Guild Wars 2

There have been threads about which settings to turn down and which ones you can keep high. I can’t find it now but I think it was to turn down (maybe someone else can be more specific):

Either Shaders or Shadows (always get those two mixed up)
I think Vertical Synch should be unchecked.
And there’s a particular Anti-aliasing that works better.
Postprocessing off.

And I’ve found significant improvement if I run it in Windowed mode (the Resolution dropdown). You can use the same resolution but instead of Full Screen, use Windowed.

I have an i5, no overclocking and an old 580Ti and it runs decent. The skill lag, which is server side, is worse than the FPS drop in large fights.

I honestly don’t like any of the three proposed changes. I can’t find it now but there was a post that suggested what I think would be near perfect. It was simply:

COLOR Invader – Server Name [Guild Abbreviation]

So for example: RED Invader Stormbluff Isle [OT] or GREEN Invader Northern Shiverpeaks [TVP]

If that’s too long because of the server name just use the server abbreviation, there is a standard abbreviation that basically everyone knows. So:

RED Invader SBI [OT]
GREEN Invader NSP [TVP]

That can’t be more difficult to do code-wise than any of your suggestions can it? Don’t over think this. All people want is for their server name to be acknowledged in the game. And this simple solution does it.

And this is why WvW will NEVER have population balance. Anet may as well just give up all the attempts at trying.

I’ve not been for alliances before but if you’re just going to open up the most populated server for more bandwagoning then its time to admit the server system is never going to work. Just go to a 3-way faction system now and get it over with.

James Rustler.7860:

Johje Holan.4607:

I don’t know what some people in this thread are talking about. Mag got a link because they needed one. They are relying on their link to provide some of the population. BG is still beating them, and MagET and FASoR are about even.

All tiers are pretty even now, much moreso than in the past before linkings. I would even bet that all servers are close enough to fight each other with the exception of
BG, they’re still super stacked. SBIGoM fought TC and JQ last week and did well. I’d be we could make any combo of matches and it wouldn’t be a complete blowout like it used to be if a low tier faced a higher tier.

Linkings are working! (At least for NA) I’m ready for BG, bring ’em on!

Mag made it pretty clear last night that they consider ET a waste of space. With the way their community is, a link will hurt them more than it will help—any server they’re paired with is more likely to turn on them than help them.

Hey you got no argument from me there. Mag are a bunch of jerks. I would not want to be paired with them. I would be in favor of not giving Mag a link just because of that reason. But Anet can’t do that. They do it by population.

I don’t know what some people in this thread are talking about. Mag got a link because they needed one. They are relying on their link to provide some of the population. BG is still beating them, and MagET and FASoR are about even.

All tiers are pretty even now, much moreso than in the past before linkings. I would even bet that all servers are close enough to fight each other with the exception of
BG, they’re still super stacked. SBIGoM fought TC and JQ last week and did well. I’d be we could make any combo of matches and it wouldn’t be a complete blowout like it used to be if a low tier faced a higher tier.

Linkings are working! (At least for NA) I’m ready for BG, bring ’em on!

JQ and TC aren’t tanking. SBIGoM is just kicking their butts!

For all those people saying linking is bad or less balanced than before, the SBI/TC/JQ match and the NSPlink match last week prove otherwise. Both SBI and NSP would’ve gotten utterly destroyed pre linking if they’d been thrown into T2. There is much more parity now (at least in NA).

BG should not be opened. They should be manually kept closed even if the population metrics seem to indicate that they shoul go to very high. BG is the cause of the imbalance in NA. Every other server must have a link just to have any chance to compete with BG.

The problem with blocking is that it doesn’t solve the issue of poisonous chat. The kittenbags are still affecting the server and people who come in to do some WvW.

Turning off your Team Chat is not the solution because its actually a good feature but because of punks with inferiority complexes irl we can’t have nice things.

I think Anet need to add the suppression to Team Chat. Why is it on Map but not Team? There’s no need for anyone to be talking a lot in there anyway. Too much talk also devalues its purpose which is to be able to make calls to other maps.

I think the suppression should be added to Team chat and taken away or reduced for map chat. My god I’ve never seen so many trolls and jerks in chat.

Ben K; I think you’re on my server, that was ridiculous last night. I chat blocked more people last night than I have in 4 years on the server. And reported a few it was so bad.

