Guild Wars 2

What happens is people who get frustrated with the zero fluctuation leave for a higher tier server. As happened on Yaks last week with one of our key Guilds.

rhonyn.6810:

kanikani.2430:

shagworth.5017:

I take this to mean that server populations are settling and that there is less bandwagonning going on. I was bound to happen, and as someone else stated, these are the most even matches available.

That’s not to say that playing the same people doesn’t get boring. I think a seasonal ladder reset would be nice, resetting everything ever 3 months or so.

Resets don’t work because ranking is basically a function of server populations. This is at the core of all WvW problems at the moment if you ask me (aside from lack of development/rewards).

As far as adapting goes, the hypothesis of this is that skill = win. When that idea is simply not true. Adapting new tactics will not give you a win in WvW against a much larger force, that just is what it is. There are many limitations in WvW as it currently stand so depending on your resources (man power or money) you can only try a set of things. There is also the issue of time slot coverage which new ‘tactics’ or adapting will not help fix. Only when every server has the exact same population at the exact same times (or at least very similar) can we really talk about strategy as if it really mattered.

Agree. WvW is a numbers game….tier 1&2 are “FULL” servers….as is TC in tier 3. The only viable independent strategy for the other servers in tier 3 is to recruit and get more and better coverage as well if the ultimate goal is a more competitive (score wise) match-up.

TC may be a full server. But in WvWvW we are hardly ever full.

Nut.4713:

Any change is highly likely to be a one week hiatus, so you guys might as well get used to this match up. If Yak’s moves down, we most likely would crush T4, and I don’t think there’s any reason to believe CD has changed enough in the past 3 weeks to do anything in T3. And trust me TC, you do not want to fight SoR and Blackgate in T2.

Actually I do.

I really think this is not the place to talk about this. If all of your server agrees on this.. do something about it yourselves.

I’m no expert but in some previous games it is mainly about:

Tacticians – Some people have the ideas every server has those..find them.
Community – There is a fine difference between a zerg and a zerg that listens.

I mean.. you may still end up playing the same servers if they do the same right? But all matches would be enjoyable then.

And about the football/volleyball whatever example: Nobody cares about league 1st and league worst matches same as worst vs 2nd worst. But some league bests macht-ups are given in multiple countries live. So what makes you think the high tier want to fight against you? Maybe they’ll be plain bored then?

Cosmos The Cat.2954:

TC may be a full server. But in WvWvW we are hardly ever full.

Tier1&2 don’t have 24/7, 4 map queus either…..just pointing out as a “FULL” server you have access to more people then either FA or YB…..that tends to result in more players in WvW more often……especially with fairweathers increasing participation. Despite what many of us would like to think….numbers/coverage pretty much trumps everything in WvW.

Greyskies.2815:

I don’t mind having great fights against opponents, but being on TC we have beat YB 3 weeks in a row, this time by 70,000 points, and we have beaten FA 2 weeks in a row where IoJ the server above us has lost the last 2 weeks. At least since I have been paying attention to their match up. I think the servers ranked first and last of each tier should automatically switch no matter how close the match was just so you can get a bit of change going. This is obviously not counting the server ranked #1.

Having been watching it that well, IoJ came second last week…

Greyskies.2815:

Don’t get me wrong…I’ve had a great time playing with Yaks going on 4 weeks now…. but I would really love to see if TC can take on the guys in Tier 2. I’m also sure Yaks and FA would love a chance of taking on someone new instead wondering which one of them will come in second this week :P

JK YB and FA

When sor was tier 3 they completly locked down the tier. It was never even close. Go look at the archive.

The Glicko system isn’t working. I’m all up for servers to be matched up appropriately to other servers. However, that’s not the entirety of what is happening.

Using to Tier 2 and 3 as an example.
LOJ has lost for 3 weeks in a row. , TC has won for 3 weeks in a row.
http://mos.millenium.org/matchups/history/7#NA
http://mos.millenium.org/matchups/history/8#NA
http://mos.millenium.org/matchups/history/9#NA
http://mos.millenium.org/matchups/history/10#NA

Now as we know Glick is about a measure of score which intermingles with performance and relates a delta modifier for the ranking value.

