Guild Wars 2

I take exception to the “Sos doesn’t want to attack” comment there. When we have only 10 people in TS and only 20 stacked on the commander, there isn’t much to attack with when all targets are T3 and brimming with ACs and Ballista.

Anyhow, let’s move the QQ back to our thread. Even if it was TC and their BFFs at FA against SoR, this would still be a blowout.

Chris.3290:

Anyhow, let’s move the QQ back to our thread. Even if it was TC and their BFFs at FA against SoR, this would still be a blowout.

hehe…yeah you are right.

The fact is TC does ok during prime times for us, and we can slowly win stuff back. Unfortunately, as soon as there is a lull in numbers, it all goes south. It’s sad too because I seem to be winning most 1v1s and even do well when outnumbered 2-1 vs SoR. Most of them seem to build very glassy, which makes them scary in giant zergs but easy targets in small groups. The problem is, we’re often outnumbered 10-1.

Regarding the power of the 2v1…to my knowledge we have not been actively going after most SoS stuff. Today, we took SoS’s hills from SoR, but I have avoided even stealing camps from SoS. Doesn’t matter much though, they really don’t have the numbers even in their prime time to take heavily fortified keeps back from SoR.

The 2v1 worked nicely in the old system, where Dragonbrand, TC and FA were somewhat evenly matched, but one would tend to pull ahead. teaming up on the winner kept the game relatively even and interesting.

I don’t think the matchups are the problem- the bandwagon servers (t1) are always going to have more people.

The problem to me still all comes down to game mechanics that promote and reward mindless zerging over skill.

Obvious things that should be tried:

• increase AOE cap, from say 5 to 8-10
• divide objective rewards by number of participants
• buff outmanned bonus, scale it better

I’d like to clarify something, SoR isn’t just mindless zerging. Even we on SoS are busting up “mindless zergs” from SoR.

It’s the 40-60 man organized guilds that come up the hill that you can’t do a darn thing about. The ones that stay in tight balls and stack boons all over and have 15 or so necros just painting tower walls green with condition hate!

Most servers above T5 can field a zerg or two, but to have 1-3 large groups on the map that are coordinating and keeping good discipline… that’s what wins in T1 these days and there isn’t anything you can do about it.

Chris.3290:

I take exception to the “Sos doesn’t want to attack” comment there. When we have only 10 people in TS and only 20 stacked on the commander, there isn’t much to attack with when all targets are T3 and brimming with ACs and Ballista.

Anyhow, let’s move the QQ back to our thread. Even if it was TC and their BFFs at FA against SoR, this would still be a blowout.

lol bff.hahahahahahahahahaha.tc and fa have been rivals forever …..check tc/fa history and always remember the guild tc made for us FA[good luck in tier 4] ;-)

This system is actually great. Later on when servers rating starts to adjust with the new system, we gonna have a much better system, stil based on rating but servers will eventually all play each others on a constantly random matchups, since they’re adjusted its going to roll a more accurate matchups.

The blowouts will happen for now, but for good. If you think about it, its going to show wich server was on the wrong position because they were stuck on a tier, NOW its time to servers show what they can do against others opponents that they couldn’t before and determine your right place on the board.

And it’s happening, you can already see servers with 2 tiers below putting out competitive matchups against high rating servers, even beating them. These first weeks will place servers where they actually belong rank wise. This actually is a dam good job!

I’d like to see a “Number of objectives captured while under the out-manned buff.” achievement with a title such as “Less is More” or “Underdog”.

mjharrison.3209:

I don’t think the matchups are the problem- the bandwagon servers (t1) are always going to have more people.

The problem to me still all comes down to game mechanics that promote and reward mindless zerging over skill.

Obvious things that should be tried:

• increase AOE cap, from say 5 to 8-10
• divide objective rewards by number of participants
• buff outmanned bonus, scale it better

UM how is SoR a banwagoning server?

selan.8354:

Chris.3290:

I take exception to the “Sos doesn’t want to attack” comment there. When we have only 10 people in TS and only 20 stacked on the commander, there isn’t much to attack with when all targets are T3 and brimming with ACs and Ballista.

Anyhow, let’s move the QQ back to our thread. Even if it was TC and their BFFs at FA against SoR, this would still be a blowout.

lol bff.hahahahahahahahahaha.tc and fa have been rivals forever …..check tc/fa history and always remember the guild tc made for us FA[good luck in tier 4] ;-)

HEY. You’re selling us short! TC and FA have a long and illustrious history of troll-guild-names.

