Looking at current results YB is definitely a T2 server (although how much of that is k training in dead timezones like YB used to do), probably replacing FA.
oddly enough, if there is a ktrain its na prime. The way past my bedtime has tons of sbi and sos (or links) in bigger groups than us. Then again its the holiday weekend – who knows what happens during the week….
Sort of hard to figure out where YB really is. Without a link for 8 weeks, we really struggled. Then the last week without links, I saw some names I hadn’t seen in some time. Was it summer coming to an end, people coming back from break knowing we would finally get a needed link, return of school, return of DK (not the 12-16 hour a day version, but a version)?
Now I see all sorts of new names with the FC link. Weekend queues NA prime are something I haven’t seen since t2->t1 push ages ago. How many are fairweathers, FC, or just new to YB who knows. time will tell I guess.
Not sure how many want T2 since T4 and T3 have been more active than T2….I think the T2 push talk is people who think they know everything and aren’t even on the server…..
Either way, the t3/t4 links are way better this go around…
The problem isn’t BG being full. Technically the other two servers in T1 are also full and I’m sure server capacities are the same (or at least they should be). However one side is full of fairweathers that are in for the win, and the other side full of fairweathers that don’t play because they are losing.
The problem here are all the fairweathers that bail the moment things get rough.
or remove server association if you have not entered wvw for a set amount of time (6 months?). they got so big when dormant players still associated with them combined with the people that did transfer when they were open – this was at least part of the reason why they were so strong when april patch hit….
What im suggesting is why doesnt ANET do some calculation and how you get rewarded base on participation why not do that for overall score.
Because players can simply transfer to the highest population server to get rewarded for coming in first. That’s why it isn’t done.
I thought they were trying to say rewarded by personal participation. Personal participation measured as a percent of whole might be lower on a stacked server – even if it just ktrains.
Varying populations across 24 hours of day … hard nut to crack
it is, but the way servers are linked doesn’t help. most servers that have some “off hours” are hosts and they aren’t linked. now imagine hosts being linked where server a has “off hours” and server b has na prime. that combo might compete in a tier higher than they currently are SOS + YB or JQ + FA. That could make some interesting matches, but the whole concept of server + guests would need to be replaced with true partners where glicko is tracked and maintained for all (or dumped for all) ….
Yes…but HoD had been in Tier 3 with SBI…and I don’t remember seeing numbers like we are seeing now from YB. We saw big groups…but not with the kind of consistency I have seen over the last few days.
I’m not sure if its been bandwagon’d or what…but it just doesn’t come out in the wash.
I give YB credit for having a large active WvW pop, which HoD/EBAY/ET obviously do not, at leats not in the BLs…<shrug>…who knows…I won’t speak for NSP/DH/DR…but this is why the pairings and matchups still do not work.
If there’s even a chance this coudl re-roll for the same matchup next week…something is still obviously and dreadfully wrong. lol
Well Saturday evening there were sizable FC forces out NA prime for sure. Lion was one of the main tags. This could also be true Sunday and Monday, but it is sort of hard to tell the way Anet deals with linked nameplates. I don’t really know which guilds are FC and which are YB that I just don’t recognize – not to mention the un-guilded players which I saw a lot of as well.
thanks for answering what you are trying to do, but have you considered even less matches (tiers) with more combined servers in an attempt to even things up? T4 NA was messed up for 8 weeks. YB got the shaft for 8 weeks. Early returns seem to indicate TC played well by dropping to 4th just before re-linking ensuring a link while JQ is odd man out.
Just a comment on this, I’m absolutely sick of servers/guild alliances exploiting the system and getting rewarded for it. Its happened with BG and TC and maybe DB are now trying to do it, either link all servers in T1 and T1 NA or don’t link any. Servers moving to full or very high may be automatic (although this is up for debate) but certainly links are being done on a case by case basis so it is within anets power to ensure servers aren’t absolutely screwed for 2 months.
AGREED …. The 1 issue I see is that there are 4 servers that could compete T1 and anet has not recognized that coming in 4th the week of re-link seems to work out best – this was DB link 2.
Even then, bad links wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for 8 weeks… YB had it’s share of bad links (both times due to being overrated when the links were made), but T4 second go around was an even bigger joke and it was obvious from the start.
I know a lot of EU players are asking why Far Shiverpeaks is linked with Whiteside Ridge and Fissure of Woe so I figured I would clear up why this link was made.
