Guild Wars 2

not sure if I’ll have time to post newer numbers closer to the start of the next match. this week’s match, combined with real life, has kept me very busy.

I sincerely hope we get easier servers next week; I need a rest.

-ken

Snowreap.5174:

not sure if I’ll have time to post newer numbers closer to the start of the next match. this week’s match, combined with real life, has kept me very busy.

I sincerely hope we get easier servers next week; I need a rest.

-ken

You guys are doing great against DB!
(of course with your Server’s performance you now have a higher chance of such a matchup again )

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

Draygo.9473:

Answer the question. How do you tell at a glance?

And drop the “your argument is invalid” meme bullkitten. You are making assumptions about what I’m saying and refuting your own assumptions. Stop doing that.

I’m doing the exact same thing you are doing. A team behind on points on Day 1 will know exactly how far behind they are and can even eyeball how much they are catching up by looking at current PPT. Others have also suggested using the Handicap as a PPT Modifier which would eliminate that concern altogether.

In the meantime, when exactly are you going to explain how someone can look at their Server’s Rating Evolution and know if they can turn it positive before the match ends, or how long it would take, or how it is affected by PPT?

Do you get my point yet? People can look at a Score and current PPT and at least figure out to some extent if they can catch up but the argument you keep using against me is exactly the same when using Rating Evolution only worse!

The other main difference is I don’t mind making the top stacked Servers push hard to see if they can catch up by the end of the week while you don’t seem to mind letting them just blow out weaker Servers before the weekend is over so nobody has to bother playing the rest of the week.

Again, stop making assumptions about my preferences.

I can see PPT modifiers working at least you can tell from day to day how much you need to do to get ahead. And it can affect in account Dolyak and Sentry kills points. Which takes care of the issues I had with the handicap system.

In order for the handicap system to work properly it needs to reflect the rating changes on the other side. If you are winning in score your rating absolutely should go up. The UI should show raw score, handicap score, and server rating. The rating system already handicaps so all you would need to do is take those modifiers and display them ingame and calculate the score off it.

Two weeks for EU Desolation vs Viz has turned the three Borderland maps into ghost towns for our players even at peak.On our home Borderland we step out of our Citadel to watch Viz and BB fight over our towers.

Any new WvW players who join and see what is going on will probably never return for us. I do not mind losing that is all we do,it is just having any chance at all when you set foot outside your own Citadel.

White Raven.4368:

Two weeks for EU Desolation vs Viz has turned the three Borderland maps into ghost towns for our players even at peak.On our home Borderland we step out of our Citadel to watch Viz and BB fight over our towers.

Any new WvW players who join and see what is going on will probably never return for us. I do not mind losing that is all we do,it is just having any chance at all when you set foot outside your own Citadel.

Visunah Square and Baruch Bay idea of having fun in WvWvW. Spawn camp the outmanned Desolation and to make things more funny, throw in couple of /laugh emotes. GG! Luckily I have a twisted sense of humor.

Hopefully this Friday we won’t get any TOP5 servers against us, as that would be yet another week…

Any higher ranked server that wants to gain points AND is concerned with ranking is going to have to spawn camp, when they are matched against a server that’s from a lower tier.

If you are morally opposed to spawn camping then you sit back and wait for the 5-10 outmanned to put up a flame ram and either collect loot bags or wait for them to cap a tower and then sweep in with 30+ to take it back for the PPT and the WXP.

Handicapping the matches will not prevent this, in fact it would encourage it.

Giving supply buffs for low PPT/outmanned still won’t solve the spawn camp or loot bag farm or the WXP farm that’s happening now.

The only way to balance these unbalanced matches is to have a combination of handicapping, supply/siege buffs AND some form of stat modification.

I’ve posted an updated set of matchup probabilities for any who are interested:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/matchups/Who-would-you-like-to-face-next-week/2309243

-ken

spawn camping really isn’t necessary. rating changes are made on the basis of score, and score comes essentially from 2 things: PPT ticks and sentry/dolyak kills.

you can maintain PPT for your side, and prevent enemies from getting any points for sentry/dolyak kills, without spawn camping, if you choose to do so. but spawn camping is probably the easiest way because it gives you the smallest number of places to guard.

if you have a big enough population, you should be able to guard things effectively without needing to spawn camp.

-ken

Really cute, ANets vision that servers being matched with those 2 or 3 brackets above them will acclimate and improve technically, that it’d even the playing field. Fits right into their yet-to-be-materialized fantasy that the two underdog servers would band together against first place instead of cannibalizing each other for second place.