If the trolls cause everyone to turn off Team chat then it loses its value. Its a great idea to be able to make calls to other maps. But the trolls must be controlled. I encourage everyone to report the jerks spamming Team chat; hopefully Anet brings out the ban hammer.

Aww, not enough chance of getting NSP. They’re killing it in T4 need to move up so we can face them.

Jayne.9251:

I’ve suggested that you cap existing servers like the battle group suggestion and keep them locked, no matter what, with spaces only opening through attrition.

Overcrowded existing servers would evict accounts based on seniority, until parity is reached.

The alliance system locks people into a group for 14 weeks. You don’t think that will annoy people?

Couple that with a doubling transfer cost each time you jump, and I think you’d begin to see stability, cater to ALL players who all paid the same cost of the game, and keep everyone happy, rather than the select few who have clearly outlined their agenda in the past couple of pages of this thread.

Most games are scrambling to create community, because they know that equates to player attachment and longevity of the game.

Blow that up and it will be a steady slip into obscurity.

But they can’t cap existing servers like you could battlegroups. Existing servers contain tens of thousands of accounts; everyone who ever bought the game is on an existing server.

And talk about annoying people. Evict them from their server? That would do more than annoy people.

Not that I am for battlegroups, I think there’s a reason Anet didn’t go in that direction and I don’t think they’re going to change their mind; at least not before the next xpac. I think server linkings can work, they just need to make some adjustments.

Just bring back the orbs. Not some cap crap. The orbs were awesome.

Just bring down the ban hammer hard if someone cheats. The cheaters will get the message if the punishment is harsh enough.

So can I assume that this patch wasn’t the balance update? I thought it was going to be. When is it supposed to happen then?

How are you all who are able to get to the poll getting there? I just go to my account screen still (which I actually never knew existed so that’s pretty cool).

Edit. I pasted the link into Chrome and it worked.

This has been asked for by players for years. People will just need to learn to adapt.

Oh ok. So removing tiers means removing server vs. server and going to an alliance/factions/battlegroup type of arrangement.

Perhaps linking should be done away with for EU. Or at least only link the bottom servers. I’m from NA but from what I’ve seen on the forums EU was working pretty well for the top few tiers prior to linkings. Anet is there any reason EU and NA can’t be treated differently?

For NA linkings has been a big success I believe. NA had serious problems for a long time before linkings.

There are still issues though and you point them out in your 3 observations.

1. Bandwagoning. I don’t thik Anet is going to ever restrict changing servers. But there is something they can easily do. All the servers in a link should be the same cost to transfer to. I’m flabbergasted that Anet hasn’t realized this yet. You can’t have a T1 server cost only the “Medium” price!
2. Balance. Balance in NA has been pretty good with some exceptions. A lot better than prior to linkings. They do need to take into account what happens with mass transfers. And it would be nice if they could link to create more time zone balance but I know that’s hard. I think much of the balance issue would be taken care of if they fix bandwagoning.
3. Server Identity. I’m on a host server. But I can sympathize with those on guest servers. I think the guest server name does need to be displayed more prominently. One thing they could try is simply use the abbreviations for servers. Everyone knows them. Instead of the full host server name on the players, use the abbreviations of all linked servers – it would actually be shorter to do so in many cases.

With 2-1-1 scoring, the problem doesn’t come when there is one strong server and two weaker ones. It comes when there are either 2 strong, one weak. Or one kinda strong, one medium and one kinda weak. In those scenarios both 1 and 2 will gang up on 3 to try and get maximum points.

I think a better idea might be to incentivize attacking the stronger server by giving more points or more rewards for taking their stuff.

Norbe.7630:

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

I’ve seen people say this, “Remove the tiers”. What does that mean?

Tiers aren’t some artificial construct. They simply result naturally from the fact that it is a three way battle. Tiers are nothing more than the matches going on during a particular week. T1 = match between the 3 highest rated servers that week (after RNG), T2 = then next 3 servers, etc.

It would actually work for EU even better than NA I think.

In fact something similar was suggested awhile ago. So are you proposing to create an impenetrable wall between T2 and T3?

Also what if one of the high tier servers needs a link to be competitive at the top? What if one of the bottom tiers servers gets bandwagons to? What if 2v2v2 doesn’t produce good matches? As mentioned above Anet balances by population not number of tiers.

I don’t know about removing all gates and siege from SM but what about this:

Put back the center event in the DBL. But instead of it destroying gates and walls on the DBL. it destroys all the gates and walls on Stonemist.

