Guild Wars 2

The availability of EotM would allow ANet to experiment a bit with WvW.

Reduced Capacity of WvW-Maps? No problem you can play EotM while queued.
So a “no server may have more people than the two others together” become possible.

Alliance vs Alliance instead of World vs World, main reason against you needed to be in an alliance to play, no longer a problem, play EotM if you are to lazy to join an alliance.

EotM has shorter Matches. And people seem to like it, why not the same for WvW?

And there are million of other things that can be tried to refresh WvW

We will see, what will happen with WvW.

Also EotM can develop further.

You do not like to be in a random team? Maybe no problem in the future, register (for gems of course) your guild (maybe a “meta-guild”, i.e. an alliance of several real guilds) to play a match where your guild is one of the sides, that plays against the other sides, which maybe guilds as well or pooled randoms.

Time-slice matches will be more balanced, because they can be balance for each slice individually!

If the SEA/OCX will play their own ranking and match making they will be as balanced as possible due to equal performance in this time-slice!

And it does not affect the balance of other time-slices.

As said above ANY scoring is fair as long as it is applied to all servers equally. Even random numbers as score are fair and as meaningful as the current score.

Fairness is not the issue.

The issues are:
- Equal impact of players
- Better match-balance

sierras.6297:

An actual tip, as opposed to these other ones: you can get small amounts of supply from killing supply dolyaks on rare occasions.

Pro Version: Share the Dolly-Kill with as many people from your zerg as possible, everyone may get those +5 sups dropped and the commander prefers to get 10 time 5 instead of 1 times 5.

For Golem-Driver:
- Don’t jump down from walls, cliffs, etc. your Golem get irreparable damage.
- Only enter a Golem, if you are in the voice-channel
- Be a lvl 80 and a warrior or guardian or tank-necro to be a Golem-Driver (armor and life of the Golem is influenced by the player-stats.)
- Stay together and use the mesmer-portals organized for you.
- An Omega does not need to stand at the door especially not below Oil, it has range attacks.
- Golems should organize the use of their range-defense dome

Solo-Camp capping on EB: If you find a camp guarded by hylaks, dredges or ogres, it can be faster and saver to neutralize the hylaks, dredges or ogres settlement first before attacking the supply camp. If you turn them to your side: Enjoy capping the camp together with them.

On Dead: If you hit many enemies before dead: Decide very fast if your side wins or not. Wait for revive and collect the bags around you if you win, BUT if you think your side will loose go back to spawn asap, your bags will spawn where you are, i.e. lost around your dead body or useful around yourself alive at spawn.

aspirine.6852:

Is the refresh siege a good one?

Every keep and tower you go in or through try to spot the siege. Press F to man it just for a second te refresh the counter back to an hour.

If you start tapping siege try to tap all siege in this fortification. Nothing loses more siege than very different despawn-timer within a fortification.

stoat.4257:

After that I suspect it will be a ghost map, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

I would rate this very unlikely, all server together will likely fill at least 1-2 maps. And if your server is in a very uneven WvW-match, why get stomped in WvW, when you can play a series of balanced matches in EotM?

So I guess several imbalanced WvW-matches will be even more imbalanced with EotM, as the weaker sides now got an alternative to play and will stay away from WvW for the rest of the match after it become obvious that it is lost.

ykyk.2740:

ITT every server has the worst EU coverage in NA

Especially when compared to any EU-Server above T8

Rawr.5930:

However, economically how would ANET justify the expense of coding and the computing overhead needed for this?

That reminds me of the effort the community needed to convince ANet that the original match-making had a serious bug.

Uncountable many threads and posts over 1/2 a year, till they accepted they made a mistake. Then 2 month needed to implement: NR = R + rnd(-1,+1)(Dc1 +c2) instead of R.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/matchups/T1-EU-24-05-2013-Elona-Vizunah-Jade-Sea/2126487

A bunch of funny bug when they put it live: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/EU-T1-9-Battle-Royale

But finally we got it fixed

Replacing the current Score S by a new Score NS = S*|player in match|/c seems to be of similar complexity

Rawr.5930:

But do we want the gemstore in wvw, how can ANET encourage gem spending in wvw without turning it into p2win?

