Showing Posts For Tris Apollumenon.6435:
1 2
I don’t think the general idea of the first proposal necessarily requires generating a bunch of unique names. Some parts of the current UI already use the colors to refer to each faction (Bloodlust). Why not just call them things like “Crimson Alliance”, “Viridian Alliance”, “Cobalt Alliance” and be done with it? That should be very straightforward to implement — simpler than all the other proposed solutions.
And guilds can already get credit by claiming a structure. The system currently only excludes guildless players from guest worlds from getting any credit.
Any system that involves giving credit to only whoever has the most members present could cause intra-faction squabbling and tiresome silliness of that kind. Furthermore, if a World X roamer kills everything in a camp and then a World Y zerg comes along just to stand in the capture circle, why should World Y be considered for credit over World X?
(edited by Tris Apollumenon.6435)
No amount of scoring or matchmaking will solve that problem, though. The same servers are the “main” servers at this point, with the 12 remaining servers having to be linked to someone. The “guest” servers glicko ratings are not used at this point.
Matchmaking, no, but ranking, yes. What I mean by this is that if host and guest servers alike “inherit” score/Glicko from the number achieved by their mutual alliance, and there is some system set up to divide/weight those numbers when servers are relinked, that could provide a stabler starting point for any Glicko- or score-based matchmaking system.
One possible method, just to illustrate what I mean: all servers inherit the exact score/Glicko from their previous alliance, score/Glicko of new alliance is calculated as an average of component servers’ scores/Glicko ratings (weighted by relative population size in the new alliance so that a small server has a smaller impact on the new alliance’s starting score/rating than a large server).
Alternatively, a “share of the credit” model: servers inherit a percentage of the score/Glicko from their previous alliance according to what % of the total alliance population they occupied, new alliances’ starting scores/Glicko ratings are the sum of component servers’ inherited portions.
Simple 1u1d wouldn’t be affected at all, of course, but your proposal and Gudradain’s both rely on more nuanced metrics of some kind.
(edited by Tris Apollumenon.6435)
Both of these proposals don’t take into account the complications introduced by server linking, it seems. The fact that “host” servers get all the advantages or disadvantages of the Glicko (or score) earned by their alliance while “guest” servers get nothing (good or bad) will create tumult at the beginning of every relink.
Something something inherited score weighted average? (Weighted by %population in previous link? %population in new link? ???)
I really doubt the majority of players who are accidentally pulling tactivators are the kind of player who would be put off by a penalty. You would have to know about a penalty first in order to be put off by it, and newbies don’t know anything yet.
Just slap a warning/confirmation on it, seriously.
The “fix” for clueless newbies pulling tacts isn’t that hard. Just put in a confirmation dialogue that explains what is about to happen (“Using this tactivator will [description of effect] and put it on cooldown for [x] minutes. Do you really need to use [name of tactic] right now?”). Currently common-as-dirt items like Pact crowbars have more safeguards around them than tactivators do, which seems a bit silly to me.
You’d think, but the rest of the gamemode isn’t built to encourage faction alliances at all really — there’s no way to temporarily turn off “friendly fire” for your allies du jour or publicly share resources (as opposed to PMing specific players), and any form of faction-to-faction mass communication must be conducted over third-party platforms only. (Or I guess you could maybe work out some kind of signaling system based on emotes, weapon-swaps, and jumping up and down…)
ed: Yeah, it can be fun to defend big structures for sure, but y’all gotta take and hang onto all the smaller stuff (camps!) if you want the supplies to flow :P
(edited by Tris Apollumenon.6435)
Dear God, paying attention to Map Chat is annoying enough…
I would understand if you are playing a defensive role and have a lot of time to kill while scouting or manning siege…
People have complained that the megaserver system makes it difficult to grab reinforcements from outside WvW maps, and I believe /t doesn’t go across different WvW maps either. Being able to call for reinforcements across maps would certainly be a useful function regardless of whether you have “a lot of time to kill”. (Now if someone in a “defensive role” is calling for reinforcements, they definitely don’t have any time to lose…)
They are still working on scoring. There are more changes to come.
