If we’re experiencing extreme problems with match-making (not going to go off on a tangent to answer that question), there are a number of system-wide changes that can be made first before player agency moves out of the game.
- Reset volatility and deviation when new server links are created; if the step is missed, perform it at next reset.
- Full reset of glicko (con: wildy outmatched matches)
- Create process for ratings to be merged if server has frozen rating from previously being linked server
- Increase the range of the randomization roll so that a 150 glicko difference doesn’t create a very low probability of rolling up or down.
- Create upper and lower boundary rating caps so servers cannot fall into a glicko hell or manipulate their matches in order to create glicko walls between tiers.
- Utilize a different method of match-making.
No, they betrayed the game’s ruleset. Established a system of expectations for every player then bent the rules not for purposes of correcting a flaw in the rules (i.e. glicko hell), but to perform match-fixing because of player agency on this forum. It is akin to if the sPvP team were to manually remove pro players from the sPvP season because players complain on forum about getting matched up against them and getting run over rather than making changes to the match-making system.
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!
No one said that. Nor did anyone say it should take months for anything to happen. Let’s remember, I’m the only person on this forum who has brought up the issue of glicko’s volatility and deviation not being reset with the recent server links across multiple threads (Snowreap is the only other person to mention it and Liston seems to be the only person acknowledging it). Had you carefully considered this issue, you would have joined me in asking Anet to perform the reset instead of agreeing to the OP’s request.
Manual adjustment like what was done with YB would never have seemed necessary had that step not been missed. I think you are failing to acknowledge the implications here of poor band-aiding on top of mistakes in the process. As Caliburn put it, this takes away something of player agency. As I put it, this moves player agency out of the game and onto this forum.
It is far too easy to point and say “oh look the fault is because of glicko to begin with and we should have a different matchmaking system” until you realize that the system doesn’t matter when there isn’t a strict discipline to the process. The system could be 1-up-1-down for all that matters and someone comes along on the forum to say “X server really doesn’t belong here; look at how they are steamrolling over us, Anet please do something”.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
If YB can use the game type better, then they should move to some place where playing against them is not going to be endlessly frustrating for the other servers.
YB was moving towards that place without the need for such heavy-handedness. T8 three years ago and CD more recently were not, they were stuck in “glicko hell”.
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.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
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. Rating was adjusted manually in the past for glicko hell situations. That didn’t happen this time.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
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.
(edited by 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?
(edited by Chaba.5410)
If i was on FA i would riot hard over this, all the time invested on your server affected with a thing like this… shame ANET you are a shame probably you killed FA server community over a stupid injustice like this, i would quit the game because of this… i hope you stay strong…
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.
What these last 2 re-links has shown is that some sort of glick reset is needed when new links are made….
At the very least an adjustment on how matchmaking works.
(Deviation and volatility were not reset with the last linking.)
the real issue here is no glicko reset / partial reset on re-linking…. CD/YB was out of whack last time…. YB, Mag, DB this time.
And everyone here bringing up CD, remember the reason for that T3/T4 cliff in the first place was the 2 month old frozen glicko ratings on those T4 servers because nothing was done to merge the pre-server link frozen ratings with those servers performance as linked servers during the linking beta. I recall early before the server linking was first tried Anet was asked what they are going to do about the ratings of servers that get linked. The answer was along the lines of they “are still thinking about what to do.”
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Personally I don’t think Anet should be manually adjusting glicko.
And it will deny players/servers the agency of deciding the fate of those servers.
Ah, someone with a head on their shoulders…
Now wait a minute, we still have player agency in this new scheme. Simply mass-transfer to a server and Anet will adjust the rating upward. /sarcasm
FA lasted longer than expected considering their recent performances in T2.
Yes, good job there. Fighting against a server better fit for T1 (i.e. Mag) and another server with a weak NA presence. Clearly Mag’s glicko rating should have been adjusted upwards far earlier to get them out of T2 faster so that FA didn’t roll T1 last week. /sarcasm
(edited by Chaba.5410)
For all the complaining we do this was a good idea. They learned from the CD T4 fiasco last link and took action sooner. Isn’t action what you want, people?
By this logic, DB should have had their glicko rating adjusted downward and Mag’s rating should have been adjusted upward two weeks ago. Anytime a server gets stacked or has a large number of players leave, Anet should manually adjust the glicko rating. That will help to foster a sense of fair and competitive play. /sarcasm
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Let’s keep this thread on the rails.