We even discussed that (I think even more than once, but I do not find it):
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/I-want-to-buy-things-with-gems-for-WvW/first#post2024820

Go to: http://www.gw2score.com/home

Select the server your interested in and select “Server Statistics” scroll down to the bottom to see the mean ticks of this server in a specific time or select the “hourly average” tick-graphic. Doesn’t tell you how many are fighting, but it shows you, if this server is rolled over, does roll-over or is in balance in it’s match during the period your interested in.

EotM’s dynamic overflow maps ask for an important change in commanders:

When the commander of a squad goes to a new map (e.g. joins EotM), every member of that squad is asked if it wants to join that map too, or if it want to leave the squad.

Should give a reliable way to bring guild-zergs of up to 40 people to the same overflow map.

Vespirisa.1497:

How much more rating do we have to lose to escape the hell that is T1?

You can compute that easily with the infos on https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/de/na/wvw:

Your and TC’s Deviation is 152.
So you call roll down by (152*0.45 +10)= 78.4 and TC can roll up the same amount.
So 156.8 is the largest gap the rolls can bridge.

If you and TC will perform over the whole match like you did now during the start the and the rating prediction on http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups becomes true. You can roll out next friday. The currently predicted rating diff is 137.5 so your chance is 1/4 (you roll negative and TC rolls positive) * (1 – 137.5/156.8) = 3%
If you drop more or TC climbs more, chances increase.

But does WvW matter after Thuesday? Who will still play WvW with EotM released? We will get balanced manageble 3h PvP-matches to play there.

It’s hard to predict who will play more EotM in the future and who will stay in WvW. As this will be likely different on each server, WvW-ranking will be changing over the next weeks rather dramatically I would expect.

Population limit on the lowest pop server has probably to high abuse potential.

But a limit that no side may bring more people than the both other sides together may work. But it should not be a map-based cap, but a total match-limit, jumping from 1 map to the next should not be prohibited.

In your example it may be A=10 + B=10 resulting in C<21, if A or B increase, C may bring more as well.

Nabarue.3290:

While using siege is much more effective, ….

Unfortunatly this isn’t true anymore.
The most effective way to melt a door, are some necros and a zerg.

!!! ANet please fix this bug fast !!!

In short the winner of the tick gets 3 the second 2 and the looser of the tick gets 1, who won the most ticks won the match?

Isn’t this an even worser relation between manpower playing in ticks and tick/match-result?

Edit: Ok, that way, it doesn’t matter how dominant you are in a tick, and the main problem of off-time is: the dominance is much more imbalanced. Yeah that would help as well.

Andrew Clear.1750:

Plus there are 24 time zones in the world. Even trying to just use the NA ones for NA still leaves huge gaps in coverage (remember, Alaska, and Hawaii have their own time zones as well). Do we leave out the time zones of our soldiers stationed over sea? Those time zones are the same as our much maligned SEA / OCX players. Also, what about all our citizens that are overseas as teachers? What about South America? Brazil even has different time zones (or zone) than America.

I respect all the players in each time zone, and if we get beat cause one time zone has more coverage than ours, so be it.

Did you saw a reference to timezones?

Many people play in a match => many points
A few play in a match => few points
is how it should be!

And not how it currently is: The fewer play they higher the score.

Burpengary.5160:

Just because a servers location is EU or Stateside does not make them exclusive to those zones. Whether you are in The States or Europe prime time covers a lot of time zones. When does prime time start and what time does it finish.

One of the advantages of my proposals is, that it does not need this distinction to be made.

But to give you my favored one (but feel free to choose another, none has an influence on my repair proposals):
- prime-time of a match is when there are 695+ player in the match, i.e. in the current scoring system each single player worth 1 to 0.69 score points.
- off-time of a match is when there are 695- player in the match, i.e. in the current scoring system each player is worth 1 to 695 score points.