Creates a situation for strategy. And fights on two maps. The server that owns SM would need to prevent the other two servers from winning the center event. And if they fail a massive 3 -way in SM ensues. Oh and if all gates and walls do get destroyed, the lord is teleported to the top floor like he used to be.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.

Why not do the simplest and quickest things first? It seems like manually changing the Glicko ratings to what you believe they should be is simple and quick. And you don’t need a poll to do that.

In fact I think it needs to be done for the next linking. There was a thread about it. If you are making linkings trying to match populations then you should be adjusting Glicko to what you think the matches should be for the first week of the linkings (FSP still hasn’t faced the French servers which you said was the goal of the link – this should have happened the first week! And its also clear that the French servers weren’t as strong as you thought they would be.).

I would say three things absolutely need to happen at the beginning of the next linking:

1. Manually adjust Glicko to create good initial matches based on your population predictions. Or you could normalize the ratings if you don’t want to do a full manual adjustment to create specific matches. But one of these two must be done.
2. Increase the volatility and deviation as you did the first linking.
3. Make linked servers take on the same Gem cost for transfers as the host server. You can’t leave it so that it is only 500 Gems to transfer to T1.

I’m not sure how I feel about 1U1D. It will allow servers to move rapidly if they are not in the proper place. But it has the potential to create disastrous matches – basically a T1 will be matched with a T3 every week. This might be ok but it might not.

It also might encourage fighting for second, which I consider lame. And you’ll be hearing a lot more cries of 2v1 if the top server decides to focus one over the other.

Having said that, I’d be willing to try 1U1D. If it could be reversed easily if it is terrible.

What about treating the monthly link up like a tournament as far as matchmaking goes? Do a Swiss system. Or round robin. Or just make the matches so every server plays every other server – you could automate that, just put in an if statement that says if two servers are too far apart in population then they can’t be matches together.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

For this reason alone, a tournament shouldn’t be considered until server balance happens and til mechanics are figured out to make it fair and competitive.

In other words, never. Servers are never going to be balanced and it will never be fair and competitive.

I’m pretty sure the last Anet comment on tourney’s I saw somewhere said basically that.

+1 Agree on every thing said above. This needs to be done right away so its ready for next re-linking.

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

I wouldn’t have an issue with that. Except I wouldn’t bother adjusting Glicko. I’d just make the matches next week be:

• YB/Mag/BG
• JQ/TC/FA
• DB/SBI/NSP
• CD/HOD/SOS

Good one-up-one-down match-making there… wew

I actually do think that’s one of the solutions to matchmaking. The second week of matches after a linking could be by 1U1D. That way if a link was created that is bad for a matchup it can adjust more quickly than simple Glicko.

Plus you should be happy. I gave you all matches with higher servers since you’re complaining about facing lower servers.

Bridget Morrigan.1752:

Rating—On each new linkup, ANet should reset Glicko scores, not to completely even, but to a range that first factors in population and participation of both/all servers in each new link pairing, then assigning a score to that composite.

Matchups—I think if the ratings can be dialed in and adjusted more effectively before the beginning of the linkup period, then a lot of the problems with matchups will be ameliorated because matchups will be predicted more accurately, and there won’t be as much carryover and antiquated data from old linkup periods. Matchups should be done on a system that weighs both Glicko and transfers/population, and I think this can and should be automated, so that any matchup would calculated based on Glicko + n(+/- transfers on/off), where n is a value to be determined by ANet according to what makes sense in their data and where they set the middle point of their initial Glicko range, but kept constant, ofc.

Great posts! Very sensible and level headed.

I think practically everyone agrees with your point on resetting the rating on each new linkup. The question is to what value to reset it. I don’t know if simulations can be run on the past linkings to determine a good value. There also are suggestions that have been made in the past that could be looked at. I do think that the actual rating needs to be adjusted and not just the volatility and deviation.

Changing the matchup method definitely needs to happen – and now, not “soon”. Perhaps an adjustment like you suggest taking transfers into account could be done, I don’t know how hard that would be to program. But it is clear that Anet can adjust ratings so I wouldn’t think it would be too hard. Or perhaps player activity could be used – but that can be gamed.

Aeolus.3615:

YB would steamroll nsp 24/7 with numbers….. nsp atm is paired with 2 other servers.

Of course they would. Its not terrible to deal with a blowout for a week. The problem comes when the same server is steamrolling you for weeks.

