Guild Wars 2

Nyaniel.7340:

Please reduce PPT during night time because my country is the only country that exists.

Is there any time zone with only one Country? Anyway, obviously there are time zone with only very few gw2 WvW players at least in EU-matches.

695 points score for 10 players in off time and 695 for 1000 players in prime time is just nonsense.

coglin.1867:

Dayra.7405:

Offair.2563:

Dayra.7405:

Offair.2563:

Reduce PPT in my nights when its daytime for others. So they want to reduce PPT at their night, which is my daytime.

This Argument is as old as it is Bad.

The Point of the proposal is simply make it:
few players = few score
many players = many score
Then it doesn’t matter where the sun really is, but you will notice that in the middle of EU night there are the fewest players playing in EU matches, such that they should get the fewest score at that time.

And no they should not get lower score per player, they should just not get more score per player.

So basicly you are limiting their game fun when they have bought the same game as you. Interesting theory but anyway OP, if ya really care about PPT war – join Tier1 or so.

This is not a better argument! PPT is the fun, I thought playing is fun. Anyway, I do not limit their fun, even if PPT is their fun. They can fight for 1 point per player as primetime can play for 0.7 points per player, but I do not see a sense to let them fight for 10-20 points per player.

That is not how the game works. You get points per keep/camp not per player. Why do you feel you are important enough to redesign the game around your personal playtime?

Why do you think that a handful off-time players must be the only ones that decide matches? And the majority of prime-time players must be irrelevant for matches?

Offair.2563:

Dayra.7405:

Offair.2563:

Reduce PPT in my nights when its daytime for others. So they want to reduce PPT at their night, which is my daytime.

This Argument is as old as it is Bad.

The Point of the proposal is simply make it:
few players = few score
many players = many score
Then it doesn’t matter where the sun really is, but you will notice that in the middle of EU night there are the fewest players playing in EU matches, such that they should get the fewest score at that time.

And no they should not get lower score per player, they should just not get more score per player.

So basicly you are limiting their game fun when they have bought the same game as you. Interesting theory but anyway OP, if ya really care about PPT war – join Tier1 or so.

This is not a better argument! PPT is the fun, I thought playing is fun. Anyway, I do not limit their fun, even if PPT is their fun. They can fight for 1 point per player as primetime can play for 0.7 points per player, but I do not see a sense to let them fight for 10-20 points per player.

Offair.2563:

Reduce PPT in my nights when its daytime for others. So they want to reduce PPT at their night, which is my daytime.

This Argument is as old as it is Bad.

The Point of the proposal is simply make it:
few players = few score
many players = many score
Then it doesn’t matter where the sun really is, but you will notice that in the middle of EU night there are the fewest players playing in EU matches, such that they should get the fewest score at that time.

And no they should not get lower score per player, they should just not get more score per player.

antonbalboa.7280:

They working on it now, but again it may take half or a complete year, some people already left because of this and many others will do until that. I didn’t want to think about of that but now I’m starting thinking that the game is being more dead each day.

Yeah, I fear as well, it will auto-balance to none vs none vs none before ANet comes with a fix. Not that we aren’t asking for a fix since latestly February 2014, when the problem got worser with EotM-queue relaxation and Season 2 skin hunter transfers.

(Vizu was superior, yes but it wasn’t that imbalanced before. Of course the fewer play, the more imbalanced it is. 90:100 doesn’t matter much, 10:20 do lot, even if both are just 10 difference.)

kitten .9460:

Agree’d EotM should be disabled unless you are in queue for WvW at the very least.

I can’t even play WvW on my server, thx ANet you guys are truly a godsend

Afterwards you can neither play WvW nor EotM on your server: great success

But if you make it EotM or overflow all fair weather player have to move to kitten have a queue to be able to play what they like to play.

Face it, EotM took them permanently away from WvW (if they ever were there).

Anyhow you cannot reanimate a failed game mode by trying to force people there.
If WvW get repaired or replaced maybe it (re-)gains some more fans again.

Concerning voice com: yes fights are more difficult to coordinate and less effective. However after having to hear wvw-commies for 1.5 year in TS, I am very happy that EotM offers a game mode you can play without having to hear a commie shouting.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

Eredon Terrasse?

