Guild Wars 2

Jocksy.3415:

Some things are weird, especially in the NA charts, (SoR and TC not meeting, close servers having few chances of meeting), but it would change as ratings go up and down.

Yes, that’s the result of the fact that the will never pitch the 1st or 2nd server against the 5th: it will always be either 1/2/3 or 1/2/4, so 3 and 4 will never meet.

This system is blatantly unfair to 4. 4 will meet servers 1 and 2 TOGETHER. They will be blown away, like we have seen over and over in season 1.

While 5 will never, ever, ever face server 1 or 2. They will only meet servers 3 or 4 (and never together) and servers below them.

It’s like they specifically designed a system to punish server 4 and reward server 5.

The numbers seem a bit weird. NSP is much closer in ranking to HoD than SF (NSP is #14, HoD is #16, and SF is #20) yet the probabilities are:

NSP vs HoD ….3%
NSP vs SF …11%.

IMO you should be able to guest to a server for WvW if you want for fun/variety, with restrictions (ie. cant guest to a server your home server is facing, can’t lay/build siege, can’t switch servers for 24h, could only access a guest chat channel etc).

Elana.2584:

I’m not sure if my explanation was fully clear, so here’s an example picture of how the servers would be matched up next week, if this system were in place. Do you think something like this could work? Maybe ANet could give it a try someday.

It was clear, but ANet wanted to add some ‘resistance’ to the scoring.

With your system, 100 people could go to a T8 server and level it to tier 1 in 7 weeks, just win the match each week.

With the current system, that is impossible, because you can’t win enough ranking each week to jump 3 places.

oO
what’s with sanctum of ral and tarnished coast. are they not supposed to meet in wvw?

Bawi.9541:

oO
what’s with sanctum of ral and tarnished coast. are they not supposed to meet in wvw?

It’s because the two servers can only swap places, because BG/JQ’s ratings are too high and (whoever is 5th and 6th)’s ratings are too low.

Other than that little kink, pretty much working as intended. The top 3 have balanced themselves around each other and should obviously play each other most of the time. When the difference between tiers is as great as it is, you can’t have both variety and competitive matchups. If variety just means changing the name tags of that horde that tramples over you every week then perhaps that variety isn’t such a good thing at all.

why is CD chance of meeting EBay 21% ? i thought CD and EBay has close rating ? well not very far off i should say, but still, lower probability than meeting BP which is surely stronger server.. something is wrong with the table…

anyway what they should do is let the match ups adjust itself by staying with the glicko rating system for a couple of weeks, and only then apply the new deviation system…. last week’s ranking (after the WvW season 1) does not really represent the actual server rank…. for example this week , does ANET really think NSP and IoJ can compete with DB ? they can’t even compete with CD who is in turn getting stomped by Db any time…..

Stacked servers only deserve to fight other stacked servers, 1-3 fight each other forever, maybe some people will move if they’re really bored, 4-9 really don’t care to get rolled over by them everytime.

Also needs to be mentioned once again, 1st moves up a tier, 2nd stays in their tier, 3rd moves down a tier, new matchups every week against servers close to your rankings.
Why can’t we do this already.

Xenesis.6389:

Also needs to be mentioned once again, 1st moves up a tier, 2nd stays in their tier, 3rd moves down a tier, new matchups every week against servers close to your rankings.
Why can’t we do this already.

Because it guarantees you’ll have a bad matchup every other week. If you have the “correct” matchup this week, then next week you’ll get a matchup with 5 ranks between top an bottom servers. That’s a very big difference considering the population disparities between servers that are even adjacent in ranking.

Tallis.5607:

It was clear, but ANet wanted to add some ‘resistance’ to the scoring.

With your system, 100 people could go to a T8 server and level it to tier 1 in 7 weeks, just win the match each week.

With the current system, that is impossible, because you can’t win enough ranking each week to jump 3 places.

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining that. It makes sense that ANet would want a system that wouldn’t allow something like that to happen.

As it currently stands though, those same people could go to a T8 server right now and rofl-stomp all the other lower-tier servers for weeks on-end, with no change in sight. Why don’t they? I think it’s because -as much as we may like winning- many of us prefer well-balanced matches more. That feeling of inching out a win against two other opponents close to your skill/level is amazing. Not everyone wants to be T1 or “The Best of the Best”(even though judging from the stacking in Leagues, it might not seem that way). Many of us just want fun, fair match-ups without steamrolling.

I agree though; there would need to be some sort of system in place to stop T1 cravers from steamrolling through lower tiers like that. Back to the drawing board!

