Guild Wars 2

Jessica Boettiger.2563:

Thanks for this well thought out post!

It is our goal to ensure that WvW matchups are not only competitive, but also engaging and fun. Variety is essential.

Constructive criticism like this helps us to improve, and we look forward to bringing you the best possible version of WvW Tournaments in the future.

you want make the www maps fun ? remove the home borderlands and create only one and bigger 3 way map like eb.

thank you

the frustration and the stress that i am getting every time i am defending outnumbered home borders , because players leaved the home map or from the map switching to save something is out of control anymore.

it will be the reason to stop the game , and i am very close to that !

@OP . the problem mate is not the system , but the maps design .if everyone play against different servers every week under in one and signle map then there will be no more weak servers .

weak servers = less coverage on all 4 wvw maps !!!

thank you too

Johje Holan.4607:

(Con’t)

An example seasons worth of matches using this system in a five week tournament:

Week1. TC/JQ/BG, SoS/Mag/DB, HoD/FA/YB, SBI/CD/IoJ, NSP/BP/GoM, DR/SF/FC, DH/AR/SoR, EB/ET/Kain.

Week 2. SoS/BG/HoD, JQ/Mag/TC, DB/SBI/FA, YB/NSP/CD, IoJ/BP/GoM, DR/DH/EB, SF/AR/ET, FC/SoR/Kain.

Week 3. JQ/BG/SoS, TC/Mag/DB, HoD/YB/SBI, FA/NSP/IoJ, CD/BP/GoM, DR/SF/DH, EB/FC/AR, Kain/ET/SoR.

Week 4. BG/HoD/JQ, TC/SoS/DB, Mag/FA/YB, SBI/CD/IoJ, NSP/DR/FC, BP/SF/DH, GoM/EB/AR, ET/Kain/SoR.

Week 5. JQ/BG/TC, SoS/HoD/Mag, DB/FA/SBI, YB/CD/NSP, IoJ/DR/BP, GoM/FC/SF, DH/AR/SoR, EB/ET/Kain.

For this example I used the current Glicko scores (or close) with a limitaion that the servers must be within a score of 300 in order to be matched together. The exact limitation would need to be determined by Anet but 250 – 300 seems good.

There is variety, close matches, servers don’t simply alternate matches back and forth like this season and most people are not going to know their upcoming opponents (because they’re not going to bother doing the calculations). I don’t think we’ll be able to come up with a better system. And it would be much simpler to code for a computer to do the picking than my long winded description.

TLDR; Change the tournament matchmaking system to this!

yes IF no personal rewards (skins, loots (quality) etc) are determined by placement. That schedule looks like last season pretty much so i don’t see a modified anything in there.

It will help me finished legendary #2 faster, but will be the hilarious drama and stupidness of season 2.

Season 1 was much closer to what it should be (yet still far away). There shouldn’t be seasons just seasonal reward tracks. The seasonal rewards can only be achieved during the season. Have a off season reward track also for mats, loot, etc.

Season 1 (starting from beginning):

reward track items
1 weapon or armor skin of choice (new sets strictly from wvw)
maybe a loot chest
random other crap

Season 2

another weapon or armor skin of choice
loot chest
other garbage

Make ALL season finishers permanent and all different animals or mobs so you can show off which season you won or placed. ALl those outside the top 3 get limited finishers (50 maybe or whatever) or limited consolation finishers like a sad face. finisher.

Kagusaki.3176:

Better yet, why not hire volunteers to judge each match up? Once a match ends, they give each server a certain score and they manually pick who should fight who. At least with this, there will be people monitoring the match ups. If there is a problem with the whole server trying to manipulate the scores, they automatically forfeit the match and get third place for the week or get disqualified for the season. If there are a few people that are cheating, they get banned from WvW for the season.

Tournaments should have real judges monitoring each match up. The only problem is who will volunteer? At first I thought about having people from different servers volunteer, but then I realized that most will be bias towards certain servers and they would end up arguing with each other. Then I thought about the Anet people who regularly play WvW. They know how WvW works and I’ve seen a few around. Maybe these people should be the ones monitoring the match up.

Any thoughts on this idea?

Yeah right, so you wan’t the old: Coverage Wars 2 I take it?
Two servers working together in a 3-way war will cause the 2 servers to forfeit huh?
So people can megastack and fair-weather to one server like back in Season 1 for a predetermined victory correct?

So WvWvW now need to have a judge to judge which server has the most coverage to win PPT, and judge in a way to ensure the one with most coverage gets the top right?
Very fair indeed… zzzz

One more thing to add, according to your “method”, everyone should be forfeited because if 2nd and 3rd don’t work together to beat Top, then it’ll become 1st and 2nd bullying 3rd, forcing him to become 3rd, which is against YOUR rules.

