Guild Wars 2

I think it is only a matter of a few months before Anet consolidates the six lowest population servers into 3. This will remove tier 8 completely. The game has been out for a while, so the population will only decrease from here on out (or at least until a boxed expansion set).

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/In-my-opinion-t8-rankings-need-more-attention/page/4#post1426602

Lots of good ideas for changes in the math here. I encourage you guys to pull some off that those posts (I would copy paste them all but there’s too many)

The current system is much better than moving servers around based on what position they come in within their current tier. The correct way would be to keep the current system, but have tweaks or changes performed by several humans. They would analyze and look at the data. They would also collect more data based on their own observations and by adding more features to the current system to collect data that may not be being collected. This means they would have all the data needed plus observations of the matchup. They could even run simulations between servers to give the best possible predicted outcome before they make their finale decision as to where every server could go.

Now you can’t purely base everything on numbers and that’s where their observations would come. The would observe fights and pay close attention to those fights that would provide the statistics needed to help in determining the closest match up. In other words, if it’s 50 against say 20 or 10 that would not be considered a valid representation. Thus, they would ignore that.

Now some of you may say what about the numbers. That is still taken into account from the base system that has always been there. However, those in charge on tweaking the system and doing as I said above would be there to get the best possible mathematical measurements for a player vs player bases. After all there are several servers out there that do a lot more with less numbers. Having a server with an average skill level that out classes the servers(same number of players though) facing it is just as bad as having large differences in number of players.

This would cost more money obviously, but it would be the right thing to do. Completely throwing away the math however would be far worse than the current system. Just my opinion. Best results would come from a mix of math and human input that math cannot account for.

Ungood.3054:

snipped for size

All of this is well and good but you have a problem with context (again). This may be hard for you to understand but population is what is predominantly portrayed in the ratings, not skill etc.

Week 3
Crystal Desert had just increased its rating by eating the mostly-empty IoJ the previous few weeks, and Dragonbrand had just received a few transfers. Additionally, the week before most of IoJ transferred over to Fort Aspenwood, driving IoJ down and moving Dragonbrand up. Crystal Desert remained stable, finding themselves smaller than both Dragonbrand and Fort Aspenwood, causing Crystal Desert to come in third place against two larger servers.

Meanwhile, Maguuma both began to receive transfers and was paired up with the now-gutted IoJ, giving Maguuma a huge win. As Maguuma greatly outnumbered Yak’s Bend 1v1, and with IoJ a non-contender due to a near-complete exodus from the server, Maguuma scored a big win. This allowed them to move past a smaller population server in Crystal Desert and up a tier.

Just like Maguuma, Kaineng scored a huge win against two vastly smaller servers and found themselves moving up a tier to replace the falling and much smaller IoJ, creating the next week’s tiers. Borlis Pass, having lost big to the transfer-bloated Maguuma the previous week, and with the much larger Kaineng moving up from below, was pushed down a tier despite remaining relatively consistent.

Week 4
Maguuma’s rise from T4 to T3 was population fueled, and pitted them against two servers they belonged against. The glicko system placed them in a match-up appropriate for their population and gave them a competitive week of play. Fort Aspenwood, being somewhat larger than either opponent, did ultimately win; however, both Maguuma and Dragonbrand had strong participation during the holes in FA’s coverage, and as such each of the three servers found themselves ticking for +350 ppt during the week.

Kaineng proceeded to advance toward T2 at the same exact rate that your proposed system would have them advance at, but it would have done something that the glicko system does not. Kaineng found themselves against two smaller servers and saw their rating rocket up again in response to it. Since SBI was going to fall the following week, the competition for T2 saw Fort Aspenwood and Kaineng going neck and neck in a contest that Kaineng almost won, despite being in T4 at the time.

Furthermore, Crystal Desert began losing guilds to transfers at this point, and found themselves weaker than they otherwise would have been as they were no longer as consistently large as they had been in the previous weeks. Isle of Janthir remained in free-fall and moved down toward their new home at the same rate that your system would have afforded them, except that under the glicko system they had the potential to skip tiers if presented with and afforded the opportunity to do so.

As has been stated multiple times in this topic now, Sanctum of Rall didn’t magically become better than their opponents. They received half of SBI’s population and ruined the tier. Since SoR was much larger than TC in a 1v1 competition and as SBI was an almost non-participant in that week’s contest, SoR scored a huge win and moved up. Blackgate, remaining consistent in their position and competitive against SoS and JQ, enjoyed a good match-up until SoR grew larger than them and moved up.

This post is getting too large so I’m going to stop here; I’ll continue if asked but I believe I have soundly made my point already.

You’re looking at numbers without context and without trying to understand why those things have happened. You’re not proving or disproving anything — you’re parroting statistics as absolute truth.

The reality is that week-by-week the changes you see represent changes in population, which therefore represent changes in coverage, which therefore represent changes in performance. You’re not seeing servers in flux trying to get to where they belong in terms of skill, but rather you’re seeing the glicko system compensating for changes in server populations.

Nothing that you’ve said has changed this, and in fact the system you’re proposing has more potential to create more blowouts more often. If you think that SoR vs TC vs SBI was a blowout, you’d be right, but to not understand WHY it was a blowout is to lack an understanding of what it is you’re championing.

Having larger servers move down to face two much smaller servers just because the smaller server in the tier above lost doesn’t create balance or an interesting environment. It creates situations where, like SoR vs TC vs SBI, the smallest server is virtually unable to compete. This generates a 1v1 situation between the other two servers, and in a 1v1 situation like that the larger server is going to win.

Your system is just bad. So is glicko, but again, glicko is perfect in comparison.

Elochai.1280:

The current system is much better than moving servers around based on what position they come in within their current tier. The correct way would be to keep the current system, but have tweaks or changes performed by several humans. They would analyze and look at the data. They would also collect more data based on their own observations and by adding more features to the current system to collect data that may not be being collected. This means they would have all the data needed plus observations of the matchup. They could even run simulations between servers to give the best possible predicted outcome before they make their finale decision as to where every server could go.

