Guild Wars 2

In EU every league had 3 matches per week, the respective tier1, tier2 and tier3 matches. Winners got 5 points no matter whether it was tier1, tier2 or tier3. Therefore the final standings do in no way reflect the strengths of the servers. A server who was switched between t2 and t3 would have the same number of points as one that was switched between t1 and t2.

Please Anet, if you EVER do a tournament again, get your systems working. WvW is already an unbalanced ground and a “torunament” makes one think it would be balanced. But if the scoring is wrong, too, I do not see any reason to invest time in this ever again.

How would another System make it better?!

The way it was now, even Servers who dont have Q’s 24/7 and people online 24/7 could get a reward for their performance versus more or less equal Servers….

If it would be a normal 10pt to 1 pt ranking for Server 1-9, The season would also be decided before it started already and people would transfer to top stacked servers already and make Q’s unbearable (look what happened to Gandara).

The system is not ideal and some tweaks could be done for example NO free server transfers before a season..

My tip would be with the announcement of a new season to triple the gem cost for transfers to deny server stacking

Looks fine to me. Servers are divided into brackets, fight to be the strongest of their respective bracket. Ofc a 1st bronze isnt as strong as a 2nd gold , but thats why we had the tier system in the first place: so Vabbi would.t be matched against Gandara for example.

Here is a system that would make it better.

• Put all servers in one big league ( more server less repetition and ties)
• Make league matches two sided. Merge EU-server down to 24, or both NA and EU down to 18 server, dividable by 2 & 3 such both 2-sided league matches as well as three sided normal (out-side tournament) matches are possible.
• assign rewards to the servers based on placement, and distribute the server-rewards to the players on this server based on commitment in WvW, e.g. WvW (not EotM) WEXP earned during the league, I.e. Do not reward bandwaggoners, and do not punish commit players for many bandwaggoners on the server.
• make transfers to all servers very cheap (100 gems or so)
• show I transfer dialog: average rewards per player, e.g. Even if A is 1st at moment, and B is last, mean rewards per player on B are likely higher than on A, simply because A has many times as many player.

Such a league would make sense as

1. it helps to balance WvW (with the reward steps between ranks you can direct intended balance)
2. bandwaggoners that never entered WvW are not getting the same reward than player that really help to achieve a rank
3. it finishes the 1st and 3rd attack the 2nd which was very strong during the league, as well as the fixed alliance in NA-gold.

Dayra.7405:

Here is a system that would make it better.

• Put all servers in one big league ( more server less repetition and ties)
• Make league matches two sided. Merge EU-server down to 24, or both NA and EU down to 18 server, dividable by 2 & 3 such both 2-sided league matches as well as three sided normal (out-side tournament) matches are possible.
• assign rewards to the servers based on placement, and distribute the server-rewards to the players on this server based on commitment in WvW, e.g. WvW (not EotM) WEXP earned during the league, I.e. Do not reward bandwaggoners, and do not punish commit players for many bandwaggoners on the server.
• make transfers to all servers very cheap (100 gems or so)
• show I transfer dialog: average rewards per player, e.g. Even if A is 1st at moment, and B is last, mean rewards per player on B are likely higher than on A, simply because A has many times as many player.

Such a league would make sense as

1. it helps to balance WvW (with the reward steps between ranks you can direct intended balance)
2. bandwaggoners that never entered WvW are not getting the same reward than player that really help to achieve a rank
3. it finishes the 1st and 3rd attack the 2nd which was very strong during the league, as well as the fixed alliance in NA-gold.

1. This hurts casuals and only rewards wvwers.
2. You destory every server but the top one
3. U hurt havoc teams if it based on wexp
Congratz that break wvw even more

joe.9815:

1. This hurts casuals and only rewards wvwers.
2. You destory every server but the top one
3. U hurt havoc teams if it based on wexp
Congratz that break wvw even more

1. it is about a WvW league, so it should reward WvWers, PvEer have their living story, EotM, … to get their rewards. I do not really see a reason to give people that are registered (for which reason ever) on a top-server, but never enter WvW, a better WvW-reward than people that fight hard and committed on a low-rank server.
2. I expect the opposite: The servers that are currently at top due to massive overstacking will loose players (as they would have the worser reward per player ratio) other server that play good, but miss population to be better will gain player. (as they have much better rewards per player ratio). What is your claim be based on?
3. WEXP is the only currently existing activity measure. I am sure it can be improved. Ideally there would be a measure that weights conquest trains, fight zergs, defense scouts and havoc teams equally. If you have a proposal to do that …

And yes, Joe.9815, at least your post-history on the forum https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/members/showposts/joe-9815/1 does not qualify you for a WvW-weapon skin. It looks more like that of an achievement hunter that do not like to put effort into a WvW reward, that was a free present so far

No Idea how it’s gonna work out better, free transfers ruin stuff often just before the season. Anyway this swiss system was horrendous and an epic fail from Anet. Probably a modified swiss system which will shuffle servers more randomly in tiers. Facing same servers over and over again prompts double teaming. Happened both at Gold and Silver.

Dayra.7405:

joe.9815:

1. This hurts casuals and only rewards wvwers.
2. You destory every server but the top one
3. U hurt havoc teams if it based on wexp
Congratz that break wvw even more

1. it is about a WvW league, so it should reward WvWers, PvEer have their living story, EotM, … to get their rewards. I do not really see a reason to give people that are registered (for which reason ever) on a top-server, but never enter WvW, a better WvW-reward than people that fight hard and committed on a low-rank server.
2. I expect the opposite: The servers that are currently at top due to massive overstacking will loose players (as they would have the worser reward per player ratio) other server that play good, but miss population to be better will gain player. (as they have much better rewards per player ratio). What is your claim be based on?
3. WEXP is the only currently existing activity measure. I am sure it can be improved. Ideally there would be a measure that weights conquest trains, fight zergs, defense scouts and havoc teams equally. If you have a proposal to do that …

And yes, Joe.9815, at least your post-history on the forum https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/members/showposts/joe-9815/1 does not qualify you for a WvW-weapon skin. It looks more like that of an achievement hunter that do not like to put effort into a WvW reward, that was a free present so far

I do pvp, wvw and pve. And im a achievement hunter because I get stuff. Also if you make it world xp it becomes keep flip spree

joe.9815:

Also if you make it world xp it becomes keep flip spree

Zerg vs Zerg fights (e.g. a guild group farming random-zergs) usually give more WEXP than “keep flip spree” (or Karma train as it is usually called), at least till the opponents get stale

Zomaarwat.3912:

Looks fine to me. Servers are divided into brackets, fight to be the strongest of their respective bracket. Ofc a 1st bronze isnt as strong as a 2nd gold , but thats why we had the tier system in the first place: so Vabbi would.t be matched against Gandara for example.

That is not what I meant. I meant INSIDE of bronze league, not between leagues. The server winning the lowest ranked bronze match receives the same number of points as the server winning the highest ranked bronze match. There are servers who are ranked above us because of the points they gathered in lower matches but we have beaten them every time we had to play them. Then they went down and won the next match while we went up (so a more difficult match) and lost.

The whole design of this tournament was an utter failure.

The fact that it actually rewarded servers for losing and dropping a tier just so they could faceroll the tier below them and get more points than those in second place in the higher tier…is just plain moronic.