Guild Wars 2

Or at least decrease the range of probability.

Reasons:
in EU, they have managed to get all the servers (except the bottom two) all within 800 pts of each other. In the current matchup probability range 1-11 can face each other while 11-23 can face each other.
Going back to tiered matches in EU will not result in any stagnation for some time. Only VS, FoW, and Vabbi are unlikely to see any change.

in NA, we have finally equilibrium as AR hakitten T8 (ET deserves the chance to climb out of last) while EB and KN are likely to settle in T5 (KN is already there and EB will be there at the end of next week unless they roll very low).

T3 is pretty stable, with Mag and SoS trading 7th every couple of weeks and CD coming in as would be expected of a server that has added some people.

FA is still too large to fall to T3, while TC failed to shame JQ into an implosion.

Unless the devs plan on reducing cap map populations, NA isn’t going to see anymore changes and the matches can be decided by rankings now. 4th will always beat 5th, 5th will beat 6th, and so on. Only two aberrations remain, unless another large group from a mid-tier server decides to go to DB or BG to never be heard from again.

FA will remain in T2 for a good long while. We(those who play often) know that DB and TC will win the point game in the end, but as proved, T1 servers and TC/DB have one difference. Strategy. Unless you can be near or at queue at every hour of the day, points will be a represetation of the number of players online, not skill. FA is a solid T2 that doesnt have the coverage of DB or TC, who can reduce us to paper in the off time of NA (wee hours of morning PST). JQ may fall and TC may rise, but I doubt that much will change unless they lower the queue limit or they spread out hte populations and server transfers.

There is the super awkward rating gap (~250 points) between rank 15 and 16, even though last time we fought Darkhaven we only lost by 30k points.

No thank you.

Playing for the sake of fun is much more fun than playing for the sake of seeing your score tick higher. Fresh enemies every so often helps with that.

no.

I prefer the random matchups though T1 isn’t very random most weeks. As for shrinking the probability range, Devon already said that would happen once they collected sufficient data.

No thanks, also Devon said they are increasing the probability range as he doesn’t believe the range is large enough to provide people an incentive to transfer down. Ie t1 wasn’t very random.

Also you’re in SoS no server below t2 can even compare to our oceanic coverage so it would become incredibly boring for us.

Never. I want more people to quit so they can Beta test ESO with me!

tried Eso, its kinda….. well if you liked skyrim you will like that, but its alot more clunky, like fallout 2

SpehssMehreen.5897:

tried Eso, its kinda….. well if you liked skyrim you will like that, but its alot more clunky, like fallout 2

Skyrim combined with Fallout 2? My dreams come true.
Now i need just to wait for beta invite:-(

I’d vote to keep the RNG. Every server has different culture. Some are polite with sportsmanship, while some are ruthless with twisted minded players as the majority. I’d not want to be playing wvw all the time with those in the later case ‘cause it’s bad for health and will be the cause of poeple not playing the game for long. Scores don’t really matter, sportsmanship does.

I think we just need to adjust RNG.
Current RNG is bad. Really bad. In NA not so bad like in EU. In EU there are fights between servers with 9 ranks difference.

It might be worth considering having different randomness parameters for EU and NA. the ratings distributions are different, so using the same (1.0,40.0) parameters for both regions is probably not optimal.

Here are some sample numbers showing the effect different random parameters would have on the matchup probabilities.

The first 2 files show matchup probabilities for NA and EU using predicted ratings for today (based on yesterday’s scores) and using the current (1.0,40.0) parameters that I assume ArenaNet is still using (because they haven’t said otherwise). These are exactly the same files I posted yesterday in the “Who would you like to face next week?” matchup thread, if you’re wondering.

The next 2 files show matchup probabilities using 50% less randomness — parameters of (0.5,20.0).

The last 2 files show matchup probabilities using 50% more randomness — parameters of (1.5,60.0).

-ken

Can you run a Gaussian Randomness (just add up 2 rolls of -0-5 to +0.5), Ken?

Cut the RNG window in half for EU.

I was hoping this thread would just die cause its silly. Listen loosing one week means nothing and every time you face a good server you get to learn strats and have time to practice them the next week. This may not effect you directly, but it will the organized groups on your server and it’s huge. On our rise in black gate we learned sooo much and adapted as fast as we could because its a diff game up here. Not that we didn’t pull in some help hell many of the guilds we grabbed were the ones that gave us a hard time in lower tiers. Also all it takes is one week for a good server to go bad if your having issues with your wvw grab some guilds from other servers and before you know it that snow ball will be running down the hill smashing those in your way. It looks like blackgate may be the new Goliath and with the current system anet is giving every server the tools to be the new David. Good luck all see you on the field.

