Guild Wars 2

What i’ve seen is that while the lower tier server in the matchups are having less wvw participation, so are the higher tier servers – and guilds that are from the higher tier servers actively looking for good fights are leaving the big servers to smaller ones.

This is not fun.

TitaniumDog.3054:

I’m inclined to think free transfers will only make the larger servers even larger. Now that matchups will always be random/unstable, if you want to be on a winning or competitive server then best to improve the odds by shifting to a large server. From now on whatever server you’re on there will be both competitive matchups and blowouts so better to be on the team stomping rather than the one being stomped.

not necessarily…. anet can make it so that on the free transfer day those stacked servers are flagged as full…..

This thread needs more Wave of Wrath

Radio Isotope.3045:

Here’s a Screenie of what should should NEVER happen. Alot of my server has given up on WvW because of this. Mapchat was flooded with accounts of dissrest on the new match-up system.

I seriously doubt Arenanet cares. We had worse situation in EU tier 1 for many months in a row. Almost every single morning Visunah Square controlled 95-100% of all the maps. When I started to command our side usually had nothing. Not even a single sentry or supply camp. Zero towers, zero keeps on our own borderlands. What’s even the point of upgrading anything when you know the enemy will night cap everything wiht 6-10 golems and their Canadian night team? After 2-3 hours we usually controlled the upper half of our map, but once we go to bed or commander logs out the situation quickly resets back. OR worse: enemy comes in with 2-3 big guild teams. Zergs so big you cannot even count their numbers and just face roll the game with pure numbers and creating map wide mega lag. No healing skill works in the entire map zone. Now imagine this continuing not just 1-2 weeks but entire Spring 2013!

This absolute domination of one server went on so long time that it shattered our WvWvW community. Most of our WvWvW oriented guilds left for middle tier servers in EU. We lost roughly 10 big guilds this way. Iron Triangle went to Sanctum of Rall (SoR). After that SoR has been dominating NA tiers.

We are now rebuilding our WvWvW community and hope we could drop down tiers as tier #2 opponents have better coverage than what we can do at the moment. We still have a huge pve population and cat get a 1-2 maps full every evening, but outside these few busy hours we are generally outmanned on the borderlands.

It is not all doom and gloom. Thanks to absurdly overpowered Arrow Carts (and related overpowered WXP traits) we were yesterday farming Elona Reach players for hours upon hours under my command. Everybody got their inventory full of loot bags. We just left the wall broken and let enemy come in, then kill them with siege. Rinse and repeat, it didn’t matter even when the enemy portal bombed in, they still lost as I had made sure our side has so much AoE and guardian have their wards to slow down enemy. But seriously, is this what Arenanet wants this game to become? Sitting by the siege all day? And just snaring enemy to die under that siege fire.

Summary:
It is all about coverage. Arenanet should dump their glicko rating system. It won’t work as long as the player coverage are so imbalanced. Imagine a soccer game where one side has 2 players and the other has 11. Everybody knows which side is gonna win and matching them together would be stupidity.

Arenanet should analyze how many players each server has per each time tick at WvWvW and then match those servers who have similar WvWvW coverage.

The whole WvW system is flawed and terribly conceived. The old system of tiers was supposed to ensure that servers of equal strengths would hopefully be playing each other. The problem, even if free transfers never would have existed, is that eventually complete staleness would set in as you would face the same opponent over…and over…and over. People get tired of that……

So, now we want to introduce a system that introduces some dynamic movement in the match-ups to spice things up. However, this might sound good but the population and coverage disparities are often so great between tiers that it just leads to miserable “fun factor” for lots of folks. Even if we give this new system time to run its course and match-up variance becomes more stable we get back to the original issue of match-up staleness. You are in a no-win situation unless you address server population balance in WvW maps!

A very basic premise of almost all pvp games or competitive events is roughly equal numbers. They don’t have to be dead even in WvW but they need to be somewhat close. The server population cap for WvW probably needs to be lowered or you need completely tweak your outmanned buff to give some tangible bonus when it comes to actually fighting.

