Guild Wars 2

Hey everyone, I thought I would toss this idea out there since we are on the cusp of HoT and the devs seem a lot more active on the World vs. World end of things (I’m optimistic basically). Before diving into it, this idea is not a massive rework of WvW, but could still potentially give good results. Easy to implement = low cost = easy to test. I think something like this would be acceptable and fair in WvW since we all know the scoring system is not competitive 3/4 of the time. Population/timezone imbalances are simply too hard to control. In doing this I would hope that this will smooth out population/timezone imbalance so it is not as pronounced, because there truly is no perfect solution to finding a balance through managing transfers, server WvW activity caps and map caps. I think this idea, while somewhat complicated and has its imperfections (like all great solutions), still gets us to where we relatively want to be while adding some more depth to the WvW experience. Read on!

Revenge
This will be a buff that will appear like the “Outnumbered” buff when the favourable conditions are present. In general it works like this: Gain points based on a percentage of the difference between the score of the server who’s ahead of you and your world’s score for capturing and holding objectives in their territory (referring to total current score, not PPT). For example, if Server A is at 100,000 points and Server B is at 75,000 points, the percentage of points gained from Revenge comes from the 25,000-point difference between the two servers.

When are you eligible to gain the Revenge buff?

• 1st Place: Cannot earn points from Revenge (ineligable)
• 2nd Place: Can earn points from capturing objectives in the first place server’s territory
• 3rd Place: Can earn points from capturing objectives in the first and second place server’s territories

What are the conditions to gaining the Revenge buff if you are eligible?

• You must hold your side of the map before you can gain and utilize Revenge to your advantage (excluding camps). Much like the Outmanned buff, it is effective only on the map you are currently on. You must hold your side on each of the other maps to gain Revenge on those particular maps.
• In Eternal Battlegrounds, your server needs to hold the four Towers and the one Keep that is closest to your spawn.
• In your home Borderland, your server needs to hold the two Towers adjacent to your spawn and the Garrison.
• In the enemy Borderlands, your server needs to hold either Bay Keep and Briar Tower or Hills Keep and Lake Tower depending what side your spawn is on.
• This is done to incentivize defending your own points before going on the offensive and gives counterplay to the other servers to potentially stop you from obtaining the buff. This does not stop the server from earning points from Revenge on an objective they already captured in the 1st place server’s territory.

Once the Revenge buff is active, how do you gain points?

• Example: If you are the blue team and you are in second place, while the green team is in first, you can take and hold objectives in the Lowlands of Eternal Battlegrounds, the two Towers adjacent to their spawn and Garrison on the green team’s home Borderlands and Bay Keep and Briar Tower or Hills Keep and Lake Tower on their enemy Borderlands (varies depending on what side their spawn is). Camps are not included.
• Points are awarded for the initial capture of the objective and each time it is automatically upgraded to another tier. It can therefore award points a maximum of 3 times.
• If you capture an objective in green territory while it is owned by the red team (3rd place), no points will be rewarded by Revenge on initial capture. However, you still earn points from Revenge upon the objective upgrading.

How much does each objective type award?

• Castle: Awards 20% of the difference between the scores of your server and the server you captured it from on initial capture and each time it is automatically upgraded to another tier.
• Keep: Awards 14% " ".
• Tower: Awards 6% " ".

What is the counterplay against with Revenge?

• The server who lost an objective against a server who possessed Revenge can recapture the objective, which will give a time penalty to the invading server depending on how upgraded it is. During this time period they cannot gain any points from Revenge on that particular map.
• This is in place to incentivize the invading server to defend those objectives and to be wary of overextending themselves.
• If the objective is recaptured when it is tier 1, the server is dealt a 30 minute penalty.
• If the objective is recaptured when it is tier 2, the server is dealt a 15 minute penalty.
• If the objective is recaptured when it is tier 3, the server is dealt a 5 minute penalty.
• No penalty will be dealt if the other invading server captures the point instead of the 1st place server (or 2nd place, depending).
• The penalty does not nullify points from Revenge on objectives that the server captured during the penalty that upgrade after the timer is lifted.

