Guild Wars 2

So basically I’m proposing that the server rankings be reset. If you look at the server rankings as they are currently you’ll see that certain servers have been in the lead from their tier for weeks on end, sometimes months. At the same time, you’ve got some medium-wvw population servers in certain tiers grouped with others who have a massive WvW population. You’ve also got servers grouped with others who have completely opposite WvW-Active times.

The tier and ranking system as it currently stands, does not work. Sure, if you’re part of a massive server who dominates every single week, you aren’t going to be complaining. Servers like, say… Darkhaven or Tarnished Coast can’t really complain too much. However, servers like Devona’s Rest, Fort Apsendwood, Isle of Janthir and many others do. Every week it’s the same. Being faced up against a server with a huge WvW population who shouldn’t be in the rank they are.

Personally, I’m a commander on IoJ and ever since we had the huge exodus, WvW has been painful for us and I can safely bet it’s been painful for DR as well. We’ve been in almost the same place every single week, faced against mega-servers. Stormbluff, Darkhaven, Ehmry Bay, Anvil Rock. Every week it’s basically just been a battle for second place. There is no way we could possible gain any steady ground over the mega-server. They’re too big. So it leads to letting them take first place and trying to grab second, which is really bad. No server should ever play like this, but what hope is there against a server that can get zergs of 50+ every single day, when you struggle to get a group of 30, total. Across the entire 3 maps.

My plan is as follows:
Reset the servers completely. Reset all ranks. Then have a repeat of the first month of the game. Server groupings of 2 or 3 days. Base these groupings off ACTIVE WORLD VS. WORLD POPULATION. This is the key. A server that has a very high population of PvE players may not necessarily have a large WvW population.

Ontop of this, data needs to be gathered on Primary Activity Hours. A set of 3 – 6 hours where the server is most active in WvW. it is not fair or reasonable to expect 3 servers with completely different activity hours to compete. ArenaNet needs to remember that just because the NA servers are labelled “North America” and the EU servers are labelled “Europe” this does not mean that a servers primary player base is ONLY European or ONLY North American. As an Australian player I can not stress the importance of this. Servers such as IoJ and SoS have a very large (in comparison to other servers) Oceanic player base. It is not fair or reasonable to expect us to compete with servers who do not have a large oceanic player base, nor is it fair for the other servers.

After that data of average daily WvW player activity, WvW primary activity hours, WvW server scores and other relevant data, this should then be used to set up a new system. This system should not be tier based as it currently is. A tier system does not encourage fair gameplay, nor does it encourage players to join servers that are not the top 6 servers. Aside from this, a sever in tier 4 may well be able to hold it’s own against a sever from t1 and t2, yet because a certain server in t4 beats them every week, they never get the chance.

Each week the servers should have the activity data checked and updated. Should a server’s primary active hours completely change or should their WvW player base grow exponentially or shrink rapidly, they should then be moved to a different set of servers.

A set of servers would consist of 6 servers with similar activity, playerbase and player skill. Each week a random set of servers would compete. This would allow a large number of server compositions. For example, Servers A B and C might be together and D E and F might be together, but next week it might be ADE and BCF, with the following week being DAC and EBF and so on. This provides more sever match-up variation with servers and we wouldn’t be seeing t8 remaining the same for months upon months, with the very same servers going at it ever week.

I would really like to see this system or perhaps a more refined version of it put in place. It would help balance out the servers and make world vs. world much more fun. I understand this is partially a suggest, but the key part of this is having the server tiers reset. The key issue with world vs. world is that many servers have inflated or deflated rankings and should not be in the tiers they’re in.

Anet does not care

1) Reduce the map-capacity: More wait time on overpopulated servers, but less skill laags
2) Random matches: You do not have to be in a high ranked servers to meet demanding opponents.
3) Keep the ranking system, (and do not reset it) but do not use it for match-making, when ranking and match-making are decoupled Glicko-2 will work..

Consequence: Why should you stay on an (WvW-wise) overpopulated server with hours of queue, if this does not help you etal to meet demanding opponents.
WvW-People will spread out to avoid queues and this would be supported if ANet even shows the max queue-time of each map of the last day in the world selection.

All of these ideas are wrong… the servers right now are pretty much where they should be……

You clearly do not understand wvw, you would face a complete blowout ( in either direction) if you were artificially matched up against someone else.

What if IOJ was placed against SOR? What do you think will happen?

I don’t think newer players really understand the system as those of us who have been here from the beginning.

