Guild Wars 2

What’s funny is there used to be a ton of mesmers around in WvW until the nerf to the glamour build that was being run at the time. The nerf marginalized mesmers to the extent that you’d be hard-pressed to find even one for golem portals. Saw something similar happen to warriors after the stability nerf and HoT release.

Once upon a time many a year ago there was a guild called Avatar [AVTR] who did exactly this. Many times their service was called upon for golem rushes. Most people don’t play WvW like this anymore.

“At this time, there aren’t alot of players online… "

and

“i’d prefer something with less blobs..”

are mutually exclusive concepts.

RodOfDeath.5247:

Chaba.5410:

In California. I can’t play EU unless I use a VPN to New York. Consumer routing across the US is bad.

Well you’re one of the more knowledgeable ones in wvw Chaba. I guess I’ll stay put in NA for now.

Thanks all

It probably wouldn’t hurt to try with an f2p account and there are free VPNs to use. The first time I had an account in EU it was fine for the most part without a VPN then there was a patch and after that I couldn’t really connect at all. The next time I got the VPN which improved things and haven’t tried connecting without a VPN since then.

And FYI, I was playing during EU Prime hours.

In California. I can’t play EU unless I use a VPN to New York. Consumer routing across the US is bad.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

“….something the majority of WvW players were thrilled about”

The article goes subjective right away. Its nothing more than a long forum post that offers nothing.

Yep, I felt that way too. For example, author gives personal interpretation of poll results. Normally something like an exit poll asking why players voted the way they did would be in order.

Then I got lost at the point the author was trying to make regarding wvw being in beta. That isn’t anything new. Devs posted here months ago explaining how wvw was going to now be beta and they would slowly introduce features from the scrapped overhaul.

That reminds me of the animation stuttering issue that was occurring in PvE maps when the Content Guide was set to default.

I don’t see what the point is. The game already has no incentive for the 2nd and 3rd place teams to focus on attacking the server in 1st place. How would 4v4 change that?

Tournaments were terrible. It drove large amounts of guild migrations due to the division lock-outs, directly contributed to the glicko isolation that occurred between NA tiers, and caused a lot of burn-out amongst the playerbase.

It would help to know what timezone you are in. Your night may be another’s day.

There’s a bug where you can get thrown up in the air when pulled on uneven terrain. Spectral Grasp is a necro pull. The reaper greatsword also has some sort of pull.

DreamyLove.8947:

QuickRain.4735:

or change to power, pls let anet work on stuff that actually matters like lag and class balance

but they never try do something realy about class balance
always is kill some class make other feel better
and do something we need ask for or we need wannna it happen

That’s what rams are for.

Just put the supposedly higher populated server link teams in a match against BG.

Just use a ram.

shagwell.1349:

PPK rewards the bigger groups too. Making ppk more important wouldn’t be a good choice.

If only PPK were awarded for solo kills rather than third-server tagged assists…. Watch the salt flow.

atheria.2837:

Chaba.5410:

atheria.2837:

Diku.2546:

Chaba.5410:

atheria.2837:

How and why are two tier one servers pitted against a tier three server?

Easy.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/big-changes-coming-to-wvw-matchups/

Is this a trick question?

Apparently you didn’t read… Anet isn’t honoring their word on this statement at all.

“To counter this, we’re going to partially randomize server matchups, with the exception being we won’t match servers against other servers whose rating falls outside of an acceptable range. This range will be determined by using your world’s rating and deviation (already listed on the leaderboards).”

The care they said they’d exhibit NEVER HAPPENED

Huh? This is how match-making has been working since that post. The “acceptable range” is +/- 100 rating.

The ratings of the top seven servers last match were:
1- 2 086.395
2- 1 953.507
3- 1 933.747
4- 1 922.419
5- 1 882.185
6- 1 863.060
7- 1 852.305

Now you see that many of those ratings are within the +/- 100 “acceptable range”. There was only a 10 point difference between rank 6 and rank 7 and 81 point difference between rank 2 and rank 7. That means the rank 7 server was well within the “acceptable range” to roll positive and rank 6 to roll negative. Ten points is too small of a difference to have an impact in the way the randomized roll will occur.