In summary, here are some advantages why ArenaNet should seriously consider introducing this after Heart of Thorns has launched: 1) It should do a nice job smoothing out population and timezone imbalances. 2) It is relatively easy to impliment and modify as the mechanic is not “physical” except perhaps some new dynamic events to show the presence of Revenge on an objective. 3) It promotes double-teaming the strongest server naturally without explicit coordination, which will greatly increase the closeness and excitment of matches. 4) It introduces more rules to the highly simple WvW rule-book, therefore adding more richness and depth to the experience. 5) It improves motivation and therefore competitive spirit of servers to win because they always have the feeling that they can close the gap, as opposed to right now which seems like an insurmountable challenge. 6) It gives clearer goals to servers on what to do, therefore allowing for easier participation (an emphasis on integrating GW2’s dynamic event system will be critical to ensure Revenge’s rules are clearly understood). 7) The matches are closer, but the win must still be earned because the bonus points from Revenge get smaller and smaller the closer the scores get (percentage based).

Finally, the Glicko2 rating system would no longer really be of use with this new Revenge mechanic because the scores are going to be inaccurate due to the fact that they will be much closer than they would be otherwise. Therefore, moving away from Glicko to a winner-up/loser-down system (or 1U1D) will be much better. I have made some changes to my idea since the original post and have 2 different options. You can read them below! 1U1D basically means that the 1st place server of a matchup moves up 1 tier, the 2nd place server stays within the tier, and the 3rd place server moves down 1 tier. This happens across the board, creating a large variance of matchups. I firmly believe that adding these two features will retain players better and create a more healthy, competitive and fun environment for WvW in GW2. Thanks for reading!

Update 09/28/2015: Standard 1U1D simply won’t do, because it is too volatile and gives servers too much control over matchups, so I am going to present 2 different variations here that may solve this:

1) A combination between current Glicko-based variance matchups and 1U1D. This will function similar to what ArenaNet has done with Tournaments. The 1U1D matches will come around every other month for 2 weeks, then standard Glicko-matchups will resume for 4 weeks til its time for the next 1U1D portion. What’s different is that there will be no Gold/Silver/Bronze so Glicko adjusts itself across all tiers in the most efficient way possible. Hopefully these bit-sized portions of 1U1D will incentivize the NA servers to better spread out, becuase half the matchups during 1U1D have the potential to be lopsided (or all of them if your regular matchups under Glicko are terribad). This is because the server who is weakest in the tier above you and strongest in the tier below you (assuming you earn second place in 1U1D meaning you stay in your tier) will pay you a visit every other week.

2) 1U1D determines matchups in the following week when a certain server or servers gain or lose Glicko rating above a certain threshold in the current week. I think this one is pretty smart, because the system actually recognizes innaccuracies when they happen and acts to adjust them immediately in the next week. The 1U1D determines the matches week after week until any servers stop losing or gaining above the threshold amount. It would essentially fix what is wrong with Glicko, because the system would actively eliminate innaccuracies, maintain even matchups when no changes are required and allow servers to move up and down the ladder when they need to. Right now I think a number like 25 could be good (as in if a server loses or gain above that value in 1 particular week).

Not sure how I missed this great post. There have been suggestions of giving more points for attacking the stronger server for a long time. But this is very detailed and well though out.

However I’m not sure about certain aspects of it. Particularly regarding how much it would actually help as its designed.

1. The requirement to own your corner of the map. I think this might be too restrictive.

• If you’re losing, especially by a considerable amount, presumably you are having trouble holding your stuff so this requirement may not even allow you to take advantage of the revenge mechanic.
• What happens if you do take your corner. Then proceed to go to the leading server and set up sieging their side. Can they just go and take one of your paper towers and you lose the buff?
• Taking Bay or Hills in a leading servers BL is a feat in and of itself. So having to take that first before you even can get the buff is problematic.