Here’s the deal: WvW isn’t about skill, WvW is all about population. Naturally there are servers, commanders and players that are more skilled in the actual field, but you can’t expect from them to have much of a chance versus servers with near-topped out maps all day round if the only significant presence they have is during the evening. Skill only becomes determining once we actually have a vaguely level playing field.
Population will never change, not significantly. Certainly not with measures like this. And ANets insanely long free transfer period last year cemented this.
If anything, this will scare new players off and make the constantly losing servers even less populated in WvW.

It’s fun to lose against a tactically superior zerg or a strategically brilliant commander. Battles between night vigils are fun.
It’s not fun to be constantly swarmed by sheer superiority of numbers, including the off-hours, or to never encounter an enemy zerg because the opponents simply don’t support the population for that and they have long given up that match-up.

Make population the factor. Not points. Not randomness.

To the losing server(s), there is no meaningful difference between being spawn camped and having a stronger server guarding everything that grants points. Nor is this more exciting for the server doing the camping.

I have to wonder how much a score handicap will help. Are people dissuaded by total score/PPT, or by what happens in WvW? I’ve seen the enemy vacate a map many times after they fight tooth and nail over garrison and then lose it. Is your average player going to stay on a map with no commander, one that has the out manned buff, or join a map where their server holds nothing? Probably not.

Jamais vu.5284:

Make population the factor. Not points.

But points are determined by population…

WTF ANET! does someone there have something against SOS server? this is BS. We have not received a matchup that is even remotely close to where we can compete for a win. We had a nice community that was rebuilding for a while and now more guilds are leaving thanks to your inability to create matchups. Thanks for killing our server …sigh

An interesting idea I saw in another thread is that since they already predict the results and make it harder/easier for higher/lower ranked servers to gain rating, why not give that handicap in terms of ppt also. It would raise morale on servers that are getting facerolled, and make it more challenging for the servers doing the facerolling to actually WIN rather just improve rating.

Visiroth.5914:

To the losing server(s), there is no meaningful difference between being spawn camped and having a stronger server guarding everything that grants points. Nor is this more exciting for the server doing the camping.

I have to wonder how much a score handicap will help. Are people dissuaded by total score/PPT, or by what happens in WvW? I’ve seen the enemy vacate a map many times after they fight tooth and nail over garrison and then lose it. Is your average player going to stay on a map with no commander, one that has the out manned buff, or join a map where their server holds nothing? Probably not.

Jamais vu.5284:

Make population the factor. Not points.

But points are determined by population…

They sure are. Its a major reason I don’t care about points and who “wins”. The end result is a joke. There is no balance in the scoring system and this is a design flaw that Anet does not seem to care about. Anet has now implemented a grind for statistical advantage in an apparent PvP mode where scoring is based off how many people are stacked into a server. There are a lot of people concerned and voicing their opinions regarding matchmaking and making reference to the points system when the issue is the points system is completely broken thanks to terrible design. WvW is a game mode to cater for casuals who want to grind a statistical advantage and join up with a larger amount of players to beat a smaller amount of players, no more no less.

SoS paired up with TC for the 3rd time in 4 weeks, awesome…..? No.

I’ve never been a full on WvWer, I’d fit in maybe 5-10 hours of it a week.
I’ve only played 1 hour in the last FOUR weeks, because the match ups are a depressing joke.

The only way you can make these dumb match ups work, is to apply an evolving player cap limit to each map that gets bigger or smaller depending on the amount of players from other servers currently in a given WvW map.

Example for Borderlands:
(Minimum player cap could be set to 10 or 15 for example so you can still PvDoor an empty map)
Borderland Defenders get player limit = to total number of invaders +30% extra
Borderland Invaders (Both invader servers) get a player limit = to half the number of defenders before the extra 30% calculation, then +2.
(Then if invaders leave, defender cap reduces, but the current players can stay until they leave map.)

And EB can stay an ungodly mess, or have a cap formula something along the lines of
1.2 players per 1 per server until server has the most players by 5 or 10 on top of the other servers.

^Even this is ridiculous, but its the only way to make your random match up RNG trash viable, the bigger server will still have a slight coverage advantage, but it’ll tame the game. Thank you for reading my drivel.

Edit: Oh and our rebuilding server is now losing guilds because they’re sick of these match ups. Way to solve nothing.

Seriously ANet? Is this what you intended? TC/SoS/Mag?

GW2 has something unique and amazing in WvW…and you guys are completely killing it. You need to fix this.

I’m so bored I don’t even know what to do in-game anymore.

Also, the idea of winner up, loser down doesn’t work at all. If that were the case, those two servers, who may be evenly matched, would never actually get to play each other. They would just swap stomping and getting stomped.