And obviously you wouldn’t make the entire 2-month schedule in the beginning. For example if it turns out that YB is on par with BG then I wouldn’t put them back in T3 for that last week.

I did this in about 10 minutes. So I can already see that you have the same match CD/HOD/SOS for the last two weeks. You could do something like switch CD and SBI so its YB/CD/NSP.

I wouldn’t have an issue with that. Except I wouldn’t bother adjusting Glicko. I’d just make the matches next week be:

• YB/Mag/BG
• JQ/TC/FA
• DB/SBI/NSP
• CD/HOD/SOS

And the following week:

• Mag/BG/FA
• JQ/TC/YB
• DB/HOD/NSP
• SBI/CD/SOS

And next:

• TC/BG/JQ
• Mag/YB/FA
• DB/CD/SOS
• SBI/HOD/NSP

And then:

• YB/BG/JQ
• Mag/TC/DB
• FA/SBI/NSP
• SOS/HOD/CD

Finally to finish out the linking period:

• FA/Mag/TC
• BG/DB/JQ
• YB/SBI/NSP
• CD/HOD/SOS

There you go. Variety. Fairly good matchups. Prevent blowouts for many weeks.

There is a question of where does DB really belong. This is just off the top of my head, if DB is very different than I assumed then of course it can be adjusted in later weeks. Or if population shifts happen it can be adjusted.

Jeknar.6184:

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

A year ago Anet wasn’t paying attention to WvW. I’m glad they’ve changed and started paying attention. It was a problem a year ago, it was a problem 3 years ago. Its about time they start to do something about it.

Weak argument for why they adjusted YB’s glicko rating upwards in a rather nonchalant way. They adjusted rating manually three years ago for T8 because of a glicko hell situation (no different from what happened to CD and T4) and they approached it with a lot of consideration. What’s being said here, and what Cerby tried to emphasize, is that there wasn’t much consideration given this time. There was no glicko hell situation here. YB would have rolled T2 without a change being needed.

This is a can of worms because anyone who is now unhappy can come to this forum and ask for X server’s rating to be adjusted and point to this precedent. That’s why I earlier illustrated the concept in a sarcastic manner: everyone knows DB is dropping like a rock because they had an exodus of guilds so might as well get them adjusted downward.

While I’m not against the change that was made, Chaba here is right: It wasn’t entirely needed like it was on both past scenarios. Not only YB already had a slim chance of rolling T2, but they also were still able to gain rating from the T3 servers as they weren’t that much lower than theirs, increasing their odds with each passing week. Would it suck for T3? Of course it would. Nobody likes to be in a loopsided match that would keep going for weeks. But drastic measures must be left for drastic situations and this wasn’t one.

The fact that Arena Net acted faster this time is what intrigue me. On both past scenarios the situation was worse, and it took much more time to them take their move (CD fiasco took 5 weeks. T8 fiasco took SEVERAL MONTHS) and that’s problably why she is saying Arena Net problably didn’t took much consideration in this one.

Ok, so we should just go back to Anet not paying attention to WvW. And it taking months for anything to happen. Anet shouldn’t do anything quickly because that leads people to think that there wasn’t “much analysis” done. That is what I hear you all saying. Well guess what? That is what people have been complaining about Anet for years. That it takes them forever to do anything. And here they actually do something and you all are saying they need to slow down. Good grief!

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

A year ago Anet wasn’t paying attention to WvW. I’m glad they’ve changed and started paying attention. It was a problem a year ago, it was a problem 3 years ago. Its about time they start to do something about it.

Weak argument for why they adjusted YB’s glicko rating upwards in a rather nonchalant way. They adjusted rating manually three years ago for T8 because of a glicko hell situation (no different from what happened to CD and T4) and they approached it with a lot of consideration. What’s being said here, and what Cerby tried to emphasize, is that there wasn’t much consideration given this time. There was no glicko hell situation here. YB would have rolled T2 without a change being needed.

This is a can of worms because anyone who is now unhappy can come to this forum and ask for X server’s rating to be adjusted and point to this precedent. That’s why I earlier illustrated the concept in a sarcastic manner: everyone knows DB is dropping like a rock because they had an exodus of guilds so might as well get them adjusted downward.

You have no idea how much consideration was given. You’re just making it up that there wasn’t much consideration.

