Guild Wars 2

shankyu.6154:

SF here. If you want to get rid of SF so bad and have some equal numbers to fight against, which I know SF certainly wants, then just stay home. Don’t step into WvW and just let SF have and hold everything for a week or so. We’ll be outa your hair in no time. Then you can get all the map completion and jumping puzzles you want.

You know what the really sad part is? I’ve seen this debated with seriousness on my server.

But, the real problem won’t fix itself once SF is gone from T8. The ratings of T8 will still be 300 points or more behind T7. This, in turn, leads to the exact same never-ending hill to climb if the server that replaces SF continues to handle FC and ET like an unruly sack of potatoes.

I’m not sure about the rest of T8, but that is why I’m actually posting on the forums for once. If the math behind the ratings wasn’t botched by the terror of free transfers, SF’s stay in T8 would have been a non issue. When blowouts happen in any other tier, it doesn’t take 6+ weeks to move the server up.

So, my apologies to SF. Most of the people in T8 aren’t frustrated at you guys personally (well, maybe to a lesser extent, but that’s an entirely different can of worms). You guys just get the unfortunate role of being the third server to be punished with an uncanny recreation of Sisyphus. May your boulder one day reach the top.

As it stands right now according to millenium, if the match ended right now despite winning by 30000 points SF would LOSE 37 rating. This system is silly.

I honestly think a system of Green ^1 rank, Blue -0 rank, Red v1 rank would see some kind of more interesting match ups because the current system is borked in that you’ll get stuck in stagnation for weeks on end having to put up with the same teams fighting, every week.
Blackgate came to realise after I think about the 7th week stuck in a row, winning every match- is that the system means you must not just win your match, you must DESTROY the opposition to the point that they’re completely broken and it becomes a massive blow-out… not just a big point lead, I really do mean complete and utter annihilation.
Do I like winning? Yes, but I don’t really want to log in, see its all green and then have to figure out what to do for a few hours either and would much rather a down to the wire war to the last minute with only a few 1000pts in the match.

The other problem is a bit of human nature and a bit of Anet too. If I absolutely had to leave Blackgate where I first rolled my GW2 characters, I would go down a much lower tier to somewhere that I felt I could make a difference to something… but thats more of an Aussie thing maybe of cheering for the team no one expects to win.
But the rest of the world doesn’t, they’d crawl over their dead mothers to get onto the winning team and ignore everyone else, simply because there is no penalty to do otherwise in the game.

my 2c

Agricola.2817:

As it stands right now according to millenium, if the match ended right now despite winning by 30000 points SF would LOSE 37 rating. This system is silly.

The system itself is more or less valid. The uninspired way it was originally implimented – with free tranfers leading to the damages in the ratings – and the apparent lack of fix for the damage done is what’s “silly”, for lack of better word that isn’t replaced with “kitten”. Granted, ANet did propose a fix in the infamous Reset Ratings, but that was shot down for completely valid and logical reasons. It’s just that a once proposed fix that didn’t actually go through or change anything doesn’t count as a fix.

Thresher.3049:

I honestly think a system of Green ^1 rank, Blue -0 rank, Red v1 rank would see some kind of more interesting match ups because the current system is borked in that you’ll get stuck in stagnation for weeks on end having to put up with the same teams fighting, every week.
Blackgate came to realise after I think about the 7th week stuck in a row, winning every match- is that the system means you must not just win your match, you must DESTROY the opposition to the point that they’re completely broken and it becomes a massive blow-out… not just a big point lead, I really do mean complete and utter annihilation.
Do I like winning? Yes, but I don’t really want to log in, see its all green and then have to figure out what to do for a few hours either and would much rather a down to the wire war to the last minute with only a few 1000pts in the match.

The other problem is a bit of human nature and a bit of Anet too. If I absolutely had to leave Blackgate where I first rolled my GW2 characters, I would go down a much lower tier to somewhere that I felt I could make a difference to something… but thats more of an Aussie thing maybe of cheering for the team no one expects to win.
But the rest of the world doesn’t, they’d crawl over their dead mothers to get onto the winning team and ignore everyone else, simply because there is no penalty to do otherwise in the game.

my 2c

Huh, now that I think about it, the issue with T8 is kind of morbidly reversed for T1. T8 has no lower floor, and so their ratings continue to crumble and be too low for T7 to even consider them more than an annoying bug. T1 has not upper ceiling, and so continues to float high above any reasonable reach of T2.

But I digress.

The only problem with the idea of Green goes up, Red goes down, is that between a lot of the tiers, there’s no uncertainty in the outcome at all. I’ve never experienced the upper tiers personally, but looking at what others have said and the matchup history, quite a few servers that stomp one tier get stomped by the tier above them when they move up. So, if they were to move up no matter what when they won, they’d move right back down the next week after gaining under 5% of the total score that week.

I honestly wish more people had your outlook about tranfering to whichever server could use the most help. If enough people did that, the tiers would become balanced enough that a Green goes up, Red goes down would be viable. It would also fix all the complaints of rating imbalance between tiers since everyone would be within 200 or so points of everyone else (hypothetically at least. A reset would still be needed if they tiers ever balanced that much). As it is, the population imbalance looks at the idea and laughs it off as simple trollery.

If ANet can’t create a system that keeps the top and bottom tiers in a type of pre-defined bookend range, with the tiers between being held within a certain distance of each other, I’d love dearly for them to create an insentive to transfer to servers that are in need of WvW help. Howver, since it isn’t realistic to expect all 24 WvW populations to ever get evenly matched, they could even do a analysis of current match scores for transfer incentive. On a % based scale, if one of the servers in the tier has under 15-20% (number up for debate) of the total score between all three servers, give incentive to transfer to that server that instant. The larger the score differences, the larger the incentive to tranfer. That would at least help balance each tier to the point they all were fun again.

Dreams aside, let’s keep this positive and civil discussion up! (And on the front page.) Hopefully, we might one day get a Red-Card response, if only so much as “We’re aware of the problem, but have no way to fix it at this time. Please be patient.”

I need to stop posting walls of text…

I love the idea of giving people a reason to even out among all the servers to give us all a good even WvW match up, unfortunally that will never happen because 1) because of differing guild sizes it would be tough to get things good and even and 2) too many people (and I includes some guilds and a lot of non-affiliated players) will never switch off a 1st place server because they enjoy riding the coat tails of others to victory rather than getting down in the mud and fighting for a victory you can be proud of.

But I wish this was a viable way to get people to transfer into servers like ET and FC to bolster our WvW compliment to give us good around the clock coverage so we had a chance, but alas I don’t see that happening just like I don’t see that rating system getting fixed any time soon.