Not gonna happen … because it would require somebody at ANet to actually give a kitten and pay attention.

Cactus.2710:

Elochai.1280:

The current system is much better than moving servers around based on what position they come in within their current tier. The correct way would be to keep the current system, but have tweaks or changes performed by several humans. They would analyze and look at the data. They would also collect more data based on their own observations and by adding more features to the current system to collect data that may not be being collected. This means they would have all the data needed plus observations of the matchup. They could even run simulations between servers to give the best possible predicted outcome before they make their finale decision as to where every server could go.

Not gonna happen … because it would require somebody at ANet to actually give a kitten and pay attention.

Probably wont happen, but that would be the right thing to do. People would still complain(someone always has to) about how they do the match ups, but they would cover just about everything the best they can. This would also help with their relationship with the players showing that they are doing everything they can the best they can to get the match ups to be the best they can. The current system is the best they can do at a low cost. It’s unfortunate though that this is likely as much effort as any developer is willing to put forth. If they truly want to show the player base that they are different than the competition they will do something like I suggested or something similar.

Cactus.2710:

Elochai.1280:

The current system is much better than moving servers around based on what position they come in within their current tier. The correct way would be to keep the current system, but have tweaks or changes performed by several humans. They would analyze and look at the data. They would also collect more data based on their own observations and by adding more features to the current system to collect data that may not be being collected. This means they would have all the data needed plus observations of the matchup. They could even run simulations between servers to give the best possible predicted outcome before they make their finale decision as to where every server could go.

Not gonna happen … because it would require somebody at ANet to actually give a kitten and pay attention.

Exactly.

The system need be self sufficient and adaptable. The main issue with Glicko is that it’s goal is lock people into Tiers, which by it’s design is trying to stagnate the matches, which is a bad thing for everyone involved and the game as a whole.

Which is why you need a system that keeps people moving, a system that is used by people who play games like WvWvW which are really just large scale pugs, or more like a pick up game of b-ball.

In that environment you need simple rules. a win is a win, a loss is a loss. Making it more then that or less that, does a disservice to the people who are winning and losing.

Ungood.3054:

Kerithlan.1659:

Massive speculation with nothing to back it up and most likely total fantasy that amounts to nothing more then “I don’t like your idea so I am going kitten and whine on the forums until someone listens”

Thanks for the post.

It had me enthralled from start to end, and some day I might even read it.

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are. I actually keep up with other servers (something that you don’t seem to do), and I actually understand that the rating system moves bigger populations up and smaller populations down (something that you don’t seem to grasp).

Your posts are non-contributory in your own topic — that’s a new one. I’m just going to step out and let other posters make their own decisions pertaining to what I’ve posted.

Kerithlan.1659:

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are.

Ungood posted numbers anyone can find quite easily on the millenium matchup site.

where does your ‘evidence’ come from? can you point to it and say “here it is… this server has this many people, that server has that many, and they used to have so many more/less.” where is your proof? if it’s nowhere but stored in your head, its not proof.

Kerithlan.1659:

Ungood.3054:

Kerithlan.1659:

Massive speculation with nothing to back it up and most likely total fantasy that amounts to nothing more then “I don’t like your idea so I am going kitten and whine on the forums until someone listens”

Thanks for the post.

It had me enthralled from start to end, and some day I might even read it.

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are.

lets see, I post up solid numbers from the last several weeks of actual match ups, showing and proving two major points:

1: That moving worlds to adjacent tiers does not result in curb-stomps.
2: That several tiers are stuck in bad match ups for extended times, and it’s not limited to Tier 8.

Thus proving that Rotating worlds is not bad, and that the current system is in fact broken.

Your counter to that is… lots of unsubstantiated gossip.

Well, Thanks for your contribution, it’s been enlightening to say the least.

Facts > Theory

katz.8376:

Kerithlan.1659:

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are.

Ungood posted numbers anyone can find quite easily on the millenium matchup site.

where does your ‘evidence’ come from? can you point to it and say “here it is… this server has this many people, that server has that many, and they used to have so many more/less.” where is your proof? if it’s nowhere but stored in your head, its not proof.

http://xkcd.com/558/
http://blog.thinknewfound.com/statistics-without-context-are-just-numbers/
http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/

Furthermore all of the transfers that took place were discussed at length in each tier’s respective match-up topics. I’m not going to dig them up because — frankly — you can do it yourself. I understand that you want the burden of proof to be on me, but I already know how important statistical context is and don’t want to be roped into lecturing people regarding things that have nothing to do with the topic.

i actually wasn’t trying to be nasty. i am really asking for the context you are referring to. i’m NEW. i dunno how many times i have to say that. i didn’t ever see these topics you refer to.

ungood found numbers. you say “find em your d*** self”.

ok, thanks alot

Ungood.3054:

Cactus.2710:

Elochai.1280:

The current system is much better than moving servers around based on what position they come in within their current tier. The correct way would be to keep the current system, but have tweaks or changes performed by several humans. They would analyze and look at the data. They would also collect more data based on their own observations and by adding more features to the current system to collect data that may not be being collected. This means they would have all the data needed plus observations of the matchup. They could even run simulations between servers to give the best possible predicted outcome before they make their finale decision as to where every server could go.

Not gonna happen … because it would require somebody at ANet to actually give a kitten and pay attention.

Exactly.

The system need be self sufficient and adaptable. The main issue with Glicko is that it’s goal is lock people into Tiers, which by it’s design is trying to stagnate the matches, which is a bad thing for everyone involved and the game as a whole.

Which is why you need a system that keeps people moving, a system that is used by people who play games like WvWvW which are really just large scale pugs, or more like a pick up game of b-ball.

In that environment you need simple rules. a win is a win, a loss is a loss. Making it more then that or less that, does a disservice to the people who are winning and losing.