A few hours after reset In 8 of the 17 matches the first has already more score that second and third together.

Doesn’t really look like a ET only problem.

Mikau.6920:

Is it worth? My server is Stormbluff Isle – Silver (NA) and there is not much people in WvW.

The WvW is where I play most.

No it isn’t you have only to bad alternatives to choose from

1. no friends
2. no enemies

Better you do not support this nonsense by throwing money after it.

Nothing easier to solve than that: Don’t go to matches you don’t like

Snowreap.5174:

wow, I just looked at this week’s files for the first time myself. NA T1 and T2 are both completely locked now.

-ken

That doesn’t need your simulation, that’s clearly visible at http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups
Rating gap is above 2*(10 + 0.45* dev) ~ 152 in case of t2/3

Jeknar.6184:

Dayra.7405:

Do we want to save Bronze server or do we wan a get rid of them (to reduce the number of servers)?

So free transfer away from Bronze would probably the right thing, not free transfer to Bronze.

Mark T1 as full, mark Bronze as full, give Bronze free transfers, and maybe we don’t need any server merge

Not everyone want to leave Bronze you know?

Probably not, but that this would clearly show how many would that be.

Do we want to save Bronze server or do we wan a get rid of them (to reduce the number of servers)?

So free transfer away from Bronze would probably the right thing, not free transfer to Bronze.

Mark T1 as full, mark Bronze as full, give Bronze free transfers, and maybe we don’t need any server merge

Yes better achievements for wvw please: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/WvW-achievements-without-Season

Belorn.2659:

It would be kind of neat if the white swords was made into a placeable trap, triggered when a enemy moves over it. An alarm trap that defenders can plant in cata spots and similar places.

Already exist in EotM, needs just be ported to wvw

No swords = no def = no upgrades beside EB and main keep = more karma train.

Scouting is not only unrewarding, it’s also boring, and a single scout quite often fails to notice a keep attack before outer doors broke.

Hule.8794:

Why do everybody think those guilds and players from T1 will spread on other servers? Those players are on T1 because they wanted to stack up.
In less than month there will be another “t1” stacked servers.

If course it only makes sense AFTER a realistic (based on counting who plays WvW) WvW-team capacity restriction below T1 capacityy is in place, I.e. they do not fit all together into one team anymore.

If such a restriction does not exist or the intended capacity is above t1 size splitting T1 servers doesn’t make sense.

If most server are only able to fill 2 maps and less outside prime, maybe it would be good to restrict WvW matches to 2 maps (EB and something new/rebalanced EotM/ merged borderlands) in prime and 1 in off time (not even EU t1 can fill 1 map completely during night or early morning)

Jeknar.6184:

@Dayra, you’re asking to Hardcores and Tryhards to be nice to Casuals… That never, ever, gonna happen…

Then the hardcores end being a bit lonely in WvW, whereas the Casuals enjoy EotM. Fine for me. I just do not understand, why the hardcore where asking above to get casuals back. Or are they just mising someone to shout at?

If EotM is more attractive than WvW then it should be thought why this is so.

Rewards are probably one thing, but the possibility to play without voice com (not having to hear a commander is a very nice thing for 90% of the WvW-commanders), irrelevance of the bad scoring, filled instead of empty maps (as I play mostly in the morning, I had to notice that I have more fights in EotM than in WvW even in T2), escape from imbalanced matches, no need to waste money on upgrading, no need to waste time on scouting, … are probably others.

So don’t ask to shutdown EotM, ask how WvW could become more attractive, e.g. by replacing the borderland-maps in WvW with the EotM map. (As soon as people start defending towers and keeps the karma train wrecks immediately.) stop forcing people into voice com, stop shouting at the Zerg if something doesn’t work, stop being rude to up levels, …

EotM should just have a team assignment independent of server.
Smallest team should get the next joiner. And especially in late evening to empty instances sgould be merged.

Either the same matches as usual or even more unbalanced matches than normally.

No sense to make a tournament in a non-competitive game with imbalanced teams.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Content-for-gems-Crowdfunding-in-GW2

DeWolfe.2174:

How about something really simple, first remove the server capacity limits. .