I propose only that every player in every match at every time is worth 1 score point, that he can fight to earn for his world.

If you only look at complains you do not understand what was going on, Andrew

The system wasn’t changed because we complained, but because it was mathematically broken and we managed to prove that to ANet. It had a design flaw that let it work worse and worse the longer it was running. To fix that flaw randomness was added, a bit more randomness at the beginning, to recover from the results of the flaw, a bit less now, that this flaw correction has happend.

Fair? Any method that is applied equally to all is fair. The current as well as all of the proposed.

But not every method leads to better balanced and more competitive matches.

Eir Jordan.2156:

Dayra, I cannot fathom why you care about the medals so much. I could understand why one might be interested in placing in the top 3 of one’s league during the Wvw seasons, but who really cares about the off-season results?

In this thread the topic is scoring. Scoring happen equally in leagues and in ranking games. If you make it more meaningful for one thing you make it more meaningful for the other. I can repeat it for you a 4th time: I want to improve scoring, to get better balanced matches (match-making is based on ranking, which is based on scoring, there cannot be a good match-making if the scoring is nonsense) not to get more or easier gold-medals.

But I also do not see any matter why a league result should be more or less meaningful than a ranking result. Sounds to me like saying: Pokal is more important than Bundesliga.

Of course a stronger server should win. But stronger, when more players (around 1000) play should be more meaningful, and not only how it currently is: we won because we were 50 when you were only 20

Spicyhash.7605:

This doesn’t make any sense at all. You can’t nerf coverage just so you have a chance at winning.

As now written the third time in this thread: My Server (Elona Reach) is currently winning due to coverage. (And yes, I waited till be were back to rank 2 before I started this thread, to make clear that I do not have that reason. Currently we are even on the way to rank 1 and of course T1-competitive coverage is a main reason.)

But winning due to coverage is as boring as loosing due to coverage.

I do not want it nerfed it to have a better chance to win. I want it nerfed to have better chances for more balanced matches, beacause more server are able to compete at prime-time, than there are servers that are able to compete at off-time.

Solstice.1097:

I’m pretty sure it’s currently based on stomp because it was easier to figure out who gets the point, and has nothing to do with stomps actually meaning more than a DPS kill.

Lol, I think there is only one reasons to base it on stomp: It generates a better market for more expensive stomping animations

I think fighting for PPT would be much more motivation , but unfortunately this is true:

Brando.1374:

PPT only shows coverage Nothing to brag about.

Unfortunately, the situation with playing for bags isn’t batter, as this is not true:

the amount of bags just shows how much better at fighting we are compared to the enemy.

Many bags for your group only means that many people hit each target (weakly) with AoE. E.g. if you wipe every 2nd 40 vs 40 fight you end with 40:1 kills/bags per deadth

Ettanin.8271:

If one army faction fails to have persistent and sufficient guarding, then they are not worthy of keeping their fortifications during that shift.

None of my Coverge Nerf-proposals will help them to keep it in that shift, but
Proposal 4 will separete the shifts into different matches, which will result into different opponents (from different ranks) in different shift, i.e. more balance all around the clock.
A server may fight T1 at 20 UTC, and T5 at 12 UTC, and maybe T7 at 4 UTC, because it’s shift’s are imbalanced strong.

The other proposals only balance score gain in the match from minorities of players, but none hinders them to play e.g. by capping the whole map.

insanemaniac.2456:

its like… asking honda for a refund when your 82 civic starts making love to a tree on your way home from the sleepy weasel dive bar

To take your analogy: He was asking for a garage, where he could pay for repairing.

Would you buy a car from a vendor that forgot (or refuse) to setup a garage-network?

Looks like we all did in case of GW2.

We (Elona) currently have a good coverage within EU-Ranking, still
there aren’t (and will never) enough off-time player to have full maps 24/7 for all servers and the scoring should take care of that by limiting the score you can get by the number of players playing.

Currentlly Piken and Kodash aren’t fighting worser than Elona during prime time, still the match is a very worse one. The only challenge is: Will we squeeze enough points out of them to stay ahead Vizunah and get gold or not?

