Guild Wars 2

I like Ahn’s idea. Little things like that, that make it easier for an outmanned group to get the ball rolling. Once people start seeing little successes taking place, more people will take a chance on WvW and the overall match quality will increase.

ahn.9271:

how does 30%-50% less supply sound?

I worry about abusing this. Guild X maps out but leaves behind a few people → yay! 50 supply trebs! Guild X maps back in → now had very cheap siege built and has the majority of its supply still available.

Make it lag somewhat and it should be ok.

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

Chris.3290:

Don’t get me wrong, it’d be dreadful for the T2 folks, but I wonder if DB and TC did a 2v1, would JQ win and by how much?

Without any in-game incentives or mechanics to encourage the 2v1 I seriously doubt TC and DB would ally.

That match might end up even worse for DB than the BG-JQ-DB match did because TC would be under a lot more pressure to farm DB for points whenever possible to combat JQ’s strength, causing what would look like a JQ-TC 2v1 against DB (even though no such thing actually existed).

That to me is the single greatest failing of the current Rating/Scoring system – it does everything it can to encourage 2v1s against the weakest Server.

Or the middle server. The lowest wants to overtake and the first place wants to keep the lead.

huh… 2v1 usually occur against the weakest server……

azizul.8469:

huh… 2v1 usually occur against the weakest server……

What are you basing your statement on? There are no numbers to back it up. I’m going off of watching ET attack FC when we should be teaming up on the leader since they outnumber us 3 to 1.

The Strongest Server in a Tier will take whatever they can hold from the other two opponents. They might focus the Middle Server if the scores are close or the Middle Server has a Coverage Period where they are dominant.

The Middle Server will also take whatever they can hold from the other two Servers, which (since they aren’t as strong as the dominant Server) means mostly taking and holding objectives from the Weakest Server. They might focus the Strongest Server if the scores are close.

The Weakest Server will try to take and hold whatever it can which (outside of especially close matches) isn’t much. They might focus the Middle Server if the scores are close.

There is rarely ever a reason for the Weakest Server to target and draw the attention of the Strongest Server, meaning that the chances of the Strongest Server in a match ever truly facing a sustained 2v1 are very small.

It can happen in small, localized, isolated incidents but with the way Scores and Ratings are calculated it just doesn’t make sense for a sustained one to occur…

and that is a problem.

Just to add a bit of diversity to this discussion, we (Ruins of Surmia) have had three of our best matchups (IMO) with this new system. Not because we have won – we have lost two and the one week we might just win (this week) we should be doing a lot better and are losing a shed load of rating points! – but because we have had interesting challenges against a variety of opponents.

The incredibly tight week against Underworld and Fort Ranik, where all three servers were within 900pts on the last morning was amazing. Leadership changing between all three servers all week. Last week we got pwned by Miller’s, but it was a real experience to see what life is like up there and we still had a good battle with our old rivals Gunners for 2nd. This week, we are are being taught not to take things for granted by a fiercely persistent Ring of Fire.

I am not saying just because it has worked for us there are not teething problems with the new system. I DO think too wide a range of servers are meeting and they should chop off the outer extremities of the bell curve, limiting matchups to +/- 250 glicko. We have been lucky that none of our matchups have been too extreme. But I am liking the variety and I do think this system can offer a better way than the old, very static one.

Jong.5937:

I am not saying just because it has worked for us there are not teething problems with the new system. I DO think too wide a range of servers are meeting and they should chop off the outer extremities of the bell curve, limiting matchups to +/- 250 glicko. We have been lucky that none of our matchups have been too extreme. But I am liking the variety and I do think this system can offer a better way than the old, very static one.

random offsets are limited to deviation plus 40. I think there has been a persistent rumor that the offsets are plus or minus 400, but that’s not true.

last week the EU matchups were plus or minus 276 maximum (for Arborstone, the server with the highest deviation) down to plus or minus 212 minimum (for AG, the server with the lowest deviation). the mean was plus or minus 226.

16 servers had offsets in the 10-point range from 217 through 227. 5 were below 217, 3 fell between 227 and 250 and only 3 EU servers had random offsets higher than 250: Arborstone, Fissure of Woe and Vabbi.

