Guild Wars 2

Open free transfers to lower tier servers and this idea will be brilliantly perfect. A chaotic storm at WvW reset Who will we face!!???!

I predict whatever server had the higher score before the change up will win whatever matchup they’re placed in

grin

Cause you know… adding range to a matchup system like this doesn’t magically spawn more coverage..

Tenebris.9258:

I’m looking forward to the changes—should make things interesting.

Interesting to be sure, but I’m worried that it’ll result in a lot of awful match ups for the weaker servers or the mid range servers against t1 servers…

So negative, smile, don’t worry be happy!

This new system introduces more randomness than even a winner up and loser down system, which is already bad to begin with. I fear once the freshness of the new matches wear off, people is going to be more frustrated with the new system than old system. Now instead of a progression ranking system that is too hard to climb, we don’t even have the ranking system anymore…not to talking about all the 1 sided matches we are going to have…

All we were asking for is just a system that allows winner and losers a bit easier to move up/down, not extreme movements like this.

I am sure the blowout matches are going to be super fun. The whole JQ vs KN quote is enough to show that ANET has absolutely no idea what is going on. No one enjoys a match-up where one or more of the teams are being steam rolled.

Otokomae.9356:

Yeah, give us 2 weeks of the new matchup system, then open Free Transfers for a short time! It’s both a terrible idea and the right thing to do, at the same time…

I think this is a great idea. There will be much less incentive to stack on the T1 servers and might see a spreading out of players and guilds.

Looking at MoS the tiers seem pretty stuck at the moment. With this new system I don’t care if we lose to higher tier servers – it would just be a nice change to play someone different.

The sample they gave used ratings from two weeks back I think, so the matchups wouldn’t be quite like that as some server ratings have changed quite a bit since then (SoR and Kn for example)

I don’t like the fact that the new ranking system is partially based on random numbers. Tbh I didn’t understand the whole new ranking but I wish Anet would create a situation where people focus more on the weekly matchup points than on the ranking points. :/
With the new ranking system the mos.millenium site gets kinda useless because they don’t know the random number.

Maybe anyone can correct myself and explain it for dummies with EU servers? :P

suprNovae.5410:

I don’t like the fact that the new ranking system is partially based on random numbers. Tbh I didn’t understand the whole new ranking but I wish Anet would create a situation where people focus more on the weekly matchup points than on the ranking points. :/
With the new ranking system the mos.millenium site gets kinda useless because they don’t know the random number.

Maybe anyone can correct myself and explain it for dummies with EU servers? :P

Pretty much your server get a random rating within a certain range each week. Based on the current data we have and range specificed, it seems T1 servers will be randomly matched with any servers above T4 for now.

Lets just give this a try, any change is a good change at this point

Niim.9260:

I am sure the blowout matches are going to be super fun. The whole JQ vs KN quote is enough to show that ANET has absolutely no idea what is going on. No one enjoys a match-up where one or more of the teams are being steam rolled.

Looking through that list they gave the matches seem pretty competitive on the whole, and probably would have happened eventually anyway (except the one with Kn). For example:

JQ DB FA
TC Mag SoS
SBI EB YB

Likely winners perhaps JQ, TC and YB, but it wouldn’t be guaranteed and won’t it be fun finding out?

Khayoss.2019:

Why would you complain about this?!?! This is great! Some matchups will be roflstomps, fine…

While I agree being locked into the same match-ups gets stale, at least there is some amount of give and take. A chance. “Roflstomp” matches are not fine however. In fact, they certainly will cause people to stop WvWing for the remainder of the week, or completely altogether.

A.Net wanting to shake things up, and collect better data is a great thing. I just hope they are able to strike an acceptable balance between variety and actual competition.

Hmm..I think the winners in those matches are guanranteed for sure…

Anet, you know what?… I THANK YOU sincerely for trying to make WvWvW better! If the new system works out, then fabulous! If not, then try again. As a regular “Wuver” as you put it…lol, I am personally STOKED to try this new system out. WOOT! ty ty

would rather have repeated semi-even matchups than this bad idea. plz spend time fixing the mystic outhouse not wvw matchups.