The old old system was a problem when guild lefts a server for another. So that server will be weaker yet its ratings will lock him in a tier too strong for it. Or for SF, in a tier too weak but due to the ratings, it was impossible for GoM/HoD to lose that much ratings (ANet had to come in and fix that).
The random match ups were somewhat worse. Yes it provided diversity but it also could result in completely one sided match ups.

Now it doesn’t look too bad, for bottom tiers anyway.

Fortus.6175:

Mneawhile in the land of Gate of Madness, we will continue to be the 21-23/24, yay

Well until we can fix our PvE population will to actually fight instead of giving up at the first bump in the road, we won’t get more than those ranks. At least for one month there won’t be any LS updates.

Every system have flaws, and in every system if there is a big gap between third and fourth you can either match only 1 and 2 adn 3 server where they may be even, or place some weaker servers there. That will make bad week for weaker server.
Opposite is on the other side of rooster. You may place anyone against last 3 servers, but those will not be able to defend themselves as they dont have enought people.

But this adjustement Anet did is probably the best solution. Maybe more adjusting will there be in the future but i hope there wont be needed so big one.
Like it was 200points, now its half.
If I understand GLIKO system, it will means that you wont be matched agains +6 or -6 servers or maybe more in some matchups like before league, but rather +3 and -3 servers, maybe +6 and -6 if two servers will have bad luck with RNG.
(higher server got high random roll with – , and lower server high roll with + )

So lets wait few weeks and we will see how it works. But Anet should not wait another year to adjust it again if needed.

Great. So now we have 32% → 66% increase to chance of being matched with server holding 300-600 income every single day.
My world usually holds from 0 (yeah 0) to 250 max. What a balanced game, good job Anet. I’m rushing right now to WvW to give them some free kills.

In EU there is greater variance in matches than in NA.

Why?

I think because language-specific server counter the trend for concentration.

So:

If you want more variance in match-ups: spread out to more servers!

If all concentrate on 3 servers, only these 3 servers can matched against each other.

This is great news in my opinion. ANet has to strike the right balance between variety and matches that are fun for all the servers. I really like the idea that sometimes we will get stomped, sometimes we will do the stomping, but most of the time we will be playing servers that are on our level.

Until Anet realizes that the only meaningful solution is combining low pop servers for wvw, they’re going to keep making these useless tweaks.

While 1 up 1 down does not work, I think Anet needs to be willing to implement it for a week at least or make a manual adjustment if a server gets stuck in a match where does not belong. Or if population shifts occurr.

I’d rather be kicked in the groin 9001 times than verse a T1 server more than 60% of the time (Like how leagues were).

Our SoS v TC v FA match up is great.

If you don’t like your skill lagged 1+ hour queue’d 100 man blob match ups, play on a real server.

Playing against the same two severs, week after week, is not a great idea. The players from top 3, both NA and EU, will die of boredom.

Have No Faith In Me.1840:

I’d rather be kicked in the groin 9001 times than verse a T1 server more than 60% of the time (Like how leagues were).

Our SoS v TC v FA match up is great.

If you don’t like your skill lagged 1+ hour queue’d 100 man blob match ups, play on a real server.

where does this happen? Leagues are over pvers went home. SoR has small que on a map or two and no que in the rest during NA primetime.

Lord Kuru.3685:

2. Anyone else somewhat disappointed that they calculated the matchup probabilities by running 10,000 simulations instead of actually doing the math?

for problems like this, that’s exactly how you do the math. it’s called the “Monte Carlo method” (you can look it up in wikipedia if you like). although if it were me, I would have run a lot more simulations. I routinely run 100,000,000 for my weekly matchup probability estimates; 10,000 is a pitifully small number.

-ken

Yeah; they really tweaked it all right.

Gunnars (15) vs Augury Rock (9) vs Baruch Bay (8)

Cant say I’m surprised.

Manu.6078:

Playing against the same two severs, week after week, is not a great idea. The players from top 3, both NA and EU, will die of boredom.

non-stacked servers that way—————>

200 pts difference between Gunnars and Baruch
not a likely result, but reasonable.

Don’t roll a +1 if you prefer easier challenges

azizul.8469:

Manu.6078:

Playing against the same two severs, week after week, is not a great idea. The players from top 3, both NA and EU, will die of boredom.

non-stacked servers that way—————>

It’s ANet method for better population balance
Stick together = matched together
Spread out = variance in matchups

iggybl.5034:

Yeah; they really tweaked it all right.

Gunnars (15) vs Augury Rock (9) vs Baruch Bay (8)

Cant say I’m surprised.