Bottom line is this:

If/when this system stabilizes via rankings, your going to find the servers are going to be matched up exactly how they were matched up before this system came into effect.

Your not going to find SoR sitting in T6; your not going to find BG sitting in T8; your not going to find ET or FC bouncing between T1-T3. TC & FA wont be finding a home anytime soon in T7…

Point being, we already know where the servers are going to stabilize. If you look at the current rankings right now and Tier them out based on rankings, your going to come up with near identical match-ups as we had before this system came into effect.

If people want to face off against new players, guilds, and strategies each week or even each day, the entire “server vs server” idea needs to be abandoned. We’re honestly better following a “Faction vs Faction” framework instead where players can log on each day to fight with a specific faction on one of the borderlands or EB. This way at least should solve the population imbalance, as well as, kill off server ques. This being by instituting multiple tiers that become available once one has been filled up.

DeadlySynz.3471:

If people want to face off against new players, guilds, and strategies each week or even each day, the entire “server vs server” idea needs to be abandoned. We’re honestly better following a “Faction vs Faction” framework instead where players can log on each day to fight with a specific faction on one of the borderlands or EB. This way at least should solve the population imbalance, as well as, kill off server ques. This being by instituting multiple tiers that become available once one has been filled up.

I agree but its too late for that. Faction vs faction vs faction is one reason why TESO will be superior to GW2, and CU as well.

Once again, Anet, who claims to actually listen to their community and customers, ignores everyone completely. To be completely honest, I think they’ve become arrogant and greedy, focusing on the gem store and how to continuously make money without listening to what their players want…Not the same Anet I knew from GW1.

Anet just caught a break with the announcement at E3 that TESO won’t be out until Spring 2014. Personally I hope Wildstar and Archeage come out well before then.

morrolan.9608:

Anet just caught a break with the announcement at E3 that TESO won’t be out until Spring 2014. Personally I hope Wildstar and Archeage come out well before then.

Yep I think that is why they are taking their sweet time and ignoring the angry customers.

I know FC and ET are really enjoying the data collection that ANET is doing right now. I’m starting to forget what EB looks like.

Server transfers should’ve cost money from day 1. The only way to truly balance out the populations is to go back to the root of the problem. Create new servers, and abandon the old mess. Have everyone reselect their server of choice, paid transfers in effect the moment of selection, and have wvw start afresh.

Ahoy! I’m on IoJ and having a great time with these varied matchups. Looking forward to our much-deserved raise in rank and the possibilities available from the new data. It’s sad to see all the complaints, but what else is new? Hopefully, we see the level of competitive play raised across the board and see more wins by smarter strategy versus bigger numbers.
I’m sorry for all the personal attacks people have been making on here and wanted to let you know some of us do understand and appreciate the effort. We look forward to continued attempts at improvement. Thanks for your work and words.

current match up is worse than the idea of “winner move up, loser move down”…..

BakaOniiChan.9564:

mjharrison.3209:

I don’t think the matchups are the problem- the bandwagon servers (t1) are always going to have more people.

The problem to me still all comes down to game mechanics that promote and reward mindless zerging over skill.

Obvious things that should be tried:

• increase AOE cap, from say 5 to 8-10
• divide objective rewards by number of participants
• buff outmanned bonus, scale it better

UM how is SoR a banwagoning server?

Don’t take it personally, all the t1 servers are bandwagon servers, it’s why they’re in t1. Eg: when SBI was evacuated just prior to the paid server move, roughly 2/3rds of old SBI went to SoR, other 1/3rd went to JQ. Other servers have similar stories.

Offski.4897:

This thread has to be kept alive, adding RNG into the match ups was mindless (or economic, more gems to pay for transfers). I find it unbelievable that one up one down was not introduced.

This was inevitable, the old system matched you up with the servers that most mirrored you. That meant you could play the same two servers 6 weeks in a row. If you change from the system, you will sometimes get rolled and sometimes do the rolling.

Anyone that thought anything different didn’t understand the ranking system.

I’ll likely say this until I stop reading these forums. Let’s do 24 hour matches.

I played a bazillion 10 minute battlefield2 matches in my lifetime, 10 minutes never felt too short. 24 hours won’t be too short here either.