Currently, I can’t imagine any type of scenario where you can possibly fix WvW unless you can address the population and coverage issues. It’s a fundamental flaw in your system and one that limits any attempts to improve the WvW experience…..

Just a side-thought:

There are so few servers overall, who all have pretty big differences in coverage and numbers.
We are talking about 20 odd servers, possibly less in the future if merges would happen.
Of those 20, exactly how many can possibly match the coverage and numbers of your own server?

Let’s say this system will indeed balance out and end up being good at equal matching.
Than, just like the old system, it would have to match you against those few servers that are simular to yours…

How many servers will be ‘equal’ to match against your own server? No matter the system used for this matching.

Don’t we simply risk ending up with a new system, that matches your server against the same 2 or 3 opponents over and over again?

After all: if the system balances out, you can only have so many matching servers…
The randomness can not be this great that it creates more blowous like now, else it would be an unbalanced system.
So, purely by being a good matchmaking system, it would have to put your server against those servers that match.

Wouldn’t that be just like the old system than?

Hey, maybe TESO will have WvW figured out and that is due this year isn’t it?

DevonCarver.5370:

The concept of tiers has little meaning at this point and you should try to stop thinking of matchups in those terms. Servers are matched up by proximity of rating, not proximity of “tier”. If the tiers have ratings that are within the range of the random adjustment, they can end up fighting each other. This is going to result in blowouts, no doubt about it. However, we are not going to make changes to this after just 2 weeks of the system. There are things we can do. We will almost certainly end up adjusting the total added to each server rating to group the matchups a little more closely. First however, we need to let the ratings adjust by having more varied matchups like these. If you look at EU, which is using the exact same system, you can see matchups with numerous surprising results. The same will likely be true by the end of the NA matchup.

TL;DR: We are going to wait at least a couple more weeks before changing any of the math behind the new system, but it is very likely we’ll decrease the size of the variation at some point.

I would have to say, you will need to set a new Commercial on Tv to get new players in the time your talking about. The match ups are so unfair not many of us will remain for another 2 weeks of this. You broke the system, only the higher Ranking servers are enjoying your change to Wvw. I know I will not be here if it gos another week like this. Hope you enjoy your test project on live servers.

Who wants to bet that when this “rebalancing” is over the match-ups will be exactly the same as they were before it started? (Give or take a server or two).

Thrumdi.9216:

Who wants to bet that when this “rebalancing” is over the match-ups will be exactly the same as they were before it started? (Give or take a server or two).

my point exactly.

Out of 20 servers with such differences, there are only a few that can match your own server to some degree.
No matter the system used…

Kimbald.2697:

Thrumdi.9216:

Who wants to bet that when this “rebalancing” is over the match-ups will be exactly the same as they were before it started? (Give or take a server or two).

my point exactly.

Out of 20 servers with such differences, there are only a few that can match your own server to some degree.
No matter the system used…

Exactly. No math can fix the core problem: the huge disparity of population count between the servers and the fact that numbers/coverage are the most important factor in the current state of WvW. The only way to fix this would be to artificially limit the maximum number of players able to participate in WvW. But high pop servers wouldn’t be happy at all when facing low pop servers – for sure.

The hole WvW thing wasn’t thought out very well it seems.

woeye.2753:

Kimbald.2697:

Thrumdi.9216:

Who wants to bet that when this “rebalancing” is over the match-ups will be exactly the same as they were before it started? (Give or take a server or two).

my point exactly.

Out of 20 servers with such differences, there are only a few that can match your own server to some degree.
No matter the system used…

Exactly. No math can fix the core problem: the huge disparity of population count between the servers and the fact that numbers/coverage are the most important factor in the current state of WvW. The only way to fix this would be to artificially limit the maximum number of players able to participate in WvW. But high pop servers wouldn’t be happy at all when facing low pop servers – for sure.

The hole WvW thing wasn’t thought out very well it seems.

It really seems that they don’t have out-and-out WvW’ers/RvR’ers on their staff (the kind who live for it).