Takerukun.8924:

Dreams aside, let’s keep this positive and civil discussion up! (And on the front page.) Hopefully, we might one day get a Red-Card response, if only so much as “We’re aware of the problem, but have no way to fix it at this time. Please be patient.”

I need to stop posting walls of text…

A response would be nice, and don’t stop walls of text! Chances are if we’re here in forums in the first place, we like reading and we like lots of discussion xD and you make a lot of good points in your post, especially how T1 is the opposite situation of T8.

The one thing I’d like to ask ferg players, or really sorrows or any other lower tier servers, do you guys get overflows for maps often in PvE? I can tell you right now that during primetime on Eradon we don’t, occasionally one for lions arch but that’s it (and that would be resolved if they gave us something like guild halls for guilds to hang out in!). I personally feel like the server populations aren’t accurate.

One of the biggest complaints everyone has is about coverage, not just in t8, but in multiple tiers. Maybe Anet really should consider merging not just bottom tier servers, but multiple servers, and take a new look at their “server population” indicators. If they want WvW battles to be balanced, the first step is to actually fill the matches, a team of 80+ people on one map vs a team of 20 or so people isn’t fun for most people, and even in PvE zones we don’t get overflows so its hard to imagine why we’re considered medium/high population on the server list, or why the system exists in this manner in the first place.

If coverage/player populations in WvW wasn’t an issue for all matchups, then we would see more matches changing around and less blowouts by some servers vs other servers. Really I’d love to hear Anets response on this, or for them to look into the possibility of merging servers. Yes some people always think merging servers sounds bad and will push players away, but you know what pushes players away even more? Ghost towns and blowouts, stagnant matches that never changes, unachievable score differences to change said match ups. Just my two cents.

We have overflows in Lions Arch when they release events. That’s about it for FC. We have actually been experiencing abit of a PVE renaissance as I saw a whole ten people in Orr yesterday!

Grommet.2963:

A response would be nice, and don’t stop walls of text! Chances are if we’re here in forums in the first place, we like reading and we like lots of discussion xD and you make a lot of good points in your post, especially how T1 is the opposite situation of T8.

The one thing I’d like to ask ferg players, or really sorrows or any other lower tier servers, do you guys get overflows for maps often in PvE? I can tell you right now that during primetime on Eradon we don’t, occasionally one for lions arch but that’s it (and that would be resolved if they gave us something like guild halls for guilds to hang out in!). I personally feel like the server populations aren’t accurate.

One of the biggest complaints everyone has is about coverage, not just in t8, but in multiple tiers. Maybe Anet really should consider merging not just bottom tier servers, but multiple servers, and take a new look at their “server population” indicators. If they want WvW battles to be balanced, the first step is to actually fill the matches, a team of 80+ people on one map vs a team of 20 or so people isn’t fun for most people, and even in PvE zones we don’t get overflows so its hard to imagine why we’re considered medium/high population on the server list, or why the system exists in this manner in the first place.

If coverage/player populations in WvW wasn’t an issue for all matchups, then we would see more matches changing around and less blowouts by some servers vs other servers. Really I’d love to hear Anets response on this, or for them to look into the possibility of merging servers. Yes some people always think merging servers sounds bad and will push players away, but you know what pushes players away even more? Ghost towns and blowouts, stagnant matches that never changes, unachievable score differences to change said match ups. Just my two cents.

Honestly, I don’t really do PvE all that much. AI mechanics are too predictable and boring to keep me interested. But when I do pop into PvE for money for WvW, I’ve never ran into Overflow servers. The rare exceptions were near Queensdale when the game came out, and LA. Actually, now that you’ve got me thinking, I actually had to guest on Tarnished Coast in frustration of not being able to open Temple of Dwayna for exotic armour because of lack of other people running about. Granted, I don’t think I tried much during prime time (that’s the best WvW time!), so my views might be slightly biased.

I’m curious as to how many people in each of our servers are running dungeons at any given time, though. I’d be surprised if it made enough of a difference to be relevant, but we might never see Overflow servers simply because everyone is in their own dungeon instance.

On the notion of merging servers for coverage purposes, that wouldn’t really be all that practical. It would hypothetically be the perfect solution if all the servers were to be found in one selection pool, but that isn’t the case. The fact that NA servers can’t interact with EU servers, but people from EU and NA are free to pick either pool, makes coverage merging a game of chance. ANet would have better data available for making the decision, but you would have to monitor the number of EU’s on the NA servers and vice versa very closely before any merger plan could even be thought of, let alone looked at and implemented.

If everyone from NA actually stayed on NA servers, and everyone from EU actually stayed on EU servers, that would help coverage as well. But that isn’t a viable solution either, since a lot of people from either side of the pond prefer to play with the other side for a variety of reasons. Trying to cater to every reason in such a way as to get people staying on their side of the pool, so to speak, would be an effort in futility on a scale never seen before. Even if you IP blocked the NA servers from outside NA timezones, and IP blocked EU servers from outside EU timezones to try and force the issue, IP blocks are a joke to get around.

Even without thinking about merging for coverage in the infamous “Nightcapping” sense, merging just for NA primetime coverage would be a nightmare. Because of the tier system (and even the way just the maps work), there would still have to a server count divisible by three at the end of the mergers. While it’s very easy to say server X + server Y would be an even match for server Z, it would quickly get out of hand when you have to ensure a multiple of 3. You would have to think about servers A, B, C, D, and E, joining to face servers J, K and L, which would also face server Z. Quickly, you’ve got server overload and the entire thing crashes down.

It would be lovely if it worked, but the mind numbing ramifications of doing even a slight alteration to server mergers with the intent of balancing WvW population is too much to expect even professionals to handle well.

Takerukun.8924:

It would be lovely if it worked, but the mind numbing ramifications of doing even a slight alteration to server mergers with the intent of balancing WvW population is too much to expect even professionals to handle well.

Well I hope they figure it out, because imo at least something will need to happen soon.

When they released the game, I don’t think they really thought WvW would have a lack of players/coverage, afterall, a LOT of people bought and play gw2, many who came specifically for WvW. The problem comes down to when WvW mechanics AREN’T fun for most PvP’rs, and something needs to be done to accomadate the fact that the vast majority of servers, not just t8, don’t have anywhere near 24/7 coverage or interest in WvW.

Their whole philosphy of the game has been based around “find what isn’t fun, and change it to make it fun.” They’ve done that with every aspect of the game except for WvW, so its no surprise that less and less people do WvW everyday.

What out of the following is fun. Is spending your own gold to upgrade towers/keeps fun, waiting for supplies to get to said towers/keeps and hoping someone doesn’t take those supplies while you’re trying upgrade? Is it fun having to actually try and grab loot bags mid-combat/massive fight (I know I rarely ever even think to grab any of them). Is it fun having stealth, even mass aoe stealth mechanics in massive pvp that can’t be countered, no “reveal” spell of any type whatsoever, and culling problems to make it 10x worse?