The problem is that TC has shown similar match scores as a T2 winner for the 4 weeks. Yet watching the delta modifier a winning server can lose ranking(based on relative performance) and a losing server can gain ranking(based on relative performance). TC and LOJ have been close before and even when a small difference between them was there. The next match up made the gap larger.

The problem with the Glick system is that the performance is not being compared to other Tiers but to the same Tier servers. So it wouldn’t matter if TC became strong enough to take on T2 and LOJ lost a few guilds that they should move T3(I’m not saying that this is what has or should happened but only as an example). The problem is that LOJ is performing well enough in the current Tier.

How is this a problem. If T3 and T2 became all of equal talented servers(hypothetical) the state of the matches will never change. Because performance is only related by the server and not by the Tier.

It’s broken. TC should have had a shot in T2 even if they were to get stomped. Relative performance isn’t working as a model to manage rankings.

jayderyu.3751:

LOJ has lost for 3 weeks in a row. , TC has won for 3 weeks in a row.

http://mos.millenium.org/matchups/history/10#NA

IoJ came second last week…..

I’ll wait for a thorough example that explains a new system that would work better than the current one to create balanced match-ups. I’d like to hear why, including real-world examples over several weeks, how the steady-state is achieved from a starting random state, etc.

Because honestly, I think people are blowing smoke when they think another system would work that much better to create a balanced match-up. And isn’t that what we want? The most balanced match-up possible? I’m not getting any bozo-buttons for being in T3, and I don’t think they are getting anything in T1 either.

If anything confirms that there’ll always be someone to complain about something, it’s this. Matches are chaotic and unbalanced, people complain. Matches become more balanced, people complain.

Here’s a new angle I’d like to explore:

What sort of WvWvW experience do people expect?

Stonesolid.2706:

xxxzavulonxxx.8413:

Cogbyrn.7283:

I honestly don’t know why the name of the server matters.

Do you want a balanced match? These matches are balanced based on a rating system that determines performance based on the ratings of those you face. We are matched together because we are more balanced together. Those above/below us aren’t in our bracket because they’d be a breeze/impossible.

Not sure why the text matters. Go out and have fun fighting competitive fights.

Ratings =/= balance. DUCY?

No. I don’t see why. Now that the ratings are (semi)correct were in a much more balanced matchup. We aren’t dominating the entire map for most of the day and neither is any other server. We actually have competition and contention over the overall scores not to mention tons of great fights day after day.

Explain to me how the ratings don’t balance matches.

It created server imbalances for those who hop. The lower tiered servers had people moving off of them. Higher tiered servers people moved to them.

Also, ratings never account for player populations.

My curiosity draws me in the direction of a merged US/EU match-ups. That would be interesting.

jayderyu.3751:

The problem is that TC has shown similar match scores as a T2 winner for the 4 weeks. Yet watching the delta modifier a winning server can lose ranking(based on relative performance) and a losing server can gain ranking(based on relative performance). TC and LOJ have been close before and even when a small difference between them was there. The next match up made the gap larger.

The problem with the Glick system is that the performance is not being compared to other Tiers but to the same Tier servers. So it wouldn’t matter if TC became strong enough to take on T2 and LOJ lost a few guilds that they should move T3(I’m not saying that this is what has or should happened but only as an example). The problem is that LOJ is performing well enough in the current Tier.

How is this a problem. If T3 and T2 became all of equal talented servers(hypothetical) the state of the matches will never change. Because performance is only related by the server and not by the Tier.

It’s broken. TC should have had a shot in T2 even if they were to get stomped. Relative performance isn’t working as a model to manage rankings.