T1 still want more player?
Here is a better Way:

1. Count how many People Play at primetime, determine how many Server would be needed to fit them with slight Queue.
2. determine the Nummer of player-hours per Server and the mean and how much each Server deviate from that mean (e.g. ET -80%, BG +50%)
3. Set the max Population to 110% of mean. (Full if above)
4. delete the Server that deviate most from mean, the player get a free transfer.
5. server that have 90%-110% pop are as today.
6. server that have below 90% have double drops, exp, WEXP, karama
7. server that have above 110% have half drops, exp, WEXP, karama
8. set all transfer prices to 500.

Snowballing & stagnation

Make the center of gravity at equal score, make it exponentially more difficult to deviate from that center.

Here an example of this principle:
Your homelands and your EB third like to be on your side.
If someone conquers it and does not garrison it adequately the NPCs revolt and turn it back to your side, when there is no visible alive conqueror inside.
So for each point over your third you have to spend more and more garrisons or your conquests have no worth.

Some ideas for a radical change

• score isn’t automatically added, but must be transported from the objective that generates it to a collector place, e.g. you have to escort a caravan that transports your score to spawn and which could be reduced by hitting it, or it’s transported by a human like the old orbs or a human has to enter and direct the caravan (like a golem, but it cannot port)
• an objective only generates such local score if human actions (e.g. killing an enemy, escorting supplies (dollies could be like golems as well, you have to ride and direct them) to it, repairing something, placing a siege, upgrading it, delivery of tokens acquired from plundering dead enemies, ….) are performed in its area.
• when an objective with untransportet score is captured the score is lost.

does this help?

• PvD does not generate score, you have to do something with the objective to get score and you have to bring it home.
• coverage, if you do not have enough people to bring the score home! extending possessions doesn’t have any effect.
• if you do not have enemies, you run out of the actions that generate score.
• it breaks staleness by adding a new game element
• the further away an objective is from your collectors place the more difficult is it to bring the score home
• the effort to grow your score is growing, so it’s more difficult to run away.

Problems of the current scoring

• PvD is more rewarding then fights for an objective (as the objective worth the same and PvD is faster)
• the fewer people are in WvW the more objective points every player is fighting for (coverage), from 0.7 when all maps have queue to 695 when there is just 1 person in WvW.
• global population imbalance
• temporary population imbalance (coverage)
• more man-power is the one and only method to increase your score.
• early decided matches
• fighting the weakest server is easier but equally rewarding than fighting the strongest.
• many important activities (upgrading, dolly escort, battles, …) aren’t respected in scoring
• staleness, we have the current scoring function now for 2 years, we know exactly how to win and who will win ahead of time, time for a new scoring that really changes the game.

Block scoring helps only a bit against coverage and early decided matches, but does not even solve these 2 problems. I think we need a more radical change of scoring to reanimate WvW

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance

Ragnar.4257:

Is it worth noting that fixing the population imbalances would negate many of the existing score problems? 2 birds with 1 stone?

But it is also worth noting that a scoring-function favoring man-power superiority is always sensitive to man-power imbalances, that will always occur at least temporarily, if you do not shrink the match-capacity enough to have queue 24/7 on all server. And who wants queue for 24/7?

The efficiency scores I proposed in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/4474205 would be more suitable to balance that.

Shiren.9532:

WvW guesting sounds like a horrible idea because it is far too easy to exploit (assuming I understand the proposal correctly). Instead of large guilds map hopping, you will see large guilds guesting to lower tiered servers to try and dominate the competition. A T1 zerg guild would actually dominate a lower tier server with numbers alone. Casually allowing mega zerg guilds guesting to several different servers would just throw chaos into WvW. The video suggests that guesting away from their home server leaves it vulnerable, but there are plenty of times when a home server will be guaranteed 3rd place so whether they tick at 200PPT or 0PPT doesn’t matter at all. If they can get better rewards from PPTing in a lower tier where they do stand a chance, they have incentive to do that.

Guesting is even worser.

Guesting allows the dominating server, bored by it’s match to escape this boring win and terrorize other servers wherever it has fun. I know that the SFR WvW-TS zerg goes to EotM for some action, only leaving a scout in WvW, after they conquered the map. Guesting would allow them to invade and destroy other matches, horrible idea. It must be never allowed, and that’s why I never commented that video, the proposal is to bad to be taken serious. But it has support by all the people of the overstacked servers, that are overstacked to win and bored in their match because the win is so easy.