Just a thing to note all the people who dream of making WvW “FAIR”:
WvWvW is inherently unfair because the number of participants differs immensely, so the only way to counter this unfairness is by using unfair strategy such as 2 v 1, that’s it.

Double teaming is just like stacking, only taking it to the next level.

If you are trying to defend double teaming then you dont get to complain about “coverage wars” or “stacked servers”.

Thanks for responding Jessica. And welcome to the WvW Forums!

A few comments on various responses.

Claudius.5381:

I don’t think you need the Glicko-rating during the tournament, only for the beginning (the initial triairing – I like that word). But I agree that all servers should be in two leagues: one NA league and one European league (ideally one world league but as far as I know ArenaNet’s server structure does not allow it).

Then do the following modifications to the existing system:

• Limit the tournament to six weeks. Nine weeks burns out a lot of people. Even if you play only 6 rounds with the 24 European servers it is guaranteed by the virtue of the Swiss system that the three “best” servers will meet one another because the Swiss system is basically k.-o.-system with benefits. The further placings may be not exact but that is true for the existing system, too.

• No triaring (matchup with three parties) may occur more than once. For example: If there was a triaring SFR – Desolation – Baruch Bay in an earlier round, that may not occur again. SFR – Desolation – some other server is ok but not the exact same triaring.

• When you triair you start as usual with the highest scoring server (measured in tournament points). I call this server A. Then you add servers B to the triaring where the difference between the score of A and B is lowest. So far that is the usual Swiss system pairing algorithm. But before you compare the score differences you add for every time A and B have already encountered themselves in the tournament a certain “penalty score”. This penalty score is only added for the purpose of the triaring; it has nothing to do with the “real” tournament points. In a system with 5 points for win, 3 points for 2nd place, 1 for last place it seems that 3 points for each previous encounter is a reasonable value. Then you continue triairing in the same way for the rest, excluding the already triaired servers. That way you not only avoid the exact same triairing but you also built in a tendency to minimize the number of times two servers play against each other.

That proposal has the advantage to deviate not that much from the Swiss system. It does not solve all problems, of course, but it does solve two main problems: length of the tournament and stale pairings (Deso played against SFR and Baruch Bay 4 times and against SFR eight times, if I remember correctly – very unfun).

You bring up an interesting point – Anet may need to have different systems for EU and NA.

I admit I know nothing about EU servers or how they match together. But for NA having everyone together in one league without some consideration of Glicko rating would not work at all. You would end up with situations having, for example, JQ and DH in the same match.

Similarly limiting the number of times a server plays each other may not work in NA either. There are only a limited number of servers that can be triared with each other due to vast population and coverage differences.

Limit the tournament to six weeks: I agree it definitely needs to be shorter. I would say 4 or 5 weeks.

(Continued)

Maze.1902:

I wonder why it isn´t a true swiss system. No points, just the number of wins decides the new matchups.

I wondered that too. And I did a couple of simulations. It did not turn out well – at least for NA. You end up with rediculous matches.

SleepingDragon.1596:

Preferred the idea of megaservers for WvW.

I have to admit I didn’t understand your proposal. I assume the pairings are just for calculating the tournament scores and the rewards? But that still leaves the question of matchmaking design.

Nokaru.7831:

Your heart is in the right place, but any matchup where a Tier 1 server is paired against anyone other than another Tier 1 server is going to be a blow-out. This example will have 3/5 weeks of very bad games for Gold League.

I agree. T1 NA servers are a problem. And they have been a problem for a long time. They simply don’t match up well with anyone but each other. I would be open to the idea that they get their own little league.

But then what about SoS? They have no real competition in any of the other servers.

And we saw what happened when all the T1 servers were triaired with each other for most of the tourney. When they can predict the matchups, they will manipulate them. Even to the detriment of thier own fun.

ManaCraft.5630:

At the end of the day it just won’t matter much which system is used for seasons. The population imbalances between servers pretty much guarantee that no reasonable compromise can be found. Some systems will work slightly better than others, but none can assure meaningful matchups for all (or even most) servers. That will only happen when populations are addressed. At that point, designing a workable system for tournaments becomes a relatively easy task.

I agree. But I think populations is a seperate issue. I don’t know when, or even if it will be addressed. But we do know there will be a Season 3 (because some people didn’t get enough tickets for a Mist Forged Weapon yet) so I think we should find the best system that we can.

mallas.9836:

yes IF no personal rewards (skins, loots (quality) etc) are determined by placement. That schedule looks like last season pretty much so i don’t see a modified anything in there.