24 won’t fix all the problems either, but it will mask a lot of them until anet can figure out different solutions. with 24 hour matches maybe you could get WvW guesting for a day.

-grumpy

Samis.1750:

I’m on TC and I agree 100%.

We had near perfect matchups with DB and FA.

Now we have 1 server than runs around in a giant blob of 90 with relative ease and another with barely any coverage.

Who really cares if one fights SoR, SoS or SoT? It’s not like we get to say, “Oh look at SoR, I can’t believe the way Tom Brady runs their offense!”. It’s just a bunch of nameless people no matter who one is fighting.

And nobody wants to play stressful defense for a week so the server with huge coverage gets to steamroll the opposition.

It wasn’t broken before. This is variety for the sake of variety.

Hahaha man that’s rich. As a FA player, we had to accept your lame blop running at 5 am and then showing up again at 8 am. Jumping all over the maps. And now you complain that it’s been done to yourself by better players, while calling your blop for “perfect matchup”.

Glad to see you get a taste of your own medicine, from an FA player.

XII.9401:

morrolan.9608:

Anet just caught a break with the announcement at E3 that TESO won’t be out until Spring 2014. Personally I hope Wildstar and Archeage come out well before then.

Yep I think that is why they are taking their sweet time and ignoring the angry customers.

Why don’t y’all just leave now. Free up a queue slot for someone who actually wants to be there.

Then you could stop coming on the forums and spouting drivel too.

Johje Holan.4607:

XII.9401:

morrolan.9608:

Anet just caught a break with the announcement at E3 that TESO won’t be out until Spring 2014. Personally I hope Wildstar and Archeage come out well before then.

Yep I think that is why they are taking their sweet time and ignoring the angry customers.

Why don’t y’all just leave now. Free up a queue slot for someone who actually wants to be there.

Then you could stop coming on the forums and spouting drivel too.

you must be on a tier 1 server…there are only occasional queues in lower tier servers, which is why they’re getting steamrolled.

Stop complaining I’m having fun could care less win or lose nsp is at the point where only the core wvw players who don’t care win or lose show up anyway all our fairweathers have vanished and all of you complaining about losing are fairweathers

DeadlySynz.3471:

Bottom line is this:

If/when this system stabilizes via rankings, your going to find the servers are going to be matched up exactly how they were matched up before this system came into effect.

Your not going to find SoR sitting in T6; your not going to find BG sitting in T8; your not going to find ET or FC bouncing between T1-T3. TC & FA wont be finding a home anytime soon in T7…

Point being, we already know where the servers are going to stabilize. If you look at the current rankings right now and Tier them out based on rankings, your going to come up with near identical match-ups as we had before this system came into effect.

If people want to face off against new players, guilds, and strategies each week or even each day, the entire “server vs server” idea needs to be abandoned. We’re honestly better following a “Faction vs Faction” framework instead where players can log on each day to fight with a specific faction on one of the borderlands or EB. This way at least should solve the population imbalance, as well as, kill off server ques. This being by instituting multiple tiers that become available once one has been filled up.

This is inaccurate. Several servers that are getting crushed this week are nonetheless performing better than their relative rating would indicate and will gain rating. Several servers that are stomping face are not winning by as much as their rating would suggest and will lose rating. You can’t get an accurate rating by playing the same matches week after week. That much is fact.

What is debatable is whether or not Anets algorithm for determining probable score outcomes is accurate.

the algorithm is accurate by definition, because that’s the only purpose a “rating” has. it’s a predictor of probable score outcomes and if the actual scores don’t match the predicted scores, the ratings are adjusted appropriately.

the only real question is whether the sub-matches within a single 3-way match can really be considered independent. obviously, they are not independent because it’s easy for one server to affect your relative score versus another. but whether that actually matters for the purposes of rating calculation is debatable.

in that respect you are correct, though. the predicted score for A vs B may well be very different depending on whether C is the third world or D, and the current rating system doesn’t track or account for “interference” from the third server.

-ken

That’s exactly what I’m referring to. If you’re the best server in the tier, winning is probable, but points become exponentially more difficult to obtain the broader your front is and the more often both enemy servers are therefore ignoring each other, even unintentionally. I think that that some kind of curved function would thus help account for that. Your tier is the one that got me thinking about it in fact. The thing is, I don’t know if it’s already the case, and if so, whether the curve is sharp enough, too sharp, etc. If the relationship between rating and expected score is too linear, it explains the current situation where you guys are looking to gain 66 rating and being more likely to face hard opposition again next week despite having less than half the points of FA, who are looking set to lose rating.