I couldn’t disagree with you more. The current system is just as adaptable and self sustaining as your suggestion. The current system would provide many more balanced fights than what you have suggested. How is it bad for everyone in the game as a whole? I see it as generating more fun balanced fights. Instead of many more unbalanced boring fights.

When is your system used by people who play games like WvW? Most mmos out there that have large scale pvp take place on the same server. While there’s been a few others that are like the WvWvW model I haven’t seen any use the same system you are suggesting. I could be wrong but from what I’ve seen from mmos I’ve not seen any use that kind of system.

Since when is fighting the same server a bad thing. Much of the time you don’t end up fighting the same people. Even then people play differently and respond differently in many situations. Some people play one day and don’t play the next and someone else fills their spot. That’s the great thing about WvW. The only thing that truly remains the same is the server names.

I do agree with you that there needs to be an adaptable system. Self sufficient is only a goal if they want to save money. While self sufficient is nice, if ANY system isn’t constantly monitored or adjusted it will do plenty of things others don’t like. The goal should be to prevent problems before they happen and minimize bad match ups. While you may think the current systems goal is to lock people into a tier the actual goal is the produce balanced matches.

Kerithlan.1659:

katz.8376:

Kerithlan.1659:

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are.

Ungood posted numbers anyone can find quite easily on the millenium matchup site.

where does your ‘evidence’ come from? can you point to it and say “here it is… this server has this many people, that server has that many, and they used to have so many more/less.” where is your proof? if it’s nowhere but stored in your head, its not proof.

http://xkcd.com/558/
http://blog.thinknewfound.com/statistics-without-context-are-just-numbers/
http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/

Furthermore all of the transfers that took place were discussed at length in each tier’s respective match-up topics. I’m not going to dig them up because — frankly — you can do it yourself. I understand that you want the burden of proof to be on me, but I already know how important statistical context is and don’t want to be roped into lecturing people regarding things that have nothing to do with the topic.

This is a real fancy way to say “The numbers disagree with me, so I am going to deny their validity and toss around rumors to support my claim”

I linked a viable site, that anyone who knows anything at all about WvWvW uses. You have “Oh yah. I read it on the forums somewhere”

Keep trying.

Fact > Theory.

Maybe you never should have said that to start with, if you knew you never had the the facts to begin with.

katz.8376:

i actually wasn’t trying to be nasty. i am really asking for the context you are referring to. i’m NEW. i dunno how many times i have to say that. i didn’t ever see these topics you refer to.

ungood found numbers. you say “find em your d*** self”.

ok, thanks alot

Sorry, I just don’t want to invest even more into this when I’ve already said basically all that I have to say. The search feature on these forums is notoriously bad, so digging through 30+ pages of WvW posts to find the match-up topics and then poke through them for the appropriate posts/discussions would take me hours. Nothing personal.

A quick google search for “numbers in context” takes 30 seconds in comparison, and requires an equal amount of effort as Ungood clicking five buttons on a site and pretending as though every server is the exact same week to week.

Kerithlan.1659:

katz.8376:

Kerithlan.1659:

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are.

Ungood posted numbers anyone can find quite easily on the millenium matchup site.

where does your ‘evidence’ come from? can you point to it and say “here it is… this server has this many people, that server has that many, and they used to have so many more/less.” where is your proof? if it’s nowhere but stored in your head, its not proof.

http://xkcd.com/558/
http://blog.thinknewfound.com/statistics-without-context-are-just-numbers/
http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/

Furthermore all of the transfers that took place were discussed at length in each tier’s respective match-up topics. I’m not going to dig them up because — frankly — you can do it yourself. I understand that you want the burden of proof to be on me, but I already know how important statistical context is and don’t want to be roped into lecturing people regarding things that have nothing to do with the topic.

Pretty much this every server knows if they got a good amount of transfers. Ehmry bay and Maguuma are pratically married so we always follow each others matchups.

Maguuma’s register on our own Server forums and post all the time.

You can’t see this unless you register but we had guilds leave our server and go to mags or db and they where large oceanic guilds

http://www.ehmry.com/topic/1963-so-it-seems-that-mag-has-become-a-zerg-server/

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Leaving-Maguuma/first

This is the thread that started it all for Maguuma to get a massive population influx they didn’t want new people someone posted don’t come and it backfired and they got new people.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Need-a-home-Don-t-choose-Maguuma/first

Thats on page 19 of wvw forums if you go there thats around the time when all the servers started to lose people or gain people so you can find most of the threads there for other servers.

Ungood.3054:

Kerithlan.1659:

katz.8376:

Kerithlan.1659:

This is an interesting analysis of what I’ve posted because I’m not posting speculation, whereas you are.

Ungood posted numbers anyone can find quite easily on the millenium matchup site.

where does your ‘evidence’ come from? can you point to it and say “here it is… this server has this many people, that server has that many, and they used to have so many more/less.” where is your proof? if it’s nowhere but stored in your head, its not proof.

http://xkcd.com/558/
http://blog.thinknewfound.com/statistics-without-context-are-just-numbers/
http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/

Furthermore all of the transfers that took place were discussed at length in each tier’s respective match-up topics. I’m not going to dig them up because — frankly — you can do it yourself. I understand that you want the burden of proof to be on me, but I already know how important statistical context is and don’t want to be roped into lecturing people regarding things that have nothing to do with the topic.

This is a real fancy way to say “The numbers disagree with me, so I am going to deny their validity and toss around rumors to support my claim”

I linked a viable site, that anyone who knows anything at all about WvWvW uses. You have “Oh yah. I read it on the forums somewhere”

Keep trying.

Fact > Theory.

Maybe you never should have said that to start with, if you knew you never had the the facts to begin with.

it doesn’t take much proof.

I can throw a dart at the matchups list and likely hit a tier where green up red down will result in a matchup that is either equal or better than the one the glicko will yield.

there are fewer instances i can find where the glicko system will yield an equal or better matchup.