I can keep naming things off, the game was balanced/designed around smallscale dungeon groups and sPvP, and even sPvP died in popularity due to poor balance, it’s no surprise they’re having difficulty balancing larger scale pvp without even taking into account that more than half the things involved in WvW just aren’t fun and won’t bring in more players to increase servers coverage. Hopefully the march patch changes some of those things, but that was supposed to be starting this month. Instead we have a big PvE patch coming, and what happens everytime more PvE content releases? WvW participation drops.

The whole purpose of choosing a server is for WvW. WvW is designed for largescale combat, tons of players at once. They separated the different timezones into different servers that would facilitate that easier. At that point I don’t know what you can do, I’m assuming NA and EU servers are in diff locations and merging them together would result in worse pings for one of the two parties involved? Either way, coverage is low, there’s no overflows on most maps (at least for lower tier servers) and servers still show at high/full pop, some of this needs reworking, if not merging I don’t know what.

Grommet.2963:

The one thing I’d like to ask ferg players, or really sorrows or any other lower tier servers, do you guys get overflows for maps often in PvE?

We see overflow maps for Lion’s Arch quite frequently, particularly during peak hours. Rarely see overflow maps for the rest of the PvE maps unless there’s a world event going on. But our PvE maps do tend to be relatively well populated (they most certainly aren’t ghost towns like I hear with other servers).

can’t help but notice SF is ticking +600 in a blowout match.

yet is still losing rating :/

why is green moves up red moves down a worse system?

i’d personally rather see some servers in a (stomp/get stomped) cycle than servers sitting for weeks or months on end in one static state of stomping or getting stomped.

if you actually look at the matchups as they are now and apply the green up red down system you would find next weeks matches would be somewhere between the same and much better — not worse.

Grommet.2963:

The one thing I’d like to ask ferg players, or really sorrows or any other lower tier servers, do you guys get overflows for maps often in PvE? I can tell you right now that during primetime on Eradon we don’t, occasionally one for lions arch but that’s it (and that would be resolved if they gave us something like guild halls for guilds to hang out in!). I personally feel like the server populations aren’t accurate.

As Manoa said, regular overflow on Lions Arch for Sorrows Furnace. Rarely do we see overflow for the pve maps outside of this. However, our dragon events are heavily attended and generally announced in Lions Arch. It’s not unusual to see 75-150 people to show up for Jormag or any of the dragons. Shadow Behemoth receives about the same amount of players for that event.

There are regular assaults on the risen cathedrals and most of them get cleared at least once a day. Melandru is bugged at the moment. Grenth and Balthazar spend most of the time contested but the rest are generally cleared several times a day.

Our dungeon population is strong and all of our zones do have people in it even if they are just farming for the slayer achievements. I’d say the state of Sorrow Furnace’s PVE culture is strong.

This discussion of server mergers is probably not the right way to go. What should happen on your servers is for the players to find some way to generate excitement and pride and drive folks to wvw. What Arenanet can do is manage the population caps on servers and direct new players towards struggling servers.

on ferg i get tossed in an LA overflow during evenings fairly often, but the queue is always like < 2 mins

only 3 other maps have ever had queues/overflows in my memory: fc bl, eb, and southsun cove during its release.

The most basic issue with the system is that players like easy wins. If someone can figure out how to cure that…

FC could, and still can, field a very respectable WvW population if the match is close or we are winning. The problem is getting people to come out when we are losing. This is true of every single server, I’m sure.

When you have to struggle, or when you start losing, WvW population drops. This was intensified by the free transfers, because people were hopping to the winner of the moment, so one server’s loss was often their opponents’ gain, but it’ll still be true now. People will just do PvE instead, or stop playing altogether.

Until ArenaNet provides some REAL incentive for playing through some adversity… being an underdog and fighting tooth and nail…this will continue to be a problem. Right now there’s really nothing at all to draw players to play in a losing match, other than the slow, painful accumulation of badges and repair costs. I’m really hoping the new reward system coming over the next few months provides the incentive to get players into a match, no matter how their server is currently doing.

The problem with the math…with the huge point disparity between T8 and everyone else, is totally separate and definitely needs to be corrected in some way. It would seem to me that ArenaNet should be primarily concerned with players on ALL their servers having an enjoyable, challenging, rewarding experience. If the message from ArenaNet continues to be “change servers if you want to have fun”, they are failing as a service for their customers.

I would love to see at the very least, an ANET response to our situation. Even something along the lines of “we feel our current system functions well enough to resolve this situation on its own” would make me feel better. Should I resign myself to facing opponents overqualified for our tier for months at a time, or can I look forward to an improved process? Honestly I suspected the ratings reset was to be implemented primarily due to situations like ours, but with it now cancelled it’s kinda hard to tell.

I look at server history, and watch SF perform on par with HoD for the final 3 weeks of 2012. However due to influx servers like Kaineng pushing their way up through the ranks, SF fell to T8 to fill the vacuum. For averaging JUST below HoD (seriously, 1.9k points) over those 3 weeks, they now have to spend at least 8 weeks crushing T8 to return? They even outperformed the first two weeks of it, which means that in reality they lost that third week sooooo badly (whopping 8k to HOD in Week 52), that they’ve been with us in T8 ever since. I understand they started their time here a bit more on par, but from Week 3 onward they’ve been stomping harder and harder, several orders of magnitude worse than their performance to HOD in Week 52. That’s 6 weeks of pain for T8, because they were squeaked out of T7 by an 8k loss? How are they possibly still here? How is this acceptable?

Warlord Lu Bu.7905:

Why does there need to be a point system? Why not have the winner move up and the loser move down?

Volatility. It means that every other week you go from completely smoking a server with vastly inferior coverage to getting dominated by a server with vastly superior coverage.

With glicko, you will eventually settle into a matchup against servers with similar coverage because the scoring system in this game is strongly correlated to active WvW population and timezone coverage.

It does not matter if you defend a keep for 15 minutes against 100 of the most skilled and organized players on the planet vs 5 uplevels with quaggan assist. You still get +25 points for the tick.

The problem with glicko is really a problem with the overwhelming majority of people who play this game. Glicko relies on historical data to inform current shifts in rating. But if a server suddenly receives a large influx of players, it throws glicko out of whack because the historical data describes a server with limited coverage just about getting by. It takes many more matchups for glicko to accumulate (up to date) historical data to inform current shifts in rating. The problem has always been large numbers of players jumping servers to make rank, faster than glicko can correct itself.

But the very idea of “trying” to be in a tier where your server’s population and timezone coverage is clearly not adequate to make a competitive match, makes no sense. It makes no sense for anyone on Maguuma to “want” to get into tier 2.