The problem is the difficulty of getting an accurate read when 2v1s are going to occur every week. The losing servers will be on the side with 2 and thus have artificially inflated ratings, while the winning servers will be facing 2 opponents and have artificially depressed ratings. That adds up to making similar matchups likely to occur week after week. Perhaps it’s balanced out by the losing servers missing their fairweather guys.

bobross.5034:

Johje Holan.4607:

XII.9401:

morrolan.9608:

Anet just caught a break with the announcement at E3 that TESO won’t be out until Spring 2014. Personally I hope Wildstar and Archeage come out well before then.

Yep I think that is why they are taking their sweet time and ignoring the angry customers.

Why don’t y’all just leave now. Free up a queue slot for someone who actually wants to be there.

Then you could stop coming on the forums and spouting drivel too.

you must be on a tier 1 server…there are only occasional queues in lower tier servers, which is why they’re getting steamrolled.

I’m not but the person threatening to move to a different game is on SoR. But that’s not even really my point.

Snowreap.5174:

the algorithm is accurate by definition, because that’s the only purpose a “rating” has. it’s a predictor of probable score outcomes and if the actual scores don’t match the predicted scores, the ratings are adjusted appropriately.

I think this is a bit to optimistic. Let me make a simplified example
Server A play 0-8 (and only at that time)
Server B play 8-16 (and only at that time)
Server C play 16-24 (and only at that time)
lets assume dual matches for the moment.

If A plays against B, B should win 2:1 as it takes all from 8-16 and keeps it while the map is empty from 16-0.
So B should have a higher rating than A. If B plays against C, C wins 2:1. So C should have a higher rating than B. As rating scale is linear one would predict that C should be also much better than A. But of course when A play vs C A wins 2:1.

Problem in this case: better-than is NOT adequately projectable to an 1-dimensional ranking.

Another problem results from the 3-sided matches. The outcome of a match may be strongly influenced by the group dynamic in the match (2:1 or all vs all or 1 vs 1 with irrelevant 3rd). Any method that tries to reduce this group dynamic to server-rank necessarily fails, i.e. produces highly unstable results.

Maybe instead of worrying about the ranking system, the focus should be to motivate WvW players/guilds to transfer and even out the other servers below them.

I’m even starting to think a partial merge might be preferable, that some servers in lower rankings should be cut out from WvW entirely(FC and ET for example), and offered free transfers to a limited number of servers. (Sort of like a merge, but more limited to the players interested in WvW only.)

Let’s be honest, some servers have kind of long lost their purpose in existing when it comes to WvW. Gaining rating is great for FC and ET and all, but what’s the point of gaining rating if it will always be more of the same.

Somehow, WvW should be more actively separated from PvE also. PvE players reaping beneficial buffs from WvW player’s hard work and not contributing is garbage IMO.

PvE players inflating gem rates for transfers merely by being located on a server when 99% of players who want to transfer only do so to join a new WvW community anyways.. that’s also garbage IMO.

Dayra.7405:

I think this is a bit to optimistic. Let me make a simplified example
Server A play 0-8 (and only at that time)
Server B play 8-16 (and only at that time)
Server C play 16-24 (and only at that time)
lets assume dual matches for the moment.

If A plays against B, B should win 2:1 as it takes all from 8-16 and keeps it while the map is empty from 16-0.
So B should have a higher rating than A. If B plays against C, C wins 2:1. So C should have a higher rating than B. As rating scale is linear one would predict that C should be also much better than A. But of course when A play vs C A wins 2:1.

Problem in this case: better-than is NOT adequately projectable to an 1-dimensional ranking.