-ken

Not quite sure what you mean here. Not quite sure I understand Anet’s leaderboard! But, to explain what I mean, I think the difference in real glicko of 2 servers matched up should not be more than 250 (ish!). So, if I understand their method correctly (which I may not) the adjustment for any one server should not be more than +/- 125 (or the method could be adjusted). If I am reading you correctly the current system could match servers up to around 500 apart.

Of course, this won’t help those at the very bottom of the table (and possibly the top) but there is nothing short of server merger or some very drastic changes to point scoring that is going to help them!

here’s a made-up example to help explain one of the matchup problems. let’s suppose there are 6 servers, with the following ratings:
Server A 2400
Server B 2375
Server C 2350
Server D 2325
Server E 1025
Server F 1000

Servers A, B, C and D are all similar strength and having any of them play any other would be a good match. Likewise, E and F are similar strength and could easily play each other.

but in GW2, WvW matches are always played in groups of 3. so, no matter which 3 out of the top 4 servers you choose for one match, the one left over is going to end up playing servers E and F. it doesn’t matter how small the random factor — even a random factor of zero (the old matchup system) will not prevent E and F from getting a bad match. this is the problem FoW and Vabbi are currently having. no matter who you pick to play against them, that server is going to beat both of them. there are people who believe that FoW and Vabbi would actually have more fun if the randomness were increased high enough that, for example, FoW might face two stronger servers that mostly fight each other, giving FoW more opportunities to capture an undefended objective.

The random factor needs to be big enough to ensure that matchups have enough variation so that all servers within a rating ‘group’ have opportunities to play each other, and so that the ratings can accurately measure the size of the rating gaps between groups of servers.

If the random amount is zero, then every tier becomes its own ‘rating group’ and while the ratings can be an accurate measure of strength within that tier, they aren’t a good measure of strength across tiers (in particular, it is possible to have situations where the #1 server in Tier 5 is actually much stronger than the #3 server in Tier 4, but the rating gakitten o high that they never get the chance to prove it).

If you make the random amount small, you will have have opportunities for servers within a rating group to play each other, but they will never play anyone outside their group. this helps the situation when you have adjacent tiers with very similar ratings, but it doesn’t help servers that are trying to cross larger gaps.

To give servers the opportunity to cross those gaps, the matches need to happen sometimes. Let’s suppose that a whole bunch of players transfer from server D to server F (so many that server F becomes the strongest server in the game). in order for F to be able to prove their new strength, they need lots of opportunities to play stronger servers and prove that they can do well. if the randomness is small, the ratings might settle out this way:
Server A 2400
Server B 2375
Server C 2350
Server D 1325
Server E 1225
Server F 1800

but if the randomness isn’t enough to allow F to play against A, B or C they will never get the chance to prove that they actually deserve a rating of 2500.

this is a made-up example, of course, but the underlying point is the same: there are ‘natural’ rating gaps between groups of servers, and the only way for a server to cross these gaps if they become stronger or weaker is to play servers on the other side of the gap sometimes.

-ken

I do not see how the present match up system can do anything other than heavily reduce the player base. Aside from the fact that many servers cannot win, cannot compete and their players can barely progress in wvw ranks, we have a lowering of strategic play with the leading server(s) simply running over the smaller zergs.

Smaller server tries to cap something races as fast as they can.
Larger server sees swords, runs over and wipes them…rinse repeat.

How is that even game play? I mean just what do you guys expect people to do to actually derive fun from the game? I’m seriously not understanding the thinking behind this whole system if indeed there is any at all.

The attraction that wvw has always had for me and i’d say most everyone else is the CHANCE to use tactics and strategy to achieve a result, to work as a team and win some battles, often against the odds. This has now been taken away completely and what we choose to do in the wvw is unimportant as it always comes down to whether the enemy decide to come and wipe us. Almost feels like we are npcs…

I think the top servers (whatever that means) should face each other exclusively. No one else has an opportunity to compete due to simple player numbers and coverage.
I feel strongly that this system is penalizing those of us that have stuck to our original servers, I have been on mine since the game was released and i stick it out because its an awesome server where we play in good spirits and try to improve. We play for fun…

We are being denied this fun by servers that are far too large to be put with us. Perhaps, if u are not going to cap wvw numbers, u guys could rank servers by population and coverage? Frankly I see no other way because wvw IS a numbers game, you can win, you can compete with inferior numbers but beyond a certain tipping point you become nothing more than an npc to the other team. Please fix this <3

Mike.4618:

snip

They are ranked by numbers and coverage… it’s how they are ranked right now… higher rank > more people more coverage…

The best thing coming out of this match-up is the higher population servers getting bored and hopefully thinking about moving to a smaller server. I wish ANet would reduce prices of transfers or open free to medium pop again or make Very High server 2500 gems to move.