That’s not good game design, that’s a bug.

Here is another possibility to turn coverage PvD into real WvW.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/If-you-could-change-the-scoring-mechanic/3552163

A new Phishing mail. What really wonders me is the set token, request and IP (XXXed in the text below) in the link. May that be done by my browser, that runs both forum login and email client in different tabs? If yes, can the sender steal that in any way?

Greetings!

It has come to our attention that you are trying to sell your personal
Guild Wars account(s). As you may not be aware of, this conflicts with the
EULA and Terms of Agreement. If this proves to be true, your account can
and will be disabled. It will be ongoing for further investigation by
ArenaNet Entertainment’s employees. If you wish to not get your account
suspended you should immediately verify your account ownership.

You can confirm that you are the original owner of the account to this
secure website with:

https —-- ://account.guildwars2.com —-- /allow-login?token=XXXX&request=XXXXX&ip=XXXXXX.html

If you ignore this mail your account can and will be closed permanently.
Once we verify your account, we will reply to your e-mail informing you
that we have dropped the investigation.

Regards,

Account Administration Team
Thanks! —The ArenaNet Team

The phishing link Links made unclickable by —- :
———
http —- :// —- support.guildwars2.com. —- ghtr.co.vu/

Resource camps have 4 upgrades, everything else has 12 upgrades, so the easiest way is:

1) Score can be alligned to upgrades:
- base camp 1, for every upgrade done +1 up to a total of 5
- base tower 1, every upgrade done +1, up to a total of 13
- base keep 2, every upgrade done +2, up to a total of 26
- base castle 3, every upgrade done +3, up to a total of 39

2) Any objective need a garrision of at least 1 person per full 5 pts of score (0 garrision for 1-4pts, 1 garrision for 5-9, 2 for 10-14, … , 7 persons for 35-39), if it does not have such a minimal garrison for 1 min at any time during the tick a randomly selected upgrade may decay per tick (may be rebuild). Whenever the garrison requirement is not meet, upgrades are stopped till it is meet again.

3) The binding between claiming guild and objective should be increased such that a Guild has reponsibilities due to the claim and gains advantages from the claim. E.g. the following:
- Upgardes cost guild influence (and maybe a bit guild money, but no individual money),
- only the claiming guild may start upgrades,
- only guild members count as garrisions,
- only guild members can build siege inside the objective,
- guild members can take over siege manned by non guild members,
- guild can set a treshold for supplies in the objectives, only supplies in excess of that threshold can be taken out by non-guild members.
- If at any time during the tick the guild does not satisfy the garrision requirement (and a decay happen), the claim may be overtaken by another guild.
- an objective with a score of 4 or less and no running upgrade (since a min) can be overtaken (claimed) by any other guild.
- An objective generates influence equal to score for the guild.
- The speed (and amount of parallel builds) of building guild upgrades is influenced by type and upgrade status of the claimed objective.
- The claimed objective increases the number of guild bufs that can be active at any point in time.

1) can be done alone. However 2) should be done with 3) together, I do not want that the server (commanders) have to search for garrisons, that gain nothing from it. The guild should search them, and the guild has advantages from the claim. And if a guild fails to fulfill it’s overtaken duties, it’s investments may get lost as another guild can take them over.

The advantage of the garrision requirement is that it limits off-time scoring, if you have only a few people, you cannot garrison enough. It also assigns a default defence force, and the zerg should be smaller due to that.

@Dawdler: No it’s not the randomizer, it’s simply the consequence of the fact that there have to be always exactly 3 servers in a match. But as there are 4 servers with T1 coverage at moment (SFR, Vizu ELona, RS), and only 3 fit in a match, one is remaining (last week Vizu, this week us) to crush you in T2.

For next week Piken has currently a very good chance to play T3 and Jade (nearly 50%) or Deso (around 30%) taking your place in T2.

If there are no (fair, balanced) alternatives to choose from any match-making is lost.

In any case it still has more variation than the original system, where you had to fight for any point (now you may get + / – 90 temporary random points) to go up or down.

