Guild Wars 2

NorthStar.3798:

LoL.. I look forward to see who we Dragonbrand matches up next with.

Fort Aspenwood and Blackgate?

Either way we will probably lose badly to Blackgate unless their night population has taken a major hit since the first WvWvW matchup.

Yeah quite possible, the next server match will be a battle for sure. Hope Dragonbrand stomps them =)

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

You are not getting me. What I am concerned is the fact that the ranking matching system does not address the already apparent issue of certain servers being overpopulated. In fact you can argue that it has, coupled with free transfers caused certain servers to become overpopulated. The problem is the match making system has already caused most of the problems we are seeing right now. Which is partly why I do not really want to give it much more of a chance to further damage the game.

Oh… you Maguuma want to talk about fair? Do i have to remind you when you placed 5 trebuchet to attack Dreaming Bay from an un-capturable Garrison with a Lord with the Determined buff?

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

You are not getting me. What I am concerned is the fact that the ranking matching system does not address the already apparent issue of certain servers being overpopulated. In fact you can argue that it has, coupled with free transfers caused certain servers to become overpopulated. The problem is the match making system has already caused most of the problems we are seeing right now. Which is partly why I do not really want to give it much more of a chance to further damage the game.

I get you very clearly. What you aren’t hearing is that the matchmaking system hasn’t had a chance yet to stabilize. You’re working from the premise it never will, without proof. I’m simply advocating letting it run for a few months and at least try 20-25 total groupings before claiming it’s broken. Running around and claiming it’s never going to stabilize now is like jumping off a cliff and claiming you’re never going to hit the ground immediately after jumping, because all you’ve felt is a falling sensation.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

You are not getting me. What I am concerned is the fact that the ranking matching system does not address the already apparent issue of certain servers being overpopulated. In fact you can argue that it has, coupled with free transfers caused certain servers to become overpopulated. The problem is the match making system has already caused most of the problems we are seeing right now. Which is partly why I do not really want to give it much more of a chance to further damage the game.

I get you very clearly. What you aren’t hearing is that the matchmaking system hasn’t had a chance yet to stabilize. You’re working from the premise it never will, without proof. I’m simply advocating letting it run for a few months and at least try 20-25 total groupings before claiming it’s broken. Running around and claiming it’s never going to stabilize now is like jumping off a cliff and claiming you’re never going to hit the ground immediately after jumping, because all you’ve felt is a falling sensation.

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

Don’t worry.
Problem would be adjusted after DB matched up higher tier servers and learn a lesson from those servers do the same things to DB.
I always believe that.

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

What proof?
There has only been 1 real match up so far. where guilds really tried.
the 24 hour matchups before were just zergfest, with no upgrades and no defense.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

All of that and you still havn’t a clue.

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

All of that and you still havn’t a clue.

I see you’ve opted to ignore what I’ve had to say. Sadly, I’ll simply return the favor from this point forward, as you refuse to listen to reason.

i didn’t read any of the posts in this thread fully, instead i scanned them for negative emotional responses. given the high frequency of these emotions, i would say that the tactic of camping the jumping puzzle to be effective.

it’s called denying the enemy. completing the puzzle gives you siege prints, among other things. it’s a valid tactic that you should try to get used to.

Nuoper.7503:

Don’t worry.
Problem would be adjusted after DB matched up higher tier servers and learn a lesson from those servers do the same things to DB.
I always believe that.

So are you from Maguuma or Tarnished Coast ? =P

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

All of that and you still havn’t a clue.

I see you’ve opted to ignore what I’ve had to say. Sadly, I’ll simply return the favor from this point forward, as you refuse to listen to reason.

Just do me a favor and read, and then reread what I’ve been writing. There is 1 important thing you seem to be missing, unless you are purposefully dismissing it.

Yeah, not sure who is complaining, but TC is currently doing it with arrow carts scattered all throughout the Jumping Puzzle in their borderland. Its hard to blame any server for doing this when their are players on all of them doing it. What about the 15 players that just sit and kill people on the ledge just before jumping into the waterfall?

NorthStar.3798:

LoL.. I can’t wait to see who the next servers will be against Dragonbrand

I’m guessing Sea of Sorrows.

Click.5123:

Hint: Dragonbrand is green.

And can never quite hold onto the mass swath they keep with their 3:00 AM, 60+ zergs. by afternoon, they’re getting pushed back again. Overconfident and obsessive, to be sure. But winners by virtue of being able to outlast attrition situations with a rotating supply of troops. Troops that are…marginal in small groups. The zerg’s strong with this one.