If you look at how dysfunctional the brackets are (with T8 being the most prominent and terminal example), its hard to call WvW a PvP game. If your server has not been beaten by 400,000 points before it is very hard to get across just how irrelevant skill and organization is when you confront a timezone coverage disparity on this order of magnitude. Thats not a competitive PvP game. Thats crashing waves and waves of idiots into your opponent’s keeps until their players get worn down and quit.

volatility doesn’t have to be a bad thing, but I agree some things might need reworking if they go to a green +1 red -1

Besetment.9187:

Volatility. It means that every other week you go from completely smoking a server with vastly inferior coverage to getting dominated by a server with vastly superior coverage.

This is the reason to support such a system.

The situation you describe is preferable to the current.

really anything is preferable to the current…

insanemaniac.2456:

really anything is preferable to the current…

+1

Fozzik.1742:

The most basic issue with the system is that players like easy wins. If someone can figure out how to cure that…

The problem is getting people to come out when [servers] are losing.

Until ArenaNet provides some REAL incentive for playing through some adversity… being an underdog and fighting tooth and nail…this will continue to be a problem. I’m really hoping the new reward system coming over the next few months provides the incentive to get players into a match, no matter how their server is currently doing.

The problem with the math…with the huge point disparity between T8 and everyone else, is totally separate and definitely needs to be corrected in some way.

Sorry for snipping your post up. My post was turning into a wall with just the quotes.

In regards to the rewards system in March, let’s hold out high hopes they offer real incentives to come out and fight. Even just getting rid of repair costs when your server is far enough behind would help somewhat with turn out.

To try and keep the discussion up, I have to ask: what types of incentives do you think they could offer to keep people showing up, while being still being fair and non-exploitable?

Besetment.9187:

Warlord Lu Bu.7905:

Why does there need to be a point system? Why not have the winner move up and the loser move down?

Volatility. It means that every other week you go from completely smoking a server with vastly inferior coverage to getting dominated by a server with vastly superior coverage.

With glicko, you will eventually settle into a matchup against servers with similar coverage because the scoring system in this game is strongly correlated to active WvW population and timezone coverage.

It does not matter if you defend a keep for 15 minutes against 100 of the most skilled and organized players on the planet vs 5 uplevels with quaggan assist. You still get +25 points for the tick.

The problem with glicko is really a problem with the overwhelming majority of people who play this game. Glicko relies on historical data to inform current shifts in rating. But if a server suddenly receives a large influx of players, it throws glicko out of whack because the historical data describes a server with limited coverage just about getting by. It takes many more matchups for glicko to accumulate (up to date) historical data to inform current shifts in rating. The problem has always been large numbers of players jumping servers to make rank, faster than glicko can correct itself.

But the very idea of “trying” to be in a tier where your server’s population and timezone coverage is clearly not adequate to make a competitive match, makes no sense. It makes no sense for anyone on Maguuma to “want” to get into tier 2.

If you look at how dysfunctional the brackets are (with T8 being the most prominent and terminal example), its hard to call WvW a PvP game. If your server has not been beaten by 400,000 points before it is very hard to get across just how irrelevant skill and organization is when you confront a timezone coverage disparity on this order of magnitude. Thats not a competitive PvP game. Thats crashing waves and waves of idiots into your opponent’s keeps until their players get worn down and quit.

This. The Glicko ratings are supposed to create a balance of power in the tiers to ensure competition and enjoyment. Like it or not, power in WvW at the moment is simply coverage and number. Nothing drives this point home more than watching your server lose by over 400k simply because you couldn’t field the numbers to drive back a herd of cattle, let alone real humans with siege.

Your baffled take on “trying” to be in an upper tier your server doesn’t belong in is one of the most intelligent things I’ve seen on these forums in a long time. Thank you.

The Past Three Posters:

Anything is preferable to the current.

While anything might be preferable, it’s demeaning to everyone involved to think that a solution that’s still terrible, and which would lead to WvW populations probably having a bi-weekly turn out for the most part, is still a solution. It makes no sense that anyone should be happy for the conditions to go from dismal to below sub-par.

A temporary fix might please the affected tiers for a short while, but the “solution” mentioned would only upset more tiers than it would fix, while still leaving everyone wondering what the blazes ANet was doing to fix things less than a month later.

By the way, my apologies if I come across as hostile, cynical or anything like that when I’m debating the cons of a particular point in my posts, or if I’m just agreeing with someone with no real content added. I’m just trying to keep the discussion up (sometimes as the Devil’s Advocate in desperation).

Not sure if this idea has been pitched or not (I’ve only somewhat skimmed this thread), but why not simply set the rating ceiling to 2000 and floor at 1000? Tiebreakers for placement could be resolved by your finishing result from the previous week relative to tier (1st place in T2 would be weighted higher than 2nd place in T1, for example).

Under this idea, JQ, SoR, SoS, and BG would in the running for T1 placement, with Kaineng in striking distance.

Likewise, in T8, SF/FC/ET would all be at 1000 rating, with GoM and HoD only about 30-40 points away. A T8 blowout by SF would elevate them to T7 or possibly even T6 after just one week.

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Not sure if this idea has been pitched or not (I’ve only somewhat skimmed this thread), but why not simply set the rating ceiling to 2000 and floor at 1000? Tiebreakers for placement could be resolved by your finishing result from the previous week relative to tier (1st place in T2 would be weighted higher than 2nd place in T1, for example).

Under this idea, JQ, SoR, SoS, and BG would in the running for T1 placement, with Kaineng in striking distance.

Likewise, in T8, SF/FC/ET would all be at 1000 rating, with GoM and HoD only about 30-40 points away. A T8 blowout by SF would elevate them to T7 or possibly even T6 after just one week.

That has been sort of suggested, just with no concrete numbers being mentioned. There aren’t any obvious drawbacks to it aside from figuring out exact bookend numbers that avoid putting the tiers too close together for stability purposes (which would be something of an ironic reversal to the current problem, but I digress).

However, since the thread hasn’t received any Red-Card response, we kind of just said “Maybe?” and moved on to discuss more things. Which, by the way, people have been awesome about. Keep up the good work guys!

What is needed here is a “soft reset” similar to LoL’s elo rating soft resets at the beginning of each season.

Don’t totally reset the ratings, but instead bring all the server ratings proportionally closer to the median rating.

If they want to use the same math without having some sort of fix for it, they could set up some kind of “season” idea.

Like everyone starts at say an even 1500 rating, they fight for say 2 months with rank and ratings changing as they either win or lose. Then at the end of 2 months every server gets some kind of prize based on end ranking(as an incentive for more players to get involved in WvW) and then they reset everyone and the season starts again. This way things have a fluidity they dont have now. You may see 3 servers get stuck at the bottom, but if it happens you know its not for long. Is this idea perfect, no, but based on the way the math and ratings are this option has the chance to give us some interesting matches and offers those of us on the bottom the chance to play some different folks for once even if we still get facerolled.