Ha, people have been coming to this forum since the beginning and asking for stuff. Doesn’t mean it gets done. Talk to EU about that. They’ve been complaining about their matches since re-linkings. Nothing has been done. There was obviously a reason that Anet changed YB ratings. And it was not because of one post on the forums. They’re analysis showed them that it needed to be done.

You have no idea if Anet did an analysis or not. Stop making up arguments like you know how much attention is paid.

I never said I knew how much attention was paid. You’re the one that said, “in a rather nonchalant way” and “wasn’t much consideration given”. You don’t know that. You completely made that up.

Where’s this analysis you say they did? Right….

Look I get it, you posted earlier in support of the idea. You just want to defend your personal preference rather than hold Anet up to a higher standard.

You’re being obtuse. Anet doesn’t show their analysis on anything.

Jski.6180:

Johje Holan.4607:

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

A year ago Anet wasn’t paying attention to WvW. I’m glad they’ve changed and started paying attention. It was a problem a year ago, it was a problem 3 years ago. Its about time they start to do something about it.

Weak argument for why they adjusted YB’s glicko rating upwards in a rather nonchalant way. They adjusted rating manually three years ago for T8 because of a glicko hell situation (no different from what happened to CD and T4) and they approached it with a lot of consideration. What’s being said here, and what Cerby tried to emphasize, is that there wasn’t much consideration given this time. There was no glicko hell situation here. YB would have rolled T2 without a change being needed.

This is a can of worms because anyone who is now unhappy can come to this forum and ask for X server’s rating to be adjusted and point to this precedent. That’s why I earlier illustrated the concept in a sarcastic manner: everyone knows DB is dropping like a rock because they had an exodus of guilds so might as well get them adjusted downward.

You have no idea how much consideration was given. You’re just making it up that there wasn’t much consideration.

Ha, people have been coming to this forum since the beginning and asking for stuff. Doesn’t mean it gets done. Talk to EU about that. They’ve been complaining about their matches since re-linkings. Nothing has been done. There was obviously a reason that Anet changed YB ratings. And it was not because of one post on the forums. They’re analysis showed them that it needed to be done.

But what about the analysis of who will fall? This is not a one way thing and what happens to one group or world effects all others. There has been a line crossed here a line that in most pvp games spells doom. The game makers want this world to be higher and by conquest others to fall. This is a game braking tool that kills motivation to do any thing to fight for that week. It becomes less about fighting and more about buying guilds or ppl to play on your side.

I’ve been saying for years that we need a new matchmaking system. The one we have is terrible.

If Anet is not going to make a new matchmaking system, then I think they need to do something. Especially with the linking system which gives us only 2 months before another linking.

Given the response to the manual adjustment to YB, I think it would be wise of Anet to stop all work on other projects and change the matchmaking system. While we wait for that to happen, I think immediately starting with the next linking, either:

1. Adjust Glicko ratings of all servers at the beginning of each linking
2. Adjust the initial matches of a linking according to population. They know this info because that’s what they use to make the linkings.

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

A year ago Anet wasn’t paying attention to WvW. I’m glad they’ve changed and started paying attention. It was a problem a year ago, it was a problem 3 years ago. Its about time they start to do something about it.

Weak argument for why they adjusted YB’s glicko rating upwards in a rather nonchalant way. They adjusted rating manually three years ago for T8 because of a glicko hell situation (no different from what happened to CD and T4) and they approached it with a lot of consideration. What’s being said here, and what Cerby tried to emphasize, is that there wasn’t much consideration given this time. There was no glicko hell situation here. YB would have rolled T2 without a change being needed.

This is a can of worms because anyone who is now unhappy can come to this forum and ask for X server’s rating to be adjusted and point to this precedent. That’s why I earlier illustrated the concept in a sarcastic manner: everyone knows DB is dropping like a rock because they had an exodus of guilds so might as well get them adjusted downward.

You have no idea how much consideration was given. You’re just making it up that there wasn’t much consideration.

Ha, people have been coming to this forum since the beginning and asking for stuff. Doesn’t mean it gets done. Talk to EU about that. They’ve been complaining about their matches since re-linkings. Nothing has been done. There was obviously a reason that Anet changed YB ratings. And it was not because of one post on the forums. They’re analysis showed them that it needed to be done.

You have no idea if Anet did an analysis or not. Stop making up arguments like you know how much attention is paid.