On topic: Given that every side says the other side camped jumping puzzles; I’ll give everyone the benefit of the doubt and state that it’s impossible to be aware of everything that everyone on your own server is participating in and that, though this move is considered unsavory, it was illogical to project the fact that a few DB players decided to camp the puzzle, in retaliation or not, onto the whole of DB. I think it can be agreed that the same is true in the case of the Maguuma and TC.

Off-Topic: I sincerely hope next week’s match-ups are better.

please dragonbrand dont even talk smack here you guys seriously are bads and primeval has killed so many of you scrubs over the last few days out there its not even funny. You guys just exploit the zerges numbers to get points , in skirmish you are terrible . Instead of talking crap put a premade together and run around , not a zerge and come do some skirmish instead of laughing about zerging. Ive watched so many times our guild wipe half your zerges of bad players , shadow legion has done the same. So all that laughing about rage from a few players here who want to pve in wvw just shows you how pathetic you guys are camping a puzzle map with siege instead of doing pvp. To bad this isnt DAOC , I would love to say free arpees from bads on that server but its just free exp here =/ To bad ANET doesnt reward you for actually being good just zerging.

It’s just as boring being on the side that is up a couple 100k points. I’m on Dragonbrand and haven’t queued for wvw for just this reason. I hope the next rotation is more balanced, but I fear it will be the opposite. Dragonbrand will probably be up against much better servers that will be a couple 100k points up on us. It’s a brutal rotation exacerbated by the duration of wvw being lengthened imo.

scourn.6042:

please dragonbrand dont even talk smack here you guys seriously are bads and primeval has killed so many of you scrubs over the last few days out there its not even funny. You guys just exploit the zerges numbers to get points , in skirmish you are terrible . Instead of talking crap put a premade together and run around , not a zerge and come do some skirmish instead of laughing about zerging. Ive watched so many times our guild wipe half your zerges of bad players , shadow legion has done the same. So all that laughing about rage from a few players here who want to pve in wvw just shows you how pathetic you guys are camping a puzzle map with siege instead of doing pvp. To bad this isnt DAOC , I would love to say free arpees from bads on that server but its just free exp here =/ To bad ANET doesnt reward you for actually being good just zerging.

I don’t know what server you were on, or what borderlands you were in, or when you were playing, but what I do know is that 5-10 of our better players constantly pushed back your large (30+) siege groups from the walls of many a keep/garrison. Quite often wiping out half of those groups in the process. I remember many a time where some of our strike teams ninja’d siege lines on top of the cliff overlooking the Northwestern Tower and broke the ranks of various Maguuma/Tarnished zergs who had the benefit of a 20 second run from their respawn. I also distinctly remember killing about 2g worth of trebuchets nailing the Southeast Tower from the ruins with small groups of 7-10 people running suicide missions against the 30+ ’Guumas guarding them.

Please. DB doesn’t have small groups. Unless 30 is small.

Organized [Tsym] groups. It works wonders. Love [Tsym] with all my heart!

Just going to say. Coron from [Tsym] is really strategic and runs things quite well.

NoizeMaker.8367:

Organized [Tsym] groups. It works wonders. Love [Tsym] with all my heart!

Just going to say. Coron from [Tsym] is really strategic and runs things quite well.

If by “strategic and runs things quite well” you mean “looping clockwise around the map flipping supply camps with a plethora of people following him while ignoring the defense of fully upgraded keeps” then sure, he is a master tactician.

Well. All i have to say is you havent exp. his guilds Ts3 servers. Everyone thats in there has a job from scouts to what not. Its like a full, fledged army with lil special ops groups.

So think what you will but the zerg you saw run by and possibly stomp you isnt as much of a zerg as you think. Everyone is in sync and following orders.

Have a nice day ;p

The queue data is out so now everyone can see the proof of why Dragonbrand is winning.

LOL at all the Dragonbrand that are like we’re so good, see our squads using all these tactics, all skill son.

Queue data was released. Needs no explaining what happened in this matchup.

We played Maguuma since the first day of 1 week rotation. I will have to agree with Papaj though lol.. We seen it, but I will have to give Coron props for trying to lead in Maguuma borderlands… bad or good.

BigPopov.9743:

LOL at all the Dragonbrand that are like we’re so good, see our squads using all these tactics, all skill son.

Queue data was released. Needs no explaining what happened in this matchup.

What I see is that every server had a queue for every battleground in the first 6 or so hours. I’m pretty sure that after those first 6 hours Dragonbrand was in the lead by a non trivial margin. Bottom line is that the blowout final score is not representative of how close the servers are, so there are still pretty fun battles to be had. Considering the rewards for winning are pretty trivial, isn’t having fun the main point of WvW?

