Guild Wars 2

This isn’t the first time they’ve done a fix of bugs of that nature (being deliberately vague here) – I’ve never seen them put it in the patch notes. I also really don’t blame them, I think it would be obvious to those aware of such bugs why Anet isn’t putting the fix in the patch notes.

I ran 500 matchup simulations using my Excel file – will post analysis of results for specific servers on request.

Since I know Mummies is interested, GoM has 5% chance of T4 matchup, 94% T5, and 1% T6. (There were 26 T4 matchups, 470 T5, and 4 T6)

In a T4 matchup the other servers will be 2 out of CD, HoD, IoJ, SBI, and YB. CD and IoJ will be most likely.

Out of the 470 T5 matchups, BP was in 449 of them, DR in 243, NSP in 214, DH in 18, HoD in 9, and IoJ in 4.

Most probable T5 matchups by far are GoM/BP/DR and GoM/BP/NSP. Haven’t got an exact count yet but you get the idea from the above numbers.

I don’t have a program to analyze the results so I have to do it manually.

EDIT: If Snowreap doesn’t post and a lot of people request server-specific numbers I may just post my raw data instead.

cinemapaula.8673:

You assume the colors rotate regularly. On my server, we have NOT been red since the beginning of April. This is not ‘regularly’.

Joseph.9853:

Even rotation of colors is something that SHOULD have been implemented from the started, and not a system in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

This is a bit hard to explain, but they can’t actually guarantee a red-green-blue colour rotation for any given server because only 1 server per matchup will have each colour and the matchups change from week to week. Adding this as an additional constraint in matchmaking could produce very weird (and bad) results.

• Just to clarify: both before season 2 and after your server colour is based on your server’s position after a random number roll has been applied to the server ratings (up to about +/- 75). For example, for my server’s current matchup, we are the lowest ranked server. However, the RNG roll means that we’d have had a 20% chance of drawing blue instead of red. The fact that you do occasionally (and for servers close in rating, often) draw a different colour than the most probable one has led some people to believe that an actual rotation had been implemented. This is not the case.

If they fully randomized it, so that servers had a one third chance of drawing any given colour in each matchup, then after 4 weeks of matchups ~14/24 servers will have gotten only 2 out the 3 colours, and probably none will have got the same colour 4 times in a row. (about 4-5 for each colour) After 8 weeks of matchups, it’s still quite possible that 2 or 3 of the servers (about 1 each) will be missing one colour (by pure bad luck).

The current system is actually better than full randomization, except during tournaments. A server that is being placed green will on average tend to win and therefore move up into a tier where they will tend to draw red. The tournaments, however, created a big problem by locking servers into leagues where it was possible to win (or lose) 9 weeks in a row without moving up (or down) a tier.

There is only one server that has not drawn red since the beginning of April – due to the closeness of the ratings in your tier, you will have about a 45% chance of drawing red next week, 35% blue, and 20% green. These estimates are crude because I can’t be completely sure of what matchup you will get – but they are probably within +/- 5%.

kntz.1420:

Truth be told. Battles between different servers seemed like a good idea but became a destroyer of communities. GW2 dies slowly because of WxWxW.

Truth be told, highlighting an entire statement in bold doesn’t make it true.

It might be true that WvW damaged some server’s communities – but honestly, I really think for most servers WvW helps create a community. There really isn’t the same need to co-operate in PvE and until I became a WvW player I never joined the server TS, attended council meetings etc. – I didn’t even know they existed.

For most of the servers I have faced (T4-T6) I am certain that the majority of players are not hardcore GvGers. Your original suggestion might make a few ppl happy – but I think it would be much better to introduce a separate place for GvG than to kill a game mode many enjoy.

If your suggestion were to be implemented, I and many others would stop playing.

Without running any simulations I can tell you that HoD/GoM/BP and IoJ/GoM/BP are impossible. Any matchup with both GoM and BP will almost certainly have a lower-ranked server as the third server. If you’d like to face HoD or IoJ that will be in a T4 matchup and the third server would be SBI/YB/CD. (probably not more than 15% chance total of a T4 matchup)

As for a matchup with DR, that would be a T5 matchup that will almost certainly still include BP. If not BP, then would most likely be GoM/DR/NSP, but I think the chance of that matchup will be in the ~5% range, with all other T5 possibilities excluding BP being even less likely. (The most likely T5 matchups by far will be GoM/BP/DR and GoM/BP/NSP – each of these should account for about 45% of all T5 matchups.)

Note: These are crude estimates based on probablility calculations, not simulated matchups.

Thanks Snowreap, much appreciated.

Biggest problem, at least on my server, is that we can no bring PvE players into WvW by letting them know we are doing a golem rush or that commander X is taking a bl etc.

I don’t understand why cities have to be on megaserver, it’s not like you need more people to be able to do inventory management or shop on trading post.

Snowreap’s numbers (previous page) indicate 6.5% chance of IoJ for GoM. That will be more accurate than my value as it appears to be a calculated value, my values are estimates from running 100 simulated matchups.

Based on current ratings GoM is essentially guaranteed to be in a T5 matchup next week. (~5% chance T6, 0% chance T4). In a T5 matchup they are guaranteed to face one weaker and one stronger server. The weaker server has about a 78% chance of being NSP, 10% chance DR, 7% chance SF, and 5% chance DH. The stronger server has about a 71% chance of being BP, 12% chance CD, 9% chance HoD, and 8% chance IoJ.

EDIT: I got my numbers by running 100 simulated matchups using the RNG in Excel, with the help of an auto-sorting macro. I just realized that Snowreap has been posting probabilities (see previous page of thread) that appear to have been actually calculated – these numbers will be more accurate that mine.

The only tiers that have been locked into the same matchup three weeks in a row are tiers 1, 2, and 5. T1 should be locked, because any one of those 3 servers absolutely curbstomps the T2 servers. The problem with increasing the randomization is that an increased chance of, for example, a T5 server being placed in T6 would also increase its chance of being placed in T4 (24/7 curbstomping).

The real problem is that the Glicko rating is too sticky. Despite two of the servers in T5 having a very similar performance over the past 3 weeks, one of them will still have a substantially higher rating even after this week’s matchup. If the rating was more responsive, this server would now have a similar rating, and therefore a similar chance of being placed in T6. Instead, this server will still have a significantly lower chance of being placed in T6 than the other, as a carry over from the tournament.

We need the cities to be taken off of megaserver unless they can implement a cross-map server chat. Megaserver was a great idea for PvE maps, helps new players a lot to have a well populated map. At this time the #1 event in LA is afk-ing at the bank, something I am pretty sure does not require assistance.

Server chat could work as well, but will need to work across different copies of the map for it to be fully effective. I do not know if this is something that could easily be done.

Please ArenaNet take action on this as soon as possible – I am on a server that has a large PvE population that we used to be able to tap by annoucing golem rushes etc., and not being able to do this is really hurting our WvW.

MAGpie.7962:

Jocksy.3415:

No, reset time never gets changed because of local times changes.

LOL! Funny hat statement. Wonder why its an hour later for me then than a few weeks ago.

And it IS ridiculous, just btw.

It’s an hour later because your clocks were moved forward 1 hour. Doing this does not change the time. WvW reset still occurs at 01:00 UTC (Universal Time Coordinate), which is equivalent to 8 pm EST (Eastern Standard Time) or 9 pm EDT (Eastern Daylight Time).

My tests indicate that it heals for 520 per kill at level 80.