I had a dev point out where I was wrong about something in a thread earlier, i’m open to the possibility there is a problem with winner up loser down none of us are seeing. Noone has pointed that problem out yet though.

so if we had so many server transfers… why the staunch disagreement with resetting the numbers? if we’re going to be stuck with glicko for the time being, why NOT reset us all back to 0? we sure aren’t where we started, and Glicko is meant to deal with individuals, not groups. individuals don’t change that much. we’ve skewed the numbers all out of whack by now.

SO WHAT we’ll have a few weeks of odd matches and blowouts while the rating math figures out where we’re better suited… that would honestly be a huge improvement over what we have now.

it would be a decent short-term fix to give Anet time to work on a different formula better suited to calculating matchups… because i glicko ain’t it.

Ungood.3054:

The system need be self sufficient and adaptable. The main issue with Glicko is that it’s goal is lock people into Tiers, which by it’s design is trying to stagnate the matches, which is a bad thing for everyone involved and the game as a whole.

it’s not a bad thing for everyone. it’s ONLY a bad thing if the ‘locked in’ matches are imbalanced. anet and wvw players would much rather have balanced matches, but against the same servers, rather than one sided stomps against different servers every week.

katz.8376:

so if we had so many server transfers… why the staunch disagreement with resetting the numbers? if we’re going to be stuck with glicko for the time being, why NOT reset us all back to 0? we sure aren’t where we started, and Glicko is meant to deal with individuals, not groups. individuals don’t change that much. we’ve skewed the numbers all out of whack by now.

SO WHAT we’ll have a few weeks of odd matches and blowouts while the rating math figures out where we’re better suited… that would honestly be a huge improvement over what we have now.

it would be a decent short-term fix to give Anet time to work on a different formula better suited to calculating matchups… because i glicko ain’t it.

resetting ratings would cause ATLEAST a month of one sided matches since low tier servers like SF would jump to T1. then what, after that month, after servers return to their respective tiers, you would have a very similar looking picture. the servers would settle back to what they are now. a reset does nothing, other than to provide over a month of boring wvw.

oZii.2864:

Pretty much this every server knows if they got a good amount of transfers. Ehmry bay and Maguuma are pratically married so we always follow each others matchups.

Maguuma’s register on our own Server forums and post all the time.

You can’t see this unless you register but we had guilds leave our server and go to mags or db and they where large oceanic guilds

http://www.ehmry.com/topic/1963-so-it-seems-that-mag-has-become-a-zerg-server/

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Leaving-Maguuma/first

This is the thread that started it all for Maguuma to get a massive population influx they didn’t want new people someone posted don’t come and it backfired and they got new people.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Need-a-home-Don-t-choose-Maguuma/first

Thats on page 19 of wvw forums if you go there thats around the time when all the servers started to lose people or gain people so you can find most of the threads there for other servers.

The point here, is that Ehmry Bay, should have moved up with the Influx, but notice it didn’t while Maguuma did, moving from T4 to T3, on week 3 which means there is a massive flaw in the system which kept Ehmry Bay at Tier 5, destroying the Tier when it should have moved up to Tier 4, by week 4.

That is a clear indication that the “math” is faulty.

In my system, when Ehmry Bay spiked, it would have moved up on week 4, after Kaineng moved through (which put Ehmry Bay at 2nd place in Tier 5)

No matter how you want to play this out, the Glicko system is simply not working, because it is being applied to something it was never designed to handle.

My idea would put the correct world close together, some weeks they would lose, some weeks they would win, but in short order, they would all be pretty balanced.

But more then that, each world is only accountable for it’s win or loss this week, it does not carry the burden of last week, month, year, nor does it have some point system making it so that even if it wins, it can’t pull away, Like:

Ehmry bay, stuck in Tier 5, even tho they have been stomping it.
Darkhaven has been owning Tier 7, yet has not moved.
Stormbluff Isle fell from t2 to T4 in one move and still kept losing, but is not being allowed to drop further.

That proof positive that the system is in fact falling.

In my system, Northern Shiverpeeks which has been coming in last for 3 weeks straight would have moved to T7, letting Darkhaven moved to T6, where is most likely belongs without these dragging on lop sided stagnant match ups.

In fact, in a total of 8 Tiers, only 2 of them have shown close numbers all month long, and that is Tier 6, and Tier 1.

With Tier 6 having the exact same loser ALL month Long.

Anyone who would rather that kind of stagnation as opposed to testing their skill and mettle against new and varying opponents every week I think has lost the spirit of what a War game should be about.

Now I respect the PvP’s who are used to the Glicko system, (or anyone that played Chess in Tournaments) that have learned painfully and hard that going out of your tier always ends poorly, but, that is because Glicko is designed to work for an individual, and it works well in that arena. No doubt.

But in WvWvW , a server can’t be treated like an Individual, it’s an ad-hock team like pick up b-ball. and Glicko is simply not designed to for that. Winner Wins, Loser, Losses is.

wads.5730:

it’s not a bad thing for everyone. it’s ONLY a bad thing if the ‘locked in’ matches are imbalanced. anet and wvw players would much rather have balanced matches, but against the same servers, rather than one sided stomps against different servers every week.

it is bad with a system incapable of generating balanced matches.

such as the one we are using (i think, open to correction).

To the people wondering how things would be different.