That’s not the matchup on MOS. It says:

Kodash\Augury\Baruch

Deso\FShiver\Gunnars

Johje Holan.4607:

iggybl.5034:

Yeah; they really tweaked it all right.

Gunnars (15) vs Augury Rock (9) vs Baruch Bay (8)

Cant say I’m surprised.

That’s not the matchup on MOS. It says:

Kodash\Augury\Baruch

Deso\FShiver\Gunnars

Last weeks matchup.

http://gw2wvw.org/?region=2&tier=2 is faster than MOS in recognizing the new matchups.

Dayra.7405:

http://gw2wvw.org/?region=2&tier=2 is faster than MOS in recognizing the new matchups.

Thanks, I’ve been trying to remember that site for a few days!

iggybl.5034:

Yeah; they really tweaked it all right.

Gunnars (15) vs Augury Rock (9) vs Baruch Bay (8)

Cant say I’m surprised.

there was a less than one tenth of one percent chance of that particular combination coming up. 0.074% by my calculations (which were a bit rough, only 10,000,000 random trials because I was in a hurry and wanted the answer is under 30 seconds).

still, even the unlikely outcomes are bound to occur now and then. last week’s winning lottery numbers were astonishingly unlikely to come up, and yet they did anyway.

-ken

Liquid.9672:

Fighting the same servers most of the time (can get boring) vs. unbalanced matches (can be frustrating AND boring depending on what side of coin you’re on). Pick your poison. Personally, I’d take less variance, even if it means fighting the same teams week after week.

YES!!
THANKS for this change Anet!
The last weeks in the league showed me how much i missed it to fight equal oponents.
For me it is less boring to fight the same servers for more than a week in a close match than to fight diferent servers in matches that are alreaddy over on saturday morning (no matter on what position i am in such a match)

Also there is stil space for variances. This change just cuts of the top of unfair matchups like number 1 or 2 server is facing number 12.
With the old matching system i was waiting for the matchup where vizuna and vabbi meet.

The only thing that is really weird for me is that we (Aurora Glade) face riverside the 2nd week now. The chance for us and riverside is 3% so we are really “lucky” with that i think

Congrats NA T1 you got what you wanted. Massive fights all the time, and we all got what we wanted aka not having to deal with your blobbing and night capping.
Carry on with your coverage wars.

lordkrall.7241:

There is a rather big issue here.
If the matches are too random people will complain about steamrolling/being steamrolled, if the matches are less random people will complain about always facing the same servers.

Don’t really see how they could solve that however. I suppose they could alternate between the two now and then, but that is not really a solution either.

ANet could transition to instanced battles that are independent of servers. With all the server hopping that has gone on, I certainly don’t find much merit in the “loyalty” argument.

Not that it matters that much, but I really think something went wrong with their new Matchup-system!

According to the new system the chances that Abaddon gets Drakkar is around 1% and to get Surmia it’s even less than 1%. (EU)
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-matchup-variance-reduction/

The other way around it’s nearly the same. Just Drakkar vs. Surmia seems probable.

Guess Abaddon was left and distributed to us lucky ones! xD

Snowreap.5174:

Lord Kuru.3685:

2. Anyone else somewhat disappointed that they calculated the matchup probabilities by running 10,000 simulations instead of actually doing the math?

for problems like this, that’s exactly how you do the math. it’s called the “Monte Carlo method” (you can look it up in wikipedia if you like). although if it were me, I would have run a lot more simulations. I routinely run 100,000,000 for my weekly matchup probability estimates; 10,000 is a pitifully small number.

-ken

Yes. Monte Carlo is legit. But using Monte Carlo here indicates to me that they don’t really understand the math, that they’re just randomly tweaking numbers for a few examples until the example cases “look ok” — and that’s generally a bad thing. (I don’t think the math is so bad that you require Monte Carlo in this case.)

If you don’t think the math is so bad, try calculating the probability of your server being matched up against the server ranked below you. there are 276 possible pairs of servers in NA (and 351 distinct pairs of servers in EU), but try to calculate the probability for just one specific pair.

-ken

Lord Kuru.3685:

Because it guarantees you’ll have a bad matchup every other week. If you have the “correct” matchup this week, then next week you’ll get a matchup with 5 ranks between top an bottom servers. That’s a very big difference considering the population disparities between servers that are even adjacent in ranking.

They had bad matchups pretty much every week and worse yet they had matchups with 9-12 server rank spreads with the new system they put in six months ago. There’s no reason for a server to jump two tiers even to just “Test their might against higher servers”. With the one up one down the winner gets to move up to the “next” tier to test their might, they either keep winning and move up, settle into their rightful spot, or drop down again until they get to their rightful spot, but at least they will always be around servers of their own strength.