I disagree that a mismatch cannot be fun, or productive. look at NA week 23 (http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/history/77) when Ehmry Bay (EB) got to play Fort Aspenwood (FA). under the old “tier” system, that would have been a T2 server versus a T5 server.

sure, FA won the match. but EB played hard and we had a lot of fun. we even managed to get the #1 PPT a few times during the match (though of course we didn’t have the coverage to hold that PPT very long). more importantly, we got a big rating increase from that match even though we lost.

this is very much a game about coverage. to put it simply, at some point during the day most of your players are going to be asleep or at work. at that point, you are vulnerable if your opponent can get more players on.

but even if you have no night coverage at all, if you can fill your queues at prime time then you can be sure you won’t be outnumbered at that time, because at worst the enemy will have queues also (and at best they might be underpopulated at that time).

and if you don’t have the numbers to queue all maps, then just try to queue up one or two maps (like your home borderland, and eternal battlegrounds). some matches you just have to write off all the enemy borderlands as a loss, and concentrate on holding your own stuff while you’re on (or taking it back), and on not worrying about what happens while you sleep.

-ken

Snowreap.5174:

this is a made-up example, of course, but the underlying point is the same: there are ‘natural’ rating gaps between groups of servers, and the only way for a server to cross these gaps if they become stronger or weaker is to play servers on the other side of the gap sometimes.

I get it but, looking at the actual ratings, I don’t think there is a danger of stagnation even with a reduced random variation.

The only exceptions are, as discussed before, the very bottom servers in EU,, to a lesser extent, the bottom server in NA. Even at the top there is at least some variety in the possible matchups and, frankly, these extreme examples are not fixable by any playing around with matchups. Something more drastic would be needed.

LilMcGinley.3890:

I wish ANet would reduce prices of transfers or open free to medium pop again or make Very High server 2500 gems to move.

This would be a huge mistake. WvWvW population is different from the server population.

E.g. Desolation is very high load server, but we can barely get people enough to fill EB and our own BL on prime time and we are often outmanned even in the evening at our own BL, not to mention other BLs. We are outmanned 80% of the time! The positive side is that we rarely have queue.

Seafarer’s Rest (SFR) is medium population, but can summon even five 30 man guild teams to fight at same time. And just ask from SFR players what did they think of the free transfers to a medium-sized server. It almost broke their server as they had so huge influx of players the guild couldn’t get their teams to same map, because of many hour long queues.

Transfer cost should be inversely based on WvWvW coverage and performance. Those servers who haven’t won their match up for 5 months or longer need the biggest help.

Deniara Devious.3948:

LilMcGinley.3890:

I wish ANet would reduce prices of transfers or open free to medium pop again or make Very High server 2500 gems to move.

This would be a huge mistake. WvWvW population is different from the server population.

E.g. Desolation is very high load server, but we can barely get people enough to fill EB and our own BL on prime time and we are often outmanned even in the evening at our own BL, not to mention other BLs. We are outmanned 80% of the time! The positive side is that we rarely have queue.

Seafarer’s Rest (SFR) is medium population, but can summon even five 30 man guild teams to fight at same time. And just ask from SFR players what did they think of the free transfers to a medium-sized server. It almost broke their server as they had so huge influx of players the guild couldn’t get their teams to same map, because of many hour long queues.

Transfer cost should be inversely based on WvWvW coverage and performance. Those servers who haven’t won their match up for 5 months or longer need the biggest help.

Unless they track or publish numbers on “WvW Population”, the only basis of population we have to go off of must be used. The only way to get WvW’ers off stacked servers is to offer incentives to help them move, lowering the cost is how to do that in combination with them not liking their “boring” match-ups.

I don’t see them (ANet) dividing out PvE/WvW population for anything, ever. Sadly, that leaves us, the most “hardcore” WvW players out in the cold. Very High servers sitting with little to no WvW players and Medium full of them. Guilds don’t want to transfer to Very High b/c of the cost, and they can’t transfer to servers like SFR b/c of the queues.

