Guild Wars 2

Please set boundaries to variation asap.

Never saw so few player/commander at the borderlands and eternal last week and it does not seem to change this week. Last week was only PvD, this week is only x vs y*x where y is >= 2… Common, while I like the idea of randomization it is so no fun right now…

Also when its random anyway why not just “simply” implement some algorithm that consider population and especially 24/7 coverage. Should not be too hard…

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.

Never seen a staff come off as an kitten . << Bravo good sir. Ether way, it had to be said. I had some IoJ claiming DH was intentionally loosing the first week so we could farm them. Clearly had no idea how the system works, but she was dead set that this was what was going on.

I know there isn’t a perfect system, there never will be that people do not complain about.

But here’s what I’m seeing happening with my server GoM. We’ve won every week except 1 in the last 11 weeks (going on the assumption we do win this week). Yet our server ranking is holding within 4 ranks of where we started. Servers we have beat 4-5 weeks in a row, are getting more challenging matchups (higher ranked servers) and playing better than expected via the rank matchup, yielding large jumps in their ranking. Giving them the chance to play a different set of servers. We’re still fighting the same servers (which I imagine is getting as old for them, as it is for us).

What it feels like is that we’re being penalized for not absolutely dominating the lower ranked servers we’re facing. And yet (and no I’m not complaining about it) we’re having those two other servers double team us (which I believe and support as the reason for wvw), and no, it’s not because we’re “taking it easy” or backing off these other servers, they are legitimately putting up a good fight.

My point is thus. If you win, you win. You shouldn’t be penalized for not absolutely obliterating the losing servers. And yes, I get that it’s luck that determines the server you draw for your matchup. My problem with the whole deal is that other servers are making significant point gains, and getting out of some of these stagnant matches (which I was to understand to be the point of this new system). Due to the stagnant nature of the matchups, you do see people not going out to wvw, because they are getting tired of fighting the same people over and over.

Future large scale PvP games might not have it server based due to the problems faced by GW2.

They might have good (elves and dwarves) vs neutrals (humans) vs evil (orcs and goblins). This way people on different servers would fight together.

They might have fewer and therefore larger servers. Or there might be more matches with smaller numbers.

They will try and improve on GW2’s design.

Samis.1750:

Future large scale PvP games might not have it server based due to the problems faced by GW2.

They might have good (elves and dwarves) vs neutrals (humans) vs evil (orcs and goblins). This way people on different servers would fight together.

They might have fewer and therefore larger servers. Or there might be more matches with smaller numbers.

They will try and improve on GW2’s design.

That’s not very hard to do since they have ruined their design.

Samis.1750:

Future large scale PvP games might not have it server based due to the problems faced by GW2.

They might have good (elves and dwarves) vs neutrals (humans) vs evil (orcs and goblins). This way people on different servers would fight together.

They might have fewer and therefore larger servers. Or there might be more matches with smaller numbers.

They will try and improve on GW2’s design.

Humans vs Orc? Where have I seen that before?

It’s been 21 days (three weeks) since Devon said they would adjust the formula yet SoS is still fighting TC.

I still think this system is better than the previous – but it is not good by any stretch. I have avocated for a manual matchmaking system since the beginning – and I stand by that. A manual matchmaking system is the way to go and Anet needs to do it now. Or at least have some human input so crazy things don’t happen.

Anet needs to hire someone from the Humanities or Social Sciences to determine the matchmaking system and stop letting the computer people decide something that computers simply cannot do well.