I agree. I think personal rewards should not be determined by your servers placement. I think that’s one of the things that needs to change for Season 3.

And the seasonal reward tracks are an interesting idea. Gets more people involved.

Shpongle.6025:

Blackgate here, we got double teamed by JQ and TC this season xD

It’s really not cool they took away our Permanent Golden Dolyak Finishers when we won Season 1 .

Kettle calling the pot black!! JQ and BG 2vs1 SoR the 1st tournament, any how 2vs1 is legit tactic like or not and I bet BG said the same thing to to SoR and JQ back then. The Dev’s have said few times WvWvW isn’t meant to be fairly balanced hence there are 3 worlds playing against each other so 2vs1 is going to happen. We all just have to suck it up and move on.

The only truly exciting part about both WvW tournaments was the chance to engage with other tiers and servers we never get to fight. By exciting I mean fighting new guilds, opportunities for GvGs, and a chance to play against new styles/compositions of players. In all other aspects, it’s not a true competition because there are no balanced teams, rules set in place, or equal playing fields that exist in WvW. I think that’s why people get their feathers ruffled over the course of the season when competition turns stale due to a blatant imbalance of the PPT meta and the predictability of the match ups. How can any competition ever be considered good competition when the coverage imbalance is laughably vast between T1 and T2, and beyond.

I love competition. I love an opportunity to set a week aside where all three servers decide to battle it out, nothing held back. I love the opportunity to play against other servers and have new experiences. I want more variety in WvW.

We fight the same servers. Same guilds. On the same maps. Week, after week, after week. The tournaments make it more interesting, but they’re far from optimal.

The only servers who can compete with tier 1 servers are in tier 1, and unfortunately every server below them stands no chance. I think the PPT meta is dying as a result, especially in tier 1, because it’s so broken that people are less willing to play it. Every matchup we had with tier 2 servers were PPT facerolls where we spent the week focused on fighting new guilds, with no care in the world for PPT. Because without really trying, it was a win. The tournaments are pretty pointless, and seem to have caused instability in server communities as a result.

Solution? Good grief, that’s a tough one. We definitely need to spice up WvW, but I don’t think tournaments are the answer. I have some suggestions, but I don’t feel like they’re relevant to this thread. May write another essay elsewhere

If there’s one thing Anet should do next tourney, it’s do away with the “placement = reward” meta achievement. No matter what the transfer costs are, there will be an influx of players to “top dog” servers of their tier. Also, it’s a slap in the face of players who play very hard for their server but are rewarded based on their server’s PPT coverage. I would increase the amount of effort required to get the meta achievement, and takeaway the placement factor.

kattown.6804:

If there’s one thing Anet should do next tourney, it’s do away with the “placement = reward” meta achievement. No matter what the transfer costs are, there will be an influx of players to “top dog” servers of their tier. Also, it’s a slap in the face of players who play very hard for their server but are rewarded based on their server’s PPT coverage. I would increase the amount of effort required to get the meta achievement, and takeaway the placement factor.

IMHO; players should also get tournament tokens for getting WvW rankups during a tournament. Five tokens a rankup, no tokens from bonus chests.

That way, someone in a low-end server can still get a ton of tickets by just participating in the tournament, and potentially get more than someone who’s on a higher-placed server, but who only did the bare minimum to get their meta achievement. The incentive to transfer north isn’t removed, but it’s diminished.

Sarrs.4831:

kattown.6804:

If there’s one thing Anet should do next tourney, it’s do away with the “placement = reward” meta achievement. No matter what the transfer costs are, there will be an influx of players to “top dog” servers of their tier. Also, it’s a slap in the face of players who play very hard for their server but are rewarded based on their server’s PPT coverage. I would increase the amount of effort required to get the meta achievement, and takeaway the placement factor.

IMHO; players should also get tournament tokens for getting WvW rankups during a tournament. Five tokens a rankup, no tokens from bonus chests.

That way, someone in a low-end server can still get a ton of tickets by just participating in the tournament, and potentially get more than someone who’s on a higher-placed server, but who only did the bare minimum to get their meta achievement. The incentive to transfer north isn’t removed, but it’s diminished.

Agreed. I feel like they should treat WvW rewards like they treat PvE, in which you get rewarded for your own personal hard work/contributions to your server. I think the opportunity to earn more tickets will keep more players in WvW longer, because they don’t just finish the meta and wait for the season to end. This solution will handle the problem with “fair weathers” and “bandwagoners” more effectively, by further removing incentive to jump around. People who want the most of their rewards can get them without having to flock to a top dog server and further imbalance populations during the season.