As for rank 2 rolling down, you can see that the rank 4 and rank 5 servers are also within the “acceptable range”, having less than a 100 point difference with the rank 2 server.

This answers your question as to how and why the rank 7 server ended up in a match against rank 2 and rank 3. Perfectly expected and “acceptable”.

Edit: I should add, the “acceptable range” used to be much wider, like +/- 200, when Anet first introduced the randomized roll. They made it smaller a few months later.

For all your blustering, the score at the end of the week tells more than any of your nonsense.

It wasn’t a fair fight in anyone’s world except those spawncamping YB for a whole week while guilds bailed and players put the game down for insane frustration.

OK.. so honest question. What did you expect was supposed to happen? Rank 6 server vs rank 2 and rank 3? With only a 10 point difference in glicko rating, do you think they would have fared any better?

The problem in my eyes seems more to be the unwillingness of the typical NA player to understand how the population and rating manipulation by Anet affects WvW. It would be better for the overall game mode if these players stopped thinking that there are vast differences between tiers because the compressing of the glicko ratings says otherwise. You should expect to roll higher tier matches and lose. You should also expect to roll lower tier matches and win by a lot. And you should also expect to get frustrated with NA players still living in the past and all trying to stack into BG. EU is already used to matches where rank 7 gets matched with rank 2 and rank 3 because their population has traditionally been better at this than NA players. NA is simply becoming more like EU through the gentle massaging of Anet.

CrimeMaker.8612:

I just wanna see orange names back again when doing guild raid

Right? Made that “running with my homies” feel more visual. Can still do that assuming squad is made up only of guild members and has that nice color. The blue doesn’t stand out as well against the green.

While you’re at it with the nameplates, can you please make party color dots/nameplates different from squad again? Having a lighter blue for party in a squad is not very visible. Make squad that yellowish color and keep party blue or something.

atheria.2837:

Diku.2546:

Chaba.5410:

atheria.2837:

How and why are two tier one servers pitted against a tier three server?

Easy.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/big-changes-coming-to-wvw-matchups/

Is this a trick question?

Apparently you didn’t read… Anet isn’t honoring their word on this statement at all.

“To counter this, we’re going to partially randomize server matchups, with the exception being we won’t match servers against other servers whose rating falls outside of an acceptable range. This range will be determined by using your world’s rating and deviation (already listed on the leaderboards).”

The care they said they’d exhibit NEVER HAPPENED

Huh? This is how match-making has been working since that post. The “acceptable range” is +/- 100 rating.

The ratings of the top seven servers last match were:
1- 2 086.395
2- 1 953.507
3- 1 933.747
4- 1 922.419
5- 1 882.185
6- 1 863.060
7- 1 852.305

Now you see that many of those ratings are within the +/- 100 “acceptable range”. There was only a 10 point difference between rank 6 and rank 7 and 81 point difference between rank 2 and rank 7. That means the rank 7 server was well within the “acceptable range” to roll positive and rank 6 to roll negative. Ten points is too small of a difference to have an impact in the way the randomized roll will occur.

As for rank 2 rolling down, you can see that the rank 4 and rank 5 servers are also within the “acceptable range”, having less than a 100 point difference with the rank 2 server.

This answers your question as to how and why the rank 7 server ended up in a match against rank 2 and rank 3. Perfectly expected and “acceptable”.

Edit: I should add, the “acceptable range” used to be much wider, like +/- 200, when Anet first introduced the randomized roll. They made it smaller a few months later.

CrimeMaker.8612:

I also think they should bring back the old trait system just for WvW and the reason being is that the old trait system allowed more diversity. I remember how back in the guilds kept their builds secret lol with current trait system everyone is literally running the same stuff now counter meta to be had.