Sport leagues around the world have a very similar.

You have super teams with all the money who lead the competition and teams who make up the places. In the end we love and watch sports because of the variety and even the chance of an upset. Those teams also work on transfers and great signings to put their team in the spotlight.

The dynamic could lead to different strategies and play styles happening.

- Can weaker server work extra hard to pull off that super win
- Could guilds be sponsored by other servers to transfer to weaker match-ups to help pull on a great win.

Who will come up with the most original strategy?

Well , sigh just sigh.

I had lots of confidence in the changes you had made to the game arenanet until now, this is simply going to be zerg fest rolling over under prepared servers that neither have the coverage or population to deal with it, untill it becomes zergs vs doors.

Incredibly bad move.

This change is a long term change, a lot of people are stuck in their mindset against change because of a few “roflstomps” here and there, but you have to think of it this way;

Anet is changing this system for longevity of the game, there will be sudden shocks to a lot of servers and that is unfortunate but in the long term it is attempting to dispel the current “stack stack recruit recruit” meta that is coming out of the stagnant match ups we have at the moment.

If I am commanding MERC during Oceanic vs a “lower tiered server” I won’t go out of my way to stomp, I want to have fun so does MERC and BG so if that means breaking our forces down into smaller numbers so we can have 10v10 skirmishes et al so be it, I’m glad this change is occurring.

I think this will be fun.

Shifty.7104:

Well , sigh just sigh.

I had lots of confidence in the changes you had made to the game arenanet until now, this is simply going to be zerg fest rolling over under prepared servers that neither have the coverage or population to deal with it, untill it becomes zergs vs doors.

Incredibly bad move.

I think the point is, yeah you might get stomped one week. Then you might stomp the next. Then you might have a tight, intense matchup the one after that, and against servers you might not expect to be so close.

The very top and the very bottom could potentially get stale, if you’re always winning or losing; but in a sense you already were anyway.

At any rate, I’m more than happy to see what it’s like for a few weeks before I pan it, and I actually think it’ll be fun.

Shifty.7104:

Well , sigh just sigh.

I had lots of confidence in the changes you had made to the game arenanet until now, this is simply going to be zerg fest rolling over under prepared servers that neither have the coverage or population to deal with it, untill it becomes zergs vs doors.

Incredibly bad move.

Most people are against change, most don’t change because they feel nothing will change and they maybe right, but with change there is always the chance that you will have a different outcome and that is the reason we play this game.

Props to Anet for trying to liven things up. The problem is, nothing they do can overcome human nature.

Any system that tries to matchup servers, that in theory are similar in strength, will eventually fail. Any system relies on the potential of a particular server. Once that server faces any kind of adversity, human nature kicks in and the fairweathers pack their sacks. Either they log out or scamper to pve. The server that is actually having some success in the matchup not only keeps their original WvW population, they also add the bandwagoners.

So a potential fairly even matchup turns into a blowout. I don’t see any solution that can overcome that obstacle.

Shifty.7104:

Well , sigh just sigh.

I had lots of confidence in the changes you had made to the game arenanet until now, this is simply going to be zerg fest rolling over under prepared servers that neither have the coverage or population to deal with it, untill it becomes zergs vs doors.

Incredibly bad move.

What exactly would you suggest to solve the stagnant 2 month matchups that are occuring now ?

What everyone is forgetting, is that the ratings will adjust basted on the relative ratings of each opponent just like it does now.

So lets take an example here. SOR vs TC vs Mag One server from each Tier.

Projected ratings for next week are:

SOR 2214
TC 2000
Mag 1830

The ratings are so far apart that SOR would have to CRUSH I mean destroy both servers by 150k+ rating for SOR not to lose rating. This gives Mag and TC a chance to gain rating if they push hard, because they will gain and SOR drop if they put up any sizeable resistance.

Then, when that week is over, the new ratings will be used to calculate the next week (plus the random generator).

What this means, is the underdogs of each matchup have a huge handicap where rating is concerned. They don’t have to beat the higher rating server, they just have to put up a fight, and the ratings will adjust.