2. I’m not sure how its going to help smooth out population and timezone imbalances.

3. Will it encourage the two losing servers to attack the first place server? Especially since its not just the leading server that the third server can get revenge points against. Wouldn’t this encourage just attacking second place by both 1st and 3rd?

4. I’m not sold on 1U1D. If a mechanic like this were put into place definitely the matchmaking process would need to be changed for the reasons you listed. But would 1U1D really be better?

Overall its a great idea and I hope Anet does something along these lines. Perhaps they can have a test month with this and see how it goes. If it turns out not to work it can be tweaked.

Johje Holan.4607:

Not sure how I missed this great post. There have been suggestions of giving more points for attacking the stronger server for a long time. But this is very detailed and well though out.

However I’m not sure about certain aspects of it. Particularly regarding how much it would actually help as its designed.

1. The requirement to own your corner of the map. I think this might be too restrictive.

• If you’re losing, especially by a considerable amount, presumably you are having trouble holding your stuff so this requirement may not even allow you to take advantage of the revenge mechanic.
• What happens if you do take your corner. Then proceed to go to the leading server and set up sieging their side. Can they just go and take one of your paper towers and you lose the buff?
• Taking Bay or Hills in a leading servers BL is a feat in and of itself. So having to take that first before you even can get the buff is problematic.

2. I’m not sure how its going to help smooth out population and timezone imbalances.

3. Will it encourage the two losing servers to attack the first place server? Especially since its not just the leading server that the third server can get revenge points against. Wouldn’t this encourage just attacking second place by both 1st and 3rd?

4. I’m not sold on 1U1D. If a mechanic like this were put into place definitely the matchmaking process would need to be changed for the reasons you listed. But would 1U1D really be better?

Overall its a great idea and I hope Anet does something along these lines. Perhaps they can have a test month with this and see how it goes. If it turns out not to work it can be tweaked.

Just to address your points in order:
1. When I thought of that, I was thinking about it with close matchups in mind and to also shoehorn a defense promotion aspect into it so there is some more depth to the mechanic.

• I do feel all servers do have a “strong timezone” where they should be able to hold their side and launch an attack on the leading server, at least on one map (since you only need one map to reap benefits from this). Don’t forget there is also a server in 2nd or 3rd place also with similar intentions to steal points from the leader, so the pressure may not be as great.
• I wasn’t sure about this one tbh, but looking back to it I think you shouldn’t lose the buff on objectives that are already captured, however you will lose the buff in general as in you cannot earn additional points if you capture another objective without it being active.
• Well all I can say to that is that you have options. You can gain points potentially on all maps, so if you are not confident you can take it there, you can go to another map where it should be easier (like your Home BL). It still makes sense to have the “hold your side” component despite this, because if it was just any point that the leading server holds a lot of the flavour of the mechanic is lost and reduces the importance of holding your territory, which I think is a mindset that is important in WvW.

2. It isn’t explicit balancing of populations and timezones, it is sort of “artificial” because it is a catch-up system after all. Worlds can make up the imbalance in points to make it seem that the servers are actually much closer together in terms of size and strength, therefore smoothing out populations across timezones.

3. I think that may be a problem, because initially I was assuming the 3rd place server would see that, “ok we will get more points back if we take stuff on the leading server’s side so we will only attack them”. I didn’t account for how hard that could actually be, so maybe removing the option of gaining points from the second place server entirely would be better. I think that is something that would be easier to figure out if this was live tested.

4. I did a post about 1U1D again that seemed to get a lot more feedback than this and based on that I think a mix of 1U1D and Glicko-based matchups is the “sweet spot”. 1U1D can be done once every other month in the form of a season like ArenaNet has been doing before except there are no Gold/Silver/Bronze tiers. It is all about increasing the accuracy of the Glicko so when it comes back a month later you have matchups that have each server where they need to be.