I’ll take the NA Servers because that’s where I play and what I’m familiar with. Any human can look at the situation and say the following. Now some humans may disagree with these specifics, but the generalities are obvious:

There are obviously 3 top servers – SoR, BG and JQ.
There is TC next. TC may be able to put up a good fight against the top 3.
Next there is DB. DB didn’t do well when paired up with 2 of the top 3 a couple of weeks ago. But they still may be able to have good fights when matched up with some combination of the top 4.
FA next. The combination of TC, DB and FA is what we had for a long time. But when paired up with TC and a weaker server, TC dominated.
Next there is a gap.
Then we have a grouping of servers: Mag, SOS, Yaks, EmBay, Kain and perhaps CD.
Big gap.
SBI and BP.
Another gap.
Darkhaven, IoJ, NSP, GoM, SF, Devonas, HoD, AR. Not necessarily in that order.
FC and ET. Who actually do better and have more fun when they are NOT paired with each other.

A human could look at the this information (and much more than I can just glancing at the past matchups) and come up with far better matchups week in and week out than any computer system ever could.

A human would not put SoS together with TC for weeks in a row (and with SoR once nonetheless). A computer would (and has).

A human would not interpret SoS’s matches with TC to mean that they should be rated CLOSER to them so that SoS and TC should play together more. A compter would (and has) – SOS is still gaining rating.

Before you think this is from a SoS player who (rightfully imho) is upset with the new system, I am from SBI. We’ve had some great matchups lately. But there is a big ratings gap above us. I’m worried about that – and especially worried about how a computer may interpret it. And match us together with BP and one of the lower servers more often that humans would want to be in that matchup. I don’t want to be stuck fighting BP and lower servers all the time. I want to be able to fight some servers above us.

I don’t care what the numbers say. Or what a servers “rating” is. A human being can do some things better than a computer – and matchmaking in GW2 is one of them.

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.

You do realise you’re losing players left, right and center while you’re sitting there scratching your groin?

Dunno if you guys ever think stuff through before implementing, so let me explain: What the new system is doing right now is bringing the ratings closer together. This is the logical result of putting this new system into place after the ratings had been inflated by the old system for so long. What this means is: Blow-out matches are actually getting more and more likely with every week the new system is running, b/c generally speaking, higher ratings will decrease and lower ratings will increase. This means, at the very least the size of the variation should be adjusted every week.

Now horribly imbalanced match-ups were kinda fun for maybe a week or two, but it’s getting pretty kittenin old pretty kittenin fast. Waltzing through deserted borderlands PvDing for 7 days straight, only to get steamrolled by a server that is constantly throwing twice the amount of people at you the week after isn’t exactly everyone’s definition of fun.

You better fix that kitten ASAP instead of doing nothing. Or maybe this is just ANet’s solution to queues and skill lag? Get rid off players → problems fixed?

Lol, right now the pattern for what SoS is experiencing is this. Huge TC zerg come in, faceroll everything. Even the MOST well sieged garrison or tower only helps to slow them down by a few minutes. Eventually, they own our whole borderland and they laugh and dance around for a bit before they move on to another borderland or EB. So here I am with about 5-10 players max, slowly taking back the borderland. Once we reach finally take back our garrison and one keep, the TC zerg comes right back and does the exact same thing. With little time and supply to put any defense up, we get facerolled again and of course, some fellow players love playing the blame game or calling you incompetent even though they don’t understand what we’re doing here is courageous and that what they want us to accomplish is a miracle.

I was leading for about 4-5 hours that day, not admitting defeat, doing what I can and trying my best to take back what we can with the forces we have. But yeah, the difference in numbers is just so overwhelming. Here we’re struggling to get a hand full of players in our OWN borderland and they have enough to hand around for all 3.

I miss the old match ups now…

I think what the devs want us to do to fix their problem is to throw the game for several weeks, lose heaps of rating so we can finally fight in tiers in which we belong or keep fighting hard and getting our kitten kicked and slowly lose rating into where we belong. Either way, it’s going to put a lot of ppl off wvw during that process.