Also, I was unaware of the current situation on SFR (medium pop in T2). I was on a medium pop server back at the start (NSP) during a quick run to T1 and yeah, we still had decent queues because we did what SFR did, stack WvW guilds on a small server with little to no PvE minded players. My post was not directed at any 1 server but at a glaring top-heavy population imbalance.

quick edit: i’m an idiot and said the same thing twice

All respect to Snowreap and his server, they are the only server that needed a drastic correction of this magnitude. It was mostly needed due to them getting the same T5 matchup the first week.

By allowing a fully randomized system, instead of a supervised random system be implemented, EB has yet to hit their true score value.

My complaint since minute one was the possibility of servers playing servers ranked 7 places higher than them, and despite promises that this would rarely happen, it’s been in fact, the norm since this system was implemented.
Proving that ANet WvW team knows as little about the mathematics of probability as I do; the difference being is that I never kittened anyone over because of it.

What needs to happen, is they need to setup the RNG system, with a simple script (you can probably find a site that will do it online, don’t bother writing the code) and then manually enter the servers for that matchup. Then, when you see CD facing TC, you hit “reroll” until you have a matchup that keeps matches within realistic parameters.

For instance, as much as I hate facing TC (I’m on SoS), I freely admit that it’s not a ridiculous matchup. Fort Aspenwood sucks a couple of matches, and we could switch places. Then we would be true T2 (though the kick-around dog of the tier).

What about CD though? They won squeakers the last two weeks and I think we had a very accurate picture of what they were capable of. There was no need to put them against TC when they could not beat a server 3 places lower (that was curbstomped by TC for 2 weeks straight), that they failed to beat for 8 straight weeks before.

This was the problem with the glicko math as well. A few judgement calls and “bumps” either up or down would have prevented match stagnation.

As a result of this I have a vision of Devon as the Director from RvB; “The SYSTEM will determine the order!”

so I ran some numbers on June 13 to estimate probabilities of certain matchups, but I don’t happen to recall if I ever posted them. Here are the results for SoS:

Sea of Sorrows
7.190480 Blackgate
7.687542 Sanctum of Rall
11.719310 Jade Quarry
20.438576 Tarnished Coast
20.573732 Dragonbrand
21.865941 Fort Aspenwood
21.317536 Maguuma
21.405964 Kaineng
21.095310 Yak’s Bend
20.123159 Crystal Desert
15.505194 Ehmry Bay
7.253758 Stormbluff Isle
1.986013 Borlis Pass
1.327344 Anvil Rock
0.291216 Isle of Janthir
0.110536 Darkhaven
0.049415 Gate of Madness
0.034056 Sorrow’s Furnace
0.020476 Northern Shiverpeaks
0.002532 Henge of Denravi
0.001907 Devona’s Rest
0.000003 Ferguson’s Crossing
0.000000 Eredon Terrace

there are 7 servers that have around a 20% chance for SoS to get matched up with (the percentages all add up to 200% because every match each server gets matched up with two others). this week SoS got matched against two of them — this particular outcome was a fairly likely one.

meanwhile, here are the numbers for CD:

Crystal Desert
0.853664 Blackgate
1.039510 Sanctum of Rall
2.563388 Jade Quarry
9.905005 Tarnished Coast
9.924684 Dragonbrand
14.637574 Fort Aspenwood
20.123159 Sea of Sorrows
26.308808 Maguuma
27.015308 Kaineng
27.605955 Yak’s Bend
25.252554 Ehmry Bay
13.658515 Stormbluff Isle
7.240854 Borlis Pass
6.338689 Anvil Rock
3.294241 Isle of Janthir
1.915625 Darkhaven
1.057261 Gate of Madness
0.743427 Sorrow’s Furnace
0.433900 Northern Shiverpeaks
0.050544 Henge of Denravi
0.037258 Devona’s Rest
0.000072 Ferguson’s Crossing
0.000005 Eredon Terrace

CD had 4 servers with 25% or higher matchup probabilities. they got none of them, and instead got matched with a server with a 20% likelihood, and one with a 10% likelihood. definitely an unlucky matchup, but unlucky matchups are expected from time to time.

what is not expected is an unlucky matchup week after week after week.

you do raise an interesting point, however: if a server goes up against a stronger server and loses, would it make sense to have some kind of mechanism in place to ‘cap’ outlier matches so that they don’t play that server again (or any server rated higher) for some minimum cooldown period? in other words: periodically a server is given a chance to prove that they deserve to play in the big leagues. if they fail to prove this, they are temporarily sent back to the minors and don’t get another chance until some minimum waiting period elapses.