I am not a fan of gems for transfers. But at least they hinder that. Better than gems for transfers would be in game penalties for transfers. Lower queue priority if you are newer on a server, commanders are server bound and need to be bought again after a transfer, you have to make 50 level ups with a character on a world before it can enter WvW for that world, …

A) good is clearly better than irrelevant, an agreement on ignoring a bad thing, is the best you can reach, if it is out of your reach to change it to good.

A) scoring is irrelevant instead of bad, upgrades do not boost coverage advantages, coverage is no problem at all, manpower imbalance is easier to fix, as you don’t have communities that start crying against any change.
B) i did played it less often so far. And commanding a Zerg – that to a large extend does not do what you like – successfully is more demanding than commanding people that do what you want. Commanding by chat and lamp only than by voice is more difficult as well.
C) many BoH to buy siege, many exp to get the skill points to upgrade the siege, many champ bags to get the gold to pay upgrades in WvW

kins.3294:

Why are you posting this here? EoTM is far far far from WvW! In-fact you should post this at a PvE forum that is specialized in a farming train!

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Edge-of-Mists-Always-Outnumbered/4435100

Dasenthal.6520:

Um… No… Eotm is broken. But I can honestly tell you not a single wvw player will leave or even be slightly bothered by any thing going on in EotM.

Yes, I do because EotM
a) is less broken than WvW
b) less stale as WvW after 2 years without change.
c) helps to finance WvW-playing
d) has people to play against all around the clock, a thing hardly found in WvW anymore outside T1.
e) I am not as ignorant and arrogant as you.to make content-less comments to things, that obviously do not interest you.

Still I do not agree with the OP. Imbalnce in maps is fine, it is refreshing (you need different tactics) as long as you rotate often enough.

EotM has three problems:
- man-power balance, caused by:
- Binding of EotM team to WvW-team (man-power balance would be better if this would be random)
- Color-Rotation only once a week and not every eotm-match, i.e. every 4 hours.

Raap.9065:

The solution would be to simply raise the reward for active WvW participation

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/WvW-achievements-without-Season/4077952
is still my favored in that respect, especially as it adds a individual competition over “more succesful contributions to my WvW-team” to the game.

(I did not said anything about it in the proposal, but usually you have reward-chests on completetd achievemnets.)

You don’t get more than 2 per lvlup.
You get 3 times 2, 2 times 2 or 1 times 2, instead of the normal 1 lvlup chest.
The WEXP-page on the WvW-dialog tells you how many bonus chests you earned and haven’t received so far.

1) there are better boni for higher scoring during the Week
2) first get 3 bonus WEXP-chest, second 2, last 1 bonus chest at the first WEXP-lvlups of the next match.
3) there should not be more, we have already enough people transferring to the winning team.
4) only very few matches really earn a reward, most are just imbalanced man power/coverage

Lol, every month the same genius proposal. Try to remember what you learned about geography and time-zone, to find out why the proposal is so genius.

If you don’t manage, here the answer from a previous one:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/World-Versus-World-suggestion-1/4086126

Valdemas.4960:

I was severely disapointed by the system when last week is another sfr-koda-deso match up. It just does not make any kind of sense. I was certain deso and kodash would get one week without sfr to duke it out among themselves and get a chance to properly decide who gets second. Instead we got a situation where a server not even in top 3 will get second no matter the outcome. Ridiculous beyond belief.

Fortunately glicko difference between Deso and Elona is to large for Deso to roll out of T1 very often (4% due to Keon’s actual numbers).

So SFR-Deso is ensured for now. Only question is who gets a week of no wvw-play by joining you as the 3rd in T1. Hopefully not us.

Best strategy for the 3rd is don’t go to wvw. loose as many glicko points as possible, reducing your probability to roll into T1 again. A server not behaving like that has to be considered as volunteer, to be your 3rd for the next half year (i.e. till next season).

You already knew how it is to be trapped in T1 …

Split the current monolithic score into several sub-scores.

Why People/Server can define their own goals they want to reach, e.g. we don’t have the manpower to compete with SFR 24/7 on 4 maps, i.e. to win the match, but we want to win primetime on EB against them, and yeah we did it.