Dont worry Laf, its the mechanics of the current state of wvw. Those with high pop wvw players are using this opportunity to karma farm/train the hell out of their competitors. Honestly, unless you have the numbers, as soon as you take a keep or tower, you will be farmed by the higher tier server your matched up with. The concept of the WvW system was a bold and innovative attempt by game makers. However, Anet didnt take into consideration the blood/glory thirsty, self serving nature of gamers (well, many gamers that is.) From my experience, from watching all the server hopping by guilds and players who want to be on the winning side, a considerable amt of players DON"T want a balanced fight, they just want to win. This thrashes the game for everybody. Just something you find a way to work around or just get facerolled.

Snowreap.5174:

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.

Players stacking and jumping ship is not the fault of the matchup system, it’s a problem with the playerbase and their mentality.

Even with the new system, at least for middle tier servers, if you want to win going to a higher tier is still the answer.

Cries.1263:

Dont worry Laf, its the mechanics of the current state of wvw. Those with high pop wvw players are using this opportunity to karma farm/train the hell out of their competitors. Honestly, unless you have the numbers, as soon as you take a keep or tower, you will be farmed by the higher tier server your matched up with. The concept of the WvW system was a bold and innovative attempt by game makers. However, Anet didnt take into consideration the blood/glory thirsty, self serving nature of gamers (well, many gamers that is.) From my experience, from watching all the server hopping by guilds and players who want to be on the winning side, a considerable amt of players DON"T want a balanced fight, they just want to win. This thrashes the game for everybody. Just something you find a way to work around or just get facerolled.

I agree with you in many of the points, I think to make matchups which are truly even with so many servers is very difficult (something which shouldn’t have been CONTROLLED by an AUTOMATED system. If they want to at least have any chance of a pseudo balance play, they should have some professionals who analyse and determine the servers capability ALONG SIDE with statistics which they gather. Like
[Squishy Humanoid]: oh, I don’t think putting this t1 fighting server is a very good idea against a t4. They’re just going to get massacred.

[Computer] BRAINS… DESTRUCTION… EXECUTED… ORDER 666.

I’m just trying to be funi here.

reduce the number of players per world (server) per map by half. problem solve. do justice to your physical servers.

Up, up and away!

I laugh at these incompetent WvW devs. Big surprise for nobody but ANET that the only decent looking tiers are also the closest in ranks. Can’t they just come out and say ‘do our PvE event achievements or GTFO’ already.

http://mos.millenium.org/matchups

Actually nsps match up this week isnt terrible and our ratings far apart so ima have to disagree

Johje Holan.4607:

I still think this system is better than the previous – but it is not good by any stretch. I have avocated for a manual matchmaking system since the beginning – and I stand by that. A manual matchmaking system is the way to go and Anet needs to do it now. Or at least have some human input so crazy things don’t happen.

Anet needs to hire someone from the Humanities or Social Sciences to determine the matchmaking system and stop letting the computer people decide something that computers simply cannot do well.

I’ll take the NA Servers because that’s where I play and what I’m familiar with. Any human can look at the situation and say the following. Now some humans may disagree with these specifics, but the generalities are obvious:

There are obviously 3 top servers – SoR, BG and JQ.
There is TC next. TC may be able to put up a good fight against the top 3.
Next there is DB. DB didn’t do well when paired up with 2 of the top 3 a couple of weeks ago. But they still may be able to have good fights when matched up with some combination of the top 4.
FA next. The combination of TC, DB and FA is what we had for a long time. But when paired up with TC and a weaker server, TC dominated.
Next there is a gap.
Then we have a grouping of servers: Mag, SOS, Yaks, EmBay, Kain and perhaps CD.
Big gap.
SBI and BP.
Another gap.
Darkhaven, IoJ, NSP, GoM, SF, Devonas, HoD, AR. Not necessarily in that order.
FC and ET. Who actually do better and have more fun when they are NOT paired with each other.

A human could look at the this information (and much more than I can just glancing at the past matchups) and come up with far better matchups week in and week out than any computer system ever could.

A human would not put SoS together with TC for weeks in a row (and with SoR once nonetheless). A computer would (and has).

