Yes the gap is a good size but for straight projectiles the gate is an obstruction ( trees count as an obstruction ). If I try to ground target an AoE skill behind the gate I get a red circle ( obstructed view ). I’m going to verify it at the 2 gates it happened.
I got hit behind the gate and out of rang of normal AoE by an explosive shot.
Further did engineers Mortar shoot over the gate through the opening between gate and the wall above. I never seen this happening before.
If you’ve got so few people, it has little to do with tactics. Sure, you can send one person to stand guard (idle) at every tower and keep, but it’s not fun and you’re not playing WvW for something like that. I don’t mind them changing the amount of people that cause orange swords, but 25 is just too high. In my opinion, 10 or 15 would have been way better and requires more tactical play. Because with the limit at 25 you often don’t even have to worry about causing orange swords on the map.
If you have too few people, either so does your opponent making the whole argument of ninjaing invalid as you can do the exact same thing or the enemy is a stacked server and notification or not you’ll be out-manned and it will make minimal difference.
If you check this weeks rankings you see lopsided match-ups almost in every tier.
I would argue that in most cases it’s not skill and tactics but more numbers on the field. The changes made to wvw lately seems to give the team with more numbers
the advantage. The current one with the orange swords or the way breakouts have been implemented. All those changes cater more to the upper 3 tiers and going to make things worse for the rest. I can see people not fortifying structures anymore
because it is way easier now to get them without any resistance. If teams are even matched in a tier than it might be different. But if you look at the rankings I sure doubt that this is the case.
1) biggest reason, only 1000 gems to transfer instead of 1800 for the other 2
This shows that the paid transfers price should be based on the average wvw population and not server population. I thought that AR , BP and NSP would have the same transfer fee.
In other games I have played there was always a 30 – 60 minutes warning. Which was repeated ever 10 or 5 minutes and in the last 5 minutes every minute.
I wondered this myself why there is no real announcement in game with a more reasonable time frame and repetition. 5 or 3 minutes before shutdown / restart is kinda rude. I doubt it is all the time an emergency more likely an in advanced known action coming up.
Why couldn’t I find that when I went searching for it? Thank you! I couldn’t figure out what equation they used to transform the scores for the life of me. I suspect you have given me a play thing for the next couple hours.
+1
Very welcome, I hope you have fun with it. Let me know of your findings.
It was a post from Habib Loew and I found the link again.
A bit of pure speculation, but I wonder if we could consider Anets neglect of tier 8 as a possible indication of there intent to merge servers in the near future. They may not feel a need to balance the tier if they intend on doing away with it.
That is my thought…discussed it last night….They could likely merge SF and ET or FC and ET. ET being (from memory at my last server transfer) smallest server.
They would need to do more than merging 2 servers. You need a total number of servers which you can divide by 3 to fill up all tiers. That would mean to remove T8 and distribute this population to other servers.
But usually merging servers is a bad thing to do because it implies the beginning of the end. WvW needs some TLC and if they are not able to get the population balanced than at least there should be an incentive for the people left to continue playing it. For many it is just collecting huge repair bills. The drops for the most are laughable ( at least for me ) and upgrades / siege blueprints are another money sink.
Seems like this thread got moved out of sight and hidden in a dusty room.
I haven’t seen a lot of regulars in wvw lately. Not sure if they are taking a break or moved servers ( which would make the problem even worse ). But honestly, I can’t blame them after month and month of lopsided match-ups and no visible effort to balance population
The Glicko math used for anybody interested. I copied the message here from the forum a while a go in case I get the urge to punch in some numbers.
I think it was from Habib Loew but I’m not certain.
Hi Folks,
We’re trying out a new format for the world rankings that includes more data about how the rankings and ratings changed as a result of the last matchup.
Deviation and Volitility are used by the Glicko 2 rating system (http://www.glicko.net/glicko.html). They’re not absolutely necessary for understanding the ratings but I know there are some folks out there who will like to have them.
Enjoy!
Update:
Details have been requested so here’s the rest of what you need to understand how we’re using Glicko 2. These are fairly specific details so feel free to ignore them if you don’t get excited by math
Assume the shards are sA, sB, and sC. In order to handle a 3 way battle we treat each match as having two battles for each shard. So when calculating the new rating for sA the two battles are sA vs. sB and sA vs. sC. Likewise for sB and sC. Naturally, we do all the calculations before updating any of the data.
We use a Tau of 0.6 and a k of 1.0
In standard Glicko 2 scores are represented as 0.0 for a loss, 0.5 for a draw, and 1.0 for a win. We use a slightly modified version that takes into account score differential. I’ll explain how using the sA vs. sB battle as an example. To calculate the glicko score for sA in the sA vs. sB matchup we do the following:
Why is there always the misconception by so many that think it’s all about winning for the servers in those lopsided match-ups and people assume they want a free win.