Which server folds after the first weekend? Which servers fight tenaciously every day despite being outmanned? Those servers who keep matches as close as possible will find themselves shooting up the ladder. The higher rating servers that grow too complacent in their 50k leads will find themselves losing rating.

All in all, I think its a GREAT idea, and WvW would be MUCH better off it was done six months ago, however, better late than never.

Now we just need a way in game, so the WvW noob/pug can see that fighting against overwhelming odds helps their server gain rating, even if they may be losing by 100k points. Like an MOS rank projector built into the WvW interface.

Forzani.2584:

Props to Anet for trying to liven things up. The problem is, nothing they do can overcome human nature.

Any system that tries to matchup servers, that in theory are similar in strength, will eventually fail. Any system relies on the potential of a particular server. Once that server faces any kind of adversity, human nature kicks in and the fairweathers pack their sacks. Either they log out or scamper to pve. The server that is actually having some success in the matchup not only keeps their original WvW population, they also add the bandwagoners.

So a potential fairly even matchup turns into a blowout. I don’t see any solution that can overcome that obstacle.

A handicap based on realtime population will resolve this. At the moment we are scratch but if camps, towers and keeps were worth different rates based on the actual population this would mean that things could stay fairly equal, maybe this is where they will head but you need data by playing everyone in your league to come up with the handicap.

I concur with JaredKincade. After playing DAOC, where certain servers were constantly unbalanced, I thought GW2’s system would be perfect. But, predictably (in hindsight), it leads to a different kind of boring match.

That said, when you are in a tier where all 3 servers are at least fairly close and they are all trying, it is fun. However, I’ve jumped servers 4 or 5 times, and being on an endless roflstomp server is fun for about a week. Similarly, being on a horribly losing server is.. not really fun, although maybe I was taking it too seriously

BUT, as Jared says, now, if an undermanned/underskilled server comes up against a big fella, they can still gain points simply by continually pushing and not getting utterly stomped, WHICH I think people will be more inclined to try because it is a new, fresh matchup, rather than fighting ‘that same unbeatable server over and over’.

All in all, I think this is the best system ArenaNet can implement.. but.. let’s find out

JaredKincade.9761:

What everyone is forgetting, is that the ratings will adjust basted on the relative ratings of each opponent just like it does now.

So lets take an example here. SOR vs TC vs Mag One server from each Tier.

Projected ratings for next week are:

SOR 2214
TC 2000
Mag 1830

The ratings are so far apart that SOR would have to CRUSH I mean destroy both servers by 150k+ rating for SOR not to lose rating. This gives Mag and TC a chance to gain rating if they push hard, because they will gain and SOR drop if they put up any sizeable resistance.

Then, when that week is over, the new ratings will be used to calculate the next week (plus the random generator).

What this means, is the underdogs of each matchup have a huge handicap where rating is concerned. They don’t have to beat the higher rating server, they just have to put up a fight, and the ratings will adjust.

Which server folds after the first weekend? Which servers fight tenaciously every day despite being outmanned? Those servers who keep matches as close as possible will find themselves shooting up the ladder. The higher rating servers that grow too complacent in their 50k leads will find themselves losing rating.

All in all, I think its a GREAT idea, and WvW would be MUCH better off it was done six months ago, however, better late than never.

Now we just need a way in game, so the WvW noob/pug can see that fighting against overwhelming odds helps their server gain rating, even if they may be losing by 100k points. Like an MOS rank projector built into the WvW interface.

I like your analysis, I never thought of ratings being used as a handicap but you could be onto something here.

“Is Kaineng better than Jade Quarry? Before we never knew, but soon they might get a chance to prove it.”

vanzan.1250:

Forzani.2584:

Props to Anet for trying to liven things up. The problem is, nothing they do can overcome human nature.

Any system that tries to matchup servers, that in theory are similar in strength, will eventually fail. Any system relies on the potential of a particular server. Once that server faces any kind of adversity, human nature kicks in and the fairweathers pack their sacks. Either they log out or scamper to pve. The server that is actually having some success in the matchup not only keeps their original WvW population, they also add the bandwagoners.

So a potential fairly even matchup turns into a blowout. I don’t see any solution that can overcome that obstacle.