This is what happened:

Ungood.3054:

Week 4
Magumma – Moves UP from T4 to T3 – takes Tight 3rd.
Kaineng – Moves UP from T5 to T4 – Destroys it.
Crystal Desert – moves Down from T3 to T4, takes a Tight 3rd.
Isle of Janthir – Moves Down from T4 to T5 takes 3rd

Highlights:
Blackgate – Loses again Tier 1 (2 weeks in a row now)
Sanctum Rail – Destroys Tier 2 (2 weeks in a row now)
Kaineng – Utterly Destroys Tier 4
Ehmry Bay – Destroys Tier 5 (crushing Isle of Janthir that moved down from Tier 4)
Darkhaven stomps Tier 7
Sorrows Furnace – Destroys Tier 8

Under My system.
Tier1:
Blackgate Moves Down to T2 (Takes to Week 6 for this to happen Under Glicko)

Tier2:
Sanctum rail – Moves UP to T1 (takes to Week 6 for this to Happen Under Glicko)
Stormbluff Isle – Moves Down to T3 (drops to T4 on week 5 under Glicko)

Tier3:
Fort Applewood – Moves Up to T2 (This happens on Week 5 under Glicko)
Crystal Desert – moves DOWN to T4 (This happened and they got stomped by Kaineng)

Tier4:
Magumma – Moves UP to T3 (This happened, takes a tight 3rd)
Isle of Janthir – Moves DOWN to T5 (This also happened, they get stomped)

Tier5:
Kaineng – of course moves UP to T4 – Crushes Tier 4
Devona’s rest – moves Down to T5 (might be for the best as Ehmry Bay Crushes them for the following weeks anyway)

Tier6:
Borlis Path – moves UP to T5 (might put up a better fight then Devona’s rest)
Northern Shiverpeeks – Moves Down to T7 (for the best, they were never going to win in this tier anyway)

Tier7:
Darkhaven – moves Up to T6 (Might give Anvil Rock a good run for the money)
Gate of madness – moves Down to Tier 8

Tier8:
Sorrows Furnace moves UP to Tier 7 (for the best they were just going to win anyway)

As you can see my system would save time for some fights, in other cases, it would do what was done, but none the less it would limit Lop Sided matches Quickly and smooth out issues as opposed to letting bad match ups stay IE:

Tier 1:
Blackgate would move down, as it needed to, just faster under my system.
Tier 2:
Sanctum Rail would move up, as it needed to, just faster under my system.
Tier 3:
Fort Applewood would move up, as it should have, just faster under my system.
Tier 4:
Kaineng – yah.. Nuff said really.
Tier 5:
Would not suffer though Ehmry Bay, endlessly killing them for the new weeks.
Tier 6:
Northern Shiverpeeks would not be dead last for every match up all month long.
Tier 7:
Would not spend the new few weeks getting owned by Darkhaven
Tier 8:
Would get not crushed by Sorrows Furnace.

In the end, my system would do what needed to be done, and do it faster, more concise, and allow people to climb up or falling down them by their own merits, their own showing week in and week out. It would quill bad match up’s fast, and when trouble is coming, it would respond.

Gliko isn’t the one producing unbalanced matchups, MASSIVE population differences between servers are causing matchup imbalances.
If anet had done this right any server could have a chance to move up to the top server in NA/EU but the fact is there is no chance for the majority to ever be competitive in t1 let alone win in t1.
The reality is the ONLY way a server moves up is via transfer guilds (example: kaineng). I don’t care how good a server’s players are if they don’t have the numbers for 24/7 four map coverage they stand no chance.
Math, no math, makes no difference, it doesn’t solve the issue of numbers & coverage which is the TRUE cause of match imbalances.

Ungood.3054:

Tier 6:
Northern Shiverpeeks would not be dead last for every match up all month long.
Tier 7:
Would not spend the new few weeks getting owned by Darkhaven

Instead in week 1 of your new system NSP would own t7 and DH would get kitten slapped in t6, week 2 would be back to the way it is now, then rinse and repeat every week.
How in the world does moving a stronger 18th placed team (NSP) down to t7 make for a better match up when the 19th placed team (DH) is face rolling it already?

I’ve said I think the math behind the custom Glicko 2 system Anet uses is bad for months so not gonna reiterate all of it. But It needs to change and I believe Anet didn’t bother to test different calculations once they decided on no reset. They took the easy way out.

At this rate, I’d say base the tiers on population differences in WvW, and when they’re on. They have the numbers for each playerbase for the week, and what times, so just find the ones with similar times and numbers and pit them up next to each other, if possible. We might see more closer matches then.

fivekiller.1432:

wads.5730:

it’s not a bad thing for everyone. it’s ONLY a bad thing if the ‘locked in’ matches are imbalanced. anet and wvw players would much rather have balanced matches, but against the same servers, rather than one sided stomps against different servers every week.

it is bad with a system incapable of generating balanced matches.

such as the one we are using (i think, open to correction).

its not the system that’s incapable of generating balanced matches, its the fact that there aren’t an even number of well matched servers. for example, there are 7 T1 servers populating T1-2. any one of those servers will be a good match for any other, which always will leave 1 T1 server to dominate T3. there is NO system that would solve this issue.

similar problems exist in lower tiers. this new proposed system would not give balanced matches anymore than the current.

Catisa.6507:

Instead in week 1 of your new system NSP would own t7

You wish.

They would be facing Sorrows Furnace, and Henge of Denravi,

I bet IF they took first, (and I personally think SF would take First) it would be a tight first, with SF in a close 2nd.

and DH would get kitten slapped in t6

Against Doevona’s Rest which was slated to stay last in T5 for pretty much forever I doubt it, Anvil Rock which is looking very solid, I would Pit DH to take 2nd place in that match up, maybe a tight 3rd.

I refer you to Detharos post on page two (2) get a fuller grasp on how armies would really tier up, and the misgivings of being a higher Tier means they are somehow better.

wads.5730:

fivekiller.1432:

it is bad with a system incapable of generating balanced matches.

such as the one we are using (i think, open to correction).

its not the system that’s incapable of generating balanced matches, its the fact that there aren’t an even number of well matched servers. for example, there are 7 T1 servers populating T1-2. any one of those servers will be a good match for any other, which always will leave 1 T1 server to dominate T3. there is NO system that would solve this issue.

similar problems exist in lower tiers. this new proposed system would not give balanced matches anymore than the current.

Sorry, the system to which i was referring was the WvW game system as a whole apart from the glicko/matchmaking. I wasn’t clear.

I believe the way they have designed the server setup and the WvW gameplay as a whole altogether creates a system incapable of creating balanced matches. Their ranking system is a separate system altogether that would then also be lacking as it seems reliant on there being some semblance of balance within that WvW system with which it interacts.