Another problem results from the 3-sided matches. The outcome of a match may be strongly influenced by the group dynamic in the match (2:1 or all vs all or 1 vs 1 with irrelevant 3rd). Any method that tries to reduce this group dynamic to server-rank necessarily fails, i.e. produces highly unstable results.

you are misinterpreting rating as an accurate predictor of the outcome for any single match. it is not. a server’s rating is a predictor of average performance over a large number of matches. remember, Glicko-2 was invented to rate Chess players. in Chess, there are only 3 score outcomes: 0 (lose), 0.5 (draw) and 1.0 (win). Glicko-2 might calculate an “expected” score of 0.75 for A playing B, but that doesn’t mean that A will ever get 0.75 — it means that if A plays a number of games against B, A will probably get some combination of 0’s 0.5’s and 1’s that average out to 0.75.

the fact that GW2 allows scores in a continuous range from 0 to 1 does not mean that rating will be able to predict the outcome of any single match with any accuracy at all. remember, a server’s “true” rating is assumed to lie up to 2 deviations away from the calculated mean rating (with 95% confidence). Glicko-2 is built to account for (and measure) this uncertainty in rating (but in GW2 deviation has much less meaning because every world plays exactly the same number of matches as every other world; no world ever takes a break or sits out a match. but what does matter is volatility, which is presumably why GW2 uses Glicko-2 instead of the original Glicko system which did not account for volatility).

-ken

I did not wanted to predict a match outcome (even if the score expectation value does something like that) I wanted to express my concern that the rating will never stabilize to an adequate value that reflects the servers strength.

If such constellations occur the rating will not converge, but will keep a high volatility and deviation. The more servers are involved and in such a “circle of circumstances” the higher will be the volatility.

The actual rating of any of these server depend only on luck (who got a longer series of good matches in the recent past).

My last math-lecture is to long ago to decide if
- they converge to the same value with a very high deviation in the limit, or
- if they even swing around each other forever (build a Polyphase system) .

And the reason for that is: they do not have an absolute strength only a relative strength.

morrolan.9608:

Anet just caught a break with the announcement at E3 that TESO won’t be out until Spring 2014. Personally I hope Wildstar and Archeage come out well before then.

I think they caught a break with the announcement that it’s coming out on consoles. Goodbye in depth features, hello CoD with swords.

Detharos.3157:

Maybe instead of worrying about the ranking system, the focus should be to motivate WvW players/guilds to transfer and even out the other servers below them.

I’m even starting to think a partial merge might be preferable, that some servers in lower rankings should be cut out from WvW entirely(FC and ET for example), and offered free transfers to a limited number of servers. (Sort of like a merge, but more limited to the players interested in WvW only.)

Let’s be honest, some servers have kind of long lost their purpose in existing when it comes to WvW. Gaining rating is great for FC and ET and all, but what’s the point of gaining rating if it will always be more of the same.

Somehow, WvW should be more actively separated from PvE also. PvE players reaping beneficial buffs from WvW player’s hard work and not contributing is garbage IMO.

PvE players inflating gem rates for transfers merely by being located on a server when 99% of players who want to transfer only do so to join a new WvW community anyways.. that’s also garbage IMO.

Maybe that’s why they did this. So they can decrease underpopulated servers without copping to a decrease in population as the cause.

I don’t think very much valuable data has been gained. SoS was underrated and JQ is worse off than their scores would indicate.

Is there anything more to be gleaned? Other than some twisted experiment to see what it takes to break a WvW population’s will to fight (I still think SoS was singled out for all the times we killed Izzy (on SBI).

SoS really needs to stop complaining. 2 weeks of bad matchups after 8 weeks of sitting comfortably at the top of the tier and your wvw population is broken? I didn’t see SBI and CD spamming the forums with tears when they were getting their backsides handed to them week in week out by you guys.

You must have not read our forums, they had plenty of QQ. I’m sorry you hear so much about us being the posterchild of what can go wrong with the system; but I’m sure any other server in our position would be doing the same.

Considering this thread is about why the system doesn’t work, don’t you think the server that has taken it most on the chin would be over-represented?

The first week you heard a lot more complaining from the former T5 group not getting a change, and SBI got it a lot worse than SoS.

This week we’re griping about fighting a server that is 9 places higher than we were when this started, after being matched up with one 6 places higher.

It’s not just about us either. You think Maguuma liked being passed by a server it’s never faced? We’re rated higher but with the current system it could be weeks or even months before they have a chance to defend their position.

What about FC and ET? They were getting rolled already, and all this system does is guarantee that they’ll never win in WvW.

I use SoS as an example because A. I"m there and I’m biased; and B. it’s the server that has been most effected by this system.