Our goal with World Linking is good matches. This doesn’t necessarily mean that worlds in tier 4 are intended to be competitive with worlds in tier 1, but ideally every world in tier 4 should be competitive with the other worlds in tier 4 and likewise every world in tier 1 should be competitive with the other worlds in tier 1. It would be nice if worlds in tier 4 were competitive with tier 1, but it’s not realistic since the distribution of players across worlds is not consistent. The issue is compounded in EU, due to the fact that we are avoiding linking worlds with different languages. For example, there is only one Spanish world, so they’ll never be linked and thus might never be competitive in tier 1 worlds. Similarly making each set of German worlds have equivalent populations has proved equally impossible because if we were to link them they would have a much higher population than other worlds, making match-ups against them not competitive.
Far Shiverpeaks was linked with two worlds because we needed a third world that would have similar population to the French worlds, specifically Jade Sea and Vizunah Square so that the matchup could be competitive. Far Shiverpeaks, Whiteside, Ridge, and Fissure of Woe linked together gave us the best population to create competitive match-ups for that tier.
It is also important to keep in mind that this is the very first week of match-ups and it will take time before glicko adjusts worlds into their correct tiers.
thanks for answering what you are trying to do, but have you considered even less matches (tiers) with more combined servers in an attempt to even things up? T4 NA was messed up for 8 weeks. YB got the shaft for 8 weeks. Early returns seem to indicate TC played well by dropping to 4th just before re-linking ensuring a link while JQ is odd man out. Meanwhile T4 may not be much better this go around (too early to tell with a T3 server in the match)
They are not being transparent with their world links purposely. They don’t want to give away details on what internal tools they have by which they measure population for fear that the playerbase will in turn manipulate the data ANet uses to build the links.
I suspect this as well, but even if they don’t say exactly how they linked servers – it would be nice to know what the goal is.
So the underlying idea of the linkings is to kill the lower servers one at a time until there’s a manageable amount of servers with high populations?
It’s so unbalanced it is ridiculous. FSP getting not one but two links, and GH getting one that has up til now been used as a cheap t1 bandwagon option. It’s like no actual humans even looked at it before committing.
No one knows the long term goal / vision. Many suspect this though.
It certainly looks that way now that they opened up a new tier with YB losing 100+ glicko to servers that literally started with 0. YB will be playing Farmville in T5 for a while now thanks to the introduction of new hosts without starting glicko. Great match up against fish in a barrel. …lol!
I expect YB bandwagoners to follow soon with the imminent deaths of the new hosts.
you looked at mosmillenium – it is wrong the other hosts did not start with 0. There are better sites, YB is gaining glicko. And there is no T5……
So the underlying idea of the linkings is to kill the lower servers one at a time until there’s a manageable amount of servers with high populations?
It’s so unbalanced it is ridiculous. FSP getting not one but two links, and GH getting one that has up til now been used as a cheap t1 bandwagon option. It’s like no actual humans even looked at it before committing.
No one knows the long term goal / vision. Many suspect this though.
More than anything, i’d like to see anets vision of what they are even trying to accomplish. If it is to get 4 matches that are competitive, but not competitive with the tier above or below why bother at all…
I’d rather they get rid of glicko and tiers altogether and try to get 3 matches that are fun, but not stagnant. There will be blowouts, but there are already blowouts anyway. No reason to hibernate, stack, tank, mass transfer, or buy people if there are no tiers….
38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
(For clarity’s sake, I changed the order from “shortest” to “longest”. The numbers don’t add up to 100% because of those who chose not to vote at all.)
This can be summarized as:
54% wanted evaluations more often than the original 3 months
~29% wanted it to remain at 3 months
~12% wanted the time period to increase.
That’s how ANet explained to us why they chose two months (receiving only 16% of the vote) instead of one (which received more than double the votes at 38%).
tl;dr it started as 3 months, people voted to make it evaluations happen more often.
It’s probably time for ANet to poll us again to see if our opinion has changed about whether we still want linking and, if so, how often they should re-evaluate.
agreed. 2 months last link was horrific and we knew it after 1 week…..
Jade Quarry doesn’t have near the population of DB or BG how the hell do you expect us to be able to compete?
More decisions which just turn players off the game mode. You need to be more transparent with players about how you made these decisions.
Welcome to YBs link hades from last round, except we have even less coverage….
I am not sure what they are really trying to do in the long run, but I’d rather have the linkings try to make all server combos semi equal and lump tiers altogether in favor of round robin style play with all teams. Maybe that only means 3 matches in NA instead of 4…..
3 weeks ago DB, BG and JQ in T1, DB wins, BG in second JQ in 3rd
2 weeks ago DB gets knocked from FIRST place in T1 into T2, BG, JQ stay T1 and TC moves up
Last week BG wins, JQ in second and TC in 3rd
But now, JQ has a score higher an TC but is in T2 with no pairing and TC(who has a pairing) is in T1 against DB and BG…
What exactly is going on with scoring? Are you guys just throwing darts at a board to figure out T1? Or is TC cozying up with the right people?