The sPvP dev team seems to have dedicated PvP’ers, and the same could be said for PvE. But the WvW dev team almost seem like amateurs when it comes to designing this kind of stuff.

That being said, there probably isn’t a lot of available expertise for RvR, as there just haven’t been that many games based on it. And those RvR designers that are still around are actually working on other projects (Matt Fior on ESO, Mark Jacobs at Camelot Unchained, both veterans of DAoC).

no one to blame but yourselves, so many people complained about the matchups being stale.

Thrumdi.9216:

woeye.2753:

Kimbald.2697:

Thrumdi.9216:

Who wants to bet that when this “rebalancing” is over the match-ups will be exactly the same as they were before it started? (Give or take a server or two).

my point exactly.

Out of 20 servers with such differences, there are only a few that can match your own server to some degree.
No matter the system used…

Exactly. No math can fix the core problem: the huge disparity of population count between the servers and the fact that numbers/coverage are the most important factor in the current state of WvW. The only way to fix this would be to artificially limit the maximum number of players able to participate in WvW. But high pop servers wouldn’t be happy at all when facing low pop servers – for sure.

The hole WvW thing wasn’t thought out very well it seems.

It really seems that they don’t have out-and-out WvW’ers/RvR’ers on their staff (the kind who live for it).

The sPvP dev team seems to have dedicated PvP’ers, and the same could be said for PvE. But the WvW dev team almost seem like amateurs when it comes to designing this kind of stuff.

That being said, there probably isn’t a lot of available expertise for RvR, as there just haven’t been that many games based on it. And those RvR designers that are still around are actually working on other projects (Matt Fior on ESO, Mark Jacobs at Camelot Unchained, both veterans of DAoC).

Well, I bet to differ. SPvP was in a bad state for a looong time. And it still is though ANet is finally keeping up. And PvE dungeons have their issues, too: warrior/mesmer/guardian or GTFO.

I often feel GW2 has good ideas but when it comes to implementation the process got stuck somewhere at something like 70%.

Six out of eight tiers have incredibly uneven matchups in NA. Seven out of eight tiers have incredibly uneven matchups in EU. This is not “some blowouts”.

Servers are jumping all over the place because of the disruptions of tier 1-2 servers dropping down and destroying their ratings. You are making people not want to play WvW at all while simultaneously throwing their server rating through a grinder.

Well why they didnt Change wvw at all? People complain that they are outnumbered and others cant join cause queued. Whats with this:

If you get Queue you get a question: Want to help out on a low score/wvw Pop Server for this day? If you answer with yes you are a mercenary on a different Server. If you answer with no you have to wait.
The People which are mercenary at that day get guested in wvw on a Server with low Points this week AND low Pop in wvw. A Server with high Points get no Mercenarys.

I would be fine with this cause i just want to wvw and didnt care where i do it =)

BP vs. DR and HOD ..122 vs. 46/45

This is just after the weekend.

Yep..we should give these match ups more time, lol!

Anfauglith.6715:

Well why they didnt Change wvw at all? People complain that they are outnumbered and others cant join cause queued. Whats with this:

If you get Queue you get a question: Want to help out on a low score/wvw Pop Server for this day? If you answer with yes you are a mercenary on a different Server. If you answer with no you have to wait.
The People which are mercenary at that day get guested in wvw on a Server with low Points this week AND low Pop in wvw. A Server with high Points get no Mercenarys.

I would be fine with this cause i just want to wvw and didnt care where i do it =)

But then you would get special people who use the excuse: Oh I want to be able to pve with everyone I wvw with!

They are special for two reasons: A.They Pve with 1% of ppl in WvW (their guildies) and B. Dungeons/PVE guesting/sPvp are cross server.

I bet you Anet caters for the minority specials like the above.

The whole wvw doesn’t make any sense for organized Guilds/Groups. Maps to small, AC Damage is the hardest joke ever and u fight only against Blobs.

Maybe you just could open some servers for organized guilds. Therefore some 25 vs 25 maps would be enough, so there would be no blobbing or lagging.

Many many people stop playing the game because they cant use any of their utilityskills or heals.