So yeah, unless Friday we finally get servers that are closer to us in ability, we’ll continue complaining about a system that had us roll snake eyes twice in a row.

And yet SoS is gaining a ton of rating, showing that the ratings themselves are inaccurate.

In order for the ratings to become accurate lower rank servers need to steal rating from higher ranked ones, meaning that higher ranked servers NEED to be matched against lower ranked servers.

Why am I even trying?

Decided to hop on WvW for a couple hours this morning, got wiped 5 times in a row (given that we were outmanned) without accomplishing anything. Having the time of my life.

-_-

Mammoth.1975:

SoS really needs to stop complaining. 2 weeks of bad matchups after 8 weeks of sitting comfortably at the top of the tier and your wvw population is broken? I didn’t see SBI and CD spamming the forums with tears when they were getting their backsides handed to them week in week out by you guys.

Are you just stupid or trolling? That’s because they were losing in a bracket they were best fit for. We’re not even a top 5 server yet we’re paired against TC and the NUMBER ONE SERVER in WvW. Back then, CD and SBI had a point in trying because we had good fights and CD and SBI were constantly neck in neck for 2nd – here, we don’t even get that.

#logicoutthekitteningwindow

Give it a rest. SBI and CD were ‘taking it on the chin’ for 8 weeks under the old system, you guys get bad matchups for 2 weeks under the new one and the QQ never stops.

I haven’t logged in since Saturday. The matchup is a joke.

If you look at the all the the current matches, almost every world that is ahead in points in a match is loosing rating, while those in 2nd and 3rd are gaining rating.

Could someone tell me just how much of a lead does BP need right now against HOD and DR in order to keep the same rank or gain rating. It appears on the surface that for them to do so would require them to hold all points and spawn camp 24/7 or is there some kind of gimmick for flipping control points?

To put it differently, at this point 4:41pm Central time, what is Blackgate doing that the other point leaders are not?

DevonCarver.5370:

The concept of tiers has little meaning at this point and you should try to stop thinking of matchups in those terms. Servers are matched up by proximity of rating, not proximity of “tier”. If the tiers have ratings that are within the range of the random adjustment, they can end up fighting each other. This is going to result in blowouts, no doubt about it. However, we are not going to make changes to this after just 2 weeks of the system. There are things we can do. We will almost certainly end up adjusting the total added to each server rating to group the matchups a little more closely. First however, we need to let the ratings adjust by having more varied matchups like these. If you look at EU, which is using the exact same system, you can see matchups with numerous surprising results. The same will likely be true by the end of the NA matchup.

TL;DR: We are going to wait at least a couple more weeks before changing any of the math behind the new system, but it is very likely we’ll decrease the size of the variation at some point.

can you get all of your players onto a single map? let the queue system work for you by using it to limit the maximum number of enemies who can face you.

-ken

Mammoth.1975:

Give it a rest. SBI and CD were ‘taking it on the chin’ for 8 weeks under the old system, you guys get bad matchups for 2 weeks under the new one and the QQ never stops.

CD puts up a great fight in NA and actually is a decent matchup for us. SBI did get screwed over, but that’s because they refused to give up and EB couldn’t rack up enough score.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with this system or this thread. No one liked the situation that occurred in T5 and T4.

The old system worked, just slowly. I think that if they tone the RNG range to 100 points down from 250; then we’ll see some change. However, the current system is creating too much volatility and we will still see some servers out of place ratings-wise when it’s done. You’ll end up with some servers so close together that you’ll have the same matchups week after week.

Also you should look at the change in ratings. This system has destroyed the 1400-1700 range.
That means that T4 servers are going to have their stuff pushed in EVERY week.
You have sympathy for CD because of us? At least they got quality WvW in their timeslot, just see how they feel when they get regularly matched with DB, Maguuma, and FA.

You can also save your crocodile tears for SBI. They and BP are going to be routinely rofl stomping the bottom-half of servers. When they are regularly matched against IoJ, SF and GoM; no one is going to be having fun.

Again, we talk about SoS (the symptom) in context with the disease (the RNG element)

Jalad Lantana.3027:

Could someone tell me just how much of a lead does BP need right now against HOD and DR in order to keep the same rank or gain rating. It appears on the surface that for them to do so would require them to hold all points and spawn camp 24/7 or is there some kind of gimmick for flipping control points?

BP’s score needs to be 3.07 times as large as HoD’s score in order for BP to not lose rating to HoD.