Sirbeaumerdier, you seem to be under the impression that Nuzt is in CD. Nuzt is in SBI and complaining about being in T4. Their criticism of the T3 matchup is “CD sucks, we should have had that spot”, not “T3 is unfairly crushing CD”.
Ni In, the fact that CD started out strongly suggests at least the involvement of the former factor, although of course it’s all speculation.
(edited by Tris Apollumenon.6435)
Ni In, that kind of thing doesn’t have to be coordinated. You see one of your enemies is besieging the other enemy, you of course try to take advantage of the situation. You could ask why SoS isn’t going after YB’s undefended assets in that situation or vice versa, sure, but I’ve certainly seen them go after each other as well.
And to be honest, any big SMC fight is kind of weak as evidence for coordinated 2v1 — SMC is such a high-value target that if inner is breached during primetime, it’s hardly a surprise that both of the other factions will want to make a play for it.
It’s already been said a million times* that Anet won’t release population numbers because of business reasons, so asking for it is pointless. I do wonder whether there’s some possible workaround to that — e.g. giving average population by “standard units” that aren’t publicly defined, maybe with a degree of built-in fuzzing or rounding so that the unit size can’t be easily reverse-engineered. That would give an idea of how servers stack up against one another, which is what carries the most interest (not absolute numbers).
*scientific estimate
Obviously we’re talking about all four servers at once under the label “CD”. No one is talking about literally just CD on its own, lol.
Yeah, honestly, all the wailing and weeping over T4 existing is kind of…. mind-boggling. It was a questionable set of server links, exacerbated in multiple ways by the fact that server transfers are a thing. We don’t know for sure the exact reason why the questionable linkages were made in the first place — outdated information, or perhaps they were perfectly reasonable at first but player behavior/presence changed too quickly, or what — but the “solution” is a more balanced set of links. There, T4 saved.
If the local buff is patterned after the actual Outnumbered! “buff”, though, I’m not sure what that’s worth. Armor not breaking is a very tiny convenience, and I don’t know about anyone else, but I never have trouble hitting (and staying at) max participation if I’m doing something that gets me in a lot of fights anyway.
CD players weren’t the primary driving force behind the manual adjustment. When you have multiple weeks of DH and SF nonstop complaining, even in unrelated threads — heck, even the actual “CD is stuck in T4” thread was also padded out with generalized “gosh this sucks” comments rather than actual engagement with the OP — I would think it’s pretty obvious where the squeaky wheels were. Sure, you also have people complaining that it’s a boring matchup from the winner’s side, but considering that people apparently actually transferred to CD toward the end of that streak, let’s face it — there are probably many players who don’t care about “interesting” fights, just about winning or getting bags.
Anyway, what I am learning is that the quality of any server or server alliance is very mutable. The talk of match-fixing and whatnot is completely irrelevant; this isn’t a football league where you have a fixed number of players who are contractually obliged to go on duty for x hours every match and subs contractually obliged to replace them if something unavoidable happens. If you wanted to compare it to sports, it would be a sport where sometimes your goalie just doesn’t show up or three random strangers might show up on the field like “hey we’re your new quarterbacks” or one day you ask where the point guard went and your teammate replies, “Oh, her and all our subs transferred to one of our rivals last night.” Then the teammate runs off, in the middle of the match, to go have dinner.
The comment that introduced the topic of the beta into this thread
This population + server merge thing isn’t working out. Beta is gonna last forever lol
seems pretty clearly to be talking about how far we have to go before server linkages can reach a good state, not about whether the decision to keep linkages had been made or not. But perhaps I misread it, and it is actually sarcastic griping with overtones of conspiracy theory, sure.
“Beta” =/= “unofficial”. That’s my entire point. Whether it is in alpha or beta or final release has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is official.
The decision to make it permanent doesn’t make it not in beta. A game or other software is committed to be developed long before it enters the beta phase!
X being in beta doesn’t mean “we’re not sure whether we’re going to go through with x”, it means “we’re still ironing out the wrinkles of x’s final form”.
You do realize, of course, that “better” rewards compared to the current state isn’t the same thing as “the best” rewards in the entire game?