All they really need to do is increase the volitility to the servers that are locked into matches. It’s honestly not that difficult.

Even if you reset the ranking, in a few weeks or months they will end up generally where they are now. You can pretty much look at the rankings as a measure of the server’s WvW population and its ability to provide 24 hour coverage.

With the current 3 server matchups, if you are second place in your tier each week then you are where you are supposed to be.

If you are on top or bottom of the tier then you will always either be dominating a lower tier or getting crushed in a higher tier.

Thread title is grossly misleading. I want my 5 seconds back.

To the OP do you watch what generally happens to servers when they move up or down a tier since free transfers ended?

Most of the time when a server moved up it has either struggled in the higher tier or found the next tier an even challenge.

You said a tier 4 might be able to compete against T2 or T1. You actually believe that?
Lets take maguuna for instance. They have been in t4 and always have been very strong in that tier. They move to tier 3 and they struggle due to coverage.
The most recent tier 2 servers FA & TC dominated T3 when the really strong T4 Magunna was there.

Ebay has been really strong in T5, but every time they visit T4 they struggled.

The only exceptions to servers rapidly moving through tiers was when free transfers was available and tier 8 servers getting stuck because the points for the bottom servers can get ridicously low and thus even if you dominate you wont get much points from the losing servers.

All that said they do need to make adjustments in the glicko system, but most of the servers are in the correct tier. At best they are just off 1 tier.

Darek.1836:

All they really need to do is increase the volitility to the servers that are locked into matches. It’s honestly not that difficult.

Agreed. Even after a nudge to T8 from Anet, the rankings have once again begun to stagnate. Movement is now going to happen over months if it happens at all.

I don’t think a reset is the solution, but some kind of rework of the formula should be in the cards. As Jeda said above me from Kain, T4/3 servers won’t just magically stack up against T2/1 servers. T8/7 servers won’t do well in T5/4.

Being from EBay myself, I can see the flaws in the ranking system fairly well. We feel like we have a chance in T4 and we yearn to move up again and test our skills – especially now that Yaks and Mags are up a tier. As it stands in our tier we can essentially impose our will upon either server, but we don’t quite have the coverage to dominate them both together to the extent that it would take to move up. Our tier feels stale, we don’t feel challenged and thus don’t bring our A game to the extent that we should/need to. We win the tier by reasonably large margins each week, but net losses in rank points… what’s the point of winning again?

But when you can only steal points from the 2 servers you match up against, the only 2 things that can happen in the present state: that the rankings will even themselves out naturally over time regardless of who wins, or one server will absolutely dominate the other two to move on, which is no fun for anyone.

Not a put down to either of our opponents, they both have great WvW guilds and can put up some really good fights. We just simply have more dedicated WvW guilds than they do to cover the bases.

The system needs to be tweaked to allow for more upwards movement. If a server moves up and gets blown out, so be it. Throw them back down. But it shouldn’t be that the server has to reduce it’s opponents to a mutilated pile of unrecognizable pulp week in and week out in order to slowly claw it’s way up to the next tier. That’s not fun for anyone.

Someone made a post awhile ago with a detailed system similar to a playoff system with “seasons”. I can’t find it now though. That was a great idea.

Now that it costs money to do transfers, I think we could have a more realistic view of what a server is capable of if we reset the wvw server rankings.

I can guarantee some servers thinking they are the best would end up in lower tiers.

Although I don’t find a reset to be a good solution, something has to be done as this current system simply does not work.

I’d also like to say that the servers are not where they should be and the current scoring system takes ages to balance itself.

I am currently waiting out of WvW to see if SF goes up faster but it just takes too long.

I mentioned this before somewhere, but would it be possible to just ditch the server vs server mechanism completely and make 8-9 tiered brackets? Guilds could join alliances with other guilds, and those alliances would join a bracket for the week to face off against another 2 sets of guild alliances, and each guild in an alliance can get a rating based on how they do in their bracket.

Over time you’d have guild alliances that would rise to whatever tiers they belong in, and there would be possible movement in the tiers as alliances are broken, changed and made. You wouldn’t have to worry about servers that are population heavy with PvE or sPvP only players dwelling in the basement because the WvW population of any given tier could be determined on a tier/alliance level instead of the server level.

Obviously it’s not a simple change, there’s a lot of details that would have to be thought out, but the name of the game is GUILD wars, is it not?