BP’s score needs to be 2.97 times as large as DR’s score in order for BP to not lose rating to DR.

try to keep DR and HoD even with each other, and make sure your score is triple each of the others and you should do ok ratings-wise. this translates to an average PPT of 417 over the entire match. if you fall behind you’ll need a higher PPT to catch up again.

-ken

Snowreap.5174:

Jalad Lantana.3027:

Could someone tell me just how much of a lead does BP need right now against HOD and DR in order to keep the same rank or gain rating. It appears on the surface that for them to do so would require them to hold all points and spawn camp 24/7 or is there some kind of gimmick for flipping control points?

BP’s score needs to be 3.07 times as large as HoD’s score in order for BP to not lose rating to HoD.

BP’s score needs to be 2.97 times as large as DR’s score in order for BP to not lose rating to DR.

try to keep DR and HoD even with each other, and make sure your score is triple each of the others and you should do ok ratings-wise. this translates to an average PPT of 417 over the entire match. if you fall behind you’ll need a higher PPT to catch up again.

-ken

Thanks, that really helps me get handle on what is going on. It gives me much clearer picture of what both sides have to attain in terms of points in order to ‘win’ better ratings. I’m no math wiz and things like this ranking system gives me the willys.

Kimbald.2697:

Just a side-thought:

There are so few servers overall, who all have pretty big differences in coverage and numbers.
We are talking about 20 odd servers, possibly less in the future if merges would happen.
Of those 20, exactly how many can possibly match the coverage and numbers of your own server?

Let’s say this system will indeed balance out and end up being good at equal matching.
Than, just like the old system, it would have to match you against those few servers that are simular to yours…

How many servers will be ‘equal’ to match against your own server? No matter the system used for this matching.

Don’t we simply risk ending up with a new system, that matches your server against the same 2 or 3 opponents over and over again?

After all: if the system balances out, you can only have so many matching servers…
The randomness can not be this great that it creates more blowous like now, else it would be an unbalanced system.
So, purely by being a good matchmaking system, it would have to put your server against those servers that match.

Wouldn’t that be just like the old system than?

One of the few that actually gets it.

…there is no solution….

-not enough servers
- a matchup that in theory should be fair ends up not …because the server that is winning gets the fairweather bandwaggoners out…and the server that is losing will have a bunch of their WvW player base leave for the week….tldr = can’t do anything about human nature. losers quit…winners bandwagon

Chris.3290:

Mammoth.1975:

Give it a rest. SBI and CD were ‘taking it on the chin’ for 8 weeks under the old system, you guys get bad matchups for 2 weeks under the new one and the QQ never stops.

CD puts up a great fight in NA and actually is a decent matchup for us. SBI did get screwed over, but that’s because they refused to give up and EB couldn’t rack up enough score.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with this system or this thread. No one liked the situation that occurred in T5 and T4.

The old system worked, just slowly. I think that if they tone the RNG range to 100 points down from 250; then we’ll see some change. However, the current system is creating too much volatility and we will still see some servers out of place ratings-wise when it’s done. You’ll end up with some servers so close together that you’ll have the same matchups week after week.

Also you should look at the change in ratings. This system has destroyed the 1400-1700 range.
That means that T4 servers are going to have their stuff pushed in EVERY week.
You have sympathy for CD because of us? At least they got quality WvW in their timeslot, just see how they feel when they get regularly matched with DB, Maguuma, and FA.

You can also save your crocodile tears for SBI. They and BP are going to be routinely rofl stomping the bottom-half of servers. When they are regularly matched against IoJ, SF and GoM; no one is going to be having fun.

Again, we talk about SoS (the symptom) in context with the disease (the RNG element)

I forget, is 8 bigger than 2? It’s not about having sympathy for your opponents btw. It’s the fact that while your tears are full of delicious irony, it’s possible to have too much of a good thing.

It seems pretty obvious WvW has never been a top priority for ArenaNet. I think part of the problem is the fact GW2 isn’t a subscription based game or they would be more worried about losing players over things like servers being farmed by one dominate server week after week.

Our match-up is lopsided also. For weeks it’s been neck-and-neck and a lot of fun, but this week every map is near solid green and barren. Green team has more than blue and red combined. I don’t know what ArenaNet was thinking, but they killed off WvW on our server for the week.