Just wanted to throw that out there for people who are proposing this. It would be just as broken as this matchup system.

TC is the victim of everything that is going wrong with WvW and how server population is managed.
TC has the coverage and population greater than what was needed to be a T1 server before the end of free transfers.

Now, with how they not only allow but encourage super-stacking; you guys couldn’t dream about competing with T1; despite the fact that you can beat DB and dominate the rest of NA with one-hand tied behind your back.
You guys really are a T1.5 server. Just hope you keep getting low rolls like you have been because even a slightly positive modifier will get you signed up for weekly beatings by T1 servers.

Chris.3290:

TC is the victim of everything that is going wrong with WvW and how server population is managed.
TC has the coverage and population greater than what was needed to be a T1 server before the end of free transfers.

Now, with how they not only allow but encourage super-stacking; you guys couldn’t dream about competing with T1; despite the fact that you can beat DB and dominate the rest of NA with one-hand tied behind your back.
You guys really are a T1.5 server. Just hope you keep getting low rolls like you have been because even a slightly positive modifier will get you signed up for weekly beatings by T1 servers.

You’re right in calling TC a T1.5 server. Honestly it feels like the server is in a lose lose situation as far as match ups go: we don’t have the coverage all around to compete with T1 and other servers don’t have the coverage to compete with us.

If this system had been in place from the start of the game, things would have worked out differently, but it was a huge mistake to even think that implementing this system now would have any other effect than to drive people away from WvW. Sadly the community dug itself into this mess by making the T1 servers so stacked, but Anet allowed it to happen and needs to clean up the mess if they want people to stay interested in this game much longer.

It’s not fun to get stomped on week after week and it’s not fun to do the stomping week after week when all you want is good fights.

Hickeroar.9734:

Also, the idea of winner up, loser down doesn’t work at all. If that were the case, those two servers, who may be evenly matched, would never actually get to play each other. They would just swap stomping and getting stomped.

You are now assuming the worst case scenario for winner goes up and loser goes down (WULD). In reality I don’t think every single tier is gonna be rofl stomped under the WULD system. The tier difference in ranks can be as small is 4, in fact that would be a common situation. E.g. rank 3 dropping to tier 2 and rank 7 going up to tier 2, to face also rank 5 there. Thus rank 3 vs 5 vs 7. While rank #1 and #2 are facing former rank #4.

Currently we have much bigger differences in the rank. E.g. take a look at this week’s EU match up:
http://mos.millenium.org/matchups
http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/map/794
http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/map/791

EU rank #9 vs 16 vs 17. And EU rank #15 vs 24 vs 25. With WULD neither would have been possible, even theoretically.

It is much better to be stomped 50% of the time and have every second week realistic chances to win than being stomped 100& of the time. With current system it is possible to constantly have match ups where you don’t have any real chances to win e.g. the match ups Desolation has gotten in past 5 months. Imagine what it does to your player base and morale if you are constantly doubled teamed by servers which better coverage and numbers.

WULD is far from perfect, but it is simple to understand and much more fair in the long run than the current system. The opponents of WULD and defenders of the current system are probably playing on a server, which is benefiting from the current system.

We also need to merge 3 weakest EU servers into existing servers. After deletion of 3 EU servers we would have equal amount of servers and tiers in NA and EU.

The transfer costs shouldn’t be based on the pve population as pve people can always guest. People usually move the server because of WvWvW. I propose the following:

1. High transfer cost to those WvWvW servers, who have won several match ups in past 3 months. Aka the winning servers. Very high transfer costs if the server has been winning in tier #1 or tier #2. This is to make is less feasible to stack on the existing winning top servers, which is already happening in very large amounts.

2. No transfer cost to those WvWvW servers, who haven’t won a single match up in past 3 months. Everybody sometimes deserves a chance to win. And those servers who are always losing could use some help. Medium transfer cost to the rest.

Deniara Devious.3948:

Hickeroar.9734:

Also, the idea of winner up, loser down doesn’t work at all. If that were the case, those two servers, who may be evenly matched, would never actually get to play each other. They would just swap stomping and getting stomped.

You are now assuming the worst case scenario for winner goes up and loser goes down (WULD). In reality I don’t think every single tier is gonna be rofl stomped under the WULD system. The tier difference can be as small is 4, in fact that would be a common situation. E.g. rank 3 dropping to tier 2 and rank 7 going up to tier 2, to face also rank 5 there. Thus rank 3 vs 5 vs 7. While rank #1 and #2 are facing former rank #4.