How Dimensions:

• Split by map
  - EB
  - Homelands
  - Enemy border

• Split by source
  - PPT Fortifications
  - PPT camps (maybe replace it by: dolyaks reached destination)
  - Dolyak kills
  - sentry conquered
  - player stomped while bloodlust (1 bonus point)
  - player killed (always 1 point)
  - player got killed
  - player got stomped while bloodlust

• Split by time
  - 0-4 UTC
  - 4-8 UTC
  - 8-12 UTC
  - 12-16 UTC
  - 16-20 UTC
  - 20-24 UTC

This gives a bunch of cells (choosing 1 value per dimension):
e.g.: EB, Dolyak kills, 12-16 UTC
each cell should be visible ingame as well as exportet via API, such that
external sides can setup OLAP tools to browse and aggregate them.

Currently the score is to sum them all up. This could bethe case afterwards as well,
but it could be also points for winning individual cells, summed up. Different ways to combine could be used from time to time, to make stale matches interesting again.

New efficiency scores

Why The main problem of the current scoring is that it is mainly determined by manpower-balance.
More people = higher tick,and More people more often = higher score
This makes matches stale, and quite often one-sided, as man-power balance is known in advance, doesn’t change very much during a match and to often to imbalanced to be fair. It’s also the base of the coverage problem, 10 people more in prime-time on a map means 100:90 still quite fair, but 10 people difference in off-time may mean 20:10 i.e. a hard to handle 2.1 superiority.

How We could use the actual man-power balance as a handicap as follows:

The default is: the score-share of each side is proportional to its manpower share,
e.g. if server A has (in mean during the tick) 350 people in the match, server B has 200 and server C has 145 people
than we can expect that server A ticks with 350 score, server B with 200 and server C with 145. Each server get the difference between it’s actual tick and it’s expected tick added to it’s score.

If the actual tick is A 380, B 240, C 75, then A is +30 above expectation, B +40 above expectation and C -70 below expectation.

Such an effiency based scoring can be meaningfully compared over all matches. (e.g. the current table on http://www.gw2score.com/currentscore/total_score/desc could be filled with much more meaningful numbers to compare servers). This adds a new motivation as additionally to winning or loosing the match, you can compare how your rivals do in other matches do, e.g.: ok, we on Elona loose vs SFR, but we are still more efficient vs SFR, then our main rival Riverside is against Deso.
You can also compare your efficiency of last week, with your efficiency this week. You can also more easily increase or decrease your efficiency over the week, than you are able to increase or decrease your man-power, e.g. as you did bad so far, band-waggoners disappeared, increasing your efficiency a lot or vice versa.

These efficiency scores can of course also be aggregated for different times, maps and sources as outlined above for the current score. And they can be added as score, or as points for winning a cell.

I think such a “efficent usage of man power based scoring” is much more fair and much more competitive, then declaring the side with more people as winner as it is currently. But maybe they can be also combined. And maybe they can be combined differently for normal play and seasons, e.g. more weight to (or only) PPT during normal play, more weight to (or only) efficiency during league. In fact I think efficiency scoring could make a match between first and last chalanging for both sides, such that we can merge Gold, Silver, Bronze into one big league.

Last but all servers get more facts about how they play could/should improve for internal discussion. I would also like to see (in match-threads on other forums of course) more sentences like “yeah, you are more, but we are more efficient” supported by real facts and not only subjective impressions.

insanemaniac.2456:

Snowreap.5174:

even if ArenaNet changes nothing, they should still do tournaments from time to time. if nothing else, they scramble up the matchups so that servers that need a big rating adjustment can get re-ranked a bit quicker.

the exception is when a server (like Mag) needs to cross a league boundary. tournaments can’t help much with that.

-ken

yay, someone who actually understand glicko >.>
such rare

A tournaments of all servers would help with that. There 4 rounds would make sense as well.
In EU (due to its 9 matches), 1st & 2nd round would be exactly as they were now,
In 3rd round gold, silver and bronze leader would be matched, gold, silver and bronze 2nd and so on. 4th round would probably back to matches in current leagues.

That Swiss tournament with 6/9 server in 3way matches should neither be 9 nor 4 rounds, but 2 or mostly 3 is mathematically clear.