Snowreap.5174:

It might be worth considering having different randomness parameters for EU and NA. the ratings distributions are different, so using the same (1.0,40.0) parameters for both regions is probably not optimal.

Here are some sample numbers showing the effect different random parameters would have on the matchup probabilities.

The first 2 files show matchup probabilities for NA and EU using predicted ratings for today (based on yesterday’s scores) and using the current (1.0,40.0) parameters that I assume ArenaNet is still using (because they haven’t said otherwise). These are exactly the same files I posted yesterday in the “Who would you like to face next week?” matchup thread, if you’re wondering.

The next 2 files show matchup probabilities using 50% less randomness — parameters of (0.5,20.0).

The last 2 files show matchup probabilities using 50% more randomness — parameters of (1.5,60.0).

-ken

Wow, thanks! This shows why Anet is in such a difficult position.

I hope they do not lower the randomness for NA. It would be terrible to have a 67% chance of facing Kain every week. I would be highly upset.

A lower randomness would lead to playing more of the same people over and over. Now this may be good for some servers (like the highest rated).

And the lower randomness may work better for other servers to keep them from playing rediculous matches too often (hi SoS).

But it would stink for the middle of the pack servers.

I really don’t understand why they can’t put a hard cap on how far up or down a server can play.

Or as I still think is the absolute best solution – manually make the matchups. No RNG necessary.

Johje Holan.4607:

Or as I still think is the absolute best solution – manually make the matchups. No RNG necessary.

Lol, even if they would make or alrady made matches manually they better do *not" say it to us. The crying and blame against the human match-maker would be horrible.

Best and most exciting solution would be having both systems with 1 week you get matched up with servers from the same tier and the following week being random. At least you won’t be stuck fighting the same 2 servers for months which used happen .

Le Rooster.8715:

No thanks, also Devon said they are increasing the probability range as he doesn’t believe the range is large enough to provide people an incentive to transfer down. Ie t1 wasn’t very random.

Also you’re in SoS no server below t2 can even compare to our oceanic coverage so it would become incredibly boring for us.

source?

Dayra.7405:

Johje Holan.4607:

Or as I still think is the absolute best solution – manually make the matchups. No RNG necessary.

Lol, even if they would make or alrady made matches manually they better do *not" say it to us. The crying and blame against the human match-maker would be horrible.

But we already have a 20 page thread (plus countless other threads) with crying and blame against Anet, the devs, Devon himself, and any other person who works at Anet. Plus, they have thick skin.

But hey, if Anet is afraid, I’d be ok with them not telling us they’re doing it and just do it. It could be Top Secret and only the people doing it could know.

The other thread is all negative, I’m just thinking that we’ve reached a new level of stagnation.

My buddy Rooster mentioned that SoS will beat most below us, but that doesn’t excuse having us face T5 opponents this week.

I don’t see how the current range of the RNG number is benefiting anyone in NA anymore. At this point its at risk of further corrupting NA WvW given the huge influx of servers leaving lower tiered servers and moving to T1 and T2.

Johje Holan.4607:

Dayra.7405:

Johje Holan.4607:

Or as I still think is the absolute best solution – manually make the matchups. No RNG necessary.

Lol, even if they would make or alrady made matches manually they better do *not" say it to us. The crying and blame against the human match-maker would be horrible.

But we already have a 20 page thread (plus countless other threads) with crying and blame against Anet, the devs, Devon himself, and any other person who works at Anet. Plus, they have thick skin.

But hey, if Anet is afraid, I’d be ok with them not telling us they’re doing it and just do it. It could be Top Secret and only the people doing it could know.

What I wanted to say is: How do you know that the current match-making isn’t done by a human. Remember, 4h before reset they noticed that they have problems implementing it, maybe a human took over and is still doing it:
Sometimes he takes a dice, sometimes he is interested in the outcome of a specific match, sometimes he satisfies his sadistic feelings a bit, sometimes he feels like having mercy with a server …

Or turning it back around: Why should human matchmaking be better?

PS: I stopped looking into that thread, just a boring repetition now. And https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/matchups/7-19-BG-SoR-DB produced more posts in much shorter time

as requested, here are estimated matchup probabilities using the assumed-current (1.0,40.0) parameters, except using the sum of 2 rolls between -0.5 and +0.5, rather than a single roll from -1.0 to +1.0.

the use of 2 rolls is a ‘cheap’ way to simulate a gaussian distribution of random values, which makes random values near zero more likely than values near +1.0 or -1.0.