A human would not interpret SoS’s matches with TC to mean that they should be rated CLOSER to them so that SoS and TC should play together more. A compter would (and has) – SOS is still gaining rating.

Before you think this is from a SoS player who (rightfully imho) is upset with the new system, I am from SBI. We’ve had some great matchups lately. But there is a big ratings gap above us. I’m worried about that – and especially worried about how a computer may interpret it. And match us together with BP and one of the lower servers more often that humans would want to be in that matchup. I don’t want to be stuck fighting BP and lower servers all the time. I want to be able to fight some servers above us.

I don’t care what the numbers say. Or what a servers “rating” is. A human being can do some things better than a computer – and matchmaking in GW2 is one of them.

I couldn’t agree more, and will go further by saying that human input has been needed since the beginning. When EB was stuck at the top of T5, they needed to be bumped up. DB needed to be bumped out of T3 while they were there. SoS needed to be bumped out of T4, and so on.

Servers undergoing collapse need to be bumped down faster. Everyone remember how it took ET and HoD almost 2 months to finally settle where they did?

It’s clear that this new system, while it clears up some mistakes of the past; needs more adult supervision.

SoS, EB, and Mag are all pretty close in T3 now, but we may never know which is the better server because every matchup has had TC or DB poisoning the well.

What about TC? They got to be sick to death of playing T4 and T3 servers. Yeah they got FA last week, but FA has bled enough people that they are much closer to T3 than the rest of T2 now. Everytime a real WvW guild comes into our matches (from TC) I’m sure they just stand around after the fight and openly ask if they should really celebrate these one-sided victories.

Also, the current T4 is very balanced. CD pulled off some last minute squeakers, but those were nailbiters down to the wire (how WvW should be).

Of course, I haven’t been in a balanced matchup since SoS first went to T3 (when certain well-meaning folks under-estimated the effect of certain actions).

The game has turned very stupid. Big server PVE farmer train blobs everything and anything. WvW is my only game mode i like in GW2. I loved it infact. Now its been compeltely ruined for me and all other smaller servers that even try be serious. I can’t see long future for WvW with this current matching system.

I’m thinking the matches are picked by devs picking server names out of a hat during weekly meetings.

WvW was fun bevor, now it’s no fun anymore. People leave in masses.
I’m sure the numbers Anet gets tell the same.

What I want to know is have anet thrown out the random variable for the 3 ‘T1’ servers? Cause for the past month it hasn’t been random.

morrolan.9608:

What I want to know is have anet thrown out the random variable for the 3 ‘T1’ servers? Cause for the past month it hasn’t been random.

4 weeks ago you got SoR/TC/SoS. If you look at Snowreaps’ numbers, the top 3 servers will fight each other 50% of the time.

Avatar of Belle.9623:

morrolan.9608:

What I want to know is have anet thrown out the random variable for the 3 ‘T1’ servers? Cause for the past month it hasn’t been random.

4 weeks ago you got SoR/TC/SoS. If you look at Snowreaps’ numbers, the top 3 tiers will fight each other 50% of the time.

Yeah but including this week its been 75%.

morrolan.9608:

Avatar of Belle.9623:

morrolan.9608:

What I want to know is have anet thrown out the random variable for the 3 ‘T1’ servers? Cause for the past month it hasn’t been random.

4 weeks ago you got SoR/TC/SoS. If you look at Snowreaps’ numbers, the top 3 tiers will fight each other 50% of the time.

Yeah but including this week its been 75%.

Yeah and if you flip a coin 4 times it should hit heads and tails 2 times each. If it hits heads 3 times is the coin broken?

Ynot.8397:

morrolan.9608:

Avatar of Belle.9623:

morrolan.9608:

What I want to know is have anet thrown out the random variable for the 3 ‘T1’ servers? Cause for the past month it hasn’t been random.

4 weeks ago you got SoR/TC/SoS. If you look at Snowreaps’ numbers, the top 3 tiers will fight each other 50% of the time.