I never said I knew how much attention was paid. You’re the one that said, “in a rather nonchalant way” and “wasn’t much consideration given”. You don’t know that. You completely made that up.

Jski.6180:

The score was changed by the dev that is the only important thing that happen here and they did it for the solo reason of making yb move out of t3. That is simply WRONG.

No, it was the right thing to do. They adjusted it so that YB rating was more in line with what their population indicated it should be. If they’re not going to change the matchmaking, then they should make these types of adjustments more often.

Chaba.5410:

Johje Holan.4607:

A year ago Anet wasn’t paying attention to WvW. I’m glad they’ve changed and started paying attention. It was a problem a year ago, it was a problem 3 years ago. Its about time they start to do something about it.

Weak argument for why they adjusted YB’s glicko rating upwards in a rather nonchalant way. They adjusted rating manually three years ago for T8 because of a glicko hell situation (no different from what happened to CD and T4) and they approached it with a lot of consideration. What’s being said here, and what Cerby tried to emphasize, is that there wasn’t much consideration given this time. There was no glicko hell situation here. YB would have rolled T2 without a change being needed.

This is a can of worms because anyone who is now unhappy can come to this forum and ask for X server’s rating to be adjusted and point to this precedent. That’s why I earlier illustrated the concept in a sarcastic manner: everyone knows DB is dropping like a rock because they had an exodus of guilds so might as well get them adjusted downward.

You have no idea how much consideration was given. You’re just making it up that there wasn’t much consideration.

Ha, people have been coming to this forum since the beginning and asking for stuff. Doesn’t mean it gets done. Talk to EU about that. They’ve been complaining about their matches since re-linkings. Nothing has been done. There was obviously a reason that Anet changed YB ratings. And it was not because of one post on the forums. They’re analysis showed them that it needed to be done.

Chaba.5410:

Jeknar.6184:

Chaba.5410:

I don’t know what server this Kefro is on, but he’s not representative of what actual guild leaders on FA have said about rolling T3 so I hope readers here aren’t getting baited into this.

At first it sounded he was just a angry FA player. But it seens it’s just someone with issues from whatever random server.

Well you are sort of getting distracted away from the point trying to be made about how this recent manual adjustment seems like the beginning of rather careless usage of the tool, especially when there wasn’t a partial reset of glicko at the changing of the server links. The server doesn’t matter. Every time it seems obvious to players that X server doesn’t “belong” in Y tier, what is going to happen? Why was this solution not used, for example, when YB was trying to break the glicko wall over a year ago?

Cerby was the first to respond on this thread to the news and that guy is on Ehmry Bay, no?

A year ago Anet wasn’t paying attention to WvW. I’m glad they’ve changed and started paying attention. It was a problem a year ago, it was a problem 3 years ago. Its about time they start to do something about it.

The next step is to change the way matchmaking works. I think everyone agrees on that point. I would even say that they should suspend work on the rest of the scoring changes and make changes to matchmaking.

Jski.6180:

Liston.9708:

FA didn’t drop to T3, they rng rolled a T3 match just like YB rng rolled a T2 match (after the adjustment) sort of like CD week 5…

Far too early in the week to know which server is #6 at the end of the week. Most likely, both FA/YB are tier 2 in a week or two..

What these last 2 re-links has shown is that some sort of glick reset is needed when new links are made….

Not at all if yb rolled t2 then they would of not needed to add +150 points out of no where to move them out of t3. Because YB moved up FA had to move down. There is NOTHING random about it there is no roll it was all done by a dev on a whim. He may of effectually killed FA as a T2 world now.

It was not done on a whim. It was obvious that YB was way too populated for T3. And it was not just YB. It was the linking that was created two weeks before of YB + FC. So it was a newly created entity along with newly created other servers in the match. And it was obvious that the newly created entity was in the wrong place. So devs looked at the match and adjusted the rating.

Johje Holan.4607:

So people always get on here and say Anet never listens to the players. Anet then listens to the players. You get on here and complain that Anet listened to the players???

Cerby.1069:

You really need to read the things you quote. Its about who and what you listen too….nobody else had a problem understanding that.

Here I’ll give you an example: a game has 100 players, there are many problems with the game and the players are divided into 10 servers. Each of the servers complain on the forums and to community support outlets to get the creators to fix their individual problems. These individual problems however are not granted because their solutions negatively affect the other 9 servers.
One day a developer looks at a posting 1 server posted and decided to fix their problems at the expense of that other 9 servers. Now they have made 10 people happy, but 90 people are now negatively affected.