Ungood.3054:

The point here, is that Ehmry Bay, should have moved up with the Influx, but notice it didn’t while Maguuma did, moving from T4 to T3, on week 3 which means there is a massive flaw in the system which kept Ehmry Bay at Tier 5, destroying the Tier when it should have moved up to Tier 4, by week 4.

That is a clear indication that the “math” is faulty.

In my system, when Ehmry Bay spiked, it would have moved up on week 4, after Kaineng moved through (which put Ehmry Bay at 2nd place in Tier 5)

No matter how you want to play this out, the Glicko system is simply not working, because it is being applied to something it was never designed to handle.

My idea would put the correct world close together, some weeks they would lose, some weeks they would win, but in short order, they would all be pretty balanced.

But more then that, each world is only accountable for it’s win or loss this week, it does not carry the burden of last week, month, year, nor does it have some point system making it so that even if it wins, it can’t pull away, Like:

Ehmry bay, stuck in Tier 5, even tho they have been stomping it.
Darkhaven has been owning Tier 7, yet has not moved.
Stormbluff Isle fell from t2 to T4 in one move and still kept losing, but is not being allowed to drop further.

That proof positive that the system is in fact falling.

In my system, Northern Shiverpeeks which has been coming in last for 3 weeks straight would have moved to T7, letting Darkhaven moved to T6, where is most likely belongs without these dragging on lop sided stagnant match ups.

In fact, in a total of 8 Tiers, only 2 of them have shown close numbers all month long, and that is Tier 6, and Tier 1.

With Tier 6 having the exact same loser ALL month Long.

Anyone who would rather that kind of stagnation as opposed to testing their skill and mettle against new and varying opponents every week I think has lost the spirit of what a War game should be about.

Now I respect the PvP’s who are used to the Glicko system, (or anyone that played Chess in Tournaments) that have learned painfully and hard that going out of your tier always ends poorly, but, that is because Glicko is designed to work for an individual, and it works well in that arena. No doubt.

But in WvWvW , a server can’t be treated like an Individual, it’s an ad-hock team like pick up b-ball. and Glicko is simply not designed to for that. Winner Wins, Loser, Losses is.

Huh? I posted those threads showing that maguuma did in fact get a ton of people. There is no way you even looked at it. Ehmry bay fell to tier 7 because we lost people we have worked out way up to tier 5 where we are currently next week we go to tier 4 that took 3 weeks.

Mags got a ton of people they moved up to tier 3 I believe in 2 weeks. That is why I posted it. 3 weeks isn’t long for us to move up considering we went from a tier 4 server all the way down to tier 7 and have raised back up to tier 4 again. We only spent 1 week in tier 7.

Those links have to do with maguuma not ehmry bay. I posted those showing that indeed maguuma did get more people and moved up to tier 3 but upon thier visit they couldn’t handle FA but they have been competitive with DB up until this match.

oZii.2864:

Huh? I posted those threads showing that maguuma did in fact get a ton of people. There is no way you even looked at it. Ehmry bay fell to tier 7 because we lost people we have worked out way up to tier 5 where we are currently next week we go to tier 4 that took 3 weeks.

Ummm. You might want to look at those numbers again.

Since Week 1 – 2013, Ehmry bay never went below T5 and has been stomping it, in fact, It In week 1 it was T4, and DROPPED to T5 on Week 2 and has been there since (That is a month now) and has endlessly been destroying Tier5 (except when Kaineng came through).

That is why I posted it. 3 weeks isn’t long for us to move up considering we went from a tier 4 server all the way down to tier 7 and have raised back up to tier 4 again. We only spent 1 week in tier 7.

The point I am trying to make is “yes it is”

If you start to do good, you should rise up, then and there, not wait for some system to try and correct itself and suddenly discover, oh you’re doing good I should reward you now.

Glicko tries to smooth out good and bad showings, because it is meant to chart an individual, not chart population shifts, which is why is had kept a pretty bad match up on T5 going all month long.

That is not fair to Ehmry Bay, as it does not award you for a job well down by keeping you spinning your wheels trying to move.

And It was not fair to Isle of Janthir or Devona’s Rest to locked into a lop sided battle going on a month straight against an opponent they never should be facing.

Almost Every Sport Team and Tournament style Competition, uses a direct style of Winning being a Win and Losing being a Loss, Even many Individual Sports use this system, like Boxing.

It has also been giving very successful outcomes and quickly pitting the people of equal skill against each other for the last 10 Thousand years or so. (Not sure how old the oldest civilization is.)

I mean think of how silly it would be that Iron Mike Tyson would have had to pound Evander Hollyfield’s face in a dozen times, because, “Oh he did pretty good a year ago, so you need to beat him up 12 times to pass his level”

But that is exactly what Glicko is doing.

I get that people want too brain this, the numbers are clear, and the snails pace that things move, but with heinous match ups on stagnant tiers riddling the system, it’s pretty clear that this is not what is working.

It’s time to unbrain a war game and just let people just fight it out.

wads.5730:

Ungood.3054:

The system need be self sufficient and adaptable. The main issue with Glicko is that it’s goal is lock people into Tiers, which by it’s design is trying to stagnate the matches, which is a bad thing for everyone involved and the game as a whole.

it’s not a bad thing for everyone. it’s ONLY a bad thing if the ‘locked in’ matches are imbalanced. anet and wvw players would much rather have balanced matches, but against the same servers, rather than one sided stomps against different servers every week.

the problem is, not only is the system locking in unbalanced matches currently, it doesn’t allow for change in the future… if a server gets more people, either via new sign ups OR paid server transfers, it’s still saddled with the old rating, with a long painful discouraging fight to move out of that rank… this is not how it should be. the math works great… IF the servers were static and the tiers balanced… but neither of these are true.

wads.5730:

katz.8376:

so if we had so many server transfers… why the staunch disagreement with resetting the numbers? if we’re going to be stuck with glicko for the time being, why NOT reset us all back to 0? we sure aren’t where we started, and Glicko is meant to deal with individuals, not groups. individuals don’t change that much. we’ve skewed the numbers all out of whack by now.