Eliyahu.1467:

What is needed here is a “soft reset” similar to LoL’s elo rating soft resets at the beginning of each season.

Don’t totally reset the ratings, but instead bring all the server ratings proportionally closer to the median rating.

This was suggested by one player in the Reset Ratings thread ANet made, with each server basically being put 50 points below the server ranked one above them, but was never really responded to. Just one more awesome idea to add to the pile for fixing things. Thanks!

TheGhostBaron.1250:

If they want to use the same math without having some sort of fix for it, they could set up some kind of “season” idea.

Like everyone starts at say an even 1500 rating, they fight for say 2 months with rank and ratings changing as they either win or lose. Then at the end of 2 months every server gets some kind of prize based on end ranking(as an incentive for more players to get involved in WvW) and then they reset everyone and the season starts again. This way things have a fluidity they dont have now. You may see 3 servers get stuck at the bottom, but if it happens you know its not for long. Is this idea perfect, no, but based on the way the math and ratings are this option has the chance to give us some interesting matches and offers those of us on the bottom the chance to play some different folks for once even if we still get facerolled.

It delights me to see a lot of people are sticking around in this thread with options and civil debate. (Not to mention keeping it on the front page…ahem.)

In regards to the season thing, the way to give out rewards would be a major challenge to the servers ever balancing. If they reset everyone’s ratings to 1500 every, let’s say two months or so, you would see massive stompings as the servers with the most coverage started to float their way back to the top (hopefully with more efficiency than bubble sorting…).

A lot of players I’ve talked to and stalked read on the forums don’t seem to mind the idea of some unbalanced matches, but the unbalanced matches – combined with rewards to the server who stomps the most – would serve as a catalyst for the unfortunate human instinct to jump ship to the winner. Why bother trying to compete at all when you can just transfer to the server who you know will win to get free stuff?

That’s why using a tier system to give rewards could get very tricky to do with anything resembling something other than mass trollery by ANet. Unless they could implement a viable reason for servers to fight tooth and nail to the bitter end, even when they know they cannot win, people who want to win and get rewards (read as the majority) would just transfer. The mass transfer would then go on and ensure that whoever was already pretty much assured victory is now undeniable in their victory.

I’m all for trying to increase WvW turnout by giving rewards, and adding some sort of meaning to the never-ending fight, but rewarding servers for being high up in the tiers is simply saying “Congratulations, you picked and/or transferred to a server with a large WvW turnout, combined with tight coverage. Thanks for playing!” This, in turn, simply enrages all tiers below T1 into either quiting or transferring to T1.

Takerukun.8924:

TheGhostBaron.1250:

If they want to use the same math without having some sort of fix for it, they could set up some kind of “season” idea.

Like everyone starts at say an even 1500 rating, they fight for say 2 months with rank and ratings changing as they either win or lose. Then at the end of 2 months every server gets some kind of prize based on end ranking(as an incentive for more players to get involved in WvW) and then they reset everyone and the season starts again. This way things have a fluidity they dont have now. You may see 3 servers get stuck at the bottom, but if it happens you know its not for long. Is this idea perfect, no, but based on the way the math and ratings are this option has the chance to give us some interesting matches and offers those of us on the bottom the chance to play some different folks for once even if we still get facerolled.

It delights me to see a lot of people are sticking around in this thread with options and civil debate. (Not to mention keeping it on the front page…ahem.)

In regards to the season thing, the way to give out rewards would be a major challenge to the servers ever balancing. If they reset everyone’s ratings to 1500 every, let’s say two months or so, you would see massive stompings as the servers with the most coverage started to float their way back to the top (hopefully with more efficiency than bubble sorting…).

A lot of players I’ve talked to and stalked read on the forums don’t seem to mind the idea of some unbalanced matches, but the unbalanced matches – combined with rewards to the server who stomps the most – would serve as a catalyst for the unfortunate human instinct to jump ship to the winner. Why bother trying to compete at all when you can just transfer to the server who you know will win to get free stuff?

That’s why using a tier system to give rewards could get very tricky to do with anything resembling something other than mass trollery by ANet. Unless they could implement a viable reason for servers to fight tooth and nail to the bitter end, even when they know they cannot win, people who want to win and get rewards (read as the majority) would just transfer. The mass transfer would then go on and ensure that whoever was already pretty much assured victory is now undeniable in their victory.

I’m all for trying to increase WvW turnout by giving rewards, and adding some sort of meaning to the never-ending fight, but rewarding servers for being high up in the tiers is simply saying “Congratulations, you picked and/or transferred to a server with a large WvW turnout, combined with tight coverage. Thanks for playing!” This, in turn, simply enrages all tiers below T1 into either quiting or transferring to T1.

I agree mate, I can see how a reward for being the top server definately gives the wrong vibe and will cause mass transfer to the “winning” servers. But if they had a way to reward players who put active time into WvW on their server rather than based on their finish rank. That way people won’t feel the need to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and it gives people who don’t normally get into WvW an extra reason to get into the fight. Granted I don’t know how this type of system would be implemented or what type of reward could be given. But in my eyes this offers a lot of answers to the questions we’ve been asking.

Here’s an idea that’s unlikely to happen but would solve some of these problems and I think be fun: every so often, have four-sided matches instead of three. That lets one tier get exposed to the ratings in the ones above and below it, and adds some variety to both the matchups and the gameplay. It wouldn’t quite work for the EU servers though with their not-divisible-by-4 situation. I blame the metric system for that.

So basically, if I grasp this right, thanks to the system being used Glicko, and Glicko-2, it pretty much scales each sever vs Server battle into what amounts to a PvE encounter, where the level of the player is pit against the level of mob, and if the mob is too low level it won’t award exp, in this case, SF can’t climb out of Tier 8 by simply winning, because they are not going to get exp for beating FC or ET with the way the math is set up.

What that means is that system set up is so heinously skewed, that the only way they can really get out is by not fighting, and thus tanking their rating down to where they can get gain solid points from beating ET and FC and then win big, to get out of Tier 8.

While I may be wrong, if that is the case, I can only muse at what a messed up system they have in place.

TheGhostBaron.1250:

I agree mate, I can see how a reward for being the top server definately gives the wrong vibe and will cause mass transfer to the “winning” servers. But if they had a way to reward players who put active time into WvW on their server rather than based on their finish rank. That way people won’t feel the need to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and it gives people who don’t normally get into WvW an extra reason to get into the fight. Granted I don’t know how this type of system would be implemented or what type of reward could be given. But in my eyes this offers a lot of answers to the questions we’ve been asking.