The game listened to the players as you stated. ANd we should all be happy about that as you stated. So lets be happy.

I’ll give you an easier example: lets say 10% of the players wanted desert bl as all 3 borderlands, 90% wanted alpine. The 10% posted the loudest and most selfish requests, and the developer granted their request.
Now according to your argument: They listened to the people and we should all be happy. So lets be happy.

TL:DR: So ya I got on here and complained that anet listened to “some” players at the expense of “others”. Can ya follow that reasoning? I can dumb it down even more if need be.

If they really cared about making the game balanced for all servers they would delete the glicko and repick the tiers every week or so to find the most balanced tiers possible. That way winning, and having won does not matter anymore, and the future of all servers can be a part of the same vision….rather than half of them having to be dragged through the mudd all the time. But no, they keep the glicko and one day they come along and say “hey why is Yb one of the servers being dragged through the mudd with these plebs? Come here buddy….lets get u cleaned up so you can start riding on the ponies with the cool servers.”. And you expect everyone, in the mudd or on the other ponies, to stop start CHEEERING ecstatically that their peer has been freed from pleb status….meanwhile everyone has to deal with more mudd and more horse skritt because of it.

I read what you wrote. I guess it was you’re first paragraph’s tone and hyperbole that prompted my response. But I guess that’s just how you are given your response to me. And you can’t really think Anet made the adjustment just because of one post.

They listened to the players because we have been saying for years that one of the worst things in WvW is to get stuck in a match where you don’t belong. Its bad for you, bad for your opponents, bad for the game. And that Glicko responds too slowly. If they’re not going to change the matchmaking then Anet should make manual adjustments more often, not less.

In fact, I have been in favor of Anet completely manually making the matches for a long time. A human being can create better matches, more consistently than Glicko and RNG. But I guess I see why they haven’t done that, people come on here and complain about favoritism and it not being fair.

As for your examples, they are exaggerated and ridiculous. And not relevant to what happened. I can see why people from FA are upset. But the rhetoric in this thread is out of hand.

Anet did the right thing. And I applaud them for it. I would be in favor of them lowering DB’s rating next week so that they come down and FA can go back up (as I said above, I’d prefer them just manually make it happen). And we’ll see what happens. I agree FA shouldn’t get stuck in T3.

As others have said in this thread the problem is Glicko and how its used to make the matches. And the faults with this have been enhanced with the linking system. Matchmaking needs to be changed. Heck if its too much trouble to come up with a new system, just go to 1U1D. That should be easy to program.

Cerby.1069:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

We adjusted Yak’s Bend rating by +150 so they would move out of tier 3.

Do you guys ever reflect on how you tend to only reward those who complain loudly with selfish requests?

I mean not to downplay yb’s position or anything…but they were asking for 1 server to get preferential fidgeting on the almighty untouchable glicko. I mean…that is HUGE that you granted this server request when there are countless others asking for the same thing. You didn’t even give a reason why yb out of all the servers was granted this…its like all the other grants you give off these forums.

You might consider giving a more inclusive reason for granting the request so people don’t feel you are rewarding the loudest most selfish requests….might help try to delude people into thinking you grant community requests on an argument basis rather than….I can only say selfish and loud so many times. Would that not be wise?

Like here is just an idea for a better response off the top of my head:

“Upon reviewing community arguments, and crosschecking with our own data, we have decided to move YB up 150 points out of tier 3 in order to to provide better matchups for the rest of the servers.”

Just a thought.

So people always get on here and say Anet never listens to the players. Anet then listens to the players. You get on here and complain that Anet listened to the players???

RyuDragnier.9476:

So, now that it has happened…how are SoS and SBI enjoying being steamrolled by FA now?

I’m SBI and its great! Reset was awesome. I stayed on way longer than normal.

FA does not have as many people as YB from what I can tell. Sure they’re going to beat us but it’ll be a much better week.

Woo hoo! Thank you! Both matches have been great so far

Choppy.4183:

Johje Holan.4607:

Why would you be in support of bad matches? If an obvious mismatch is in existence, Anet should act quickly to rectify that.

I’m not. But which server in its place wouldn’t also be a mismatch? If Yaks isn’t stuck behind a wall, then each week their chance of rolling a better match improves.