if there were 2 servers in each match, this kind of thing might be obviously a good idea. but with 3 servers in each match, I’m not sure, because that gives the third server the opportunity to play kingmaker. let’s suppose that CD does badly against TC, but mostly it’s because SoS keeps ruining every good plan CD comes up with. can CD argue that they should get another shot at TC, but this time without SoS there to interfere? would anybody on CD actually feel that way?

it doesn’t even matter whether SoS actually does anything to interfere or not. as long as anybody on CD feels like they did, would they think it fair that they get locked out of trying again?

at least with random numbers people can just blame bad luck.

-ken

Winning or losing, it’s all in extremes, I hardly want to play anymore. I think I’m on my last gasp. It’s boring and there is rarely any enjoyable combat since the change.

Reiko.1560:

Chris.3290:

For instance, as much as I hate facing TC (I’m on SoS), I freely admit that it’s not a ridiculous matchup. Fort Aspenwood sucks a couple of matches, and we could switch places. Then we would be true T2 (though the kick-around dog of the tier).

I’m sorry but I think a 118k lead by Tuesday is pretty ridiculous. I think it’s great that the other 5 matchups are close… but at the expense of the other 3? What happens if we get another kitten matchup 4 weeks in a row? Hope that they get it right next week? I bought this game for WvW and I’ve been on the server since launch but it’s incredibly frustrating right now.

What happens if you get another bad matchup? People will stop going to WvW. Just look at ET and FC.

Reiko.1560:

Chris.3290:

For instance, as much as I hate facing TC (I’m on SoS), I freely admit that it’s not a ridiculous matchup. Fort Aspenwood sucks a couple of matches, and we could switch places. Then we would be true T2 (though the kick-around dog of the tier).

I’m sorry but I think a 118k lead by Tuesday is pretty ridiculous. I think it’s great that the other 5 matchups are close… but at the expense of the other 3? What happens if we get another kitten matchup 4 weeks in a row? Hope that they get it right next week? I bought this game for WvW and I’ve been on the server since launch but it’s incredibly frustrating right now.

How many weeks in a row did you face SBI, who are 350 rating below you? Now you’re facing a server that is 150 above you and it’s all too much?

Reiko.1560:

Mammoth.1975:

How many weeks in a row did you face SBI, who are 350 rating below you? Now you’re facing a server that is 150 above you and it’s all too much?

SoS facing 3 straight weeks of TC, SoR, and FA by Anet RNG math has artificially inflated the point rating to “you’re facing a server that is 150 above you and it’s all too much?”

Tell me this:

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/37 is actually comparable to
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/37/58 or http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/37/69?

I’m not going to deny that SoS was T3.5 server in a T4 matchup but don’t try to make it look like SoS was ticking 600+ during NA primetime like TC does.

On the one hand, I agree with you that there’s an issue with the scores higher rated servers are expected to achieve. On the other, SBI spent a lot longer facing higher rated servers and had an even more dramatically inflated rating, as evidenced by the fact that they have been shedding rating at a furious rate since the new system was introduced.

BTW, you’re not supporting your own argument with the assertion that people on SoS will just give up when they have to face real opposition for a few weeks, because if true, it would go some distance to explaining the 600 ppt TC is achieving.

Regarding the spawncamping from TC, I want to appologize for my server. It really is not classy. You guys got dealt a raw deal, and we shouldn’t be rubbing your noses in it. Personally, I make an effort to take the camps/towers and then either defend them or leave and look for another fight. I don’t try to push all the way to spawn.

That said, I do get why it is happening. On the TC side of things, I logged in today, saw that all the borderlands were almost all blue, then saw a bit of red on SoS. I got into queue there, since I wanted a fight, then I went to CD borderland to roam around while waiting. In my roaming in CD borderlands, I helped take a camp. Looked at the map, saw another camp was green and raced there just in time to see it flipped by 20 people. I followed them to bay where they built 5 golems to use against sunnyhill tower. That’s right, golem rushing on sunnyhill that is defended by 10 guys who we outnumber 2-1. Why were they doing this? Because they are bored…there are no battles to be had. As a solo roamer, I can’t even take out a camp, because there is barely anything to take. I can protect yaks, but really what from? And what for? Our keeps are already fully upgraded? So I waited in my queue for EBG for 30 minutes and then got into an actual nice fight with CD, defending a keep. me and 4 guildies held it off from 20 CD for a bit. We mentioned in map chat that it was going to go down, and people in the big zerg were like, “that’s fine, we’ll just take it in a few minutes anyway.” The CD zerg grew to 30 and made for an interesting fight when our zerg arrived. But the CD guys started getting whiped and retreated to their spawn. So now what are people to do? Well after being one shotted by a defender, I realized that we were at their spawn, and me and the guildies decided to try our luck vs the few SoS camps in EBG.