The 4. Round could be seen as an additional final for rank 1, but it’s also clear that it only disturbs ranks 2-9.

Anyhow there shouldn’t be seasons, as long as teams aren’t manpower balances or scoring isn’t changed to be immune to manpower balance.

Ayrilana.1396:

You won’t be alone in missing out on rewards. Expect to see a lot of threads this weekend with people wondering where the rest of their rewards are.

Do you think they can write threads, if they cannot even read email?

Snowreap.5174:

every league is terrible in terms of balance. in NA, sure #1 would crush #6. but #7 would crush #15 as well, and #16 would crush #24. the situation is similar in EU.

with a strict “no repeats” policy, every week after the first week would be terrible. if you want good matchups, with servers of similar strength (as similar as possible, given the widely varying populations), then you are going to end up with repeats.

you cannot have it both ways. there simply aren’t enough servers to give everyone good matchups and varied matchups both at once. there aren’t even enough servers to give everybody a good matchup even once.

-ken

Round 2 was really enlighting in that respect, I did not expected that it was that bad, it turned out to be.

EU-4 till EU-9 seems to be the last area with some remaining balance. I am really lucky to be there, and I would be really happy to be there if EU-T1 would be as jailed as NA-T1.

But ok, the unlucky server that rolls into T1 from time to time can make a week WvW-holiday, that way reaching the separation sooner or later.

Jwoww.4315:

Actually more effort is needed to buy the gems and pay for the transfer.

I once proposed:

Any charakter needs to make 50 levelups (or be created) on a world to be able to entre WvW/EotM for this world.

Bought commanders are world bound, I.e you can only use them in WvW/EotM on a world where you bought them, they become cheaper the longer you are on a world.

Guild upgrades for WvW are world bound (and they are more effort. For larger guilds).

However it’s to late, concentration already happened, now we need balancing transfers and not transfer reductions in general.

Yeah they even ignore my wish since season1

No tournament and especially no reward for winner

Announced season 2 rewards (skin only for top server) where the killer of any remaining balance.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

Not only that, we’ve only just started week 3, you cant base your conclusions when the tournament isnt even over yet!

Give it time guys.

That it will be a failure was clear in the moment it was announced. It didn’t need to start, it doesn’t need to finish, already the text of the announcement made clear:

We know the Winner before start, no play needed to determine it.

Be happy that the season gave you 1 week to behave SFR like, i.e. to crush others with far superior man power. Normal matchmaking starting on Friday will fortunately not give you that option that often.

You better transfer to SFR as well, if you want to enjoy that more often or always.

Ps: yes in the meantime I like any one moving to SFR or BG. Balance is far behind repair, and anyone that transfers, helps to enforce ANet taking action.

Tournaments could be something special, but it would require more effort than just changing the way the blow-out are rolled.

A tournament could be reset-evening only (the score after 4h decide for the tournament score, the rest is normal week for Glicko) or weekend only.

A tournament could experiment with different scoring than the normal possession-over-time one that is dominated by manpower and coverage.

A tournament could use only one map, a tournament could ….

But just changing how matchups are composed is boring. With the current manpower and coverage imbalances, there is no surprise, and no match making will ever be able to generate interesting matches.

EFWinters.5421:

“Each matchup will be unique, and every win—or upset—will make a huge difference!”

03/10/14 never forget.

But it’s only wishful thinking to interpret this statement as “no repetition of match-team composition”.

“Each XYZ will be unique” is a typical marketing statement where anyone can project its wishes into, and which has zero meaning. And every post on http://www.guildwars2.com/ is a marketing press release, as nice as possible words with as less as possible content.

Unique, of course every match will be unique, it’s not a replay of the last one, it happen at a different point in time, e.g. as the opening match or as the final, already enough to make them unique.

Some more info about what you took home to ANet as insight from this thread would be nice

Terrahero.9358:

My bet is that the outcome is completely unrepresentative of the actual strength of a server, and merely the outcome of the unreliable, crazy, nature of this tournament style. That somehow rewards losing.

As if manpower and coverage are better criteria for “strengt of a Server” than Swiss tournament Points if you want only these 2 stay with glicko and ignore seasons.