Currently we have much bigger differences in the rank. E.g. take a look at this week’s EU match up:
http://mos.millenium.org/matchups
http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/map/794
http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/map/791

EU rank #9 vs 16 and 17. And EU rank #15 vs 24 and 25. With WULD the latter would have never been possible, even theoretically.

It is much better to be stomped 50% of the time and have every second week realistic chances to win. With current system it is possible to be stomped 100% of the time and never have any real chances to win e.g. the match ups Desolation has gotten in past 5 months. Imagine what it does to your player base and morale if you are constantly doubled teamed by servers which better coverage and numbers. That you always lose.

WULD is far from perfect, but it is simple to understand and much more fair in the long run than the current system. The opponents of WULD and defenders of the current system are probably playing on a server, which is benefiting from the current system.

The “middle” servers in WULD are doomed. Imagine being the #5 in NA ladder – all that server will do is lose to #4 and #3 in rotation, week in and week out.

ykyk.2740:

The “middle” servers in WULD are doomed. Imagine being the #5 in NA ladder – all that server will do is lose to #4 and #3 in rotation, week in and week out.

Now you are assuming that rank #5 could never lose tier #2 match up, but always end up as 2nd there. If rank #5 would lose its weekly match up it would drop to tier #3 and face rank 8 and 10. Note that rank #5 could even intentionally tank to drop to tier 3 to have a week of realistic chances to win.

With the old glicko system intentional dropping was very difficult as the glicko system was so slow to react to changes and more or less rating the old glory. The new random glicko system on the other hand provides us week after week even more imbalanced match ups, just like I demonstrated the situation in EU.

Funnily your rating can go up even when you lose really badly and enemy controls almost all the maps almost all the time, when you are facing a much higher ranked opponent. They are spawn camping you, but not spawn camping enough. Must be real fun for the losing side…

The icing on the cake is that winning side, who is spawn camping the outmanned side is getting badges of honor. You shoot an already downed opponent and get badges of honor from it.

To me the word honor means to uphold the utmost moral principles, be fair and honest. Doing the morally right thing. Defend the weak.

No matchmaking system is ever going to fix the pathetic excuse for a scoring system GW2 is currently using, nor the limitless, ridiculous tactical and strategical advantages granted to bigger zergs. Period.

If Arenanet wants to fix WvW they will need to do a bit more than adding new +1-5% WvW bonus stat lines to their game.

_Seriously ANet? Is this what you intended? TC/SoS/Mag?

GW2 has something unique and amazing in WvW…and you guys are completely killing it. You need to fix this.

I’m so bored I don’t even know what to do in-game anymore._

Completely agree to this statement.

WVW ist not about winning but about having fun. Since Anet changed the matchup system we have to fight against a fully populated server every week. In the evening we have larger groups but we can hardly play without getting whiped instantly. I really have no problem with loosing matches but it’s just frustrating when you do not get a single reward for all the “work” you put in the game = You can be sure that every tower or fortress has been taken over by the enemy on the next day and you have to start by zero. Take a look at this pic – we are red and our other “weaker” enemy is green. We are getting dominated.
I am thinking about changing the server but I guess it is also no fun to play against a too weak enemy…

the purpose of lower-ranked servers playing a higher-ranked server is not so that the lower servers can improve themselves. although if they’re smart they’ll take the opportunity to do so.

the purpose of “outlier” matches is to give the outlier server the opportunity to prove that they are over-rated (if they are the highest) or that they are under-rated (if they are the lowest).

the old matchup system made it hard to prove that you belonged in a higher or lower tier without many wins or losses in your current tier. the new matchup system allows you to play servers outside your tier more often, which allows your rating to move up or down (as appropriate) faster.

the downside to this is that sometimes you’ll play a higher or lower server even though your rating is fine as it is and doesn’t need to move. this is especially common in NA servers where the ratings are now getting close to “correct”, but in EU we are still seeing a lot of big rating swings so clearly there’s a lot of movement still happening there.

-ken

Snowreap.5174:

the downside to this is that sometimes you’ll play a higher or lower server even though your rating is fine as it is and doesn’t need to move. this is especially common in NA servers where the ratings are now getting close to “correct”, but in EU we are still seeing a lot of big rating swings so clearly there’s a lot of movement still happening there.

-ken

Not really. If you check, even in the EU most of the servers aren’t moving anymore and the biggest ranking swing (+3 for FSP) is mostly due to the fact that there are 4 servers with very close ratings so it takes little to move back and forth in that “bracket”.

Massive server merges or old system back thank u.