The ranking system is here to find even match-ups and not about bragging rights.
If you look at the rankings currently, it’s failing to achieve this with the loaded history with month of free transfers. It doesn’t matter at which tier you are looking but T8 got the worst of the Glicko-math.
The queue time not a measure to determine if a group is outnumbered or not.
But for sure the out-manned buff is. Which I have seen frequently ( on home BL and BG )
The match threads for the SF/FC/ET match-up were pretty positive at first when you guys were winning. But when FC started losing, things got really nasty really fast (and things were nasty well SF’s population boom). I get being frustrated, but an indefinitely long match with no end in sight is no excuse for painting the dominating server as bad people. Remember, we’re just as frustrated as you are. Blame the bad maths, not the people who are stuck here as a result.
It’s not about winning. It’s more about the margin and a close match-up. I think most don’t care so much if they win or lose at the end as long as the match is fun. ( can’t be said of the current one ) SF is just another server dominating now, after weeks of the same from Kain and before that similar weeks from Devona. The 2 weeks when all 3 servers had a close score was a beacon of hope ( specially after Kain left this tier ) but got smashed very quickly. This post must have been successful in parts. I’m not going to talk about the conduct on the battlefield which surely doesn’t make the dominating force more lovable. Many familiar faces in WvWvW vanished and know of quite a few who left for good.
A way to distribute players to servers with paid transfers would be to allow only transfers to the 2nd and 3rd in each tier or have an additional charge in each tier itself for 1st and 2nd to ensure more balanced matches.
It would be interesting to know by which percentage server transfers dropped since the paid method was implemented and a chart to see the transfers to and from each server as well.
Does Anet when creating a new account suggest certain servers to join or is it a list of all servers and you pick ? I don’t remember anymore.
Another way to rest the rating system would be to wipe out the history without
changing the current ranking. This would ensure some faster movement in ranks
without getting crazy pairings and hopefully closer match-ups. This could be done even on a regular basis like every 3 month.
K I read this and I look at the matchups for ET which I assume is your server. I see the gap in points that you are talking about between tier 8 and tier 7. I see that so I agree there is a decent gap difference.
Then I look at your server history and ET got steamrolled pretty much in all your matchups until you hit tier 8.
Since you are good with server history and numbers.
Please check the history of Devona’s Rest and Kaineng.
There you can see what it took for them to break out of the T8 trap
and how they blew through T7 and T6 after their escape.
The ranking system purpose is to achieve match-ups with even skilled/geared/populated a.s.o. servers. ( not a tool to establish bragging rights )
I think most people don’t care in which tier they are as long as the match is not totally lopsided.
There is no disconnection. With all the transfers & last minute transfers many tiers
are totally lopsided ( 3 tiers where the leading server has more points than the other 2 combined ). Does the reset make the next few weeks more volatile yes but servers are going to find there right spot more quickly because the history got wiped. Many servers are stuck in a tier where they don’t belong because of the history in the rating system. Is it unfortunate for some ? Yes. But it’s good for most.
The other day Wild Bill posted a (thief) video soloing a Tower & Keep lord group.
I’m sure he is playing his class excellently. But I think no class should be able to solo
these groups and if they can, something is wrong and broken. I don’t know how other classes would look attempting the same task.
Yes the Breakout gives an advantage to the team with the higher numbers. ( which usually has the higher score already ). I think the Breakout should be disabled ( on all maps ) for the team which is holding more than 50% ( or maybe less ) of all maps combined. There is no reason that the leading team ( by a large amount ) is in need of a breakout to boost their score. The way the breakout is implemented at the current time does not help to get more balanced match-ups.
None of the swords should go a way. For full servers that might work because they have the numbers to place scouts everywhere. For servers with smaller populations it will be a bad thing. The only way for them to react in a reasonable time is to monitor the map frequently for those hints and if in a tier is a population imbalance it will skew the score even more to the higher populated server. This Idea might be nice for the top 2 tiers but not for the rest.
I was baffled the other night when an Invader passed me with very high speed and wondered which class had a new skill or trait which allowed them to fly with super swiftness.
All buffs ( including breakouts ) should be based on total map occupation ( all maps combined ). I don’t see any reason granting a Server breakouts or buffs if they already own 50% of the maps. It is just silly giving them breakouts on another BL or BG.
Obviously the have enough manpower. The servers on the receiving end many times have not even enough people to get a breakout going.
I can’t wait until the paid transfers are in place and guilds jumping to or from a server finally ends ( at least in the amount which happened lately ). It will be good for server stability and hopefully balance.
The problem is that people hang out at those locations , have the “Determined Buff”
and are immune to damage but can deal damage. (I think they might even regenerate)
The solution is pretty simple.
As long as you have the “Determined Buff” you can’t deal any damage and all the
other buff and condition timers are halted.
This requires no change on any maps what so ever. Only a check on this Buff.