A handicap based on realtime population will resolve this. At the moment we are scratch but if camps, towers and keeps were worth different rates based on the actual population this would mean that things could stay fairly equal, maybe this is where they will head but you need data by playing everyone in your league to come up with the handicap.

Tad hard to understand what you are saying but I will give it a try.

So if populations are equal at a particular time of the day. A supply camp is worth say 1000 points….but if server B only has say 60% of the population at a particular time of day, then that supply camp could be worth say 1400 points ?

A lot of variables would be needed to be fine tuned for something like this to work. Does Anet have the ability to apply minute to minute real time changes for each server in a matchup ?

Actinotus.6410:

Niim.9260:

I am sure the blowout matches are going to be super fun. The whole JQ vs KN quote is enough to show that ANET has absolutely no idea what is going on. No one enjoys a match-up where one or more of the teams are being steam rolled.

Looking through that list they gave the matches seem pretty competitive on the whole, and probably would have happened eventually anyway (except the one with Kn). For example:

JQ DB FA
TC Mag SoS
SBI EB YB

Likely winners perhaps JQ, TC and YB, but it wouldn’t be guaranteed and won’t it be fun finding out?

You think a match of TC vs Mag vs SoS is not guaranteed and it will be fun? Fun for who? You realize that this game is all about coverage right?

I personally am quite pleased that this change is coming for a couple of reasons:

1) I am happy for servers like Blacktide, Fissure of Woe and Vabbi that don’t have to sit in the same match up for months on end because of the current system. Yeah, FoE and Vabbi will still probably be destroyed regardless of the match up due to lack of population, but at least Blacktide will now get to experience something new.

2) I don’t have to be stuck fighting the same bland servers, winning every week purely because we have people that live on the other side of the planet. I don’t really care if I win or lose (which is something that you people are too fixated on), I care about having fun, having variety when I do the thing I love most in this game.

Bring on the structured RNG (There is still order to the match ups, cough, Aneu. Maybe you should read the post before spouting off your negative-ness).
It’s better than being stuck fighting the same servers for 3 months. Heaven forbid we have to lose a match up every once in a while. “OH GOD, WE LOST, BETTER BANDWAGON TO THE NEXT DOOMED SERVER”.

DevonCarver.5370:

This will go into effect for the matchups beginning on the 31st.

Are the matches going to be shorter at all?

I am willing to give it a shot, it is the last chance.

MagiKarp.8201:

This is a great move, variety is good, yes it will suck for the first week or two but think about the movement that will occur through the servers. The 3 “Tier 1” servers will not be only ones who are able to duke it out for #1 due to the “Glicko” or “Elo” stopping servers from facing harder competition which has been the case a for a while now.

They won’t be ‘duking’ it out for #1 though, the server with the highest rating will still be #1 its just that they might not be battling #2 and #3 in the matchup.

JaredKincade.9761:

What everyone is forgetting, is that the ratings will adjust basted on the relative ratings of each opponent just like it does now.

So lets take an example here. SOR vs TC vs Mag One server from each Tier.

Projected ratings for next week are:

SOR 2214
TC 2000
Mag 1830

The ratings are so far apart that SOR would have to CRUSH I mean destroy both servers by 150k+ rating for SOR not to lose rating. This gives Mag and TC a chance to gain rating if they push hard, because they will gain and SOR drop if they put up any sizeable resistance.

Then, when that week is over, the new ratings will be used to calculate the next week (plus the random generator).

What this means, is the underdogs of each matchup have a huge handicap where rating is concerned. They don’t have to beat the higher rating server, they just have to put up a fight, and the ratings will adjust.

Which server folds after the first weekend? Which servers fight tenaciously every day despite being outmanned? Those servers who keep matches as close as possible will find themselves shooting up the ladder. The higher rating servers that grow too complacent in their 50k leads will find themselves losing rating.

All in all, I think its a GREAT idea, and WvW would be MUCH better off it was done six months ago, however, better late than never.

Now we just need a way in game, so the WvW noob/pug can see that fighting against overwhelming odds helps their server gain rating, even if they may be losing by 100k points. Like an MOS rank projector built into the WvW interface.