I was wondering earlier if maybe a rating reset + the random matchups would help at all, but even that would be a nightmare. Say SoR + HoD + SF got the scrubbed clean, shiny new first matchup. Yeah. Unless they added some sort of artificial (but smaller) value to the top half of the map, preventing the bottom half from meeting it… pretend I know math and/or glicko.

I’d certainly love some variety in T1 NA. Not that I’m complaining too much about having one of the only stable, even matchups…. but jeez. Of course, the main problem is here that there’s nobody else for JQ to fight, really, aside from TC.

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

I actually like random server matchups. More exciting, more unpredictable and I think we’re learning more as a server this way.

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

#4 TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Not really. TC can beat Mag and SOS with one hand tied behind their backs by sheer coverage advantage. However if TC doesn’t push hard and completely blow their opponents out they will lose rating. So the point game incentive is to run up the score. Blowout matches are less fun than closer ones, especially for the loser.

Now DB, FA, CD might be a little more fun since DB and FA are closer in rank. They will probably concentrate more on each other and leave CD a little more breathing room to play a spoiler role.

Still count me in the favoring WULD camp, though I would even prefer a variant where you don’t move down or up unless you’ve won or lost twice in a row.

What gets me is that Anet has something special here with World Vs World on top of a great game engine, and that is something no other game has. People have bought this game just to play in massive PvP and it’s a great marketing and promotional tool. HOWEVER, they are completely blowing this opportunity by butchering the fun out of it because of a simple to fix matching issue.

We tried the stagnant approach, we tried the fluid approach. Anet either needs to find a middle ground or come up with a new solution because people are starting to leave and that’s not good from any perspective (even a business one).

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

What the?

SoS is getting dominated and will get dominated for the entire week. No chance winning or even coming close AND we are going to gain rank from it.

Bad system is bad.

my point here is that there are 4 strong servers at the top of the rankings. any 3 out of these 4 will get a good matchup, but whatever server is left over is going to have to play against lower servers.

there are no good choices for #4 TC, if #1 BG, #2 SoR and #3 JQ are all playing each other. one of those top-4 servers is going to have to play against servers with dramatically lower ratings.

there are only 2 ways to fix this: get a bunch of people to leave TC (or one of the other top 4) so that there are only 3 servers at the top, who can just play each other over and over and over and over, or change the scoring system so that it’s not an automatic blowout when a top-4 server plays a non-top-4 server.

the problem is, the servers aren’t balanced. the reason the servers aren’t balanced is because people are free to play on whatever server they like. players need to be free to play where they like, so that they can play with their friends. but the freedom to move to the same server your friends are on is also the freedom to create stacked servers.

-ken

MikeB.3857:

What the?

SoS is getting dominated and will get dominated for the entire week. No chance winning or even coming close AND we are going to gain rank from it.

Bad system is bad.

SoS is gaining rank mostly from Maguuma, by the way. yes, SoS is doing better versus TC than expected, and they’re getting a little bit of ratings boost from there too.

but mostly SoS is going up because Mag is going down.

-ken

The reason were seeing such huge rating swings is because the previous matchup system screwed the ratings of the servers up that much.

If the ratings were accurate to performance of a server you wouldn’t be seeing 50-100 point swings.

I do think its about time anet lowers the randomizer value. As the weeks go by servers are getting closer and closer in rating, which means they can be matched up with more and more servers.

eldavo.6054:

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Not really. TC can beat Mag and SOS with one hand tied behind their backs by sheer coverage advantage. However if TC doesn’t push hard and completely blow their opponents out they will lose rating. So the point game incentive is to run up the score. Blowout matches are less fun than closer ones, especially for the loser.

Now DB, FA, CD might be a little more fun since DB and FA are closer in rank. They will probably concentrate more on each other and leave CD a little more breathing room to play a spoiler role.

Still count me in the favoring WULD camp, though I would even prefer a variant where you don’t move down or up unless you’ve won or lost twice in a row.

Wrong. They are ganging up on us (CD). It sucks, and I don’t think they are doing it as a coordinated effort -more what they see as easy ppt. I’m fairly hard core about my WvW and yeah we are learning from all these losses but I can DEFINITELY see how the more casual WvWers are getting frustrated and don’t want to join in or they log out after we lose our keep or garri for the 3rd time in an evening.

Toxic.4320:

eldavo.6054:

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Not really. TC can beat Mag and SOS with one hand tied behind their backs by sheer coverage advantage. However if TC doesn’t push hard and completely blow their opponents out they will lose rating. So the point game incentive is to run up the score. Blowout matches are less fun than closer ones, especially for the loser.

Now DB, FA, CD might be a little more fun since DB and FA are closer in rank. They will probably concentrate more on each other and leave CD a little more breathing room to play a spoiler role.