As for the resistance to scoring, who cares? it would take more than 100 people to pull a server from T8 to T1 and only if they have the right coverage. Again who cares? if a server down there manages to get enough people to take up that challenge and pull themselves up higher(a few others have already experienced this) then good for them. That is actually the good variable to matchups that’s needed, not the randomly throwing servers against each other regardless of their population and coverage.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Yes. Monte Carlo is legit. But using Monte Carlo here indicates to me that they don’t really understand the math, that they’re just randomly tweaking numbers for a few examples until the example cases “look ok” — and that’s generally a bad thing. (I don’t think the math is so bad that you require Monte Carlo in this case.)

If you want to do correct math, things become very complicated very fast.
Let’s start with what’s the probability of a specific roll? Mathematically it’s infinitely small but > 0, on computers you don’t have infinite, so it depends on the precision of your numbers (and the quality of the random-number generator).
But you can also turn it around. How much precision in the random number matters? I would say only 2-3 digits do, lets assume 2.

With 2 digits precision you have 201 different possibilities drawing a random number between +1 and -1. All of them should be equally likely so the probability of any number is 1/201. (1/2001 if you prefer 3 digits precision. Testing all 2001*24 or 2001*27 possibilities, would be an exact and sufficiently precise estimation btw.)

An quite easy computable probability at moment is T1.
Is it JQ, BG and TC or JQ, BG and SoR? Other possibilities do not exist.
This depends on 2 dice rolls, the one of TC and the one of SoR.
If TC rolls negative and/or SoR rolls positive, the match will be JQ, BG, SoR for sure.
That’s already 3/4, only 1/4 left where SoR rolls neg and TC rolls pos.

The rating difference between SoR and TC is 108. To get the probability you have to count how many rolls bridge that difference.

SoR deviation is 161, TC deviation is 163. Lets make it a bit easier both are 162.

Roll_SOR * (162*0.45 +10) + Roll_TC * (162*0.45 +10) > 108
<=>
Roll_SOR + Roll_TC > 1.3

35% of all rolls satisfy this, so the probability of JQ, BG, TC is (both have the right sign) 25% * (the sum is large enough) 35% = 8.7%

This was (rounded) exact math to compute the easiest of all matches. Do you really want do this for all of them, most of them depend on many more rolls, than just 2?

But to access the quality of the system, it is usually sufficient to access the mean (all roll 0) => you get the initial match-making system, and whats the worst case (all roll +1 or -1), i.e. how imbalanced can matches be at worst. And these worst-case imbalances happen: BB-GH-AR is a nearly worst-case match.

What form of competition it is? Devs try to force us exploit their system triplefacepalm.jpg

“Explore their system” probably fits better than “exploit their system”

I think this will actually create more balanced servers as time goes on, with the exception of one stacked Blackgate server. SoR and JQ will get tired of losing to BG every week and a lot of people will probably transfer to lower servers or to BG. SoR and JQ ranks will drop, lower server ranks will go up. The same will happen with the losing servers throughout all the tiers until the servers balance out, which will create more varied match ups as time goes on.

HighBread.9145:

I think this will actually create more balanced servers as time goes on, with the exception of one stacked Blackgate server. SoR and JQ will get tired of losing to BG every week and a lot of people will probably transfer to lower servers or to BG. SoR and JQ ranks will drop, lower server ranks will go up. The same will happen with the losing servers throughout all the tiers until the servers balance out, which will create more varied match ups as time goes on.

I wouldn’t count on JQ quitting because of losing.

JQ has never been below tier 1 since GW2 released. They always came in 2nd or 3rd (mostly 3rd) up until SoS collasped and JQ was the new number 1 server.

DivineBeing.2086:

HighBread.9145:

I think this will actually create more balanced servers as time goes on, with the exception of one stacked Blackgate server. SoR and JQ will get tired of losing to BG every week and a lot of people will probably transfer to lower servers or to BG. SoR and JQ ranks will drop, lower server ranks will go up. The same will happen with the losing servers throughout all the tiers until the servers balance out, which will create more varied match ups as time goes on.

I wouldn’t count on JQ quitting because of losing.

JQ has never been below tier 1 since GW2 released. They always came in 2nd or 3rd (mostly 3rd) up until SoS collasped and JQ was the new number 1 server.

not quite… when ET, HoD and SBI were the force of WvW, there were times when JQ dropped a tier, but that was it. since the implosion of Titan Alliance and Ascension Alliance, they have been in Tier 1 every week…..