I don’t know how much you know about these servers, but chances are SOR would absolutely crush and destroy any server outside of Tier 1 (and maybe 2) right now. As much as I look forward to completely crushing lower tier servers, I think its really going to take some enjoyment out of it for others and I don’t see how this can be a good addition.

DevonCarver.5370:

This will go into effect for the matchups beginning on the 31st.

Is that RNG range set in stone? Because those examples are quite ludicrous and indicate that there needs to be tweaking.

morrolan.9608:

MagiKarp.8201:

This is a great move, variety is good, yes it will suck for the first week or two but think about the movement that will occur through the servers. The 3 “Tier 1” servers will not be only ones who are able to duke it out for #1 due to the “Glicko” or “Elo” stopping servers from facing harder competition which has been the case a for a while now.

They won’t be ‘duking’ it out for #1 though, the server with the highest rating will still be #1 its just that they might not be battling #2 and #3 in the matchup.

So its like a sports ladder :P

You can still be the best team in the league, but lose to the “#2”

JaredKincade.9761:

What this means, is the underdogs of each matchup have a huge handicap where rating is concerned. They don’t have to beat the higher rating server, they just have to put up a fight, and the ratings will adjust.

Problem is this doesn’t occur, the pugs on the server being roflstomped inevitably give up for the week and it results in a boring week for both servers. I’ve been in the middle of it happening on both sides. I’m in favour of a system which mixes it up a bit while still trying to provide some competitive matchups, based on the examples given this won’t happen because the ranking ends up being adjusted by too much. They clearly need to adjust it.

I rather like the change, given how waiting a month or two for a different server to fight against is, well, absolutely dull.

Forzani.2584:

vanzan.1250:

Forzani.2584:

Props to Anet for trying to liven things up. The problem is, nothing they do can overcome human nature.

Any system that tries to matchup servers, that in theory are similar in strength, will eventually fail. Any system relies on the potential of a particular server. Once that server faces any kind of adversity, human nature kicks in and the fairweathers pack their sacks. Either they log out or scamper to pve. The server that is actually having some success in the matchup not only keeps their original WvW population, they also add the bandwagoners.

So a potential fairly even matchup turns into a blowout. I don’t see any solution that can overcome that obstacle.

A handicap based on realtime population will resolve this. At the moment we are scratch but if camps, towers and keeps were worth different rates based on the actual population this would mean that things could stay fairly equal, maybe this is where they will head but you need data by playing everyone in your league to come up with the handicap.

Tad hard to understand what you are saying but I will give it a try.

So if populations are equal at a particular time of the day. A supply camp is worth say 1000 points….but if server B only has say 60% of the population at a particular time of day, then that supply camp could be worth say 1400 points ?

A lot of variables would be needed to be fine tuned for something like this to work. Does Anet have the ability to apply minute to minute real time changes for each server in a matchup ?

Along those lines yes. Night capping and over-stacking would disappear because you just have to field enough to just match the tick of the stacked time-zone. You would need minimum limits. You couldn’t win a tick with 3 guys running around capping camps worth 100 each

- but we are getting off topic, it was just an idea.

Why create some complex system to "add spice" to WvW matchups? The player base has been suggesting a system for months now that I can’t seem to find a flaw in (call me bias) especially if this is the alternative.

Winner goes up (Except top tier, winner stays)
3rd Place goes down (Except bottom tier, 3rd place stays)
2nd Place stays.

Then add in RNG for which server gets which color.

Volatility is not what you need in matchups, variety is.

Sharpoon.8197:

ykyk.2740:

This would be bad only if servers remain stagnant. The prospect of constant unbalanced matchups (since tiers are so far apart in coverage) and no longer being guaranteed to fight the same few rival guilds might eventually encourage “top WvW guilds” to (GASP) transfer off the same few stacked servers and spread out among more servers, which will in the long run result in better matches with more variety.

Under this system the only way to ensure “good fights” every week is to spread out, and not stack to the top like under the old system.

I agree with this. Currently, people have been stacking into T1-2 servers to ensure “good fights” every week. Now that this might not be the case, it could encourage some of these stacked servers in T1 to “de-stack” and spread out and create a lot more balance. And YAY for variety.