Good meming there….
I’m looking forward to Anet adjusting FA’s glicko rating so we don’t stay in T3. It been sayed.
Maybe ya’ll should quit blobbing so much.
So, now that it has happened…how are SoS and SBI enjoying being steamrolled by FA now?
Well you mean CD and SBI, but maybe one of them can start a topic asking for FA’s glicko to be “adjusted” so we get out of T3. :/
I find it ironic that no one used to care about whether they were in a commander’s squad or not until the new Squad UI was rolled out.
A large part of the reason the glicko wall between T2 and T3 exists is because Anet gave CD that 200 extra invisible glicko, which led to CD pulling glicko off T3 servers even when losing, and creating the glicko gap we see now.
The other large part was because they used a 2 month old frozen glicko rating when CD became a host server. And what’s happening now is due to the lack of a partial reset when servers were relinked like what was done previously.
(hills stuck on 36ish/40 for reinforced for hours too).
Seems like the map is frozen then and that explains the queues and missing points.
Yeah it looks like the only way to get an accurate point count is to replay this week.
7% chance at rolling BG again.
(hills stuck on 36ish/40 for reinforced for hours too).
Seems like the map is frozen then and that explains the queues and missing points.
Did anyone test if it was an actual queue (well, bugged or not)? False queues is a common occurance, but it usually goes away after a short while.
Not a fake queue at all. We purposely queued to see what would happen. I (on my FA account) went from #17 to #4 after about 2.5 hours then logged. Some guildmates didn’t move in queue at all. One person got down from #7 to #2 in queue after 2 hours before they had to log too. No one actually had their queue pop.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
tcs score is also going up very quickly in last skirmish and this one.
I don’t think that is related to this bug. There is a blob v blob on ebg rn, though.
Because no one can get on BGBL xD
Tonight the green bl has had a queue all night from all three sides and no one I talk to finds anyone on their contacts list appearing on that map.
Are you guys messing with something right now in NA T1 match? BGBL has a queue from both BG (26) and FA (16) side yet there’s no one on anyone’s contact lists who are in that map.
That guy Rink in the other thread basically illustrated that before skirmish scoring was rolled out. He also showed FA coming in 2nd over JQ last match due to the change and indeed that’s what happened.
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.
Glicko volatility and deviation didn’t appear to get reset when the new server links was made so that is part of the issue with regards to matchmaking.
I have a sinking feeling the OP was looking for a server to pug along in blobs with, not join a guild.
“YB needs to move up and FA should move down – just to see what happens. Or maybe DB needs to move down and FA and YB need to fight each other. "
See this is exactly one of the problems with Glicko. It is designed to measure server performance 1-to-1. A more accurate rating would be produced by YB and FA being in a match against each other rather than just switching places. But because both servers are ranked on a tier edge with rather wide differences in glicko to servers above and below, the chances of that happening are extremely low.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Your argument doesn’t seem convincing, OP. Having both PPT and PPK allows servers to gain score in multiple manners.
If they run away from fights you cannot get points via ppk.
Sounds like a fair way to discourage blobbing. PPK should be tied to the outnumbered buff. xD
I dont know, I think the french blobs are usually equal in size
I can’t speak to the French blobs. All I can say is that players are punished if they do try to fight while outnumbered.
Guilds recruit too.
One of the benefits of the new system I’ve noticed, it helps 3rd place servers because there is no longer an incentive to PPT the 3rd guy to death. Instead, 1 & 2 need to ensure 3rd place gets 2 points for a higher lead over the other guy.
I don’t agree. It was also possible for a 1st place server to ensure 3rd got 2nd under the old system, but hardly anyone did it. The only thing that changed is the amount of effort involved in it.
Your argument doesn’t seem convincing, OP. Having both PPT and PPK allows servers to gain score in multiple manners.
If they run away from fights you cannot get points via ppk.
Sounds like a fair way to discourage blobbing. PPK should be tied to the outnumbered buff. xD
Your argument doesn’t seem convincing, OP. Having both PPT and PPK allows servers to gain score in multiple manners.
the only thing the sPvP team has control over is which sigils/runes/amulets are available.
I doubt very much that the WvW team has control over builds in the manner the sPvP team has.
They probably dont but the PvP dev basically wrote a thread on the PvP forum saying they have no control over balance.