Still count me in the favoring WULD camp, though I would even prefer a variant where you don’t move down or up unless you’ve won or lost twice in a row.

Wrong. They are ganging up on us (CD). It sucks, and I don’t think they are doing it as a coordinated effort -more what they see as easy ppt. I’m fairly hard core about my WvW and yeah we are learning from all these losses but I can DEFINITELY see how the more casual WvWers are getting frustrated and don’t want to join in or they log out after we lose our keep or garri for the 3rd time in an evening.

I agree.

Several people in my guild alone are taking a break from WvW. I, myself, have taken a break for the last 2 weeks. We can’t do anything on our own borderlands. I’m not hard core WvWer but I miss good fights and seeing CD make progress. Really, what can you learn when you get stomped just outside your spawn point. I saw our presence in EB is doing fine but our BL are gone. Its frustrating when you’re severely outnumbered.

My favorite matchup was against Kain and YB. The numbers were so close, it was great. Good fights and learned stuff.

Hickeroar.9734:

Seriously ANet? Is this what you intended? TC/SoS/Mag?

GW2 has something unique and amazing in WvW…and you guys are completely killing it. You need to fix this.

I’m so bored I don’t even know what to do in-game anymore.

Welcome to Project Kill Your Own Game, Phase 2.

Phase 1, aka Arrow Cart buff, was such a success they decided to double down with Phase 2, Bored to Tears.

Phase 3? They just nuke the servers and bury them in a landfill.

Tier 2 had great matchups for about 15 weeks until this new system and has not seen a good one since. Tier 1 has seen good matchups only because they are in fact the same matchups as before the change. This system does not work, but the good news is, almost anyone who really cares has already left. I might yet come back if the pull their wvw heads out of their kittens, but I’ve pretty much lost interest at this point. Good luck to those sticking it out.

Hickeroar.9734:

Also, the idea of winner up, loser down doesn’t work at all. If that were the case, those two servers, who may be evenly matched, would never actually get to play each other. They would just swap stomping and getting stomped.

Just wanted to throw that out there for people who are proposing this. It would be just as broken as this matchup system.

WULD is another terrible suggestion that should never happen. Although I’m not following your logic. Hypothetically, the winner of a tier moves up, loses, then returns to their original tier. Meanwhile, the loser of the original matchup goes down, wins, and returns to their original tier. In other words, they play each other every other week.

ykyk.2740:

The “middle” servers in WULD are doomed. Imagine being the #5 in NA ladder – all that server will do is lose to #4 and #3 in rotation, week in and week out.

As opposed to losing to the #4 server week in and week out under the old system?

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

I highly doubt that #12 CD shares your view point while they are being stomped. I do not agree that #12 fighting #5, 6 is reasonable. Surely they would have a much better fight and be able to prove themselves against #7-11. There is no reason for them to fight servers ranked 6-7 higher than themselves.

yes, arguably CD has a lot of reason to complain about their matchup.

TC, by comparison, has very little room to complain.

-ken

Barbelo.5916:

I actually like random server matchups. More exciting, more unpredictable and I think we’re learning more as a server this way.

http://mos.millenium.org/matchups
Yes, the winner of every single match-up except for one already being decided after the first day is exciting.

A random rotation between opponents one bracket up or down is more than enough. Each month you should get atleast one new opponent per week.

Snowreap.5174:

yes, arguably CD has a lot of reason to complain about their matchup.

TC, by comparison, has very little room to complain.

-ken

We all get that ken enjoys the new system and has appointed himself its primary defense attorney, but I think most people will agree we are tired of your terse, uninformed opinions expressed as if they are fact.

TC, a server that fought hard for months to build a great community on the foundation of good sportsmanship and fair competition, has plenty room to complain. This statement alone shows you have zero clue why the new system is failing. Educate yourself before attempting to educate others.

Toxic.4320:

eldavo.6054:

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Not really. TC can beat Mag and SOS with one hand tied behind their backs by sheer coverage advantage. However if TC doesn’t push hard and completely blow their opponents out they will lose rating. So the point game incentive is to run up the score. Blowout matches are less fun than closer ones, especially for the loser.

Now DB, FA, CD might be a little more fun since DB and FA are closer in rank. They will probably concentrate more on each other and leave CD a little more breathing room to play a spoiler role.

Still count me in the favoring WULD camp, though I would even prefer a variant where you don’t move down or up unless you’ve won or lost twice in a row.