Anet supports the grouping up to big blobs and nice guild fights against other organized groups is not possible because the game doesnt support this.

Aevic.9675:

bobross.5034:

Aevic.9675:

You can’t expect me to participate in WvW when we conquer all of the map when I am able to play. This is just a slaughterfest for my server and is not fun. I didn’t even play last night like I usually do every night.

I assume you’re on SoR…I spent a few hours today winning back parts of TCBL from you guys, we had garrison, we were escorting yaks there, building it up…We tried to ninja hills unsuccessfuly and then made a solid play for bay. At each point we were outnumbered, but we hung in there. Then I log off and come back like an hour later, just in time to see garrison go down, and the entire map is green.

I know this is not fun for anyone…SoR gets to feel superior for like 2 seconds, before they realize that it’s not even tactics or player skill that are winning the games half the time, it’s just superior numbers.

I feel like they’ve just decided to take over maps in brief shifts and then quit, because it’s not fun for them either…as defending stuff and spawn camping are the only things to do.

Someone also mentioned allying ourselves with SoS…that’s not really an option either, They can barely manage to take a single tower on their own map much of the time. We pummeled them last week when they were matched with us and FA…now they have to deal with this. It really makes it less fun for everyone involved. This has nothing to do with their skill level either. When we were well matched with SoS in terms of numbers, we had some good battles…this just rarely happened because they don’t have the same wvw population as us, and much less than SoR.

I understand that this will possibly change a bit over time – but frankly where my server stands right now in the rankings, I imagine we’ll be going up against the top tier servers fairly often, and losing like this (constantly outnumbered 10-1) is really not the kind of play that I’m looking for.

No I am on FA we have a 50k lead in points right now. It’s boring.

and only because we have a lead that cannot be beaten doesnt end the week or does it? we found plenty of awesome battles all the time. u are bored? find the battles and there is plenty all over the place! if u don’t wanna be part of it and just chase after the ppt, fine then…

just a few pics
and they are all from the previous system.
bad matches happen, but if u only care about ppt u will miss out a looooooooooooot in wvw. in fa we are very often the underdog, but we enjoy ourselves too. yes, there are frustrating moments, but freaking out and seeing it as the end of the world is not gonna help.
we get smashed sometimes and runn around with 60ppt. do we still log on?yes, every day and we have fun.

(btw last pic is gonna show a matchup from last November… where fa started to rise)

I have no problem with movement up and down 1 tier (or 3 places, since "tier" is SO 2012).

TC kicked SoS around a lot, but at least we felt good when we were on because we felt like we could accomplish something despite their numbers.

Against SoR? We only ever get our garrison back when they go on a fractals run or lose some coordination between which mega-zerg is supposed to cap all our stuff.
Our entire PPT is based upon pity from SoR and our hardworking night folks.

Its a bit crazy right now, but at least its variety.

Lower tier server(s) need some kind of buff, maybe bring in 2 servers as one team? Or is that too much like merging servers?

Everyone complaning needs to embrace the art of the 2v1. It will give you fun and a feeling of accomplishment. It will allow you to have fights that are more balanced.

Is it going to work every time, no. Are you going to win the match, no. Is it going to help ET and FC? I don’t know, have you all tried? Is it going to work against SoR? I don’t know, have you tried? Maybe SoR is too godlike for it to work.

But I’ll still bet you it will work at certain times and maps for every single server when faced with a single dominant server.

The source of the complaints is the feeling of being overwhelmed while in game. A 2v1 on the powerful server will take away that feeling of being overwhelmed because you turn a two front war into a one front war.

We, the players need to make it fun, no matter the hand we are delt.

I can see what some people are talking about but on Crystal Desert is in ok matches yea they are ranked a lil higher but we hold our own and actually won last week. I like It, was up against same servers for 2 months with no hope of battling any other @ the time cuz of the large gap in tiers

Aeros.2046:

People got what they asked for. New enemies to fight. Folks should be happy Anet actually responded to the community demands to change up the math rather then stick with the old system where you fought the same 2 servers for months on end.