What do you mean by that, Lost Biscuit? If someone was already on a paid account before and then bought HoT, presumably they already had their “paid account free transfer” beforehand. In any case I am puzzled by that wiki article — is it not up to date, perhaps? — because I initially created this account as a free account and I am fairly certain I chose my server during setup, rather than at some later point in time (e.g., not after upgrading). I quite distinctly remember thinking that I liked the sound of the server name and choosing it for that reason…
Matchups only last for a week anyway, unless you’re in the famed T4 Pit Of Glicko Doom. Why make any kind of decision based on something so temporary?
Each server linkage lasts for eight matches, though. There’s still six more matches to go — six and a half, I suppose you could say.
You don’t need supply removal traps if you have a treb loaded with dead cows. That fits the theme, right?
I mean, the implication is that any other server(-alliance) in the game would be steamrolling even harder. If stale matchups are a bigger problem than steamrolling, then why not go full Swiss system?
If there was a genuine objective that was being directly fulfilled (“prevent enemy from taking objective”), that hardly seems like “trolling”, regardless of how annoying it might be.
Oh, yes, definitely. A confirmation box that explains what the hell the tactivators are and that they have significant cooldowns would help with the newbies, and the log would help with the trolls.
I have to say that as a primarily PvE player who was drawn into WvW relatively recently, requiring it for world completion would not have been an impetus to participate in WvW. Setting aside the question of how many ordinary, casual players actually go for 100% world completion (I don’t bother unless I’ve got nothing else to do; HPs and WPs only most of the time)… I’ve got a whole setup for map completion, and it doesn’t involve sticking around and fighting. It’s maximum mobility, maximum fight-avoidance, and maximum tunnel-vision. If I’d gone to WvW with the intention of grabbing required map completion sites, I would have had “eyes on the prize” the whole time and no time for any other nonsense.
The scoring changes that were mentioned haven’t even been fully implemented yet. We’re not done with that, unless there’s been some other post I missed where the devs said “You know that post we made about all the scoring changes we intend to make? Well, forget about it.”
I dunno, people seemed to be playing for real during my first week. Green took blue’s keep, locking them into spawn, and blue took green’s in revenge. There were actual fights and a danger of getting squished by enemy zergs. Of course it was much more spread out and less contested in general, but not literally some kind of “you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone” farmville.
Well, there is a possibility that a certain set of servers is consistently closest to each other in ranking and therefore consistently matched together even in a perfect ranking system. So it’s not so much a problem with the ranking system — because it can’t be solved by a perfect ranking system — but rather, theoretically, a problem with the matchmaking scheme (“match servers that are closest in ranking”). There are only so many servers to link and relink, and I think even in the space of two linkages, we’ve seen that there are some limitations to what can be done to shift the balance using server links as a tool.
Tournaments don’t tend to have this problem because they’re elimination, but that’s obviously completely out of the question for WvW. Round-robin style setups, as used in some tournaments’ preliminary rounds, might work to keep things fresh by giving everyone new matchups, but people might complain about being in “unfair” matchups where one or more of the competitors are much stronger than the rest (and where most tournament things last for a couple hours at most, a WvW matchup lasts for a whole week, which allows time for the ever-discontent masses to seethe and brew in their displeasure).
So the final question is: what is the balance to strike between “try to keep things fresh” and “try to match servers to opponents of equal rank”?
(edited by Tris Apollumenon.6435)
Was it? I went back to check for any posts from June 29 that mentioned the percentage, and the earliest one I found was the one I wrote mentioning 79.7% for simultaneous. Unless there’s a late influx of voters, I don’t believe the numbers will change that drastically in either direction; as someone earlier pointed out, each individual vote counts for a smaller and smaller fraction of a percent as the overall number of votes accumulates to higher totals. So in order to swing a 1.2% change up or down, you’d need increasing numbers of new voters as time goes on.
You need to go back and reselect your original vote. The system is set up to allow a user to change their mind.
And yet, how many know this???? Players interested in the results may go back many times to view it. How many use “just show me the results”? figuring their first vote is what’s counted?