Yeah but including this week its been 75%.

Yeah and if you flip a coin 4 times it should hit heads and tails 2 times each. If it hits heads 3 times is the coin broken?

Anyone who plays MMOs knows that the playerbase is notoriously bad at understanding/accepting statistics. How many times have you heard the spiel about droprates decreasing (sometimes it’s true) because of a string of bad luck.

Visiroth.5914:

Anyone who plays MMOs knows that the playerbase is notoriously bad at understanding/accepting statistics. How many times have you heard the spiel about droprates decreasing (sometimes it’s true) because of a string of bad luck.

I understand it I’m just suspicious.

morrolan.9608:

Visiroth.5914:

Anyone who plays MMOs knows that the playerbase is notoriously bad at understanding/accepting statistics. How many times have you heard the spiel about droprates decreasing (sometimes it’s true) because of a string of bad luck.

I understand it I’m just suspicious.

There is nothing to be suspicious over yet. Maybe if after 8 weeks they have been together 7 times you can be. 4 weeks is far too few. No reason to worry for a few weeks.

Listen to Ynot. S/he is a voice of reason.

I’m tired of getting punched in the mouth every week.

This thread is long, but I will add something anyway XD.

It seems fighting against higher rating servers you still gain overall rating points somehow even though you lose totally in game for the whole week.

On the other hand, you lose ratings somehow against servers who has lower ratings even though you mark all 4 maps with your color most of the time.

So, it’s strange really. It’s almost like you want to fight tough opponents if your server want to gain ratings. But due to the nature of the random match each week, you will gain/lose rating ever other week (in average). So I wouldn’t be surprised the total rating would look similiar to what it is today after a few months/years.

So this new matchup system is more of giving a chance to let people fight different servers. That is all. On the good side of this, when fighting tough servers, you practice defense the whole week. When fighting week servers, enjoy zerging with karma train. It seems to me HC and casual players will take turn to have their good time.

Though I have no idea how it works for the buttom tier servers. Maybe old/new systems make no difference to them?

your rating goes up if your score at the end of the week is better than expected. your rating goes down if your score is worse than expected. your “expected” score is calculated by comparing your rating with your opponent’s rating at the start of the week.

this is why you can lose a match and still gain rating, or win a match and still lose rating. if you were expected to win by a lot, but only win by a little, you will lose rating.

there are many more posts in this thread explaining it in more detail if you want to go back and find them.

-ken

BBMouse.6510:

This thread is long, but I will add something anyway XD.

It seems fighting against higher rating servers you still gain overall rating points somehow even though you lose totally in game for the whole week.

On the other hand, you lose ratings somehow against servers who has lower ratings even though you mark all 4 maps with your color most of the time.

So, it’s strange really. It’s almost like you want to fight tough opponents if your server want to gain ratings. But due to the nature of the random match each week, you will gain/lose rating ever other week (in average). So I wouldn’t be surprised the total rating would look similiar to what it is today after a few months/years.

So this new matchup system is more of giving a chance to let people fight different servers. That is all. On the good side of this, when fighting tough servers, you practice defense the whole week. When fighting week servers, enjoy zerging with karma train. It seems to me HC and casual players will take turn to have their good time.

Though I have no idea how it works for the buttom tier servers. Maybe old/new systems make no difference to them?

In EU this just sucks. tier 8 and 7 and one of tier 9 started to have really good fights. Noob-zerg-trains couldnt take a thing, u actually needed to know how to play. I have lost every intrest to wvw because of this new retarted match up. All tactical parts of game are dead.