New enemies to fight sure. No enemies to fight, no.

The current system is resulting in massive blowouts that isn’t fun for anyone. People game for entertainment and if a game fails to deliver, they move on.

Johje Holan.4607:

Is it going to work every time, no. Are you going to win the match, no. Is it going to help ET and FC? I don’t know, have you all tried? Is it going to work against SoR? I don’t know, have you tried? Maybe SoR is too godlike for it to work.

SoR literally begged for JQ and BG to 2v1 them for 2 weeks and it never happened. The issue with the old T1 matchup was never about unequal numbers, but morale. Both BG and JQ had more players than SoR, they just weren’t coming out to WvW.

Unfortunately this was one of the negatives from the old system. Getting rolled by the same opponents week in and out eventually causes morale to drop… which only adds to the problem. This is why the stagnant system needed to change. Unfortunately, the change that was implemented is even worse.

XII.9401:

BP vs. DR and HOD ..122 vs. 46/45

This is just after the weekend.

Yep..we should give these match ups more time, lol!

Ehmry Bay is in a similar situation. Right now the scores in our match are:
(#6) FA 125753
(#8) Mag 57884
(#13) EB 51302

the difference is, on EB we are having more fun this matchup than we’ve had in weeks. yes, FA is a very strong opponent, with great coverage. but we’ve been figuring out where their weaknesses are, improving our own play, and we’re seeing good results.

I played for 20 hours straight on Saturday; for the first time in a long time I felt like what I did in WvW actually made a difference, because when your opponent outnumbers you this much, every single player matters.

the new matchup system was a big disappointment to EB last week when it gave us the same old matchup we had for weeks and weeks under the old system (EB+BP+AR, again).

but this week has been great for us and we’re loving the fact that we’re getting an opportunity to go up against a “T2” server (even though tiers don’t really exist anymore).

yeah, I’d say definitely give the new system more time.

-ken

Over-populated servers vs un-populated servers (due to quitting) are not going to give you any realistic data now, or in 3 more weeks.

katniss.6735:

Over-populated servers vs un-populated servers (due to quitting) are not going to give you any realistic data now, or in 3 more weeks.

This …among other things that will skew it.

BG has more players in WvW than I have seen in weeks during NA because they aren’t fighting SoR which had killed their morale. SoR has players temporarily transfer to JQ because their match up sucked so much this week. Not only that SoR isn’t putting up nearly as many points as they could be against TC/SoS because people are bored to death and arent playing the game.

katniss.6735:

Over-populated servers vs un-populated servers (due to quitting) are not going to give you any realistic data now, or in 3 more weeks.

While I don’t agree with the NOW or IMMEDIATELY crowd I do agree with this. I’m not sure ANET is getting accurate data form TC, SoS, Mag, Ebay, DR, HoD, ET or FC. How many folks on those servers aren’t playing because they are getting rolled?

covenn.7165:

Johje Holan.4607:

Is it going to work every time, no. Are you going to win the match, no. Is it going to help ET and FC? I don’t know, have you all tried? Is it going to work against SoR? I don’t know, have you tried? Maybe SoR is too godlike for it to work.

SoR literally begged for JQ and BG to 2v1 them for 2 weeks and it never happened. The issue with the old T1 matchup was never about unequal numbers, but morale. Both BG and JQ had more players than SoR, they just weren’t coming out to WvW.

Unfortunately this was one of the negatives from the old system. Getting rolled by the same opponents week in and out eventually causes morale to drop… which only adds to the problem. This is why the stagnant system needed to change. Unfortunately, the change that was implemented is even worse.

So the problem is that BG and JQ did not want to double team SoR. This type of thinking has to change. That’s what I’m saying.

I can’t belive for an instant that TC and SoS can not que at least one map (EB or SoR BL) and then double team SoR. If every server has a queue on a map and TC and SoS only attack SoR then they will have twice the numbers that SoR does. And I have to believe that if this happens there will be great fights and everyone will have a better time.

Obtuse.1504:

katniss.6735:

Over-populated servers vs un-populated servers (due to quitting) are not going to give you any realistic data now, or in 3 more weeks.