Wrong. They are ganging up on us (CD). It sucks, and I don’t think they are doing it as a coordinated effort -more what they see as easy ppt. I’m fairly hard core about my WvW and yeah we are learning from all these losses but I can DEFINITELY see how the more casual WvWers are getting frustrated and don’t want to join in or they log out after we lose our keep or garri for the 3rd time in an evening.

In tier 1, SoR and JQ tried to take our keep. They split the map in half and starved us of supply. With no supply, we held our keep for at least the 3 hours I was on.

SoR and JQ tried that tactic and again we beat them. However and the other 2 t1train hard, we get new tactics, we spend time theory crafting.

OK ANET!! We learned our lesson, you were right all along.

Can we please have the non-randomized matchups back again? We’re sorry for doubting you and promise never to qq about the system again (well I won’t at least).

Bedstain.6735:

Toxic.4320:

eldavo.6054:

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Not really. TC can beat Mag and SOS with one hand tied behind their backs by sheer coverage advantage. However if TC doesn’t push hard and completely blow their opponents out they will lose rating. So the point game incentive is to run up the score. Blowout matches are less fun than closer ones, especially for the loser.

Now DB, FA, CD might be a little more fun since DB and FA are closer in rank. They will probably concentrate more on each other and leave CD a little more breathing room to play a spoiler role.

Still count me in the favoring WULD camp, though I would even prefer a variant where you don’t move down or up unless you’ve won or lost twice in a row.

Wrong. They are ganging up on us (CD). It sucks, and I don’t think they are doing it as a coordinated effort -more what they see as easy ppt. I’m fairly hard core about my WvW and yeah we are learning from all these losses but I can DEFINITELY see how the more casual WvWers are getting frustrated and don’t want to join in or they log out after we lose our keep or garri for the 3rd time in an evening.

In tier 1, SoR and JQ tried to take our keep. They split the map in half and starved us of supply. With no supply, we held our keep for at least the 3 hours I was on.

SoR and JQ tried that tactic and again we beat them. However and the other 2 t1train hard, we get new tactics, we spend time theory crafting.

I understand your trying to help that is nice of you but, theres a big difference between BG and CD. That and SoR/BG/JQ is a balanced matchup. DB/FA/CD is not. BG u guys get 2v1ed because you are blackhole it has nothing to do with being outnumbered or it being unbalanced.

Bedstain.6735:

Toxic.4320:

eldavo.6054:

Snowreap.5174:

laokoko.7403:

So instead of TC fighting JQ which will give them some good fight. They are fighting like rank 10-15 server?

The deviation is too large.

1. TC can’t fight #3 JQ, because #3 JQ is busy fighting #2 SoR and #1 BG.

instead, #4 TC is fighting #7 Mag and #8 SoS. #7 and #8 are not by any means rank 10-15.

btw, #4 TC can’t fight #5 DB and #6 FA, because #5 and #6 are busy this week giving #12 CD a chance to prove that it deserves to move up.

really, these are all reasonable matchups. look at some of the outcomes in EU if you want to find servers who have a real reason to complain.

-ken

Not really. TC can beat Mag and SOS with one hand tied behind their backs by sheer coverage advantage. However if TC doesn’t push hard and completely blow their opponents out they will lose rating. So the point game incentive is to run up the score. Blowout matches are less fun than closer ones, especially for the loser.

Now DB, FA, CD might be a little more fun since DB and FA are closer in rank. They will probably concentrate more on each other and leave CD a little more breathing room to play a spoiler role.

Still count me in the favoring WULD camp, though I would even prefer a variant where you don’t move down or up unless you’ve won or lost twice in a row.

Wrong. They are ganging up on us (CD). It sucks, and I don’t think they are doing it as a coordinated effort -more what they see as easy ppt. I’m fairly hard core about my WvW and yeah we are learning from all these losses but I can DEFINITELY see how the more casual WvWers are getting frustrated and don’t want to join in or they log out after we lose our keep or garri for the 3rd time in an evening.

In tier 1, SoR and JQ tried to take our keep. They split the map in half and starved us of supply. With no supply, we held our keep for at least the 3 hours I was on.

SoR and JQ tried that tactic and again we beat them. However and the other 2 t1train hard, we get new tactics, we spend time theory crafting.

Understand that I was on TC from January until about a month ago when I decided that it was time to come back to the server that I started on. I know how WvW works in the higher tier servers and have adopted many of the tactics that I learned there ie: sieging up and sentrying, stacking and moving as one etc. Additionally, I am in a guild that transferred to CD from BG.