I for one am having a blast with the new matchup system. NSP has been fighting outmanned since before it started. The week it started I believe we were rank 22. Since then we have lost 3 more guilds. Yet somehow we have managed to keep fighting and climbing in the ranks. Going up against servers that are now much larger than our own many of the guilds have decided they need to get more organized. Pugs are also deciding that if they want to be able to compete they need to join the more organized guilds. Here we are, 6 weeks later?? and NSP is predicted to be rank 16 this coming reset. We haven’t gained any new guilds to my knowledge, we have simply done what we can to upset the predictions. Eventually a day will come when we are just far too outnumbered to be able to compete at all. Thats when we will all catch up on some PVE and farming. Until then you can bet were going to keep fighting our hearts out.
Thanks for giving us the chance to defy the odds Anet!

All I have to say is that WvW management went to crap around the same time they legalized pot in WA state (where ANET is located).

I like the idea that the match-ups are done by a person, not a computer. There’s only 24 servers, it wouldn’t take that long for one person to do the match-ups every week. There would still occasionally be blow-outs, but there’d probably be more diversity in the matches, too.

But what I was really thinking about was adding in handicaps. Maybe the highest ranked server can only field so many people on other BLs (keep same amount allowed as now on their own BL and EB), and maybe the lowest ranked server gets a speed boost to siege building or something, like they can build siege a certain percentage faster, so they can set up a decent defense of any keeps they take before the zerg comes around again. They give handicaps in golf to try and make it more even, why not here? They couldn’t make it too drastic, otherwise people might try to lose just to get a bonus or two, but it might give lower ranked servers a chance to win, or at least avoid a blow-out.

Teevell.1684:

I like the idea that the match-ups are done by a person, not a computer. There’s only 24 servers, it wouldn’t take that long for one person to do the match-ups every week. There would still occasionally be blow-outs, but there’d probably be more diversity in the matches, too.

But what I was really thinking about was adding in handicaps. Maybe the highest ranked server can only field so many people on other BLs (keep same amount allowed as now on their own BL and EB), and maybe the lowest ranked server gets a speed boost to siege building or something, like they can build siege a certain percentage faster, so they can set up a decent defense of any keeps they take before the zerg comes around again. They give handicaps in golf to try and make it more even, why not here? They couldn’t make it too drastic, otherwise people might try to lose just to get a bonus or two, but it might give lower ranked servers a chance to win, or at least avoid a blow-out.

I like the idea of slight handicaps like that. Blowouts will always be a thing, whether or not the current system remains in place or not; and they aren’t fun for anyone.

I think the biggest thing they can do is reduce the amount of supply needed to build siege. If 3 people can build a ram instead of 5; that drastically alters the math and will force servers to keep people on “empty” BL’s in numbers and organization enough to counter the fact that a 30 man group can put a ram on every door on the map.

Another idea is increased siege resistance, making it so that 1 moron with AC mastery can’t permanently lock a server out of every tower.

Random matchu-ups against T1 realms are impossible, even if the other 2 realms teamed up (in that SoR x TC x SoS week) they hardly would be a challenge. T1 is too Balls Deep – BlackGate former player.

I suggested that Anet switch to a “Swing” random match up system. Read my forum post and discuss it there please.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Use-a-Swing-match-up-system/first#post2345091

This random thing is so broken, it makes me wonder if ANet not understand the meaning of random? Let’s fix this. A #1 server still did not have a chance to face off against a #24 server. Let’s get this fix so random is really random. Matches are still the same and it’s no different than the old glicko system. It’s proven to be stale and it’s stale again. I think by randomizing the matchups, it might force guilds on various servers who wants competition to move around so the love will be spread about. They won’t want to go into WvW to fight nobody right? Let’s fix this.

Hopefully there will be new mass pvp mode in fall. WvW is gone down to sewer’s. Brainless blobbin on wood villages with golems. Mostly everyone avoids any battle to not disturb farming. New game mode or about to pack my things. GW2 was so much better before ascended grinding and this new “system”.

First of all, I want to make something very clear: I have absolutely nothing against any particular server. This argument is based purely on something obvious that seems to have only one logical solution

I know this sounds like a provocation, but please hear me out. In NA there are 24 servers, in EU there are 27. By looking at the matchups here for NA: http://mos.millenium.org/na and here for EU: http://mos.millenium.org/matchups it is clear that week after week having the last tier in EU makes little to no sense.