Right. In that thread the dev explained they only have control over what runes/sigils/amulets are available. I don’t believe the WvW devs would even have that level of control. PvE and WvW builds are only separated by the trait screen.
Is this the thread we leave Skirmish feedback on?
The UI could definitely use some clean-up. It isn’t noticeable when a skirmish ends and another begins. I got a lot of questions from players last night asking if reset had already occurred before actual reset.
Yea, I’ve had a stuck PPT timer too and earlier this week my guild noticed that some of us had 4m left while others had 3m left. But that may be a separate bug from the skirmish timer showing an incorrect value for the skirmish on the WvW UI panel.
Jitson,
This post explains how matchmaking is done and why it was changed.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/big-changes-coming-to-wvw-matchups/
I think something is wrong with the timer. Last night just 15m or so after the start of the third skirmish after reset in NA (11pm Pacific) the UI said there was 1 hour left in the skirmish. Sorry I have no screenshot.
FA got some transfers, and hanged with JQ last week, so they can hang in T1.
You ever figure that it says more about JQ losing players than it does about FA gaining players?
Great. Now can we get volatility and deviation reset since we had new server links? Also this site is broken: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na
I just want any tag to not disappear behind a flood of nameplates.
Now that this idea has marinated a bit, can Anet please let us know if anyone has been assigned to do the legwork?
My guess is the players that voted for scoring changes will finally learn that changing the scoring won’t effect coverage and general population issues.
I voted for the scoring change and I knew it wasn’t going to effect coverage and population issues. TylerB’s description of the skirmish scoring said that coverage will still be an advantage. Also it was advertised in threads about server linking that it was an approach to helping (not solving) population issues.
As far as I understand, since the sPvP and balance teams are two different teams, the only thing the sPvP team has control over is which sigils/runes/amulets are available. Removing that rune from sPvP wasn’t done by the balance team. I wouldn’t call the sPvP team lazy, but responsive.
This is probably true but doesn’t change the overall consideration. The WvW team can learn from sPvP changes. If anything WvW amplifies sPvP meta so changes made in sPvP that are well received should be adopted in some fashion in WvW.
Most of his points are valid and his solutions workable.
I doubt very much that the WvW team has control over builds in the manner the sPvP team has.
“instead of actually fixing the issues from SPvP, you guys took the lazy approach and just removed them from the game mode”
As far as I understand, since the sPvP and balance teams are two different teams, the only thing the sPvP team has control over is which sigils/runes/amulets are available. Removing that rune from sPvP wasn’t done by the balance team. I wouldn’t call the sPvP team lazy, but responsive.
That said, we need the balance team to look into the issue.
One of the Anet arguments in favor of a 3-month relinking schedule was to allow Glicko to settle because it is supposed to be partially reset every time. It doesn’t look like that happened this time around.
I don’t understand how this will be any better than what we already have. Scores are just chunked into half of the time EOTM style matchups occur and consolidated smaller numbers still add up to our existing problem. People brought up nightcapping here and this doesn’t seem to address that. Maybe it would make more sense to scale the scoring somehow to the number of active players on the map across all servers currently in a matchup for that 2 hour slice of time? One server could be blobbing while the other 2 servers have like 5 people but they could be ticking for a lot less with the way it scales relative to the number of active people (participation), but I think that would make it harder to find definition in finding variations in matchups between servers per week.
First of all, it will be better for glicko rating. Current rating gain/loss is based on the point spread between two servers. The higher the difference in score between two servers, the better a server is said to “perform” against expectations. So run-away scores from night-capping has an artificial inflation/deflation effect on servers. My guess is now performance will be measured by number of skirmishes won so it will be harder to inflate a rating due to coverage. Coverage will still give an advantage.
Second, the thing you ask about scaling the scoring based on activity level should already be written in. It was part of the scoring changes we all voted yes for, which Anet said is controversial and currently an optional feature. They want to see how skirmishes go first before turning it on. It would be a multiplier to the skirmish score based on activity level so if, for example, a server wins a skirmish while activity level is high, they would be awarded 5 points instead of only 3. Anet also said NA Prime on NA servers would always be high activity level which left a lot of non-NA players feeling devalued and against that change.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
When the new scoring system is released, will there be another reset of glicko volatility and deviation? It seemed like there was no partial reset when new server links were made two weeks ago and I was under the impression that there is supposed to be a partial reset every time (as has been done in practice since server links were introduced).
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.