What you see, is that Dragonbrand only failed to have all zones at cap population twice, for a total accumulated time of around two hours.

Maguuma and TC begin failing to fill the zones from 11pm → 9am. Unsurprisingly, this coincides directly with when Dragonbrand suddenly begins capturing the entire map.

Even more fun though, you also notice, even with the complete decimation Maguuma and TC have been taking, TC’s WvW population has only dropped ~16%, and Maguuma ~21%. That seems to counter some DB posters claims that they are only winning because our servers ‘gave up’ and stopped queuing.

All of this said, it’s not DB’s fault. They are acting within game mechanics, and they can’t help that they have a large night time population. I know we are all grumpy because no one likes an unfair matchup, but shouldn’t be jumping down the throats of people with no control over it.

Dwok Immortalus.2763:

All of this said, it’s not DB’s fault. They are acting within game mechanics, and they can’t help that they have a large night time population. I know we are all grumpy because no one likes an unfair matchup, but shouldn’t be jumping down the throats of people with no control over it.

Hi, you must be new around here.

Nothing wrong with the fact that DB won this match up. But the queue data shows that they clearly have a much larger round the clock presence. Maguuma and TC often “flatline” for several hours where DB manages to keep a queue for almost an entire 24 hour period.

At first I was disappointed that Maguuma didn’t seem to be willing to forcus on DB early in the week, alongside us. Then I realized that they were probably playing for second and used the DB presence to help keep their position secure, which is ultimately well played.

Nothing “wrong” with the win at all. Regardless, the data we’ve recieved explains what we all know and pretty much dispells the notion of superior strategy and tactics on their part. During the hours where the number of players across all three server was concurrently the highest, DB saw significant (read: noticeable) pushback. And even then, that wasn’t just do to numbers equalizing because the relative numbers still don’t tend to show complete parity.

most people on tarnished coast ive run around with are losing interest in world vs world. It may not be that for others as i can only speak for whom i have had contact with. If ANET thinks that pushing a couple of doylak camps in a circle jerk or watching two of the three teams push to the west of the map to wipe because of siege then the other side push back to the east and wipe because of siege their vision of what DAOC realm vs realm was is far distorted. There is ZERO place for small man teams , even the kitten poster bragging about star dragonbrand zerge guilds above taking a hill or breaking siege against a bunch of bads zerging players doesn’t make this anything near DAOC quality. You just have devs that have no soul period here , there is no small man teams ,making a different in the scheme of things , just ganking a few stragglers or holding a tower for a few til the zerges show up. Honestly world vs world for anyone with skill from DAOC is starting to see this is a complete snoozefest full of a few “leaders” whom dont want to pvp just zerge everything to death. Ive already been on record as saying i give world vs world another two or three months and if things dont change , it will be the least played feature in the game because of kitteny devs who think they know it all and refuse to listen to the playerbase about fixing it.

Ascleph.2147

So is Kaineng the only world thats losing and still trying to win w/o crying in the forums and saying how evil their oponent is for winning?

Yes. You see, it is easy to do when your server actually is ’weak’* at any time of the day. Now, when your server has a fair fight during the day and then during the night PUFF all your territory gets overrun, things are a bit different.

There is a difference between losing stuff over, and over, and over for such a silly reason as server population, and never having had something to begin with.

• - With all due respect to Kaineng. It seriously sounds like the best server to be in and I’d go there, if it didn’t mean leaving behind the people in my current server.

mcl.9240

You’re working from the premise it never will, without proof.

And you are working from the premise that it will work, without proof. As you said, it is “a system that works on the basis of incremental improvement.”

However, this incremental improvement is a week long process that uses the score obtained by each team to create a new, supposedly “fair” match. It does not account for: server transfers, player populations across time, player morale and, ultimately, player skill, since night capping has now been demonstrated (by the graphs released by Anet) to be a major factor in said score.

So, basically, you’re asking us to trust that a system that observes and controls bananas to do a good job with apples. Forgive me if I remain a bit skeptical.

Yes, I’m assuming it will work. My premise merely requires everyone be patient,and we’ll eventually know whether or not it works. Your premise requires everyone to simply believe you when you say it doesn’t work.

I never claimed it creates “fair” matches prior to settling on a stable set of groupings. In fact, I’ve claimed the opposite: Here, or elsewhere, I have specifically claimed that the matches made prior to the mechanism stabilizing will often be quite poor, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

I’m certainly willing to give it time. Overall, I enjoy this match for most of the week. Regardless of the DB zerg and numbers presence, I found that the match up between Mag was nice, even though the skirmishes tended to be smaller. For DB, it was fair enough and there was never sense of necessarily being outplayed but just outmanned. Which are two entirely different things.