Yea it was weird all the talk about how removing stats from traitlines was going to create more diversity. What happened instead is what I sort of expected, everyone simply runs the same gear now.

The new meta battle cry is…

STONE BRO!
STONE BRO!

So there was a time once when Anet said transfers will be locked when a WvW tournament starts. All that happened was players mass-transferred right before the lock when it became clear that the server they were on wasn’t going to be in a certain division. That’s because those players were going to be locked out of ACCESS to fight X guild. It destroyed balance along with creating stale matches that people got bored of. IMHO it is better to not set up any expectations that players are then going to try to game and for Anet to actively manage the system to prevent any sort of tier locking and stale match-ups. NA players especially will eventually come to terms with the idea that NA is becoming more like EU insofar as servers are able to roll a wider variety of matches thereby increasing access to a wider variety of guilds/servers to fight. I doubt very much that Anet ever intended for the servers in tiers to be so static.

Jeknar.6184:

Chaba.5410:

You can use an infusion extractor purchased for 24s from the vendor inside fractals.

It only stract the Infusion tho. Not the sigil.

Context, Jeknar.

You can use an infusion extractor purchased for 24s from the vendor inside fractals.

Contact Anet Support and explain that your significant other/best friend/cousin plays on the Full server and you’d like to transfer there. EZ. You can pay me instead of the War Council. TY.

Nuzt.7894:

The T2 match up show YB losing but that’s due to Mag admittedly focusing YB hard

Plus Mag got two guilds transferring to them basically mid-match: one from TC and one from JQ.

I think you mean 2014 combat meta.

atheria.2837:

How and why are two tier one servers pitted against a tier three server?

Easy.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/big-changes-coming-to-wvw-matchups/

TorquedSoul.8097:

CommonSense.4697:

Xenesis.6389:

Kappell.1923:

What is Maguuma’s goal in making this kind of ridiculous game? In all WvW time I have never seen this kind of low level atitutu, this is certain that capturing the castle is part of the game, plus doing respawn kill, that is too much. Any acceptable explanation for this kind of attitude?

Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

Viking stuff

Conan stuff

Genghis Khan stuff

Kovu.7560:

What is this garbage. Anet pls open BG for transfers so we can fix!

~ Kovu

Thank you for this clear and definitive evidence of how badly BG needs to be open. Maybe Anet can open BG to just roamers as a good solution to prevent the movement of large guilds. These camps don’t flip themselves, you know!

The glicko ratings between tiers have been consolidating and the rating deviation and volatility was reset which leads to good changes in match-ups. This is glorious.

RyuDragnier.9476:

jamesdolla.3954:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

shagwell.1349:

Another day on the forums.

How many transfers from where to where did I miss?

Kazo from TC moved to MAG.
Hs from JQ moved to MAG.

Those are the two big ones stackstackstackstacK$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Hs just showed up on mag last night. they did not get paid. Dunno why they came when our NA is already solid

Not fun to get steamrolled with a blob all the time during NA hours, and we felt like we were carrying JQ’s NA time some (if not most) days alongside Hard. Also couldn’t really recruit for the guild well despite trying for months on JQ, so it was a choice between BG and Mag (since TC is imploding). BG was closed, so Mag was the last choice.

You really should have waited for BG to open up. We need more people on BG to help relieve the current tags.

Return of orbs?

Return of telehacking.

Digikid.7230:

To be fair FA/Yaks aren’t a really good measure of our population, particularly as both of them don’t have full turnout during this week (pretty sure they both could field a lot more then what they’re doing atm), it would have been better to see how Mag does against TC/JQ but I heavily doubt we’d do as well against both of them just because of our zero SEA or early NA population (which even FA and Yaks have more during that timezone.)

When a match has one server that doesn’t turn up, usually the second server struggles too because the match becomes a two-way, making the second server’s fairweathers also disappear.

FrouFrou.4958:

Out of curiosity, why did you end up picking a German server?

Fun way to practice German.