I think it was a bad idea given the 24 hour nature of wvw to ever have NA and EU servers – although I can’t see how they could have catered for the Germans and French any other way..

As it stands now, I can’t see any way of fixing it that would take too much effort on ANet’s part.

Johje Holan.4607:

Someone made a post awhile ago with a detailed system similar to a playoff system with “seasons”. I can’t find it now though. That was a great idea.

I suggested something similar, but if they didn’t change the huge impact server population has on score, making a league or playoffs would be pointless

Victoitor.2917:

I am currently waiting out of WvW to see if SF goes up faster but it just takes too long.

I don’t think SF is moving up out of tier7 anytime soon, even with HoD’s apparent collapse (or “waiting out”, as you call it).

I would really like to see pairing of servers in a cross-battle alliance of some sort that could be semi-random every week (or even monthly to build some camaraderie). By this, I mean allow guesting/mercenaries between server pairs such that each could play on one-another’s server’s that week in their matchups. For instance, Jade Quarry might be matched up with IoJ, while Maguuma might be matched with Darkhaven. If they share WvW benefits (or have a week-end WvW-er reward based on position), there would be incentive for each to help their partners. This would do a lot of great things:

1. It would shake up matchups a bit and give hope to the people at the bottom while challenging the people at the top.
2. It would give a boost to the lower servers evening up the matchups
3. It would increase communication and allow cross-server tactical learning
4. It could be used to even out the matchups (especially if pairings take into account coverages so that larger-tier servers aren’t upset about getting a worse-partner to pull-up, but instead have a bit of a boost during their down-times).
5. It would allow more mobility in the rankings.

BlackBeard.2873:

I would really like to see pairing of servers in a cross-battle alliance of some sort that could be semi-random every week (or even monthly to build some camaraderie). By this, I mean allow guesting/mercenaries between server pairs such that each could play on one-another’s server’s that week in their matchups. For instance, Jade Quarry might be matched up with IoJ, while Maguuma might be matched with Darkhaven. If they share WvW benefits (or have a week-end WvW-er reward based on position), there would be incentive for each to help their partners. This would do a lot of great things:

1. It would shake up matchups a bit and give hope to the people at the bottom while challenging the people at the top.
2. It would give a boost to the lower servers evening up the matchups
3. It would increase communication and allow cross-server tactical learning
4. It could be used to even out the matchups (especially if pairings take into account coverages so that larger-tier servers aren’t upset about getting a worse-partner to pull-up, but instead have a bit of a boost during their down-times).
5. It would allow more mobility in the rankings.

It would also add queues to servers that don’t face them very often. I enjoy that on FC I can join almost any border except on reset and never face a queue. If JQ could get into wvw, even if it was down in T8, do you think they would face a queue or play? If on reset JQ has a 4 hour queue how many people do you think would flood my lovely borderlands? No thanks…

Ynot.8397:

It would also add queues to servers that don’t face them very often. I enjoy that on FC I can join almost any border except on reset and never face a queue. If JQ could get into wvw, even if it was down in T8, do you think they would face a queue or play? If on reset JQ has a 4 hour queue how many people do you think would flood my lovely borderlands? No thanks…

Perhaps limit the # of “mercenaries” from your partner server (maybe around 20 or 25 per BL) with precedence in any queues to those on the home server. I agree that you don’t want a mega-server jamming you up, but wouldn’t it be nice to get some reinforcements or ability to experience another style of battle?

Johje Holan.4607:

Someone made a post awhile ago with a detailed system similar to a playoff system with “seasons”. I can’t find it now though. That was a great idea.

Playoff system with seasons sounds like a great idea. Maybe it’s time for that instead of the rating system we currently have. WvWvW matches played across all of NA for NA servers and EU facing off all of EU servers. All servers will get a chance to face off against each other and points tallied up at end of the season. You won’t get bored of playing against the same servers every week. i.e. Points are scored by 1st place=2, 2nd place=1, 3rd place=0 on each match. All servers will have a chance to be paired against each other in their respective region (NA for NA, EU for EU). Then at the end of season, the top group consisting 3 NA/EU, 2nd group 3 NA/EU, 3rd group NA/EU, etc. faces off each other to claim their respective ranks. This way, everyone will have a better idea of what their server ranking truly is, whether it be #1 or #9. Once the #1 NA and #1 EU team have been determined, then a world championship match of #1 NA and #1 EU team shall face off on a WvW, not WvWvW… Ack. Just throwing out something that probably won’t even happen.