Not to sound creepy or anything, but I’m starting to like you. You’ve helped to keep the debate going and haven’t flat out shot anyone down. (Edit: Why don’t the forums like my surprised emoticon that uses a Russian character? T^T)

As to rewarding active WvW time, I think that might be the closest thing to a half-viable reward structure suggested yet, but would still be difficult to pull off. How would you measure active WvW time?

Actual time in WvW maps would be easy to farm up. Just sit in the map, move around every now and then (manually or through an automated tap of an arrow key every 9 minutes and 50 seconds). Then you would reward people for taking up queue slots and hindering their server. Mind you, T8 laughs at the notion of queue slots most days, but I digress.

Kill count would greatly favour the DPS crowd and further shift the meta away from support roles. Siege built would reward the rich for being rich and spending their money (gotten primarily through PvE or the TP, since WvW clearly isn’t about making money at the moment). Points taken would assume your opponent can actually field the numbers to take a statistically relevant number of points. And points defended would only be viable if you made the Dynamic Event system realize that you can defend by doing more than killing people and using supply to repair .

If people can think of a viable reward structure that isn’t exploitable, by all means, chime in and present it, ’cause this is the most likely option for getting WvW participation up and keeping it from withering away.

Irate Platypus.9318:

Here’s an idea that’s unlikely to happen but would solve some of these problems and I think be fun: every so often, have four-sided matches instead of three. That lets one tier get exposed to the ratings in the ones above and below it, and adds some variety to both the matchups and the gameplay. It wouldn’t quite work for the EU servers though with their not-divisible-by-4 situation. I blame the metric system for that.

While this wouldn’t be that bad of an idea, it would require entirely new maps. While a lot of people agree that new maps are needed, those take massive amounts of time and resources to construct. The time and effort requires goes up exponentially when you have to take PvP and siege placement balance into account, which is why you’ll always see more new PvE maps than new PvP maps.

Don’t get me wrong, new maps and a four server free-for-all would be fun. Albiet, four servers could get…crowded, for lack of a better term. It’s just that I agree with you when you say it would be unlikely to happen.

Ungood.3054:

So basically, if I grasp this right, thanks to the system being used Glicko, and Glicko-2, it pretty much scales each sever vs Server battle into what amounts to a PvE encounter, where the level of the player is pit against the level of mob, and if the mob is too low level it won’t award exp, in this case, SF can’t climb out of Tier 8 by simply winning, because they are not going to get exp for beating FC or ET with the way the math is set up.

What that means is that system set up is so heinously skewed, that the only way they can really get out is by not fighting, and thus tanking their rating down to where they can get gain solid points from beating ET and FC and then win big, to get out of Tier 8.

While I may be wrong, if that is the case, I can only muse at what a messed up system they have in place.

Sort of, yes. At the moment FC’s and ET’s ratings are so far down in the hole that the “exp” SF is gaining from us like grinding your pokemon to level 100 in the starter area. The only problem with them not showing up so as to let FC and ET gain ratings, and in turn give SF more exp, is that SF will lose exp during that time. This, in turn, will make SF crushing us again basically push them back to where they were before they slipped, and crush FC and ET back to the hole they were in before crawling out.

So, in a sense, it’s a PvE encounter where it’s impossible to level up from normal mobs in the area you’re in, impossible to leave the area you’re in, and impossible to level the mobs around you by dying to them. Yay for math.

Takerukun.8924:

Not to sound creepy or anything, but I’m starting to like you. You’ve helped to keep the debate going and haven’t flat out shot anyone down. (Edit: Why don’t the forums like my surprised emoticon that uses a Russian character? T^T)

As to rewarding active WvW time, I think that might be the closest thing to a half-viable reward structure suggested yet, but would still be difficult to pull off. How would you measure active WvW time?

Actual time in WvW maps would be easy to farm up. Just sit in the map, move around every now and then (manually or through an automated tap of an arrow key every 9 minutes and 50 seconds). Then you would reward people for taking up queue slots and hindering their server. Mind you, T8 laughs at the notion of queue slots most days, but I digress.

Kill count would greatly favour the DPS crowd and further shift the meta away from support roles. Siege built would reward the rich for being rich and spending their money (gotten primarily through PvE or the TP, since WvW clearly isn’t about making money at the moment). Points taken would assume your opponent can actually field the numbers to take a statistically relevant number of points. And points defended would only be viable if you made the Dynamic Event system realize that you can defend by doing more than using supply to repair and killing people.

If people can think of a viable reward structure that isn’t exploitable, by all means, chime in and present it, ’cause this is the most likely option for getting WvW participation up and keeping it from withering away.

First, not creepy, not yet anyway lol.

Second, yeah a reward system definately comes down to how to track it and how to keep punks from abusing it.

But reward system aside, Anet should definately take a long look at setting up some kind of “season” system, even if by the end of the season we end up with ETvsFCvsSF atleast leading up to that point will have been different and interesting. Which in the end whether we win or lose, all we want is to have some fun.

Takerukun.8924:

While anything might be preferable, it’s demeaning to everyone involved to think that a solution that’s still terrible, and which would lead to WvW populations probably having a bi-weekly turn out for the most part, is still a solution. It makes no sense that anyone should be happy for the conditions to go from dismal to below sub-par.

the previous posters didn’t all suggest “anything is preferable.” it was only said as a sort of off the cuff jab at the current system.

a solution that is less than optimal but better than the current solution isn’t demeaning to anyone.

The best solution would be one that addressed competitiveness in WvW altogether so that matchups could be more competitive within a given tier. Since that isn’t happening any time soon if ever, a less than optimal solution would then be preferable.

What those who say things like “a bad matchup every other week would not be fun” are ignoring is that right now there are at least 13 servers in a matchup that they have nearly zero chance of winning.

that is over half of all servers playing a battle they know they will lose. many of which know they will be in the same battle next week and many weeks after.

its not ideal, but what many who preach the problems of disparities between tiers ignore is the disparities already existing within tiers.

TheGhostBaron.1250:

First, not creepy, not yet anyway lol.

Second, yeah a reward system definately comes down to how to track it and how to keep punks from abusing it.

But reward system aside, Anet should definately take a long look at setting up some kind of “season” system, even if by the end of the season we end up with ETvsFCvsSF atleast leading up to that point will have been different and interesting. Which in the end whether we win or lose, all we want is to have some fun.

Not to completely disagree with you, because any change would be nice at this point, but change doesn’t always equal fun if the change we’re talking about becomes a normal change. Err…well, if that wasn’t the most awkward way I could have worded it, I don’t know what is.

What I’m trying to say is that while changing things up might seem fun at the moment, even going from curbstomping to being curbstomped and vice versa, and even changing one curbstomper for another, when that change is a regular occurance, it’ll stop feeling like a breath of fresh air and still be the stale cesspool we have at the moment. It’s just trading one blowout for another. That isn’t really a fix.