So crush your opponent more badly to go up or loose badly to go down!

Or vote for a better scoring system that brings more balance or for time-sliced matches that let you run several different matches over the day.

Match-Making cannot help. It’s just that there are 4 T2 servers and only 3 fit T2.

Blame the 24/7-match duration (or the scoring-system that rewards off-time capping). I guess there are times of the day where you can compete, just in off-time you cannot (or you would not have that much score after reset).

Time-sliced matches would help you best of course. (see link in my signature)

Maybe you do not know that servers have a Glicko rating (similar to chess-players having an ELO number). This represents manpower over 24/7 very well and a higher rating therefore means you are outnumberred most time of the day. Match-Making is based on this rating and some small random variation (approx. + / – 90 random modification)
On https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/ you sse the official (but only at match-end updated) version of ANet
On http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups you can see the life updated version.

Maybe that explains why you meet some (nearby) servers, and some server you may never meet. A rating difference of more than 250 results very likely a blowout (e.g. the enemy has build waypoints in “your keeps” and farms you at your spawn) match for the lower server.

Color assignement: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/When-does-the-worlds-change-colors/3467650

I fear that even NA ratings (EU-matchmaking works very well at moment) actually represent Strength quite well.

A reset or more randomization would only increase the number of blow-out matches.

Like:
- all kind combat (more match-relevance of combat please, less for PvD): open field, siege attack, siege defense
- My server: “Für Elona”!! (Server Communirty, Team Building, ….), More Server-Community (World Government) effects (e.g. PvE-taxes pay for upgrades not individual players, influence on migration: server may set: a tax/refund for immigration, min level for WvW, min time on server to enter WvW, queue priorities…)
- Match should have more influence on what’s possible in PvE (e.g. no possession on that BL, travel in Maguma is tripple expensive)

Dislike:
- WvW is only coverage war, combat and prime-time are quite irrelevant for match-outcome. (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage)
- Single-Target vs AoE Skills, currently single target skills are worthless in WvW, AoE attacks do more (same) damage and conditions than single target skills. But it should be: the more people you hit the less damage (cond. effect) you do per person, such that the sum is equal. This is totally out of balance, spam AoE (and do not play a class/weapon-set that hasn’t much AoE) is the only Meta.
- It needs in-game reporting and action (fixing, suspension) for hacks, exploits, grief-play (and something like Source-TV to check reports).

Please add another option:

Prime-time – Off-time rebalancing

Thanks.

Hm, how do I get to a match probability? By multiplying the Negation?
So if I want the probability of Elona – Kodash – Vizu
It’s not SFR and (multiplied by) not Riverside and not …
If I do that I reach 21% for Elona – Kodash – Vizu
sounds reasonable. Or did I made a mistake?

Thanks, but the EU file looks empty.

Johje Holan.4607:

P.S. +1000 to OP’s idea of manual matchups 1 out of 3 weeks. I’ve been pushing for it permanently but Anet how about just 1 of 3 weeks for you to manually make the matchups. That’s a good compromise.

If I would have to make that manually I would take a dice. I think they did it manually for the league, and that wasn’t really better than the random roll.

I want: Elona – Kodash – Vizu

PS: Ken, 35h left till EU-match restart, here it is back to page 1.

Gudradain.3892:

…, the map will probably be supported by the GW2 API.

I did not saw anything about that in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/community/api What let you think it will?

NevirSayDie.6235:

Aeonblade.8709:

The metric is based off of accounts attached to each server, whether they play or not. It’s a marketing gimmick and a PR ploy to try to hide real concurrent user numbers.

A while back I read that the metric was based on concurrent users over a period of time. Do we have evidence that this isn’t true, besides “I logged on and it didn’t seem like there were that many people in PvE or WvW”?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/703192

is the only statement I am aware off.

All inactive rotting in the catacombs of the server count towards the population. They have to increase the thresholds for the classification, if they sell new copies, but thats all that is needed. On the other side: the higher the classification of all servers, the higher their gain in tranfer costs ….