Michelangelo.1742:

Just to address your points in order:
1. When I thought of that, I was thinking about it with close matchups in mind and to also shoehorn a defense promotion aspect into it so there is some more depth to the mechanic.

Yeah keeping things competitive is the most important part. If you can’t hold your own in any timezone then you can’t blame WvW it’s just a bad matchup. We shouldn’t worry about that as much.

I am having trouble understanding why we would want to reward people for losing, and punish people for winning.

If you want to keep it competitive, then buck up, rally, and create a comeback yourself. Depending on the devs to change the game to help players for losing is a nauseating notion.

@dancingmonkey

Interesting opinion I won’t bother droning on about coverage.

The dev’s already confirmed nightcapping and runaway scores is a problem. See below.

Stephane Lo Presti.7258:

The current scoring structure allows scores to run away, a problem that is compounded with night capping where it is possible for a team who has recruited players from different time zones to conquer everything in off-hours leading to one side getting ahead while most players are asleep or at work. Comebacks are difficult and it is hard to make up for that lost time that you spend on your real life needs.

We’re continuing to work now on developing and building our solutions to the core issues I outlined above, and once we reach a point in development where we are far enough along with them, we look forward to sharing those plans with you.

Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Invitational-Statement-from-John-Corpening-game-director-for-World-vs-World/5350913

Michelangelo.1742:

• You must hold your side of the map before you can gain and utilize Revenge to your advantage (excluding camps). Much like the Outmanned buff, it is effective only on the map you are currently on. You must hold your side on each of the other maps to gain Revenge on those particular maps.
• In Eternal Battlegrounds, your server needs to hold the four Towers and the one Keep that is closest to your spawn.
• In your home Borderland, your server needs to hold the two Towers adjacent to your spawn and the Garrison.
• In the enemy Borderlands, your server needs to hold either Bay Keep and Briar Tower or Hills Keep and Lake Tower depending what side your spawn is on.

This is my only issue with revenge:

If you are on a side that’s losing, it’s probably because you can’t hold your side of any map. The longer you can’t retake your side of the map the more players you’ll need to flip a t3 tower/keep.

I’ve been in so many matches where right after we flip our side of the map the first place server comes around and ktrains our side of the map.

Now with the server caps, a full server won’t be able to have coverage on all four maps.

With regards to the effectiveness of a system like this, I think the actual design of the Revenge mechanic would work really well, it is just a matter of adjusting the percentage points given on capture and upgrade to find a sweet spot. And also to reply to dancingmonkey, the reason WvW needs a system similar to this is: 1) There is no “good” way to balance populations, 2) WvW matchups are a very long making and the way scoring is structured makes run away matchups all too easy, 3) There is hardly any rules in WvW other than holding as many points as possible, therefore more structure through Revenge could balance out matchups better through promoting double-teaming and defense. WvW has never been fair, so why would you make a claim that it needs to be now? This will just make the scores much closer in an already unfair environment, making matchups more exciting and more fun as a result.

Swamurabi.7890:

This is my only issue with revenge:

If you are on a side that’s losing, it’s probably because you can’t hold your side of any map. The longer you can’t retake your side of the map the more players you’ll need to flip a t3 tower/keep.

I’ve been in so many matches where right after we flip our side of the map the first place server comes around and ktrains our side of the map.

Now with the server caps, a full server won’t be able to have coverage on all four maps.

Yeah its a valid concern, but I do think even the weakest server is capable of meeting the requirement. I am only saying this, becuase it was possible even when SoS was being quite brutally crushed to hold the two towers and the garri on our home bl for extended periods of time. And that is the worst case scenario for a matchup you could possibly have. All the matchups this week have the ability to hold at least their side in one map, so its a good sign that it will work. Also, the mechanic needs more than one type of counterplay to be considered “good design” or else it just feels bland for both the leading server and the losing server.

displayname.8315:

@dancingmonkey

Interesting opinion I won’t bother droning on about coverage.

The dev’s already confirmed nightcapping and runaway scores is a problem. See below.

