Guild Wars 2

It does seem like glicko is broken:

• Current scores are still partly based on historical data that is has been irrelevant since linking.
• Host servers retain the glicko score earned from the host-guest combination, even though links change regularly.
• Current scores are being tampered with – manual adjustments and occasional changes to the match making algorithm.

What are the alternatives?

• Replace glicko. But with what? Any replacement would need to accommodate both PPT and PPK play.

• Keep the current scoring but allocate score to every server involved? This would allow “guest” servers to gain score once again, and could lead to a full league table once more, or two tables (Hosts and Guests). But how do you fairly allocate score between the servers involved in a kill/capture?

• Is there a better alternative system?

Yuffi.2430:

It does seem like glicko is broken:

• Current scores are still partly based on historical data that is has been irrelevant since linking.
• Host servers retain the glicko score earned from the host-guest combination, even though links change regularly.
• Current scores are being tampered with – manual adjustments and occasional changes to the match making algorithm.

What are the alternatives?

• Replace glicko. But with what? Any replacement would need to accommodate both PPT and PPK play.

• Keep the current scoring but allocate score to every server involved? This would allow “guest” servers to gain score once again, and could lead to a full league table once more, or two tables (Hosts and Guests). But how do you fairly allocate score between the servers involved in a kill/capture?

• Is there a better alternative system?

Yes, the alternative is making a 3 factions megaserver wvw with enough maps to pool all players so there is 24/7 coverage. No, not map copies like eotm… Add a new series of unique wvw maps that can host the playerbase so there is room and variety. Faction rotations can happen every few months or whatever.

Yuffi.2430:

• Replace glicko. But with what? Any replacement would need to accommodate both PPT and PPK play.

Use 1-up-1-down concept but with rank instead of tier and matches are based on rank, not randomized. For example, come in first place – rank up one; come in 2nd place – rank stays same, come in 3rd place – rank down one. A counter-argument would be how players can game this, but we already have players doing that with glicko. The difference is that in a tanking situation, they can only drop one rank and not several as can be done with glicko. Match-ups can’t become stale because two servers are always changing rank. Match-ups also can’t be really unbalanced since tier 4 server’s can’t jump up to tier 1 matches.

Personally I would prefer a scoring system where each player gains score on a personal level. This would allow:

• player score leader boards
• guild leader boards (using the sum of the personal WvW score of the guild members)
• server leader boards (using the sum of the player scores for each server)

This could introduce 3 levels of competition where we only have one at present.

It would also allow ALL servers to compete, instead of only host servers gaining score.
It may even be that arranging server links using individual server scores might be more reliable than using the current WvW population metric.

How are you going to establish individual server scores when so many servers are linked? That’s basically no better than using the WvW population metric. It also doesn’t really fix the matchmaking issues since server-links that are tier 3-4 are getting matched vs. tier 1 servers.

Glicko isn’t broken, its meaningless with relinks and population shifts. Bad matchups are bound to frequently happen – and they are. No amount of scoring change is going to help colossal mismatches in populations that result the BL getting steamrolled and spawn camping complaints. Neither side has much fun, but the population as a whole is unwilling to balance itself out. Blow the kitten worlds up and take a shot at something different to save the game mode.

@Djamonja – if scoring can be done personally for each player it’s easy to do work out scores for individual servers even if they are linked. Simply add up the personal score for each player on the server.

The real question is how do you achieve an individual player score?
I had thought of WvW XP gained, but then XP boosters become score boosters. Perhaps WvW participation could be used, but then what about the “tap and AFK” method suggested for those who want an easy Gift of Battle?
Or could the current scoring system be used by assigning the points to each player individually instead of to a server?
If you have better ideas please suggest them!

One key advantage of personal scoring is that WvW could be developed into something that allows player choice, accommodates population changes and promotes server identity. The idea could work something like this:

• Keep the existing tiers but allocate different population caps to the maps so T1 now allows large group fights, T2 works with medium groups, T3 smaller groups and T4 small parties and solo/duo players. Group size would be limited by map population cap.
• Remove server based matchups and allow players to select the Tier they wish to play in every time they enter WvW. So if you want big zerg action one day you go into the T1 map and then if you fancy something a little smaller you’d change to a smaller group tier.
• Allocate servers to a colour for a fixed period of time (a week? a month?).
• Introduce Player Leader boards, Guild Leader boards and Server Leader boards with scores made up of individual player scores. This lets people play for fun, or with the aim of being the highest scoring individual, or to contribute to their guild score/position, or for their server.

Please note there would not be a colour score so this is not about creating factions, the colours are just a way of allocating servers to a borderland map, and might be a way of balancing the total population per side. Sort of a mega-linking that doesn’t actually change the scores.

Something like this would treat large and small servers equally in terms of identity, no one would ever be stuck in a poor matchup for weeks, and since players can choose the tier they play in (up to the map limit) it would be easier for players to even out fights if they wanted to.

I think it could work and bring a much needed rejuvenation to WvW, but it all hinges on changing to a viable personal scoring system.

Yuffi.2430:

Personally I would prefer a scoring system where each player gains score on a personal level.

I think you’re putting way more meaning into this than it actually deserves. All metrics boil down to hours played – the more you play the more camps you capture and players you kill. So it’s enough to measure hours played in WvW.

The matchups should be manually set by ANet each week. It cannot take more than a few minutes to figure out which servers should be in which tiers. Relinking should be done to combat stagnant tiers.

It really doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.

@Zenith – I’m sorry but I can’t agree that it’s enough to measure hours played. I’ve seen too many players afk at spawn to trust time on a map as a measure of active participation.

@Straegen – I understand, but which servers are you talking about? Host servers I suspect. Part of the idea in changing to personal score is to allow competition at player level and guild level, as well as server level. It would also allow all servers to earn score, which would go a fair way to restoring the identity of the guest servers.

Is the idea of allocating score to individual players rather than lumping it all into an overall “server” score really that much more complicated?

@Yuffi: Like the idea. Just to be clear, you’re not thinking about rewards for how server scores in this, other than the bragging rights ? Also really would love to have the tiers broken up like that, so I could go play what I felt like, not what I rolled this week.

@Straegen: Well, the only thing they would have done would be to remove the random glicko modifier, and just mash 1+2+3, and 3+4+5 etc against each others. And just let the servers slowly rise and sink in glicko through normal means.

The problem becomes (and is) when there simply aren’t any servers close enough to give an even fight. And if there are, getting 3 of them into the same match-up means that every other match-up is a bloody mess!

This is actually linked with what I consider the #3rd largest problem with WvW, Fair-weathers. “We’re not leading, I’m out of here! Silver-wastes grinding is calling me!” While whatever side is leading keeps their fair-weathers, and thus double/triple their manpower.