So my point is, there is probably a decent amount of spawn camping happening and I appologize for that. Again, it is not nice and makes the game annoying for the opponent. I imagine for you guys it must feel like adding insult to injury. I just want you to get that from our side, we just want a fight, because there isn’t much out there. It’s certainly a different kind of problem…you guys are no doubt getting frustrated. Meanwhile we are getting bored.

I’m not pinning this on CD, SoS, or TC. It’s all the matchup’s fault. Our populations are so mismatched that of course we can’t give you consistent fair fights. And so the fights dry up entirely, and WvW gets boring and people look for whatever fight they can find, even if it’s at spawn. It’s not really fun for anyone.

Server Match-up is fine. We are winning!
http://oi41.tinypic.com/ivls94.jpg

All I know is that my established guild (dates back to UO) with a significant wvw leadership role on a former tier 2 server is very rapidly losing interest in this game. The core leadership has purchased another sandbox full loot pvp game. We had less than 10 people in wvw last night, and most logged in less than an hour.

I fear that another week yielding a lopsided matchup where our server is regularly over 500 ppt, and has reached the 625 ppt mark will result in the rest of the guild leaving.

Not complaining, just stating facts.

It would be interesting to see if the more stacked servers could rig the rating. By mostly attacking one server they could force the rating of one server down and another one up. Just to keep things interesting.

i don’t know what ANET is doing with these messed up match up system. collecting data ? sure but make the match up last only 3 days, and you get your data. hell, even change it to everyday like the early days of WvW , just to collect data……..

Can we declare Project Kill Your Own Game a success yet?

I think Anet got a solution for the victim servers being beaten up. They intend to come up with more rewards for WvW participation so more clueless PvErs will turn up for WvW to get creamed and at the end of the day : get a fancy title and some cosmetic potions / gear .

The primary aim for Anet to reward stacked / big servers is to encourage players to get their friends to buy GW2 and join their servers to increase population. However, the loophole of being able to abandon a losing server and transfer to a Tier 1 or 2 server means more players choose the easier option.

Alas, they forget that there is also a size-able casual WvW population that do not care for either of the above options and would just abandon GW2 and play other games. After-all, this is an 1 year old game. The relentless limited time items / offers in the gem store seems to hint of a massive exodus from GW2 and attempts to patch up revenue.

Sol.8341:

I think Anet got a solution for the victim servers being beaten up. They intend to come up with more rewards for WvW participation so more clueless PvErs will turn up for WvW to get creamed and at the end of the day : get a fancy title and some cosmetic potions / gear .

The primary aim for Anet to reward stacked / big servers is to encourage players to get their friends to buy GW2 and join their servers to increase population. However, the loophole of being able to abandon a losing server and transfer to a Tier 1 or 2 server means more players choose the easier option.

There’s something to be said about making kitten-sumptions (something about a rectum). You sir, are quite the king of making kitten-sumptions. Hint: If it rewards rating changes, being on a stacked overly-winning server will backfire incredibly quickly because of how glicko works (but don’t let math bog down your delusional tyrades and fantasies).

Sol.8341:

Alas, they forget that there is also a size-able casual WvW population that do not care for either of the above options and would just abandon GW2 and play other games. After-all, this is an 1 year old game. The relentless limited time items / offers in the gem store seems to hint of a massive exodus from GW2 and attempts to patch up revenue.

Relentless limited time items… you mean how every single event has been handled since launch? Oh crap guys! Games been dead since Halloween nine months ago!

I’m glad we have progeny of your caliber to read the future for us with your supercomputer level analytical skills!

Thrumdi.9216:

Can we declare Project Kill Your Own Game a success yet?