Stephane Lo Presti.7258:

The current scoring structure allows scores to run away, a problem that is compounded with night capping where it is possible for a team who has recruited players from different time zones to conquer everything in off-hours leading to one side getting ahead while most players are asleep or at work. Comebacks are difficult and it is hard to make up for that lost time that you spend on your real life needs.

We’re continuing to work now on developing and building our solutions to the core issues I outlined above, and once we reach a point in development where we are far enough along with them, we look forward to sharing those plans with you.

Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Invitational-Statement-from-John-Corpening-game-director-for-World-vs-World/5350913

Yeah, I was aware of that post. Though having it reposted here as you did can’t hurt.

I play what I consider to be a fair among given my shift work and time with my family. But I admit, if they made changes, that gave me different rules and value during my play time, I would very likely, simply quit the game. I do not say that as a threat, or for attention, because I do not want to stop playing. It is simply that I have a large fraction of my guild and friends, that play after prime time (we play during prime time when we can), and I honestly believe a larger then anticipated amount of players would scale back their play time, and eventual quit. Others will simply quit the day some ideas were implemented.

Now that is not to say people will see changes and quit, no questions asked. If they were reasonable changes, that wouldn’t effect much, it shouldn’t make much of a difference. The issue is, I cannot think of a single change that would suit some of the complaints here, that would not be unreasonably harsh or unfair to off peak hour players.

dancingmonkey.4902:

I play what I consider to be a fair among given my shift work and time with my family. But I admit, if they made changes, that gave me different rules and value during my play time, I would very likely, simply quit the game. I do not say that as a threat……

I’m just glad their trying an overhaul and not just a simple +PPT bonus to the tick like Elder Scrolls did. Even if it’s something as small as adjusting the value of towers or a mechanic to be used for last place. Could do Castle Risk rules where 1st place garri is worth a one time bonus of 1k points if taken.

Like this idea. My own server is known as a night capping server and often gets into these weird coverage wars, or "shift wars" if you want to call it, where one server goes off for the night, and the other goes on, until they go to bed and one of the other servers goes back on again.

And even with this kind of 2-shift (Kaineng vs AR) or 3-shift (GoM-Kain-IoJ) coverage we often get caught up in. I think this system would actually have let others catch up and make for a closer and more exciting match over the week.

Well, still no more fights, but at least people would be willing to go out there and beat down some more doors. And servers wouldn’t as easily get as demoralized by low points and "we can’t catch up so why bother." attitude.

I am vary of 1U1D, but I agree that this would need a shift in how match-up’s was made. I think a big increase in glicko shift could also help this (Aka, set the glicko to move faster, gain or lose glicko points at a much higher rate).

Also, good post. And as Johje, no idea how I missed it.

The main problem I see is that the revenge system will shift the focus of a matchup to the end. It wouldn’t matter if your server is strong on weekends and can get an advantage, the other servers can easily catch up.

In my eyes revenge would affect matches that are now even more than other matches as the server that can organize the strongest Friday coverage wins.

Macilien.3078:

The main problem I see is that the revenge system will shift the focus of a matchup to the end. It wouldn’t matter if your server is strong on weekends and can get an advantage, the other servers can easily catch up.

In my eyes revenge would affect matches that are now even more than other matches as the server that can organize the strongest Friday coverage wins.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, and I have no idea how it would play out in an actual matchup. Hence the reason why I posted this, so I can convince ArenaNet to try this out! While I do think servers can play more at their leisure (which can be a good or a bad thing – it could decrease average hours of WvW play, but some of the big commanders do not need to put in as much time and in general morale is higher across the board due to closer scores), the odds of you coming back from a 20,000 point deficit on the last day is virtually impossible I think, because actually earning the points is no walk in the park. Not that its completely hopeless mind you, but it does take flawless tactics due to the counterplay put into the mechanic, the fact you have to take stuff from the leading server and the points earned from Revenge get smaller and smaller as you close the gap since it is all percentage-based (you do have some small comfort in knowing that the 3rd or 2nd place server could be helping you).