The average server population in EU is lower than in NA (look at the server list in world selection for proof), and WvW players fear for the week they will be matched up against FoW and Vabbi: that week simply means complete boredom with one server completely dominating all borderlands for the entire week. This has been proven to be the case for months. A lot of guilds/people actually transfer to different servers during that week, so that they can have some fun in WvW.

I know that what I’m proposing will upset a lot of people that want to stay in the bottom 3 servers, but don’t you agree that it simply makes sense to remove the last EU tier entirely? Currently, because of the random match-up system, there are guilds that are moving away from lower tiers simply to avoid the possiblity of having to face FoW and Vabbi. This simply creates more imbalance in WvW population and more blobs in higher tiers, which is exactly the opposite of what we need.

I believe that removing the last tier has obvious benefits. People from T9 would most likely move to servers that are similar to what they are accustomed to, meaning probably T6-T8, which would mean more population balance throughout the tiers. Servers/guilds will not have to fear facing 2 empty servers and a wasted WvW week (which could also have repercussions in the future, for example a lot of RoF people transferred to RoS this week and a lot of them will not go back). The only negative I can see would be for people that feel like they “belong” to their current server, but I think that’s just a small price to pay for what would be gained.

What do you guys think? Am I crazy for thinking this?

ps: this is purely my opinion and does not necessarily reflect anything that my server and/or guild thinks

edit: I’ve also created a reddit to discuss this more, if people are interested: http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/1hmjw6/should_the_bottom_3_servers_in_europe_be_removed/

I agree with tsubus. The last EU tier is a bit useless :/

We have always had score blow-outs – even more when there were free transfers. Looking back on MoS it has been pretty common to get more than 100000 between 1st and 2nd in each tier, especially with all the bandwagoning to what was perceived as the next big thing.

Right at the start it was the top 4 – HoD, SBI, JQ and ET, with HoD always winning T1 and JQ or ET smashing whoever they were playing in T2.

In the past servers have imploded for various reasons and it will happen again. I will be amazed if top four are SoR BG JQ and then TC at the end of the year.

Of course the opposite might happen – those top three might become MORE stacked.

Again, I don’t think it’s that big of an issue in upper tiers because no matter the results you will always find fights (actually I don’t understand how people stay in T1-T2 with all the huge blobs and skill lag, but that’s an entirely different conversation). The issue with EU T9 is that FoW and Vabbi are completely empty, the unlucky server that ends up there is forced to do PvD all week long.

edit: do you think this makes any sense, considering it’s just past prime time? https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/82548/gw041.jpg

Actinotus.6410:

In the past servers have imploded for various reasons and it will happen again. I will be amazed if top four are SoR BG JQ and then TC at the end of the year.

I, particularly, think TC would be smashed like DragonBrand was against BlackGate-Jade Quarry 4 weeks ago. Will be absolutely impossible to place a T2 server fairly against a T1

http://i.imgur.com/SfErtBF.png

Look at the huge point difference. Match-up maybe funnier for lower tiers, but we in T1 are doomed with this matchup until who knows when. What would TC do against T1? Roleplay us to death?

TC (and SoS) had a crack at SoR about three weeks back and the final score wasn’t pretty. http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/36/77

Saying that I enjoyed playing in that matchup (in oceanic time).

tsubus.8761:

First of all, I want to make something very clear: I have absolutely nothing against any particular server. This argument is based purely on something obvious that seems to have only one logical solution

I know this sounds like a provocation, but please hear me out. In NA there are 24 servers, in EU there are 27. By looking at the matchups here for NA: http://mos.millenium.org/na and here for EU: http://mos.millenium.org/matchups it is clear that week after week having the last tier in EU makes little to no sense.