-ken

Thanks, Ken.

I would say they look MUCH better than the uniform ones.
Direct neighbors increase from 15 to over 20% (in the middle of the ladder)
And matches 5 or 6 away have only half probability.

And something like Blackgate vs SoS goes down from 3% to 0.6%

The point I’m getting at, is that the scores are truly reflecting the real state of things. I’m not so much expressing an opinion (though there is one here), as pointing that everyone is hitting their sweet spots. KN and EB might drop 1-2 spots further, but they are real close to where they are going to land.
16-24 have pulled in tight, where they probably should though I think GoM would like a shot at climbing up higher. Something more likely if RNG were turned off or drastically reduced.

Look at 1-9 though, and you see a perfect representation of how things play out. With the exception of the distance between FA and SoS/Mag; and TC and JQ (JQ has that T1 polish + they padded their victory at the end of the week) you can almost predict the final scores of any 1-9 matchups (not counting the unlikelihood of a perfect 2v1 or 2 of the servers ignoring a 3rd due to some rivalry).

In short, the RNG system might provide some different matchups, but an avg of 2 out of 5 matchups in any given week will result in curbstomp battles.

people have always complained about curbstomps.

people no longer complain about stale matchups.

fixing curbstomps is an issue that wont be fixed by removing rng matchmaking, but stale matchups are an issue that would be reintroduced.

lets move forward, not backward.

We had tiered matchups. People complained of seeing the same servers over and over. Rightly so too.

Then we had a dash of rng added into the mix. People complain about being mismatched. Either it turns into a rofl-stomp or you’re getting mega zerged by an opponent with far superior numbers. Either way, not fun.

Whatever anet has in mind, the overarching tone of wvw needs to change. How I do not know. I’m sure anet has many smart people that can figure out a way to make a small server competive in some way to the large ones.

It cannot simply stay the way it is. PPT and zerging will slowly choke the life out of most servers and wvw if it continues.

no, the system works very good. We are going to meet more PVP oriented guilds, not only the noobs with arrow carts without guild

Hule.8794:

I think we just need to adjust RNG.
Current RNG is bad. Really bad. In NA not so bad like in EU. In EU there are fights between servers with 9 ranks difference.

We are close I’m in FC ranked 22 fighting IOJ 18 and DH 15 not fun. FC always seems to fight the higher level guys. On top of that GoM has seemed to stay at the bottom 2 tiers almost every week and they are ranked 16 fighting ET 24 and SF 21. Would be nice to fight 24, 23 and 22 for at least 1 week but i have never seen it yet after this new ranking its like they MUST put you higher or lower never where you should be.

Maybe what they need is 2 weeks of this new rating and then 2 weeks of your correct rating that way you will not keep fighting same people each week for months but at the same time at least 2 weeks out of the month it will be kinda “normal”. Maybe one week on one week off.

Oh ya wanted to add 1 more thing even though we are getting crushed right now we are still gaining points…… So I guess that is how Anet wants to punish lower servers by putting them against higher servers so we can keep gaining rating and fighting harder and harder servers. Also, the higher servers are losing points because they are not doing as well as Anet thinks they should.

Maybe they are doing this so more people quit playing so they can combine servers??

Chris.3290:

Or at least decrease the range of probability.

Reasons:
in EU, they have managed to get all the servers (except the bottom two) all within 800 pts of each other. In the current matchup probability range 1-11 can face each other while 11-23 can face each other.
Going back to tiered matches in EU will not result in any stagnation for some time. Only VS, FoW, and Vabbi are unlikely to see any change.

in NA, we have finally equilibrium as AR hakitten T8 (ET deserves the chance to climb out of last) while EB and KN are likely to settle in T5 (KN is already there and EB will be there at the end of next week unless they roll very low).

T3 is pretty stable, with Mag and SoS trading 7th every couple of weeks and CD coming in as would be expected of a server that has added some people.

FA is still too large to fall to T3, while TC failed to shame JQ into an implosion.

Unless the devs plan on reducing cap map populations, NA isn’t going to see anymore changes and the matches can be decided by rankings now. 4th will always beat 5th, 5th will beat 6th, and so on. Only two aberrations remain, unless another large group from a mid-tier server decides to go to DB or BG to never be heard from again.

Huh? The most even matchup in upper tiers is probably JQ vs TC vs DB. The only way that can happen is through RNG.

I’m not happy about how RNG affects the evolution ranking…. We beat TC, yet there are now placed ahead of us. We’re losing even more points this week, again, just because the RNG placed us in T2.