He is saying that everyone can play without paying and we get free transfers every month. Hurrah!

medusashadow.3567:

For BG Players, that symbol below means outnumbered. I know you’ve never seen that before but that is what it is for your information.

That’s not true. I see that symbol all the time. I have it taped to my monitor in the boon bar area. It is how I know I’m outnumbered and need BG to open up.

After last night, I think T2 would be better with SBI instead of YB.

Please don’t open BG server. I am on BG server and we need the wall to keep all these zerg players out. They will dilute the skill level on BG. BG needs more roamers.

SkyShroud.2865:

Anet believe JQ is competitive in T1 but in reality it isn’t. JQ is too casual thus the inconsistent for T1. It can also be that anet believe some absurd advise from some foolish JQers that JQ should go T1.

I look at it this way:

Anet gave JQ a chance. What happens afterwards is up to JQ to decide. The concept of “earning it” still applies I guess.

This only goes to show that population size/activity, while it does account for a certain “background PPT”, still needs to perform a certain amount of teamwork when teams are closer in size.

Liston.9708:

Chaba.5410:

Change the implementation of the algorithm. Manual adjustments mean the implementation is broken.

that is the best solution, but when it is broken a 1 or 2 week adjustment to realign is better than the cd fiasco of linking 2 that made people just leave…

I agree and I think we’re going to see a lot more of this since we voted for scoring improvements to be priority over match-making (to be fair, 1U1D was the proposal rather than glicko implementation changes).

DeceiverX.8361:

Chaba.5410:

Spurnshadow.3678:

I’d say, we have half of the population we used to have, but were still considered full.

Because in the past BG was “overstacked”.

Not only that, but every server’s populations have dropped massively since HoT.

T2 right now is roughly the same in terms of coverage and population is T4/T5 pre-HoT.

Yes, but that kind of doesn’t have anything to do with the population calculation. It only means that players who are used to old T1 have to mentally adjust to a smaller scale WvW. What they are used to from the past was overstacked. Players who were not in T1 in the past don’t have this difficulty.

Change the implementation of the algorithm. Manual adjustments mean the implementation is broken.

Spurnshadow.3678:

I’d say, we have half of the population we used to have, but were still considered full.

Because in the past BG was “overstacked”.

Korgov.7645:

So Factions with a single instance for all servers? No thanks.

Chaba.5410:

What this does
- Opens ability for guilds to recruit from a larger pool without having to move anywhere

Guilds recruiting red team players would have their roster split between 3 different teams when the servers get new colors at the next reset.

You didn’t read. Teams would be linked by server links, not colors. Guilds are already split every two months with server links if members do not consolidate on a single server. This wouldn’t change that, but it would encourage guilds to consolidate on an open server if they know they will have greater choices in who they will be able to fight in the future because they won’t be locked to single match-ups.

- Opens more choices to guilds on who they want to fight that night which decreases “stacking for fights” on a single server.

Nightcapping k-train would have not 4 but 28 maps to hop on to flip undefended objectives.

- Allows guild members on other servers a chance to play with their guild on a Full server.

Full servers do not need any more players.

A full server could be made “match less” with players only being able to participate on linked server matches, thereby spreading them out.

- Restores linked server identity through separate matches; FABL and SORBL become separate maps, FA and SoR players would have home position on both maps, FA nameplates show as SoR in the SoR match, etc.

I agree linking destroys server identities. Getting rid of the linking is the way to go. However with factions you would not fight for your server but for 1/3 of all the servers. Identity is lost again.

- Spreads out the population of Full servers by increasing number of maps to play on; I.e. players sitting in a queue for EB in one match can play in EB on another match. (And if you followed the sarcastic server links above, Full servers like BG would not have their own match.)

Players on Full servers choose a map where they can blob up. They would not go to maps with only few other friendly players.

The counter to blob is splitting up. The blob can’t be everywhere. Having more everywhere is the balancing mechanism.

As in the past suggestion, you can even tie scoring to how well linked teams do across all their matches in order to provide incentive to players on the “stacked” server to help out on the other maps.