There may be no server that wouldn’t be a mismatch. But we’ll never know if the matches don’t change. Plus, even if another server is a mismatch, mismatches with variety is better than stagnant mismatches. If I’m going to get destroyed, I’d rather it be by different people each week. Either FA or DB would be good.

Even if a server is not stuck behind a wall, it takes too long to move. And now with re-linking every 2-months, if you have to wait 4 weeks for Glicko to adjust that’s half the linking period.

Fernshade.9016:

While I agree that at best glicko is imperfect and at worst broken and absolutely stupid, bad matches happen. They have happened since the very beginning, manually adjusting the matches should only happen if the T4 situation happens again. YB will move eventually and until then find the good times where you can.

Just because something has been some particular way for a long time doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Especially if its universally acknowledged as being bad.

What’s your reasoning for only manually adjusting if the T4 situation happens again? I assume you mean a wall. But why have that as the criteria? If everyone can see its a terrible match, why wait for Glicko to do its slow and painful adjustment? As I mentioned above, eventually is not good for the game. Especially when we only have these linkings for two months.

Yeah I don’t get on TS either. I used to but I just couldn’t stand listening to what people talk about on there.

Like others have said, the commander can’t kick you from the game, so just follow along anyway. And I’m sure there were others not in the squad, party up with them to get your boons.

Choppy.4183:

CD wasn’t tweaked just because of bad matchups, but more because it was impossible for glicko to balance enough to account for that (due to what they started with and what they could pull from the other servers in T4).

Is that the case with Yaks, or are they just dominating? If the latter and Yaks isn’t in a glicko trap, then it should be left alone.

Why would you be in support of bad matches? If an obvious mismatch is in existence, Anet should act quickly to rectify that. This is an issue as important as population and scoring. They are all related.

If fact I would say that Anet should have addressed matchmaking before population or at least at the same time. There’s no sense in changing linkings around every two months if you’re just going to make bad matches out of them.

Nothing destroys morale worse than population imbalance coupled with a mult-week bad match against the same opponent. It causes people to not play. It hurts the servers. It hurts the game.

I agree too. McKenna can you push them up manually tonight? Please.

People complained about everything back in the “golden days” too. Lots of rose colored glasses around these forums.

I would like the part about Level 50 – I could go even lower. Instead of no trade, no bags, etc. you could just say you can’t equip anything but greens and blues.

Some of the best times I remember were back in the very beginning before people got to 80. Everyone running around as up-levels without all your weapons, ah great times.

One positive of the skirmish system is that we can still go out there and fight, just allow YB to win all the skirmishes. Not that it will be too hard, they’re blobbing all over the place and can take anything they want; but they need to win every single skirmish. So that they can get out of T3 next week.

Anet, if you’re going to create monsters, you need to know how to handle them. You must use AUTHORITAH! MOVE YB UP MANUALLY NEXT RESET!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you’re going to create specific sized servers then you need to match those servers up with servers of like population. You need to do away with RNG and stop relying on the system to adjust itself. ITS TOO KITTENING SLOW!

Liston.9708:

Johje Holan.4607:

The NA T3 match which was good last linking period now is starting to suck too. YB must’ve gotten some bandwaggoners and their fairweathers came out so now they dominate. And seems like SoS even got some more people.

And compounding the issue of population imbalance is still matchmaking that doesn’t adjust fast enough. Anet if you’re going to do linkings and switch populations around you need to change the matchmaking system. That should have been part of the linking system.

last link, we didn’t have one so any link at all was bound to be better for us. Where everyone came from, I do not know, but I haven’t seen these sort of queues na prime since t2 push to t1…. I have seen some YB faces I hadn’t seen for months, but clearly FC has boosted our numbers significantly.

Yeah, come to think of it I don’t understand what Anet was trying to do with the current linkings. I wonder if it was something similar to what they said in EU and that YB was linked with FC to try to compete with T2. But then who did they intend to be in T3?

The reason I think this is because last linkings were fairly even and YB was un-linked. But SBI was linked with HOD who is larger than our current link GoM. So now they link YB and at the same time link SBI with a smaller server. How does that make any sense?

The NA T3 match which was good last linking period now is starting to suck too. YB must’ve gotten some bandwaggoners and their fairweathers came out so now they dominate. And seems like SoS even got some more people.

And compounding the issue of population imbalance is still matchmaking that doesn’t adjust fast enough. Anet if you’re going to do linkings and switch populations around you need to change the matchmaking system. That should have been part of the linking system.