Yeah, this is definitely a problem. There is a current example in the SF/BP match. SF has been ranked above BP for many weeks. Now that BP is getting a shot at the tier above them thanks to ET dropping down, BP is beating SF easily. If it wasn’t for ET dropping on BP’s tier, BP would have continued to be held back by AR and GoM. Theoretically, players from the top three servers could all transfer down to the bottom three servers and as long as the scores remain the same, the now worst servers would remain at the top and the now best servers would remain at the bottom.

I can’t think of a mathematical solution to the problem and no system is going to be perfect. One way to solve the problem is to have Anet manually switch server rankings but people would throw all kinds of fits over it if they don’t agree.

Arcadio.6875:

Theoretically, players from the top three servers could all transfer down to the bottom three servers and as long as the scores remain the same, the now worst servers would remain at the top and the now best servers would remain at the bottom.

I can’t think of a mathematical solution to the problem and no system is going to be perfect. One way to solve the problem is to have Anet manually switch server rankings but people would throw all kinds of fits over it if they don’t agree.

I thought of that, but then the matches would still be even, which is the whole point, right? If they were going to award in-game medals or something to the top 3 servers after X months, I can see where legitimate competitive ratings would come into play. However, I think this system is built to just create even match-ups, and if the match-ups remain even, then it persists.

Any deviations/hiccups from even match-ups will result in shifts, but it’s really just looking to make even match-ups. The tiers really don’t matter, because they speak more to coverage/population than most anything else.

Again, I just don’t know what people want. Does the Tier number really matter to folks?

We grew tired in stomping MAguuma for 3 weeks in a row

Cogbyrn.7283:

I thought of that, but then the matches would still be even, which is the whole point, right? If they were going to award in-game medals or something to the top 3 servers after X months, I can see where legitimate competitive ratings would come into play. However, I think this system is built to just create even match-ups, and if the match-ups remain even, then it persists.

Any deviations/hiccups from even match-ups will result in shifts, but it’s really just looking to make even match-ups. The tiers really don’t matter, because they speak more to coverage/population than most anything else.

Again, I just don’t know what people want. Does the Tier number really matter to folks?

My hypothetical situation is only there to highlight what kind of absurd things could happen because changes in ratings are only based on performance against two other servers. Even if it doesn’t hurt anybody, the fact that the rating system could allow the situation I made up to happen should cause concern. The real world problem is that some servers are not given the opportunity to play against other servers that they may be competitive against because the rating system won’t bring them to the desired tier. While I personally don’t believe it to be the case, some TC players are wondering if they could do as well against BG and SoR as IoJ is doing. The rating system deprives them of the opportunity.

Thinking about it a bit more, I think I came up with a solution. If a server wins its tier X number of times and the server above it loses their tier the same number of times, the two servers swap. Their ratings will be the same, but they get put in different matches when reset happens. This makes it so things won’t get too stale, but the math contained in the rating system doesn’t have to change.

kylia.4813:

Greyskies.2815:

I don’t mind having great fights against opponents, but being on TC we have beat YB 3 weeks in a row, this time by 70,000 points, and we have beaten FA 2 weeks in a row where IoJ the server above us has lost the last 2 weeks. At least since I have been paying attention to their match up. I think the servers ranked first and last of each tier should automatically switch no matter how close the match was just so you can get a bit of change going. This is obviously not counting the server ranked #1.

Having been watching it that well, IoJ came second last week…

I apologize…gratz on your last minute pull to second. But you did still lose the week prior which should have dropped you and moved us up. Im just saying that loses and victories should be taken into account.

Again people are getting to caught up with server specifics. This is a long term problem going into the future of all tiers. Are you all willing to play the same 3 or 4 opponents for the rest of time?

three whole weeks and you are complaining? Kaineng/Fregusons Crossing/Devona’s rest have faced off for like 8-10 weeks straight now. The longer this game goes the less movement we will see in the WvW ladder.

What I would like to see though is if a tier is the same matchup as the previous week, the starting points are varied. I for one am just sick of always defending lowlands and always attacking Overlook and Valley sides of the map. DR has been green for so long when we change 3/4 of the server will run the wrong way if it ever changes.