SO WHAT we’ll have a few weeks of odd matches and blowouts while the rating math figures out where we’re better suited… that would honestly be a huge improvement over what we have now.

it would be a decent short-term fix to give Anet time to work on a different formula better suited to calculating matchups… because i glicko ain’t it.

resetting ratings would cause ATLEAST a month of one sided matches since low tier servers like SF would jump to T1. then what, after that month, after servers return to their respective tiers, you would have a very similar looking picture. the servers would settle back to what they are now. a reset does nothing, other than to provide over a month of boring wvw.

and that’s different than now… how? tier 8 has been getting ROFLstomped for a few weeks now, with NO END IN SIGHT. and the longer they linger here, the harder it will be to get out of a tier they don’t belong in… because the math is TRYING to lock them into place.

i dunno about anyone else, but i’m getting pretty dang bored of it.

fivekiller.1432:

I had a dev point out where I was wrong about something in a thread earlier, i’m open to the possibility there is a problem with winner up loser down none of us are seeing. Noone has pointed that problem out yet though.

Well they can’t. Notice that the only thing anyone can drum up is “Change is bad and scary”

What gets me the most is that they are trying to use a complex system for such a simple thing. I mean really, 28 “teams” and 1 match a week is a joke as far as needing to “math” it goes.

The NFL has 32 teams that play every week and they don’t need to math it to death to figure out who took first and who took last, and where everyone else belongs in the middle, and after 42 years, the system is still holding up, with only a very few “out of nowhere” surprises / blow outs, while the system that is being used currently for WvWvW is less then a year old and already has month long curb-stomp dead locks.

Coverage is what separates the tiers. After every server finds it’s place, every other week will have a blowout faceroll.

Assuming everything is in balance week 1. Week 2 is
T1: T1 green, T1 blue, T2 green
T2: T1 red, T2 blue, T3 green
T3: T2 red, T3 blue, T4 green
.
.
T7: T6 red, T7 blue, T8 green
T8: T7 red, T8 blue, T8 green

FA is a T3 green server that is dominating T3 but went to T2 and got smashed.
Each week will be dominate T3, get spanked in T2.

Almost 2/3 of the servers will flip between dominating and getting spanked. I wouldn’t want to be ET one week and Kaineg the next.

I posted this in another thread. But I would suggest that Anet implement my system below. I think it is a great combination of every idea. What’s your opinion on this?

1) Bi-Daily match score tally. So every 2 days servers might move up or down a tier. This also gives a weekend rotation every 2 weeks. (2 days / 7 days a week)

2) Winner server moves up a tier. Loser server moves down a tier.

3) For playoffs/championships, total annual scores are rallied up. The playoff/championship ranking is determined by annual total score, not current rank. So the top 9 teams with the highest annual scores enter the playoffs for 2 rounds. (1vs8v9, 2vs6vs7, 3vs4vs5). The 3 winners of 1st round moves to 2nd round. Each round lasts 2 weeks, for a total of 4 weeks of playoff/championship a year. My recommanded month is December, since most people will be home.

4) Your servers get bonus annual points for winning in a higher tier (e.g. 30k for tier 1, 15k for tier 2, 7.5k for tier 3). You get a smaller bonus for being 2nd place in a tier(e.g. 10k for tier 1, 5k for tier2, 2.5k for tier 3). No bonus for the loser. This means you cannot lose on purpose to pick on smaller servers. You also want to stay in a higher tier for the higher bonuses.

-This means that everyday in wvw is important. Tiers might be changed very quickly.
-Server will no longer be stuck in the wrong tier (either too high or too low) for weeks.
-Servers will face new opponents all the time. This makes wvw more interesting.
-When playoff/championship happens, it is determined by the total annual score. What that means is that you always want to get as many points as possible. But at the same time as you win, you will face harder and harder opponents. So the only way to get ahead is to beat the opponents of your level.

Horrible idea. If we followed it, CD would have been in T3 this week after getting 1st place in T4 last week. The same tier that we left 2 weeks ago after we suffered another mass exodus. Yea, pretty clear what the outcome would have been.

Swamurabi.7890:

Coverage is what separates the tiers. After every server finds it’s place, every other week will have a blowout faceroll.

Help me out here.

Why would the 18th placed server be so much more amazing then the 19th placed server?

In fact, if you look at the match ups, of the current week, you will see that Point wise that 20th is closer to 18th then 18th is to 17th.

So. You would have to show me proof, or evidence that there would in fact be blowouts.

Now not be rude, but can you back that up, or at this something that you theorize based on personal belief.

I mean, if you can show me proof, then I am all for it. After all, so many people parrot this, it would nice if at some point, someone could support it with facts.

Added because I want to express my point better with facts not fiction.

Swamurabi.7890:

Almost 2/3 of the servers will flip between dominating and getting spanked. I wouldn’t want to be ET one week and Kaineg the next.

While, yes, everyone parrots this, the reality, actual results of the matches, is this:

Ungood.3054:

Week 3
Dragonbrand – Moved UP from T4 to T3 – Took Second place.
Magumma – Moved UP from T5 to T4 and Took 1st Place.
Kaineng – Moves UP from T6 toT5 and Destroys it.
Borlis Pass – Moves Down from T5 to T6, Took a close 2nd

I am using week 3, because that after the Server Lock down.

No one has been able to dispute the reality and outcome of the matches, this is what happened. Not Theory, Not fantasy, not hearsay, but the end results of the matches when servers moved.

Notice that moving did not result in a constant state of stomping. In fact, look at the post I linked, it will show the outcome of all the moves for the next few weeks, you will notice that there are more major blow outs from the Tiers that did NOT move, then ones that did.

The fact is: Servers in fact don’t transform from Super to Stink when they move up and down.

That is one of the points I have been trying to show people, time and time again.

CHIPS.6018:

I posted this in another thread.