For reference, if you’d like to see the results after already having voted, you can just 1) verify that it correctly remembered your previous vote [it should already have that radio button ticked] and 2) click Submit. That will take you to the results if you don’t have the URL saved (https://feedback.guildwars2.com/en/results), without changing your vote.
I’ve used voting systems that worked similarly, but I think the phrasing of the options is what’s confusing here — the fact that no-vote also has the words “show me the results” (or whatever the exact phrasing is), while no other “show me the results” link exists, could mislead players into thinking that selecting the other options would not show results.
Which is why making tactivators guild-only is not a good solution. Logging and making the names public will permit legit guilds to prevent repeated misuses by the same person, while not giving any extra power to troll guilds (what are they going to do, pre-emptively ban every single person in the server alliance?)
That being said, my inclination is to err on the side of mercy if it happens just once; maybe a clueless newbie has stumbled across these weird levers and wanted to see what they did. In that case everyone would probably benefit more from the newbie receiving a private talking-to by the guild that owns the log, rather than having their name broadcast to everyone for a pile-up of angry teammates….
For the millionth time, you need to remove the no-votes from your calculation. The actual percentage is now 78.5%.
Stalwart is medium.
You need to go back and reselect your original vote. The system is set up to allow a user to change their mind.
There isn’t any at the moment, no.
It’s 78.7%, not 75.1%. The arithmetic to remove the “no vote” entries is extremely simple, ftr — just add up the “simultaneous” and “rotating” percentages, then divide simultaneous by that. S/(S+R).
“More active than” doesn’t mean “better at winning than”, though.
People have been talking about several things:
- activity level
- population
- timezone coverage
- level of organization
- skill
- ability to win
which are all different things, albeit some interrelated.
I went a-googling for some explanation for why WvW uses the ranking system it does, and I didn’t exactly find what I was looking for, but I did find this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/18wb2i/when_the_wvw_ratings_break/
So it appears that this is a long-standing issue with the lowest tier, and not necessarily unique to this particular matchup.
Actually, there are games where you sign up to be the bounty (up to a limited number ofc). Basically, in exchange for being targeted by everybody else for rewards, you get extra points for the stuff you usually do. Dunno if that would mesh well with WvW though.
Yeah, what’s with the decap timer instantly starting? Has the rationale behind that been posted somewhere that I could read up on? Would really appreciate a link if it exists!
Engineer also has access to slightly more reliable stealth through the Elixir S toolbelt skill, but yeah, the stealth gyro is pretty crap. First time I used it to sneak past enemies, trying it out in my “get from point A to point B as fast as possible” build, I followed Elixir S habits and tried to Rocket Boots for maximum distance traveled while in stealth. You can imagine how that went…
Right, or you might want to repeat a particular track when you are working on that one’s collection. I think I like Jirayu’s idea of it automatically going down the list of stuff that you’ve checked off, since that way you can set up a custom rotation or only have one thing checked to force repeating or have nothing checked at all so that you have to manually select the next track.
How is it rigged? If you discard the “no vote” ones as McKenna clearly said that they would, simultaneous is currently at 79.7%, well above the threshold.
Sitting here watching the chances of rotations going up and up…
There are too many people with the attitude of “Oh I might play wvw this year, when I do I want to see new map.”.. Some of us play wvw full time and getting it ruined by people like this is really disgusting.
That doesn’t make any sense. People who don’t usually play WvW but want a guaranteed chance to see the new map would be voting for simultaneous, since there is a 100% chance of having a DBL, as opposed to 50% chance if the two are in rotation.
Rather than height, I should think display priority is the issue; that is to say, having the tag cover up names rather than having names cover up the tag. Yes?
SF was overtaking CD’s PPT multiple times yesterday. Not by a huge enough amount and regular enough consistency to make up for the early lead and even up the totals, but they’re certainly not suffering so dramatically. And throwing the match is hardly a legitimate result.
(Kaineng already faced BG last matchup while linked with TC. BG and ET dominated that trio.)
An Engineer has to build for stealth, so I suppose it’s fair that you’d have to build for condi to counter it, even if it’s annoying.
1 2