The average server population in EU is lower than in NA (look at the server list in world selection for proof), and WvW players fear for the week they will be matched up against FoW and Vabbi: that week simply means complete boredom with one server completely dominating all borderlands for the entire week. This has been proven to be the case for months. A lot of guilds/people actually transfer to different servers during that week, so that they can have some fun in WvW.

I know that what I’m proposing will upset a lot of people that want to stay in the bottom 3 servers, but don’t you agree that it simply makes sense to remove the last EU tier entirely? Currently, because of the random match-up system, there are guilds that are moving away from lower tiers simply to avoid the possiblity of having to face FoW and Vabbi. This simply creates more imbalance in WvW population and more blobs in higher tiers, which is exactly the opposite of what we need.

I believe that removing the last tier has obvious benefits. People from T9 would most likely move to servers that are similar to what they are accustomed to, meaning probably T6-T8, which would mean more population balance throughout the tiers. Servers/guilds will not have to fear facing 2 empty servers and a wasted WvW week (which could also have repercussions in the future, for example a lot of RoF people transferred to RoS this week and a lot of them will not go back). The only negative I can see would be for people that feel like they “belong” to their current server, but I think that’s just a small price to pay for what would be gained.

What do you guys think? Am I crazy for thinking this?

ps: this is purely my opinion and does not necessarily reflect anything that my server and/or guild thinks

edit: I’ve also created a reddit to discuss this more, if people are interested: http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/1hmjw6/should_the_bottom_3_servers_in_europe_be_removed/

Yeah i agree with this. I fear for the next time we’re against FoW.

I just had a thought, and it’s probably crazy, but what about combining two low-ranked servers to fight together? So it would be SoS+Mag (red team) vs. TC (green team)vs. DB (blue team) or something (just the first four servers I could think of, don’t critique this actual match-up). So in this scenario, SoS and Mag would be partners, sharing one BL and points. This might help them achieve the coverage and numbers needed to go against higher ranked servers, which creates more of a challenge for the other two servers. Next week they might be paired up with a different server, or if they’d risen in rank (because the game kept track of their individual rating on its own, that way if one server is doing all the work they get credit for it) they could end up fighting on their own again, or be paired with a different server.

Just a rough idea I had that might alleviate some problems (though I realize that it might cause others) and make more dynamic matches. Requesting input in 3…2…1

Darkhaven 265/ HoD 154 / AR 129

HoD is being camped by DH in in their own borderland at their spawn keep.

One month into the new ‘system’, is it?

Do the deluded fan boys wanna give it another month?

Teevell.1684:

I just had a thought, and it’s probably crazy, but what about combining two low-ranked servers to fight together? So it would be SoS+Mag (red team) vs. TC (green team)vs. DB (blue team) or something (just the first four servers I could think of, don’t critique this actual match-up). So in this scenario, SoS and Mag would be partners, sharing one BL and points. This might help them achieve the coverage and numbers needed to go against higher ranked servers, which creates more of a challenge for the other two servers. Next week they might be paired up with a different server, or if they’d risen in rank (because the game kept track of their individual rating on its own, that way if one server is doing all the work they get credit for it) they could end up fighting on their own again, or be paired with a different server.

Just a rough idea I had that might alleviate some problems (though I realize that it might cause others) and make more dynamic matches. Requesting input in 3…2…1

By extension you would combine TC and DB in order to be “competitive” against SoR and BG. Why not transfer servers from TC to DB?

Look, in the SoS/TC/Mag matchup at the moment, the overall score does not reflect what is happening on the field. TC has greater overall coverage , but both Mag and SoS can more than match TC at their own peak times – maybe not on all 3 borderlands, but certainly EB plus two borderlands. I’ve said since last year that i reckon they should reduce the number of maps (since almost no server can fill all 4 maps), and/or change it so you get more points for TAKING an objective rather than holding it (which would serve a similar purpose).

Is Anet looking into this or just ignoring it? Pretty sad that people complain they want something different for server match-ups and then the change they make is worse then it was to start with.