Score bias has its own issues and should not be introduced in WvW either.

Factions with single instance would lead to massive scale k-trains chewing their way through the maps. Like locust swarms eating through upgrades.

Smaller worlds would not be able to defend their home borderland against these multi-server karma-trains. So they won’t after finding it futile. Even the strong worlds would struggle under such pressure.

There is no incentive to defend other world’s home borderland. Strong worlds will not swoop to defend the weaker ones of their team.

- There would be no smaller worlds because server linking would make teams of roughly equal populace.
- Incentive to not leave another home borderland defenseless is provided by requiring a win in both matches in order to score victory points or something along those lines. But you simply wrote that idea off.
- Yes, even strong worlds would struggle under such pressure. That’s exactly the intent: to discourage stacking single servers and making them Full for wins.

Another method: Anet can simply throw a Full world without a link into a match against servers that have multiple links. I have every confidence in Anet’s ability to create super-teams where WvW population activity total of linked worlds is 200% and able to crush a single Full world.

How about reserving the idea of breaking up population through migration to smaller worlds by instead leaving them on their current servers and increase the number of maps to play on through server linking?

I was reminded of it recently on another forum that shall not be named when this hypothetical server linking combo was sarcastically posted:

“New server links

FA/BG EU
MAG/BG OCX
JQ/BG NA
TC/BG SEA
YB/BG PVX guilds
"

A variation of this theme was posted here years ago when links by color were suggested, for example players in T1 red team could also play on red team in T3.

The new idea is that servers are linked with the new linking system, each server is in a separate match, and players on those servers have an expanded map selection UI.

What this does
- Opens ability for guilds to recruit from a larger pool without having to move anywhere
- Opens more choices to guilds on who they want to fight that night which decreases “stacking for fights” on a single server.
- Allows guild members on other servers a chance to play with their guild on a Full server.
- Restores linked server identity through separate matches; FABL and SORBL become separate maps, FA and SoR players would have home position on both maps, FA nameplates show as SoR in the SoR match, etc.
- Spreads out the population of Full servers by increasing number of maps to play on; I.e. players sitting in a queue for EB in one match can play in EB on another match. (And if you followed the sarcastic server links above, Full servers like BG would not have their own match.)

As in the past suggestion, you can even tie scoring to how well linked teams do across all their matches in order to provide incentive to players on the “stacked” server to help out on the other maps.

Snowreap, thank you for doing these. The victory points are a different scoring method.

I think MOS keeps track of victory points outside of the API and shows predicted ratings based on it because MOS doesn’t show predicted ratings until after the end of the first skirmish. The other website, http://wvwmatchups.azurewebsites.net shows some probabilities but doesn’t advertise how they arrive at them.

If Anet were to suddenly revert to the old server population calculation that includes PvE players, I’m pretty sure a bunch of the top ranked servers would be marked Full. Those accounts still represent potential WvW activity no matter how much they actually play WvW.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Since we have been seeing an increase in transfer behavior with the past 2 world links, we are discussing whether we want to change how we calculate WvW world populations or if we want to lower the WvW population caps.

So way back when the new calculation was created and implemented, I posted feedback here about how the activity level of transfers should be added to their new server and subtracted from their old server immediately.

The 3-4 week “smoothing” of activity data meant to normalize the fairweather effect is fine IMHO for that purpose as long as you can segregate transfers from it.

Edit: here is a related post
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Concerns-with-Population-Calculation/first

“it should be an immediate thing since a player that transferred is in no way a potential participant in their old server’s WvW population.”

Taxidriver.2043:

Jeknar.6184:

Scampy.9506:

We have fewer players than JQ, as stated by ANet

The same post also said BG have less players than CD+Dh+DR who barely even compete in T4.
You really want us to take it seriously?

why not have a matchup of BG vs T4 then, population # dont mean anything if 1 side has machine gun and the other side has pocket knife lol.

I think that’s a great idea. But then players will come to forum to complain about how they want their old T4 matches.