Guild Wars 2

we poll it 3 months ago.
that’s Good Idea.

ex:
Tier1:
VP#1
VP#2
VP#3 (Drop to Tier 2)
————
Tier 2 :
VP#1 (Up to Tier 1)
VP#2
VP#3

Jerry CCH.9816:

we poll it 3 months ago.
that’s Good Idea.

ex:
Tier1:
VP#1
VP#2
VP#3 (Drop to Tier 2)
————
Tier 2 :
VP#1 (Up to Tier 1)
VP#2
VP#3

+1

this has always been the way to go imho. glicko system is horribad and the poll was a joke 1up 1 down vs rewards(which we did not get) of course rewards would win the poll lol

Back? It was never a thing.

Also it will be too volatile for the poor suckers stuck right between tiers.

Oh you fought tooth and nail this tier and ranked up? GG meeting 2 servers you have zero chance to fight while the server that got bumped down in your place will meet 2 servers it could dominate with half its population. The result will just be your servers bouncing up and down every week.

The current wide tier range on matchups is kittened, true, but we do need some flexibility and variety, given how the tier system works.

Yes, this system needs to be implemented as soon as possible.

The GLICKO system questionably worked 3-years ago.

Servers and server-links are abusing the glicko-system to manipulate match-ups and it’s very easy to accomplish. This coupled with ANET’s manual adjustments makes it even easier because ANET has already been played, twice.

One could argue that the GLICKO system better protects match manipulation, but there are avenues ANET could take to help guard against that such as:

• Move Up a Tier = Win 3-consecutive matches as the #1 server in the current tier
  
  Note: Consecutive matches “Won” grant the server advancement points 1,2,3 … when the #1 server in the current tier accumulates 3 advancement points this server progresses and the #3 server in the above tier falls down a tier.

• Move Down a Tier = Lose 3-consecutive matches as the #3 server in the current tier

Note: Consecutive matches “Lost” grant the server decay points 1,2,3 … when the #3
server in the current tier accumulates 3 decay points, this server decays to the next
tier and the #1 server in that tier moves up.

• These are just suggestions as per ANET’s forum guidelines, obviously they’re not bullet proof and could be refined.

General up-down placement:

• Win = progress placement (if #3 wins it becomes #2, so on and so forth).
• Loss = decay placement (if #1 loses it becomes #2, so on and so forth).

Oh yeah and make the Obsidian Sanctum a mega-server for all WvW servers so guilds aren’t limited to just their match-ups to fight other guilds.

Dawdler.8521:

Back? It was never a thing.

Also it will be too volatile for the poor suckers stuck right between tiers.

Oh you fought tooth and nail this tier and ranked up? GG meeting 2 servers you have zero chance to fight while the server that got bumped down in your place will meet 2 servers it could dominate with half its population. The result will just be your servers bouncing up and down every week.

The current wide tier range on matchups is kittened, true, but we do need some flexibility and variety, given how the tier system works.

They did say if they went with 1 up 1 down they could try out monthly link rotations. That would make it a lot more expensive to bandwagon every new link, might help balance out the populations.

Jim Hunter.6821:

They did say if they went with 1 up 1 down they could try out monthly link rotations. That would make it a lot more expensive to bandwagon every new link, might help balance out the populations.

Which would help how exactly, other than antagonize players and make the transfer whales give more momey to Anet? Plus, you would even need weekly links to adjust when servers move between tiers since the links balance only the 3 servers in a tier.

Alternativly, the option is to allow tier movement only on a monthly basis (when relinks happen).

Up/down also break down if tiers dont win and loose in the same way. What happens in a scenario where a server dominate T3, but T2 is fairly equal fight where wins are traded every week between the 3? Who in T2 will drop over the course of 3 weeks when all of them got a win, a loss and 2nd place?

I’m curious to know what server all these 1U1D proponents are on.

Dawdler.8521:

Jim Hunter.6821:

They did say if they went with 1 up 1 down they could try out monthly link rotations. That would make it a lot more expensive to bandwagon every new link, might help balance out the populations.

Which would help how exactly, other than antagonize players and make the transfer whales give more momey to Anet? Plus, you would even need weekly links to adjust when servers move between tiers since the links balance only the 3 servers in a tier.

Alternativly, the option is to allow tier movement only on a monthly basis (when relinks happen).

Up/down also break down if tiers dont win and loose in the same way. What happens in a scenario where a server dominate T3, but T2 is fairly equal fight where wins are traded every week between the 3? Who in T2 will drop over the course of 3 weeks when all of them got a win, a loss and 2nd place?

With a monthly rotation, trying to bandwagon for the win by moving servers becomes twice as expensive as it currently is making it a much less desirable option, especially since they won’t be able to steamroll a match up for several weeks due to glicko hell. Once they win they move up.

Also a lot of movement recently has occurred because servers are getting stuck in T1 and even though they are just getting kitten on they are still gaining glicko. TC lost a ton of players, many of which moved in large groups to other servers unbalancing those match ups, and I’m sure there were others that finally had enough and just quit the game. Both of which are bad for the overall health of WvW. And the thing is TC had the players to be competitive at the start but after weeks of losing less and less players were logging in.

In a 1 up 1 down system with monthly rotations they would have dropped after the 1st loss, likely won the next week in T2 and the morale boost might have been enough to get their fairweathers to log in more on the 3rd week when they were back in T1 to the point where they could snag 1st or 2nd place.

For arguments sake let’s say they just couldn’t compete in T1 but they were too big for T2. That means TC would have 2 bad weeks of getting kitten on, T2 would have 2 bad weeks of having to deal with TC, and then everyone would be relinked to come up with more balanced matches.

2 bad weeks is a hell of a lot better than the current system of 2 months where servers are locked into terrible matches because players bandwagon at the start and glicko is way to slow to respond.