On a more positive note, a season system might yet still be possible and fun one day! All we need to see are more people transferring around to balance the tier WvW populations out. Even enough that only the two or three tiers adjacent to each other could still reasonably go toe-to-toe. I’m just not holding out hope of this barring manual re-shuffling, and even that isn’t going to happen without outraging the player base.

fivekiller.1432:

the previous posters didn’t all suggest “anything is preferable.” it was only said as a sort of off the cuff jab at the current system.

a solution that is less than optimal but better than the current solution isn’t demeaning to anyone.

The best solution would be one that addressed competitiveness in WvW altogether so that matchups could be more competitive within a given tier. Since that isn’t happening any time soon if ever, a less than optimal solution would then be preferable.

What those who say things like “a bad matchup every other week would not be fun” are ignoring is that right now there are at least 13 servers in a matchup that they have nearly zero chance of winning.

that is over half of all servers playing a battle they know they will lose. many of which know they will be in the same battle next week and many weeks after.

its not ideal, but what many who preach the problems of disparities between tiers ignore is the disparities already existing within tiers.

I hadn’t intended to say that a less than optimal solution wasn’t worth looking at. My apologies if I offended. I have a bad habit of getting caught up in stressing points while typing.

I just think that having a sub-par solution shouldn’t be the cause of week-long celebrations. Yes, something might be fixed. But, then we have to look objectively at the other twenty things that need fixing. It’s like asking someone to be happy that they were only abused and beaten 20 times as a child rather than 50. (While I realize a game probably shouldn’t be compared with child abuse, it’s the only comparison that comes to mind that’s even slightly similar.)

By the way, I agree with almost everything in your post. The disparity within tiers is terrible at the moment, and the disparity between them just compounds the issue. Of all the things suggested so far, the one that would be a dream come true is some sort of mass balancing transfer where everyone tried to evenly spread out the WvW population of their own volition.

But, as unlikely as that is to happen, any suggestions that are realistic are welcome at the moment. We just shouldn’t break out the good champaign for ones that leave us almost exactly where we started.

This is honestly killing wvw for us lol, red response ftw? There is no way someone at anet hasn’t read this … it’s even more concerning that they haven’t responded with anything.

You’ve got some really loyal players to your game here guys, and there’s a lot of us (including a lot of first timers who enter wvw on one of our servers and have the experience ruined)… I don’t think throwing us under a bus is a constructive way to deal with the situation.

I don’t have much to add to the conversation. Most of my ideas about fixing the system have already been stated more eloquently by others than I could manage. But it’s a thread worth bumping for bumping’s sake.

Though it’s probably worth reiterating a few points.

A. I think most Fergies and ETs aren’t complaining about being in Tier 8. Speaking for myself, I don’t give jack squat about what tier Ferg is in. All I care about is having a playing field that is as fair and level as possible. This isn’t the case in T8 right now. Anybody arguing otherwise is either trolling or foolish.

B. As has been pointed out by those smarter than me, the math in T8 needs to be tweaked or fixed. The sooner the better for all involved.

C. To go into WvW, spend gold on upgrades and repairs, is like flushing time and money down the kittenter right now in Ferguson’s Crossing. It’s not fun anymore. And the problem is only going to get worse as the weeks drag on and no fix is introduced. We don’t need a solution tomorrow. We needed it about 3 weeks ago.

Thanks for all the (mostly) thoughtful and enlightening posts in this thread. I read through the whole thing, actually. Definitely not a waste of time for somebody wondering what the problem is and wondering how it can be fixed.

I saw a Anet player on wvw Saturday, maybe a sign that they are looking into our problem. Hope i don’t jinx it.

Jesse.4631:

I saw a Anet player on wvw Saturday, maybe a sign that they are looking into our problem. Hope i don’t jinx it.

I hope so

Jesse.4631:

I saw a Anet player on wvw Saturday, maybe a sign that they are looking into our problem. Hope i don’t jinx it.

What server? Eredon?

don’t mean to sound like I’m having a durrrhurrr moment here I just really don’t know; do you mean like an in-game GM or something? (speaking in WoW terms, forgive me :p)

Here’s some crazy ideas…

I think they need a system that tracks the numbers of players in each battle…or at least in each attack of a tower / camp / keep / etc. Also, track the total number of players from each server that are currently active in WvW.

I’m sure they already track the total numbers… tracking the numbers for specific battles might be harder, but is do-able. They could set a radius around the battle and count everyone inside as taking part.

Then, they need to start basing rewards and some other things on the player differentials in each battle. Let me start with event rewards…

The more lopsided a battle is, the better the rewards get if you succeed as the small team. So, for an event like “protect the keep”, if there are five defending and five attacking, you get rewards just like you do now. If there are five defending and 100 attacking… the defenders’ reward is much greater… maybe defending against those odds for half an hour would provide rewards comparable to an explorable dungeon run. On the opposing side, reduce the rewards based on how much larger the force is… if you are part of a 100-man team assaulting an empty keep, you should get no reward at all.

I think you could solve the “night capping” problem using a similar system. If there are multiple extremely lopsided battles in a row, start increasing the strength of the losing server’s remaining defenses. So…if a server is running around with a massive zerg capping empty towers as quick as possible…each new tower’s walls and doors will get progressively stronger and the NPCs will get progressively stronger until they become unbeatable. It would work similarly to the DR system in PvE (stop screaming, this could work). The idea would be to limit the number of extremely lopsided battles that can take place in a short period of time.

These systems would reward people for defending and holding territory (rewards for that right now are lousy…it’s so much better to just play wack-a-mole and trade camps and towers for loot and exp)…with rewards that are really worthwhile regardless of how much territory the server holds overall. If all your server has is five people on the map at a moment, take a tower and hold it and it’s really worth your while. This would also provide incentive to keep fighting, even when the odds are against you, in fact it would encourage smaller battles, rather than zerging all the time. Stopping servers from wiping the whole map when the other servers are sleeping (or at least slowing it down) will also lead to better matches.

Also… ArenaNet…This should really be a no-brainer. If a server is winning by 100k points…they shouldn’t get breakout events. It makes no sense at all that a zerg of 100 people night capping five defending players should be able to use a breakout event.

Darek.1836:

Jesse.4631:

I saw a Anet player on wvw Saturday, maybe a sign that they are looking into our problem. Hope i don’t jinx it.

What server? Eredon?

Nope, she was on Ferguson :p she was a low level Necro, too bad she was running with Krak. Made our server look like idiots. Who trys taking tower opposite side of you way point, before taking the first one?

SniffyCube.6107:

This is honestly killing wvw for us lol, red response ftw? There is no way someone at anet hasn’t read this … it’s even more concerning that they haven’t responded with anything.