Any player that actually follows wvw, and understands it, knows that this is a terrible idea. I would go so far as to say this is almost gamebreaking.

Niim.9260:

Actinotus.6410:

Niim.9260:

I am sure the blowout matches are going to be super fun. The whole JQ vs KN quote is enough to show that ANET has absolutely no idea what is going on. No one enjoys a match-up where one or more of the teams are being steam rolled.

Looking through that list they gave the matches seem pretty competitive on the whole, and probably would have happened eventually anyway (except the one with Kn). For example:

JQ DB FA
TC Mag SoS
SBI EB YB

Likely winners perhaps JQ, TC and YB, but it wouldn’t be guaranteed and won’t it be fun finding out?

You think a match of TC vs Mag vs SoS is not guaranteed and it will be fun? Fun for who? You realize that this game is all about coverage right?

Fun for me for a start. I am on SoS and I would really like to face TC again (been a while). TC would be favourites to win overall score but that doesn’t bother me – more of a challenge. Would SoS win oceanic timezone? Probably. How close would score be between the three servers? Would Mags finish ahead of SoS?

It will be fun to battle against players we haven’t seen for a while. T4 are happy to have a break from each other I reckon.

Jski.6180:

Deyja.6745:

Sunspots.9861:

Anet: “Is Kaineng better than Jade Quarry? Before we never knew, but soon they might get a chance to prove it.”

That pretty much sums up the new system. I think we’re done here.

Terrible idea, please do not implement this.

How else should it be done? Is it ok to fight the same world over and over if you do not like this?

Are you going to enjoy being spawn camped 24/7 by SOR? Literally 24/7? Atleast you have a relatively fair fight every week….. Until the entire PPT system gets changed, there is no way to fix this.

I can see how some think that this is a bad idea, but I like it. I am on a tier 3 server and it gets boring fighting the same teams all the time.

This new rating is great. However, the implementation should integrate EU servers fighting alongside or against fellow NA servers. Would be good if they can implement cross border travels to assist allies from different side of the world. Ideally NA server SOR would be paired as allies with Vabbi, Vizunah paired with Eredon Terrace as allies. This would make for a real competitive matches. Top from each side paired with lowest so there can be some kind of balancing. It would also rid the idea of stacking guilds onto a few servers because sooner or later, they’ll very likely lose because those 2 paired together (top rank with lowest rank) will need to cover 6 borderlands and 2 eternal battlegrounds. Some additional maps or map changes would also help… But I’m already liking the directions of these new implementations. Was already too tired for facing some opponents.

I like this new system. It will bring much more challenges to the high ranked servers than they currently expect.

I would like if the rating change based on the current score would be shown in B window when this change becomes active.
Reason is very simple: The matches will have a higher rating spread, and you can be the rating-winner of a match even if you are not the score-winner, e.g. currently in NA-T6 (http://mos.millenium.org/na) SF is the rating winner of the match (they loose the match, but are performing better than expected) whereas Darkheaven is the rating looser (they win the match, but less clearly as expected).

I think it would help a beaten server in an rather uneven match, if it can clearly see ingame (and not only on http://mos.millenium.org/na): “Hell, yeah, we loose, but we sell our skin on a higher price everyone expected”.

sparklevision.8109:

BUT, as Jared says, now, if an undermanned/underskilled server comes up against a big fella, they can still gain points simply by continually pushing and not getting utterly stomped, WHICH I think people will be more inclined to try because it is a new, fresh matchup, rather than fighting ‘that same unbeatable server over and over’.

All in all, I think this is the best system ArenaNet can implement.. but.. let’s find out

Who cares about your rating points? The only reason most people even give them a second thought at the moment is to get your server to a spot where matches will be fun and entertaining. The vast majority of players have no interest in climbing the ranks, they are content with the types of matches they get now or they would have long since transferred with all the others that shoe-horned themselves onto T1 servers.

I agree with Jared numbers, but in a system where very few are trying to actually climb ranks it has no meaning. Ranking = coverage, it is not something anyone assigns intrinsic value to.