I think they broke the record for that project by doing it in a single patch. kitten ArrowCarts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system

The Glicko rating system and Glicko-2 rating system are methods for assessing a player’s strength in games of skill, such as chess and go. It was invented by Mark Glickman as an improvement of the Elo rating system, and initially intended for the primary use as a chess rating system.

Using a 1vs1 system for GW2 WvW . Enlighten us how glicko works here.

(a) Imagine the chess competition is split into 4 rooms and runs for 24/7 for a week. Team MIT sends 4 players to chess competition and Team Harvard only sends 2.

(b) One of Team Harvard’s chess players is so sick of sleep deprivation and running from room to room that he switches university to MIT after the 2nd day.

© Team MIT wins with 5 players vs Harvard but loses rating. Next match, they face Team Hawaii that has only 1 player in the chess club.

Another analogy : Dodgeball competition played on 4 seperate indoor courts.

Each Team has access to a big basket of balls placed at end of each side’s playing area. Eastside High school fielded 5 players each on 4 courts (20players total) vs Westside High School ’s 3 (12 players total). 20mins into play, 5 of Westside High school players feel that they were elite players being let down by their other 7 pug noobs and transfer school to Eastside.

Now on each court, Eastcourt has 6 players and 1 substitute on bench (queue full) vs Westside’s 2 players.

Sol.8341:

Enlighten us how glicko works here.

http://www.guildwars2guru.com/news/884-the-math-behind-wvw-ratings/
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

also, here’s the post that explains the new matchup system:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/big-changes-coming-to-wvw-matchups/

-ken

Anet should change the match up system to a 2 day period instead of 7 days. That way the foes are random enough that no one will be stuck in an unfair match up for long.

Don’t agree with that. Love the week long matchups.

Jong.5937:

Not quite sure what you mean here. Not quite sure I understand Anet’s leaderboard! But, to explain what I mean, I think the difference in real glicko of 2 servers matched up should not be more than 250 (ish!). So, if I understand their method correctly (which I may not) the adjustment for any one server should not be more than +/- 125 (or the method could be adjusted). If I am reading you correctly the current system could match servers up to around 500 apart.

Of course, this won’t help those at the very bottom of the table (and possibly the top) but there is nothing short of server merger or some very drastic changes to point scoring that is going to help them!

The real problem is that (not only due to the trippling in matches) in unlikely circumstances even a distance of 800 rating points can happen.

Assume everyone has a deviation of 160 (most have more), then add ANet 40 constant.
Every one can ROLL from +200 and till -200
Which means that 2 server 400 away can be rolled to the same number.

But it is even worser:
Assume server with the following ranks and with the following rolls
A 2000 +0
B 2000 +0
C 1800 -200
D 1401 +200
E 1200 0
F 999 – 200
G 600 +200
H 400 0
I 400 0

Would give:
A – B – D 599 difference
C – E – G 1200 difference
F – H – I 799 difference

So the worst case pairing in the middle is not only 2*(D+40).
Because servers in between (D and F) can “roll out” of the match.
It would work with any amount of servers un between B and D and between F and H.
Only if there are more servers between D and F the “worst case” goes down to a match with 800 difference.

So I think a (uniform) roll of +/-200 is far to much. But I like the general idea, possible fixes:
- Reroll all matches if a max rank distance (e.g. 4, 5 or 6) is violated in any match
- set D to -40 instead of +40
- Change rolls to gauss distribution (roll 2 dices in the range +/-0.5 and add them up)

I see how your theoretical example works, but with the actual number of servers and points spread I don’t think it is as bad as you suggest. Yes, there will be problems at the bottom as there are now, and potentially at the top too, but there are enough teams in the middle and the spread is even enough that I think (although I haven’t simulated it!) the matchups should stay, shall we say “almost always”, within the desired range.

But is do agree the current range of the roll is too high.

BTW, you’re not supporting your own argument with the assertion that people on SoS will just give up when they have to face real opposition for a few weeks, because if true, it would go some distance to explaining the 600 ppt TC is achieving.

Define “real opposition”. Do you mean totally impossible odds? I’ll spell it out for you…big server has massive numbers in EB and borderlands…they can swamp your borderland and still maintain a stronger than you presence in EB.

This makes it literally impossible to score as much, or anywhere near the points. This is not opposition, this an artificial result resulting from amazing imbalances in player numbers and I’m pretty sure all the design work Anet put into WvW to make it as fun and challenging as possible is intended to amount to a bit more than a simple numbers game, as it is presently.