If, and I think it’s fair to acknowledge that this is certainly an if, match making can consider the relative point spreads, general win percentages, and potentially hours of play per server, we’re going to get the proper match ups. Time will tell, however, if this system truly works.

There is more endemic problem, and the 24 hour transfer wait will not fix it. People are always going to transfer to the winning servers, whether its to complete the PvE exploration or to play on the winning team and grind XP/Karma easier and with less repair costs.

The 24 hour wait time was to fix people from jumping server to server to farm orach materials quickly. It won’t do anything for RvR

Dragonbrand talking smack about individual skill? You guys stink without the zerg. When we skirmish you don’t impress.

Sceptus sir, you make me laugh.

Some of you guys are so salty.

Anyway, when you guys start winning, you’ll start seeing a similar trend. People will queue up when you’re on top, but not when you lose. Look at Blackgate, do you honestly think they have so few players? No. They got demoralized and stopped queueing up. Use common sense before you start throwing around accusations.

celeron.3469:

Some of you guys are so salty.

Anyway, when you guys start winning, you’ll start seeing a similar trend. People will queue up when you’re on top, but not when you lose. Look at Blackgate, do you honestly think they have so few players? No. They got demoralized and stopped queueing up. Use common sense before you start throwing around accusations.

These statistics are from the first three days of WvW. There is a downward trend as it progresses, I agree. However, the population on Day 1 for TC/Maguuma is drastically different from DB’s. I’m sure the later days will support your theory, but the Day 1-2 activity numbers are probably the most relevant compared to the rest of the week for the very reason you suggested. If the losing servers have less activity on off-peak hours than the winning server on the first couple of days, that will have a snowball effect that demoralizes the playerbase of those servers.

If you look at the charts, it’s clear that DB has a solid queue on at least one of the maps during times when both Maguuma and TC have flat-lined on the first day. That means it has nothing to do with morale at that point, but rather it’s a disparity between the populations of those servers relative to DB.

I do feel bad for maguuma though, looks like the server quit cause of the points gap(can’t blame them for that). I myself being on Dragonbrand a thief who likes to roam and solo capture supply bases and cut off reinforcements noticed that maguuma actually had to form up a group on a commander just to take the northern supply bases back on maguuma borderlands… so ya they are clearly outnumbered and the orb buff only increases snowballing.

sceptus.9415:

Dragonbrand talking smack about individual skill? You guys stink without the zerg. When we skirmish you don’t impress.

Generalizing is always a bad thing bro.

Asbrandr.6324:

celeron.3469:

Some of you guys are so salty.

Anyway, when you guys start winning, you’ll start seeing a similar trend. People will queue up when you’re on top, but not when you lose. Look at Blackgate, do you honestly think they have so few players? No. They got demoralized and stopped queueing up. Use common sense before you start throwing around accusations.

These statistics are from the first three days of WvW. There is a downward trend as it progresses, I agree. However, the population on Day 1 for TC/Maguuma is drastically different from DB’s. I’m sure the later days will support your theory, but the Day 1-2 activity numbers are probably the most relevant compared to the rest of the week for the very reason you suggested. If the losing servers have less activity on off-peak hours than the winning server on the first couple of days, that will have a snowball effect that demoralizes the playerbase of those servers.

If you look at the charts, it’s clear that DB has a solid queue on at least one of the maps during times when both Maguuma and TC have flat-lined on the first day. That means it has nothing to do with morale at that point, but rather it’s a disparity between the populations of those servers relative to DB.

By 12am on day 1 we had a 2k point lead, by 3am we had a 4k point lead. Day 2 at 1pm we were up by 20k. It most definitely factored in. Especially when we were holding TC in their spawn on DB borderlands and working on getting Maguuma there too. Team moral is huge in WvW. Another example is Yak’s Bend, they definitely do not have a huge overnight crew, but look at their queue and you’d think different, the difference is they were on top.

When a player logs on, presses B, and sees they are losing in prime time. Their first thought is going to be “we stand no chance overnight, we don’t have an oceanic scene.” This goes for all 3 of our servers.
Edited for accuracy.
Edit2: I would honestly love to see some more weekday numbers next time. There’s a huge disparity, on every server, between weekend and weekday.

Love how everyone always toots their horn as if individual skill plays a huge factor in WvW. I run around solo and it does not matter what server or what guild your in a vast majority of players are just average. It’s a MMO. You honestly think every single one of you can be the undisputed champion of the world? Get real, WvW are won from populations not skill. I am from Dragonbrand and even I know this.