I’ve been through some terrible weeks on servers that never held a point and I’m currently on SoS. The competition for us has been great for the last two weeks because we are finally in a tier with servers of similair skill sets and presence to our own. Even when we were being challenged occasionally on lower tiers during our rise, it usually ended with us full capping the maps and demoralising our opponents to stay out of WvW for the week.

Everyone (including the winners) hates being in a match up where the map is devoid of opponents because one side overpowered the other. It’s a really boring week when that happens and we saw a lot of those when the tiers were less stable. It’s a good thing that we now have tiers with repeated competition. Last week SBI was the strongest presence early on, this week it’s a fight between JQ and SoS with SBI just behind us. Anything can happen, if we had servers swapping in and out all the time, that would be less likely to be the case.

A stale competition means you are evenly matched and no one side is doing terribly bad or amazingly good. That’s a preferable WvW situation to the shut outs that were common during the constant shuffles. Personally I get a lot of diversity from WvW when we rotate maps between guilds. One week you might be on EB, the next you could be on SoS. The guilds you come up against (and their play styles) can be very strong and different from each other week by week. The strategies and play styles of each map are also different.

kanikani.2430:

Are you all willing to play the same 3 or 4 opponents for the rest of time?

If it’s a competitive/fun match, then yeah. Heck, I miss the days of playing FFA matches against the same group of friends over and over and over again in Dawn of War back in the dorm days. We all had our races, there were only a few maps, we each had our various major strategies/playstyles, and every game was wildly entertaining.

If it’s a beautiful game, I’ll gladly play the same people over and over again. Moreso if I actually get to know some of them and recognize them out on the field. In fact, I can’t think of something I’d rather have for WvW.

So yeah, I think JQ has been fighting SBI since dinosaurs roamed the earth. The only thing that really changes is our 3rd server, but even then, you could end up just fighting the same people again (I see you, PRX).

Unless JQ eventually falls to t2, we’ll … still be fighting sbi. if we then pull out of t2… we’ll still be fighting sbi It’s a bit of a bummer when you’re fighting the same people, but swapping servers around wouldn’t fix it. Moving the #1 server down to fight a lower server for a week would result in a butt whooping rarely seen much these days. It wouldn’t be lack of player talent, it would be sheer numbers. If you think you’ve spotted a 50-man SoS zerg, it’s only because the other 901 haven’t rendered yet.

No i dont want to fight Blackgate lololol. They kicked our butts so bad last time, that half of their good players switched servers to help fight another enemy.

kanikani.2430:

For the people that say the name of the server doesn’t matter, if your having balance populations it should be great matches. If its red its dead.

The problem with that is you are playing against the same people for long periods of time. Which more likely then not means the same tactics at the same times of day by the same numbers. If I can log into WvW and basically write a script for how my night will proceed, this is a problem, and yes it is boring. We all like the changing up. Rotating colors randomly would be something, but the BL’s would be the same. Tier stagnation I think is a big problem for WvW future something Anet needs to look into. People get bored, people move on, I have been hearing a lot of it lately from people.

I think this is basically a symptom of major population issues on servers. A problem that should never been allowed to escalate as it has. Fix the population issues and you will have no shortage of balance matches as well as much more variety and even more competition, which is stuff I think we all want.

hahaha yeah i can predict too,
so about now there will be the first golemrush to the garrison from yb while tc is builing 2 trebs at theri spawnpoint to get greenlake,then yaks get destroyed at the wategate by superior arrowcart(thanks for the badges btw), then the get redbriar, then they start trebbing bay while tc is attacking hills(if they don’t own it yet) then tc is doing the rest dawn.s erie then woodhaven then garrison then they leave and we recap everything again appart from hills and wait till the evening. did i miss anything?
oh forgot the golemsush by tc to south east garrison gate. and when all walls and gates are down 5 to 8 people hold them back at inner for another 20 min to one hour