegation / promotion is simply so superior to what we have now that I wish we already had it.

No, I don’t agree with that at all. In actuality those tier-edge servers should be in matches against each other. The problem also exists with glicko match-making when the ratings between servers are far enough apart.

Akkeros.1675:

population and server activity levels over 24 hours should be all that is needed to link these servers. why is it being made so ridiculously hard?
but yeah, agree with OP, system is being used improperly atm and no longer fits

Example, if we based this on the participation of this linking, they might have large activity and population from the servers linked with CD, but low with the servers linked to DH and SF. So they re-link based on those numbers. Then when the match start, say all the servers linked with CD ends up on the smaller links, dominated by an angry mob of DH+EBay+GoM+FC etc all linked into 1 link.

Now what happens ? All the Fair weathers on the earlier CD linked servers (CD, Kain, ET, BP) goes away, and the population/activity of those servers crashes. While servers like DH that has a notorious fair-weather population, brings out all the grandma’s and the kitchen-sink.

Using only the activity/population numbers could create a larger trap than even spit-balling it.

Vihar.5780”

2. So long as you have transfers available, Glicko will always have problems. With open transfers available, the 1 up, 1 down system would actually work better, since it can compensate for massive transfers in a short period.

Agreed to both points.

Chris Barrett.3280:

One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.

In general regards to this topic:

I agree with a full reset of Glicko at each linking, set every server to the baseline 1500 glicko, and let us work out new tiers each link. The first month will be chaotic as heck, and then the last month we will start seeing who fits into what Tier, and the last couple of match-up’s will be about as expected.

As long as the Glicko allows fast enough movement, that should work well enough to create a good mix of match variety, and some predictability at the end of a link. Different people like either one.

I wouldn’t mind trying a 1up/1down system myself, but I can certainly see the problems with it over time. It would require some mix up to work out, and the Linking might do that.

joneirikb.7506:

While servers like DH that has a notorious fair-weather population, brings out all the grandma’s and the kitchen-sink..

If our god and savior Grampa ever return to these lands, Dh will be glorious again. But now, even god’s spokesperson (Arius) is absent. Darkhaven has been forsaken even by the most loyal of it’s players.

Jeknar.6184:

joneirikb.7506:

While servers like DH that has a notorious fair-weather population, brings out all the grandma’s and the kitchen-sink..

If our god and savior Grampa ever return to these lands, Dh will be glorious again. But now, even god’s spokesperson (Arius) is absent. Darkhaven has been forsaken even by the most loyal of it’s players.

I miss Arius and his rants, he was the last reason I still used to read the toxic-forums.

joneirikb.7506:

I miss Arius and his rants, he was the last reason I still used to read the toxic-forums.

His last words were “This game sucks, I can’t play it”.

Chris Barrett.3280:

Other matchmaking systems, such as 1-up-1-down, have been discussed in the past. We’ve not previously been convinced that they’d be significant enough improvements to prioritize them over other work. One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.

There are servers that get steam rolled every week m8. Can’t really avoid it. would rather have 1 up and 1 down with variety than locked stale tiers that kill servers and the game mode. Put it up for a vote. This glicko system has to go.

We did have the 1-up 1-down system during one of the tournaments. The result was every single match in the mid-tier was broken. It is not a better system.

REROLL REROLL!

Something seems broken for a fourth week with same matches even with the partial reset.

Chaba.5410:

REROLL REROLL!

Something seems broken for a fourth week with same matches even with the partial reset.

There was no partial reset. It will happen on the 29th.

Jeknar.6184:

Chaba.5410:

REROLL REROLL!

Something seems broken for a fourth week with same matches even with the partial reset.

There was no partial reset. It will happen on the 29th.

I was referring to the partial reset of glicko volatility and deviation that was done when the new server links occurred.

yay another week of getting steamrolled

Ben K.6238:

We did have the 1-up 1-down system during one of the tournaments. The result was every single match in the mid-tier was broken. It is not a better system.

ya, this is a much better system. facing the same servers every single week.