Posted this before.

The relegation system is far more destructive to WvW than Glicko.

TexZero.7910:

Posted this before.

The relegation system is far more destructive to WvW than Glicko.

What the heck is a relegation system? I had to look up what it meant in a dictionary and it has nothing apparent to what I am discussing here… cause this mechanic is not simply distributing points more evenly if you read it properly. And you are in no place to say it is far more destructive than Glicko, because the system is not even implemented and you did not reply with sufficient evidence pertaining to why that is so based on my mechanic’s specific design. Don’t just come into a thread and put down one measly sentence that holds no water…

Edit: I found your post, and once again your opinion lacks any sufficient backbone. Whose going to agree with you that it is “poorly thought out” when you don’t take the time to give properly good feedback… that just reflects badly on yourself.

Michelangelo.1742:

TexZero.7910:

Posted this before.

The relegation system is far more destructive to WvW than Glicko.

What the heck is a relegation system? I had to look up what it meant in a dictionary and it has nothing apparent to what I am discussing here… cause this mechanic is not simply distributing points more evenly if you read it properly. And you are in no place to say it is far more destructive than Glicko, because the system is not even implemented and you did not reply with sufficient evidence pertaining to why that is so based on my mechanic’s specific design. Don’t just come into a thread and put down one measly sentence that holds no water…

Edit: I found your post, and once again your opinion lacks any sufficient backbone. Whose going to agree with you that it is “poorly thought out” when you don’t take the time to give properly good feedback… that just reflects badly on yourself.

Glad you like attacking the poster and not the issue.

The sad fact is up 1 down 1 aka relegation does nothing to solve the problem and will only lead to more tanking and other exploiting of the system than is currently in place with glicko.

It’s a half-baked solution to a problem and one that should never be implemented. Yes glicko is far from perfect, but so is relegation/swiss or whatever name you choose for it.

I’m not saying we stick with an imperfect system until perfection arrives, but i am saying there’s little point changing to another system which will be gamed equally as hard.

Michelangelo.1742:

TexZero.7910:

Posted this before.

The relegation system is far more destructive to WvW than Glicko.

What the heck is a relegation system? I had to look up what it meant in a dictionary and it has nothing apparent to what I am discussing here… cause this mechanic is not simply distributing points more evenly if you read it properly. And you are in no place to say it is far more destructive than Glicko, because the system is not even implemented and you did not reply with sufficient evidence pertaining to why that is so based on my mechanic’s specific design. Don’t just come into a thread and put down one measly sentence that holds no water…

It does if you understand how context works, and all of the definitions of the word…
It is literally what a 1U1D system is called, in competitive events.

Michelangelo.1742:

Edit: I found your post, and once again your opinion lacks any sufficient backbone. Whose going to agree with you that it is “poorly thought out” when you don’t take the time to give properly good feedback… that just reflects badly on yourself.

And in my opinion, he is right, it is very poorly thought out. This system trades stale match ups for terrible match ups, that will be very badly balanced.

TexZero.7910:

Glad you like attacking the poster and not the issue.

The sad fact is up 1 down 1 aka relegation does nothing to solve the problem and will only lead to more tanking and other exploiting of the system than is currently in place with glicko.

It’s a half-baked solution to a problem and one that should never be implemented. Yes glicko is far from perfect, but so is relegation/swiss or whatever name you choose for it.

I’m not saying we stick with an imperfect system until perfection arrives, but i am saying there’s little point changing to another system which will be gamed equally as hard.

Sorry it seems I misunderstood you, because I thought you were talking about the catch-up mechanic not 1U1D, because it’s the primary topic of the post, so I was trying to pair relegation with the wrong mechanic. Wording mechanics in the way the original poster stated it goes a long way in better communication of ideas. That was also why I was critical with you so you would spit out a more thought out opinion and I had something to discuss with you (being aggressive tends to work on forums ^^). Check out the update I put at the bottom of my original post, which I think solves some qualms with 1U1D that I discovered after the feedback I got in the other post I made.