While I don’t agree with the NOW or IMMEDIATELY crowd I do agree with this. I’m not sure ANET is getting accurate data form TC, SoS, Mag, Ebay, DR, HoD, ET or FC. How many folks on those servers aren’t playing because they are getting rolled?

2v1 and you will get people back to playing because they will have successes on the battlefield.

Obtuse.1504:

While I don’t agree with the NOW or IMMEDIATELY crowd I do agree with this. I’m not sure ANET is getting accurate data form TC, SoS, Mag, Ebay, DR, HoD, ET or FC. How many folks on those servers aren’t playing because they are getting rolled?

on Ehmry Bay, very few aren’t playing. our home borderland actually has a consistent queue now. this hasn’t happened in a long time.

we are in last place and having a ton of fun against very challenging opponents.

-ken

I posted this in the suggestion thread today but it seems to have vanished:

###

One way to deal with the current blowouts is to make it easier for weak teams to hold near their own lands, and harder for attackers to dominate enemy lands. Heres a few ways I can see to do it.

(1) Upgrade Tier locking:

Allowed upgrades should be capped depending on the location of the fort relative to your spawn. What at this means is the only team that is allowed Tier 3 upgrades in a garrison is the home borderland team. No one else can upgrade beyond tier2, that means no waypoints and no fortified walls in an enemy Garrison ever.

More specifically:
Home team :
Tier 3 in NW and NE towers, and Garrison.
Tier 2 in Bay and Hills (reinforced gates, but no Waypoints)
Tier 1 in SW and SE tower ( reinforced walls but not gates)

Left corner team:
Tier 3 in SW tower and Bay
Tier 2 in SE tower and NW tower
Tier 1 in Gar, NE tower, Hills

Right corner team:
Tier3 in SE tower and hills
Tier 2 in SW tower and NE tower
Tier 1 in Gar , NW tower and Bay.

This effectively caps the degree of domination possible in any BL, nobody will ever have more then one waypointed keep. You can still try to spawn camp a weak team, but it will be harder to lock down.

(2) Siege Cap adjustment

This can be applied in the same way the local area siege cap (Currently 5) can be adjusted depending on the area of the map. So according to the Tier of upgrades allowed in section (1) the local siege cap can also be reduced. Thus in T3 allowed home areas it remains 5, but in T2 restricted area it becomes cap of 3, and in T1 restricted area it reduces to 1.

This means when spawncamping an enemy garrison, you will be allowed to place a grand total of 1 cart when before you could place 5. Reducing overall gate coverage from 15-20 carts to more like 3-4 carts.

###

These are severe and drastic anti-domination hard caps to encourage the weak sides to turn up and fight at least in their home areas while reducing the ability of strong teams to farm them with fortifications and siege.

Glad to hear EB is liking their matchup, that’s how we felt about TC/FA last week. I guess we enjoyed it too much and someone tweaked our RNG range a bit higher LOL j/k

Tier 2 isn’t too bad, especially FA typically doesn’t run NA timezone monster zergs.

The fun will end if you draw TC or a Tier 1 however.

I’m hoping that SoS can draw Maguuma and EB before they end this madness. That’s one matchup that really needs to happen.

yeah, last week EB had a terrible matchup.

that’s the thing about the new system — it makes great new matchups possible that never could have happened under the old system. but the price you pay for getting great matchups sometimes, is that sometimes you get terrible matchups instead.

-ken

Easiest solution I’ve seen posted on here has been the suggestion to cut the number of people who can enter WvW by a significant number, say half. It would hopefully promote people on overpopulated servers who would get sick of long que times to transfer to lower pop servers. Servers who find themselves outnumbered at least wouldn’t be hopelessly outnumbered either. Then, since you have much better server populations and coverage between ALL servers you could go and use this random matchup generator….