You can of course also wait for EotM. All people that play for fights and not for PvD will be there )and no longer in WvW) soon anyway.

All server with the same color in WvW will build a team in EotM (with overflow maps)

Tallis.5607:

Dayra.7405:

Tallis.5607:

First, in case you didn’t know, the probability that the number 4 server ends up against T1 servers is only 5%.

No it’s 0% (impossible) since several weeks and it will remain 0% as long as rank 3 nd rank 4 are 160 (or more) pts apart.

Where did you get that info? I never saw a reference to the odds being determined by the points, just the tabel where it’s determined by the ranks.

But I admit, I don’t read the DEV posts religiously anymore, so i might have missed that one.

We discussed it after it got anounced in the news-blog: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Need-Anet-to-clarify-Matchup-Variance-Maths

And Ken’s weekly probability estimation you can find now here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Matchup-wishlist/3511398

goldensurfer.8406:

So why not correct also the amount of players per server. If you have 500 players you score more points then a server with 300 players. Also correct for that and your end result will be: draw

Each server has a MAXIMAL score of the SUM of all 3 servers.
This neither means more people more score (all have the same MAX-score), nor does it mean draw, you have to acquire and hold the objectives to get your score.

It only means: more people = more fights = more points.

Today it’s unfortunatly:
- less people and more PvD = more points
- more people and more fights = less points

godofcows.2451:

Snorcha.7586:

Please turn off the servers when I log out thanks. That is all.

best suggestion yet :-o

Yes, it’s really good, a bit narrow-minded maybe. Switching the matches several times a day would do nearly the same for him and would allow the others to play.
(proposal 4 in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3462970)

Of course, if night/morning/day is an off- or an prime-time depends on the number of players inside the match and is different from match to match., that’s why it is urgently needed to scaled available score points with in match-manpower (and not according to an arbitrary time-slot).

The simplest solution to equal importance is still: Just multiply each tick with number of people totally (sum all sides) in the match and divide it by 695, such that each player finally has equal contribution opportunity to match outcome: 1 possible point per player (who gets it of course depends on who is better)!

To illustrate it with KDXX.9520 example (but prime-time sum 695 as well, points not from ticks should probably not be weighted):

At primetime with 1200 people (all three server have queue on all 4 maps):
Control at tick is:
200, 210, 285
Gives Score per tick (*1200/695)
345,363,492
over 8 hours
11050,11603,15747

In the night with 100 players (e.g. distributed to the servers: 50, 25, 25)
controlled objectives like:
500,95,100
give score per tick (*100/695)
72,14,14
Score in 8h
2302, 437,460

An a total result of the day (the 16 hours to be precise) as:
13353,12040,16207
The night-capping still keeps server 1 over server 2, but no longer negates the high quality play of server 3 in prime-time.

Since June 2013 there is a random roll involved in match-making.
Every server rolls a dice (a double between + 1 and -1).
It’s actual rating R is modified (since lêage, it was higher before) for matchmaking MR:
MR = R + rand(-1,+1)*(0.45 * Deviation +10)
With current deviations this is a modifier of around + /-80

It’s not a matter of night and day, evening and morning, timezone here and there.

The problem is: The amount of objective points to capture per player.

A prime-time player has 0.7 points per player, an off-time player has 10 points per player. And this has to be rebalanced such that both are equally worthy
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage

Tallis.5607:

First, in case you didn’t know, the probability that the number 4 server ends up against T1 servers is only 5%.

No it’s 0% (impossible) since several weeks and it will remain 0% as long as rank 3 nd rank 4 are 160 (or more) pts apart.

Dee Jay.2460:

The Rating system is just broken, forget it even exists.

1500 fighting during peak hours matters less than having 50 vs. 20 players on at night.

But that’s match scoring which is broken, Glicko is another matter.

Glicko take the broken match scoring and try to build a ranking, if scoring would not be so broken it may work better.

But in any case do not give to much on milleniums ranking predition before monday/tuesday. Weekends are special and at the beginning when total scores are still small, relative small score differences produce large glicko evolutions.