Is CD doing better than it was a month ago? Absolutely. But you would never know it if you look at how we have gotten facerolled these past 3-4 weeks and this is what is so disheartening for players that can’t see the differences that others with more experience can. I only look at the overall score when I log in and again when I’m logging out. With these matchups, I’m happy to see if we are ticking over 100 ppt. A more casual player may log in to see us ticking 20 ppt and not know that we just fought our kitten off and actually kept our 1/3 of EB or whatever map for the past 5 hours. Those are the players I worry may not come back to WvW -the ones that log in, see 35ppt and log out. And that’s a shame. Because if we were in a more even match up and had the marked improvement that I, and others, have noticed? They would log in and stay in. Because we would be winning more.

This shuffle is actually excellent for matchup selection for Tier 4 and below. I consistently see 3-4 competitive matchups out of the 5 tiers this describes, and has the added benefit of varying the matchups heavily to reduce stagnation.

The reason this system causes all the QQ is because of the top-heavy nature of the upper tiers. Tier 1 is taken care of in its own way because the 3 top servers have consistently wound up together of late.

The bigger problem is that the gap between the #4 and #6 servers (TC and FA) is very broad. Hypothetically matched up head to head, I believe TC is the victor by a landslide between these two. Compounding the problem is that the gap between these #4-6 servers (TC, FA, DB) and the rest of the board is also very broad.

As it stands, it’s very likely that two of these three servers wind up in T2, and one in T3, virtually guaranteeing two very unbalanced matchups for whichever servers are pulled up to play in these tiers.

In spite of this, I actually still feel this system is better on the whole. While it’s not perfect, it’s important to remember that T1 – T3 are not the only tiers in the game. I do see many people cite the consistent imbalance of T2 and T3 as if it’s definitive proof that this new matchup system is bad, forgetting that it’s created some very interesting and exciting matchups lower on the ladder. Just last week (week 25), T5, T6, and T7 all seemed to have very competitive matches. Prior to that, (week 24) T4 was a phenomenal matchup with all 3 servers within inches of victory, and T5 , 6, 7 were all close within reason.

This new system is most certainly not devoid of advantages, unless you only care about T2 and T3.

“Let’s run back to the old way” is a common reflex when it feels like things are not going well for you, despite the fact that the old way was stagnant and flawed in its own right. Volatility reduction is one short term method to try – but ultimately not a solution. I’d be interested to see if ArenaNet is capable of assessing true server strength through other measures. They must have data concerning population coverage , peak volume, and the like. There were also posts concerning a revision of the way WvW is played, enabling methods of play other than the zerg. This would also have a profound impact on matchups.

Because I really do believe the shuffle is ultimately the superior method due to the variety it brings, I would advocate patience over the knee-jerk reaction of reverting all changes.

Sunspots.9861:

Snowreap.5174:

yes, arguably CD has a lot of reason to complain about their matchup.

TC, by comparison, has very little room to complain.

-ken

We all get that ken enjoys the new system and has appointed himself its primary defense attorney, but I think most people will agree we are tired of your terse, uninformed opinions expressed as if they are fact.

TC, a server that fought hard for months to build a great community on the foundation of good sportsmanship and fair competition, has plenty room to complain. This statement alone shows you have zero clue why the new system is failing. Educate yourself before attempting to educate others.

I know why the new system is failing — the new system has done nothing to address the root cause of the problem — massive server imbalances. there are 4 “tier 1” NA servers, and only 3 of them can play each other. the other always has to play a blowout match against much weaker opponents.

the existence of weaker opponents, and the need to play against them, isn’t caused by the new system, it’s caused by players transferring to stacked servers. as long as Anet allows players to choose the server they play on, without adjusting the wvw game mechanics to account for it, there will never be balance.

I understand that from where TC was sitting, the old system looked fine. in the glory days of the old system, there were 6 servers at the top. then SBI and KN collapsed leaving a void behind them. DB tried to fill that void, and had a couple of weeks of big wins against you. I don’t know what happened to change things, but suddenly DB looked like they were on the verge of collapse too. and then the new system took effect.

KN is a prime example of the problem — they became hugely stacked due to a ton of transfers and shot to the top very rapidly, pulling a ton of rating points up with them from the lower tiers. then when they collapsed, they didn’t bring any points back down with them (because the old system allowed points to flow up a tier boundary, but never down again). every time something like that happens (even when it happens on a smaller scale) it makes it harder and harder for the lower servers to move, because the available rating point pool slowly gets depleted.

the rating boundary between T1 and T2 was very small, and TC spent a lot of time at the top of T2, so I’m not surprised you didn’t see the problem it created in the lower tiers. DB shooting up to T2, then falling down again would have been a huge help to TC if you had decided to make a push for T1, but the old system made that kind of help harder and harder to come by.

-ken