And yes, I tend to stick to my opinions until someone gives me enough information and reasoning to change my viewpoint a bit, because otherwise how fun would it be to debate with someone who accomadates everything everyone says and doesn’t think for themself?

One of the best things about 1U1D is to force NA-server players to spread out like in the EU servers, because everyother matchup would be lopsided. Sure matchups might be bad initially, but hey spread out and it will be a lot more fun. I think I should have highlighted that more in that other thread. However, with Revenge some form of system other than Glicko variance is necessary, there is no way getting around it…

Michelangelo.1742:

One of the best things about 1U1D is to force NA-server players to spread out

you literally are suggesting anet use WULD as a threat to get people to pay gems to spread out. yeah… great idea.

Michelangelo.1742:

One of the best things about 1U1D is to force NA-server players to spread out like in the EU servers, because everyother matchup would be lopsided. Sure matchups might be bad initially, but hey spread out and it will be a lot more fun. I think I should have highlighted that more in that other thread. However, with Revenge some form of system other than Glicko variance is necessary, there is no way getting around it…

I think you’re confusing something here.

Glicko allows variance over time. That is its basic function. It has a method in place to pretty much allow for any deviation to happen, but to also disregard extreme volatility. While yes this does lead to stale match-ups, it’s needed to prevent the worst case scenario from occurring where-in 1 server either inflates rapidly or deflates rapidly (Aka SoR season 3).

One of the biggest problems with a relegation system is that ultimately your server has very little say in the outcome. I know that seems counter intuitive but in the current iteration of PPT, coverage is the be all end all. The server that has the most of it ultimately can decide who gets second or third in a matchup. This leads to fixing matches even worse than anything glicko can do. Now you’ll say this cannot possibly happen, but it has and it happens pretty much every time there’s a tournament. Server A will focus B so C, the weaker server gets 2nd thus eliminating B from having a chance at placing. (Again See Season 2 HoD bandwagon). While its not tactically bad it is mechanically bad as it stops players from coming out and actually playing full well knowing that whatever actions they have are fleeting and have no bearing on the outcome.

This is why both systems are flawed. Glicko needs more time to allow for changes to occur, while relegation has changes occurring to fast. Ideally you’d have Glicko with human intervention of some kind to account for obvious population shifts (again see SoR’s fall from T1).

Anyway, i’m not against a solution that works nor am i against you trying to find a path. I’m just not looking for a rushed solution and I hope Anet isn’t either.

Yeah, I see the logic in what you are saying and I agree with you that both are on two ends of the spectrum. So what I have gathered is that there would need to be a middle ground method. So, what do you (and everyone else) think of 1U1D occuring off and on regularly on a set interval with the current Glicko-based matchups? My full explanation on it is at the bottom of my original post for a better idea of what I mean.

I also thought of another method that could be better where 1U1D weeks only occur when certain servers gain or lose a particular amount of Glicko in the current week. I think its pretty smart, because the system actually recognizes imbalances when they happen and acts to adjust them immediately in the next week. The 1U1D matches would continue until any servers stop losing or gaining above the threshold amount. It would essentially fix what is wrong with Glicko, because the system would actively eliminate innaccuracies, maintain even matchups when no changes are required and allow servers to move up and down the ladder when they need to. I am just going to toss a number out there: maybe when worlds gain or lose 25 rating during one particular week.

I do wonder why anyone bothers spending time coming up with these ideas when you have slightly more chance of winning the lottery than the idea being implemented.

Notsoperky.4291:

I do wonder why anyone bothers spending time coming up with these ideas when you have slightly more chance of winning the lottery than the idea being implemented.

I don’t mind coming up with these ideas, some people (like me) simply enjoy theorycrafting and enjoy discussing it with others. And also I advise against pessimism, it’s no fun ^^