1. You get better population distribution amongst ALL servers
2. You get the benefit of your Random Matchmaking system without the imbalance
3. You cut down on skill lag problems hopefully

I still don’t understand why TC is showing so poorly this week. Yes, they are T2, not T1, but they have the population of a T1 server and have been at the top of T2 for weeks. Per Devon, “servers are matched up by proximity of rating”, and TC certainly qualifies without any RNG component (sorry SoS).

lunatuna.6823:

I still don’t understand why TC is showing so poorly this week.

SoR – 121509
TC – 66714
SoS – 52682

Such a big difference after a weekend probably has something to do with it. Many people like tough fights, but the majority most likely do not.

Anet is collecting data so they can make adjustments to the system. The problem is people are transferring servers and stopping WvW while Anet tries to figure this out further screwing up their numbers. The thing with math is it works best when “all things remain equal”. The population adjusting to Anet’s changes assures this mess won’t be cleared up any time soon.

BlackJack-
You cut the population in half and you’ll only have diehard WvW participating. It will not spread players to other servers. I WvW 2-3 hours a week max. If there is a que, forget about it.
Besides WvW is designed for the casual also. The PvEer who wants a little PvP light experience. Reduced populations would completely exclude them.

Obtuse.1504:

katniss.6735:

Over-populated servers vs un-populated servers (due to quitting) are not going to give you any realistic data now, or in 3 more weeks.

While I don’t agree with the NOW or IMMEDIATELY crowd I do agree with this. I’m not sure ANET is getting accurate data form TC, SoS, Mag, Ebay, DR, HoD, ET or FC. How many folks on those servers aren’t playing because they are getting rolled , or are bored by rolling servers with inferior coverage ?

Fixed that for you, because both are a real problem.

Numbers are not something ArenaNet seems to do well with, so whatever math they are using is most likely flawed.

Haven’t you seen the server message that says “in 3 hours” then one minute later tells you “in 3 minutes” ? This isn’t the first time I have seen their numbers way off.

lunatuna.6823:

I still don’t understand why TC is showing so poorly this week. Yes, they are T2, not T1, but they have the population of a T1 server and have been at the top of T2 for weeks. Per Devon, “servers are matched up by proximity of rating”, and TC certainly qualifies without any RNG component (sorry SoS).

SoR are getting massive points from SoS at this point, and our coverage during SEA is skilled, but low in numbers. SoR has very strong SEA coverage, and we get rolled pretty bad during that timeslot.

SoR owns most of SoSBL for 18 hours a day. TC is ticking around 200+ on full-day average though, so I expect SoS’s relative score to decrease as the week goes on.

TC is also weakest on the weekend, traditionally. We’ll see how the week itself goes, but I expect us to have a few pretty good NA prime-time days.

If this had been JQ/TC/SoS, or SOR/TC/DB, I suspect things would have gone rather differently. SoS can’t provide enough pressure on SoR, unfortunately.

To their credit though, SoS never gives up. They have a great spirit on that server.

Johje Holan.4607:

Everyone complaning needs to embrace the art of the 2v1. It will give you fun and a feeling of accomplishment. It will allow you to have fights that are more balanced.

Is it going to work every time, no. Are you going to win the match, no. Is it going to help ET and FC? I don’t know, have you all tried? Is it going to work against SoR? I don’t know, have you tried? Maybe SoR is too godlike for it to work.

But I’ll still bet you it will work at certain times and maps for every single server when faced with a single dominant server.

The source of the complaints is the feeling of being overwhelmed while in game. A 2v1 on the powerful server will take away that feeling of being overwhelmed because you turn a two front war into a one front war.

We, the players need to make it fun, no matter the hand we are delt.

our 2 losing servers add up to just below 50% of the dominant server.
That’s how bad it can be.

lunatuna.6823:

I still don’t understand why TC is showing so poorly this week. Yes, they are T2, not T1, but they have the population of a T1 server and have been at the top of T2 for weeks. Per Devon, “servers are matched up by proximity of rating”, and TC certainly qualifies without any RNG component (sorry SoS).

TC has a very slow WvW population growth. We’re mostly PvE due to being the RP server. We’re at the top of T2 mostly because the other T2 servers fell apart or moved up to T1 already. We’re slow and steady like the tortoise — although we’re bigger now than ever before, we’re still no where near the size of JQ, BG or SoR.