People, when presented with match ups that are unfair for reasons completely unrelated to skill, strategy, team work or ability will always cease playing, at least until the unfair match up is resolved. You do realize that people play this game for fun right ?

As for the problem I can’t see how you’re going to solve it without shaking up the player base or, if that won’t work then grouping zerg servers together. WvW is awesome when the battles are reasonably fair, they don’t have to be even, just giving people a fighting chance would be wonderful. After all it isn’t about winning ultimately, it is about having a good time with your fellow players and being pinned in a farm box, either at your spawn or backed up in your keep with zero supply stripped of any chance to compete in any way…sure ain’t fun. =\

Dragonbrand 1 958.001 rolls -200

Fort Aspenwood 1 874.367 till Maguuma 1 769.416
roll any positive number
Kaineng 1 687.742 till Ehmry Bay 1 655.349
roll at least +100

Borlis Pass 1 397.385 till Sorrow’s Furnace 1 113.774
roll -200 till not positve

Henge of Denravi rolls +200
and you will have Dragonbrand and Henge of Denravi in a match (over 800 points away)

Of course the more servers are in between the less likely it is.

Mike.4618:

BTW, you’re not supporting your own argument with the assertion that people on SoS will just give up when they have to face real opposition for a few weeks, because if true, it would go some distance to explaining the 600 ppt TC is achieving.

Define “real opposition”. Do you mean totally impossible odds?

I already have. A closer matchup than the one you just spent months in.

What if the server with superior numbers were downscaled?

“You greatly out-number your opponent in [map name]. Your effective health and defense has been decreased by [amount].”

Whatever the maths is behind it, it is wrong. Underworld is Matched up against Agury Rock and Fort Ranik. Fort Ranik, we have fought them many times before on our little PvE server, but who’s redicilous idea was it to put up a Rank 7 server to a Rank 20 server…

AR – 70+ players on every map 24/7
FR – 50Home 50EB

UW- 40 Home 70~ EB (When we’re doing alright) We are a PvE server, that means when we have nothing, none of our PuG’s show up, and we barely have any WvW Guilds on EB, hell we don’t even have a home defence. How can you possibly put our servers up against something that is by day covered by French players and by night French Canadians. I really think this system needs a rework, because it has discouraged our whole server from bothering with WvW.

Your matchup is horrid. Should not be allowed to happen again.

But hopefully it won’t have a long term impact. Casuals are unlikely to remember/care about this week when it’s over and, provided similar matchups don’t happen again, the regulars will get over the trauma I am sure.

Hadn’t really thought about the French Canadian thing. If that works for them (performance OK), why do we need English servers in 2 continents?

Eagle.7208:

Whatever the maths is behind it, it is wrong. Underworld is Matched up against Agury Rock and Fort Ranik. Fort Ranik, we have fought them many times before on our little PvE server, but who’s redicilous idea was it to put up a Rank 7 server to a Rank 20 server…

AR – 70+ players on every map 24/7
FR – 50Home 50EB

UW- 40 Home 70~ EB (When we’re doing alright) We are a PvE server, that means when we have nothing, none of our PuG’s show up, and we barely have any WvW Guilds on EB, hell we don’t even have a home defence. How can you possibly put our servers up against something that is by day covered by French players and by night French Canadians. I really think this system needs a rework, because it has discouraged our whole server from bothering with WvW.

That French Canadian thing is still going around?

Well, I’m actually enjoying our matchup. Ofcourse it’s hard, but we can manage fairly well if we focus on sieging up that one keep we own, and when we do we actually wipe AR multiple times in a row before they give up. There’s also plenty of roaming action going on, and I hardly ever run out of targets when I’m on my thief. The matchup is just what you make of it.

There’s too many people who have said they’d take a one week break because things are too much for them too handle. We could be doing way better, but instead people whine and ragequit into PvE. Our EB had queues for days when we had an easy time vs Ring of Fire and Blacktide. But when you actually need the people they are nowhere to be found. It’s pathetic to be honest, and it’s why we’re losing more rating points than Fort Ranik. So many of our players lack a spine.

It’s Thursday Snowreap.. I need your weekly numbers!!

Someone else put them into:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/matchups/Potential-Matchups-6-21

Dayra.7405:

Someone else put them into:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/matchups/Potential-Matchups-6-21

THANK YOU!!!