You’ve got some really loyal players to your game here guys, and there’s a lot of us (including a lot of first timers who enter wvw on one of our servers and have the experience ruined)… I don’t think throwing us under a bus is a constructive way to deal with the situation.

The lack of response is also a bit of a concern for me.
Most days I come in, get steam rolled but try and take a few camps… today was just the pits for me. 5 FC on EB doing as much as we can just to try and be competitive… all of us knew it’s a lost cause but try and stay positive non the less. then 1 leaves, 1 arrives, 2 leaves, 1 arrives… 3 leaves and there’s me all alone defending a tower against a SF zerg… no point, no fun, no nothing.

I really don’t know what the answer is, all I know is that FC players have already lost interest in wvw from the numbers I see. Mebbe it’s just the timezone I’m in, but wvw for me used to be more fun when kaineng was around because at least the whole 10 of us were forced together due to spawn camping. Now we’re just aimless and scattered. Few heading off to SF BL to ninja some camps, 1 or 2 doing crafting, 1 or 2 just standing around… seldom enough players to start a break out event… real sad tbh.

A RED FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT HAS APPEARED… and shut our operation down. Time to get outta dodge

Honestly, though… who else would T8 play? Have you guys not considered that you might be stomped by any T7 server that drops down?

I know Maguuma dropping down only one tier, from T4 to T5 caused two weeks of insane roflstomping. The same happens when FA drops into T3…

There is a world of difference between tiers, and I don’t think a ratings reset would change anything for ET or FC.

ParaldaWind.4523:

Honestly, though… who else would T8 play? Have you guys not considered that you might be stomped by any T7 server that drops down?

I know Maguuma dropping down only one tier, from T4 to T5 caused two weeks of insane roflstomping. The same happens when FA drops into T3…

There is a world of difference between tiers, and I don’t think a ratings reset would change anything for ET or FC.

I think we all just wanted to see if we could get our servers’ moral back by having different opponents. I know (speaking for myself here) that the only opponents I’ve ever faced since playing this game have been SF and FC (though I rarely see anyone from FC so they hardly count here) and something different for once would be nice, just to see if we could beat them, but we haven’t even been given a chance. Instead we got teased, started frothing at the mouth, and then watched the bone get swept right from under our mouths.

CC Meinke.2749:

Please note that this thread has been renamed according to the Code of Conduct.
Thank you for your understanding.

LOL. Well then.

I’ve been following this thread with interest. As an SBI member I can tell you ET/FC we feel your pain. Hold on, little buddies, there is a great chance we will meet you as we continue our own whomping freefall through the ranks.

It seems to me that WvW is divided between hi-pop zerg servers and the rest of us. There really does need to be a mechanism in place that takes the number of players v players on the field into account. Match ups need to be balanced whether it’s ZvZ or not and T8 is taking the worst brunt of this imbalance. It is incomprehensible to me that ANet has not stepped in to address the situation. Well, except for the thread renaming bit.

ParaldaWind.4523:

Honestly, though… who else would T8 play? Have you guys not considered that you might be stomped by any T7 server that drops down?

I know Maguuma dropping down only one tier, from T4 to T5 caused two weeks of insane roflstomping. The same happens when FA drops into T3…

There is a world of difference between tiers, and I don’t think a ratings reset would change anything for ET or FC.

The problems are two-fold:

1. ET and FC do not have an appropriately matched third opponent, and more importantly:

2. ET/FC’s low ratings cause an excessive dragging effect on SF (or any other server eventually in SF’s current situation) which makes it very difficult for overqualified servers to get out of T8 when they are forced to fill that open slot.

The 2nd problem is the one that I think can be more easily dealt with, as it is caused primarily by how ratings are calculated. Problem #1 is not a simple fix, as you correctly point out. However, not being simple doesn’t invalidate it as a problem, and at the very least something could be done to help alleviate problem #2.

Labarge.1439:

ParaldaWind.4523:

Honestly, though… who else would T8 play? Have you guys not considered that you might be stomped by any T7 server that drops down?

I know Maguuma dropping down only one tier, from T4 to T5 caused two weeks of insane roflstomping. The same happens when FA drops into T3…

There is a world of difference between tiers, and I don’t think a ratings reset would change anything for ET or FC.

The problems are two-fold:

1. ET and FC do not have an appropriately matched third opponent, and more importantly:

2. ET/FC’s low ratings cause an excessive dragging effect on SF (or any other server eventually in SF’s current situation) which makes it very difficult for overqualified servers to get out of T8 when they are forced to fill that open slot.

The 2nd problem is the one that I think can be more easily dealt with, as it is caused primarily by how ratings are calculated. Problem #1 is not a simple fix, as you correctly point out. However, not being simple doesn’t invalidate it as a problem, and at the very least something could be done to help alleviate problem #2.

I guess I understand your point, but SF lost when they were in T7, so do they not deserve to be T8?

ParaldaWind.4523:

Labarge.1439:

ParaldaWind.4523:

Honestly, though… who else would T8 play? Have you guys not considered that you might be stomped by any T7 server that drops down?

I know Maguuma dropping down only one tier, from T4 to T5 caused two weeks of insane roflstomping. The same happens when FA drops into T3…

There is a world of difference between tiers, and I don’t think a ratings reset would change anything for ET or FC.

The problems are two-fold:

1. ET and FC do not have an appropriately matched third opponent, and more importantly:

2. ET/FC’s low ratings cause an excessive dragging effect on SF (or any other server eventually in SF’s current situation) which makes it very difficult for overqualified servers to get out of T8 when they are forced to fill that open slot.

The 2nd problem is the one that I think can be more easily dealt with, as it is caused primarily by how ratings are calculated. Problem #1 is not a simple fix, as you correctly point out. However, not being simple doesn’t invalidate it as a problem, and at the very least something could be done to help alleviate problem #2.

I guess I understand your point, but SF lost when they were in T7, so do they not deserve to be T8?

Check how they lost, I’ll even dig up the links because I was looking at this the other day.

The three weeks SF spent in T7:
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/45/13
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/45/14
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/45/15

In the three weeks they were present in T7, the big winners were servers that were in process of moving up the ranks due to population booms during the free transfers. They were nearly identical in performance as HOD during those three weeks, but due to a weak third week (by 8k points, nearly non-existent), it dropped them into T8, where they have stayed for the last 6 weeks, with no end in sight.

In essence, their presence in T8 has nothing to do with them deserving to be there, and all the more with there being a vacuum in which they are forced to fill. The vacuum even has some nasty numbers that make mobility for said “placeholder” server a pipe dream.

EDIT: Misread my own citations, only one team during those three weeks really qualifies as “moving up in the ranks due a population boom”. SF’s performance compared to HOD is still accurate however.