As a growing server, Dragonbrand has given us a run for our money. They’re doing just as well in T1 as we’d be doing, and we’re doing just as well in T2 as they’d be doing. Having SoS as almost a non-factor in our match-up means that it’s essentially a 1v1 with SoR vs TC. SoR has much greater numbers, thus SoR wins harder. Compare that to T1 where JQ and BG are both duking it out and where DB still has a chance of fighting back, and you see a much less one-sided match-up.

Ok ive been doing some thinking.

Lets say we had this hypothetical matchup:
SoR vs Eredon Terrace vs Blackgate
What do you think will happen to the ratings?
Eredon Terrace by holding a handful of CAMPS would gain over 50 rating from this matchp. This shows you that the ratings currently being used is not representing the actual performance of a server. Top servers are rated too high, bottom servers are rated too low.

So to fix it quickly anet can do a soft reset of the ladder, divide all scores by 2, add the removed points and evenly add those points to all the servers. Bringing all the servers closer to each other in rating. Then cut the random effect in the new rating system by 3/4ths. This should balance the ladder out much faster. At our current rate it seems like it will take 6 weeks of highly volatile matchups in order to even out the ratings to match performance. By doing a soft reset its possible to get it down to 2 weeks.

Johje Holan.4607:

I can’t belive for an instant that TC and SoS can not que at least one map (EB or SoR BL) and then double team SoR. If every server has a queue on a map and TC and SoS only attack SoR then they will have twice the numbers that SoR does. And I have to believe that if this happens there will be great fights and everyone will have a better time.

This actually happened in SoS BL on Saturday. SoR had conquered the whole map, when SoS began trying to retake their garrison, starting with the towers on either side. As we were fighting them, a massive TC force arrived in the south and attacked Hills. We lost Hills, and then lost the Garri to a sustained attack from SoS, while TC rampaged around the south, intercepting reinforcements and respawners attempting to run in from Bay.

It was a good fight, and pushed us back until all we had was Bay and Greenbriar, but the game has no mechanism to sustain temporary alliances like this (assuming the action was even coordinated on the part of TC and SoS, rather than just chance), so unless a sever has a very tight grip on all its people, they can only make a brief difference. Ultimately people will still flip camps, and kill dolys and skirmish with red tags, which weakens the whole effort.

I think there should be a game mechanism that when the points imbalance reaches a certain point, the losing servers have the option to band together, declaring a full alliance for 24 hours.

Kerithlan.1659:

lunatuna.6823:

I still don’t understand why TC is showing so poorly this week. Yes, they are T2, not T1, but they have the population of a T1 server and have been at the top of T2 for weeks. Per Devon, “servers are matched up by proximity of rating”, and TC certainly qualifies without any RNG component (sorry SoS).

TC has a very slow WvW population growth. We’re mostly PvE due to being the RP server. We’re at the top of T2 mostly because the other T2 servers fell apart or moved up to T1 already. We’re slow and steady like the tortoise — although we’re bigger now than ever before, we’re still no where near the size of JQ, BG or SoR.

As a growing server, Dragonbrand has given us a run for our money. They’re doing just as well in T1 as we’d be doing, and we’re doing just as well in T2 as they’d be doing. Having SoS as almost a non-factor in our match-up means that it’s essentially a 1v1 with SoR vs TC. SoR has much greater numbers, thus SoR wins harder. Compare that to T1 where JQ and BG are both duking it out and where DB still has a chance of fighting back, and you see a much less one-sided match-up.

The fact that we’re also against SoS makes a huge impact on the match up. SoS is a great server from what I can tell and they fight very hard, but because of the population differences, TC is effectively in a 1v1 against SoR. If the match was like SoR v JQ v TC or SoR v BG or TC we probably wouldn’t be having as much as an issue. However, with so much of SoR’s population mostly focused on us, we just can’t bring out the numbers. I don’t blame SoS, they’re doing a great job, but the population imbalance makes it hard for them to make a move against SoR.