I could see this as a good idea.

At least it is something. In fact this is a breath of fresh air to see, you put out your idea without seeking to attack anyone or belittle their idea in favor of your own.

I give you much Kudos you for this effort!

You are sighting nothing but statistical outliers to back up your flawed suggestion. Basing a system on what happened to kaineng is ridiculous, it’s population increased by like 800 to 1000% and that’s being conservative.
Every case you mention is a case of servers losing and/or gaining a large amount of population.

Ungood.3054:

The fact is: Servers in fact don’t transform from Super to Stink when they move up and down.

The reality is: expecting the worst of 2 tiers above playing the best of 2 tiers below will not make a good match up.

Worst of T4 vs. middle of the road T5 vs. best of T6 = T6 non-competitive against the T4

T4 coverage and overall population is vastly different then T6

Please keep the discussion on topic and avoid personal attacks or ad hominems. Thank you.

Ungood.3054:

The NFL has 32 teams that play every week and they don’t need to math it to death to figure out who took first and who took last …

Here is the major flaw with that argument: Those NFL teams field the EXACT same number of players at the EXACT same time EVERY MATCH FOR THE ENTIRE MATCH!

WvW is nothing like that. If every server fielded 50 people per map 24/7 then yes we could use a simple system like that because then it would be about skills and tactics. WvW as it is now is about neither. The smaller your population is the closer to the bottom you are. The more gaps in coverage you have the closer to the bottom you go. Its as simple as that.

Catisa.6507:

You are sighting nothing but statistical outliers to back up your flawed suggestion. Basing a system on what happened to kaineng is ridiculous

I agree. In fact Kaineng and Magumma are an example of a blowout, and no doubt a special case, as you pointed out, as their population exploded, by what? You said, 800%?

I was more making note of:
Dragonbrand – Moved UP from T4 to T3 – Took Second place.
Borlis Pass – Moves Down from T5 to T6, Took a close 2nd

At the same time:
Sanctum Rail – Which had NOT moved – Steamrolls Tier2
Fort Aspenwood – Which had NOT moved – Stomps Tier 3
Sorrows Furnace – Which had NOT moved – Steamrolls Tier 8

That is what happened. That was the reality. Now I can’t stop you from denying this, I can’t stop you from trying to explain this away in favor of a belief or popular opinion or whatever, all I ask is you provide to me some proof that your belief is valid.

Ungood.3054:

I was more making note of:
Dragonbrand – Moved UP from T4 to T3 – Took Second place.
Borlis Pass – Moves Down from T5 to T6, Took a close 2nd

And these aren’t the only 2 examples, there’s SOR when they vaulted up, TC moving to T2, YB when they moved to T3.

TBH the only argument against that holds water is the proposition that 1st and 2nd place will probably gang up on 3rd place

Catisa.6507:

Ungood.3054:

The NFL has 32 teams that play every week and they don’t need to math it to death to figure out who took first and who took last …

Here is the major flaw with that argument: Those NFL teams field the EXACT same number of players at the EXACT same time EVERY MATCH FOR THE ENTIRE MATCH!

WvW is nothing like that. If every server fielded 50 people per map 24/7 then yes we could use a simple system like that because then it would be about skills and tactics. WvW as it is now is about neither. The smaller your population is the closer to the bottom you are. The more gaps in coverage you have the closer to the bottom you go. Its as simple as that.

I agree, that is how it should be.

If smaller “weaker” servers shifted to the bottom and larger “stronger” ones quickly shifted to the top, and if a sever has a change, it will move properly among the ranks to find a good home, I’d be happy.

But the main issue of contention is that; that is not what is happening.

Week after week with the current system Worlds are locked into Tier where one world will always lose and another will always Win.

Case in point:
Tier 5 – Ehmry Bay has been steamrolling it for a FULL Month now.
Tier 7 – Darkhaven has been Steamrolling for a FULL Month now.
Tier 8 – Sorrows Furnace has been Steamrolling it for a FULL Month now.

The NFL system is light years ahead of any system that would allow that to happen.

Now, I am not looking to explain the problem, or discuss some meta-theory about it, I am looking to fix it so it is no longer a problem.

So I respectfully request for you to refrain from tell me how you think my idea is bad, and start telling me how your idea will work and fix the current problem.

I am open to hear it.

morrolan.9608:

Ungood.3054:

I was more making note of:
Dragonbrand – Moved UP from T4 to T3 – Took Second place.
Borlis Pass – Moves Down from T5 to T6, Took a close 2nd

And these aren’t the only 2 examples, there’s SOR when they vaulted up, TC moving to T2, YB when they moved to T3.

I am sure their are many many more examples.

But good to know.

TBH the only argument against that holds water is the proposition that 1st and 2nd place will probably gang up on 3rd place

I was rolling this back and forth a bit, and given many of the posts I read during the Impending Reset of the worlds, and the stark blind unfounded fear people were throwing up about moving out of their little comfortable Tier, in general, I would wager that the only real gaming the system that might happen wold be worlds culling and curbing their own progress to stay in a tier they felt they belongs out of fear of being beaten if they moved up.

So while I do not dismiss that perhaps “Red” team might get beat on, I think the real drama will be around some words fighting to be “Blue” and NOT “Green”.

Which if that happens, I think that in it’s own right will be more entertaining then the fights on the field.

I think Anet realized that resetting the servers and having teams jump around so much was just a mistake…and to have us (SF) jump to T1 from T8 was kind of silly. Not sure how it would make any sense at all to have such a jump just based on how we won our match for a single week.

Ungood.3054:

Why would the 18th placed server be so much more amazing then the 19th placed server?

In fact, if you look at the match ups, of the current week, you will see that Point wise that 20th is closer to 18th then 18th is to 17th

I think the problem with this is that the points only show how a server is doing within it’s tier. For example; you can’t compare a point total in T5 to a point total in T6 and say, “look how close they are!” because each tier is isolated. Not sure if I’ve explained this well, does it make sense?