It really makes no sense to me what so ever and I would really appreciate an explanation.
It still early to call this week scores… The matches pretty much just reseted. Give it a day or two before jumping unto conclusion. I’m pretty sure TC still cannot compete with BG.
At no point did I say anything about this weeks scores, I’m wondering about the fact that TC consistently places low and their current ranking score according to the GW2 Leaderboards shows TC scored below JQ which earned them a paired server, yet they are in T1 instead of JQ.
jq IS the t1 server not tc. there is an rng roll every week for matchups and jq rolled the t2 match. this has gone on forever….
YB will almost certainly be linked to another server. Anet seems to base links on population statistics. Considering that YB is still showing as Very High, I would assume they get linked with a server that has rather low population.
this is part of the problem. we can only guess at the voodoo logic being used to link servers and what the ultimate goal really is. 1st linkage was obvious 1-24 2-23 but happened so fast after the patch it did not account for mass movement with yb-jq-tc-db in particular. second linkage is less obvious what they did, but again didn’t account for recent moves and trends with population shifts before the linkage.
I guess tomorrow cant be any worse for YB and the T4 servers than the last linkage…. bad linkings wouldn’t be so bad if they were re-linked every 4 weeks, but 8 weeks is a long time……
Linking will be fine if they monitor it closely and make periodic adjustments so that evenly matched teams are facing each other, which is pretty much what they have promised will start with Friday’s re-linking.
Where did they say they will make periodic adjustments starting with this Friday’s re-linking? I don’t think Anet said that. I think some posters said that’s what they should do but Anet didn’t say it.
Anet wanted re-linkings every 3 months, longer than now, because it takes a lot of work to re-link. (Probably one reason why they went with 2-months instead of 1-month which got the most votes.)
Possibly I’m misreading this, but it seems that your tier will now dynamically change with each match up, moving you to the appropriate tier.
look at that date….. we have had 2 linkings with a 3rd this Friday over 16 weeks. Both linkings were very flawed as the data that was used to generate the links was woefully outdated totally ignoring recent trends and population movements.
YB was ranked way too high both times when the linkings were made. T4, as you have seen is a real cluster, that’s been imbalanced for 8 weeks. From my understanding many people in that 2 server link have transferred or quit because they were stuck with that horrid linking for 8 weeks.
Pro Tip: If you’ve been sitting at the log-in screen, you may continue to get the “Can’t log in” message even though the game is accessible. Close the game completely and start over. Success!
With T1 un-linked, I’m not sure its as big an issue as the first go around. With DB mostly being in T1 matches this second go around, anyone who went the cheap route of xfering to IOJ ended up paying to move to DB eventually anyway. How many are going to pay twice (1 being at host prices) when they could have paid to go to the main in the first place going forward?
the bigger issue that has occurred in the past was getting around the full status of a host by xferring to the link…. I know DB/IOJ are like that now, but not sure how long DB has been full….
I just wish reward tracks would stay on the one I selected when it finishes if it is repeatable. I don’t need COE anymore quit resetting to that when the track I selected is finished……
am I the only TC player worried that with the exodus the guilds, we are going to drop to T2 or T3?
We can’t even compete in T1 with BG and DB now. We even lost to JQ the last match up.
wait for re-link when some of the people on “DB” are gone because they are really on “IOJ”. Next link it will be DB and maybe even JQ solo and possibly full….
Am I the only one who wvws quite a bit AND sort of enjoyed map completion? Though I did stop when I had enough gifts for every legendary if I ever wanted to make that many…..
The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.
Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.
Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.
And what happens when a server pushes into T1 and the former T1 server goes down and is facing servers with links like happened with YB? I know YB is close to universally disliked but still what happened to them was absurd.
YB lost people and fell in the rankings. And it actually happened very fast historically speaking. In the past, servers have been stuck in a tier where they were outmatched for months and months. YB fell to T3 within weeks and found a good place.
As is typical anet have stuffed up the implementation of links. There needs to be flexibility in the system for it to work as well as linking being done with some forethought, which is why monthly relinks should have been chosen. 2 months is simply too inflexible, as well as the stupidity of linking the 4 servers together, some of whom were previously linked to T1 servers and were the apparent beneficiary of significant transfers with those links.
I agree that monthly links should have been chosen. That’s what I voted for.
However I disagree they Anet should by default limit themselves in the number of linkings that they can create. I think it has more to do with their data being out of date than anything else.
the data they use to link is clearly out-dated when they make the link. Yb is a prime example ranked as #1 the first link and #3 (no-link) the second go around. Like the algorithm, if there is even one, doesn’t recognize recent trends at all. It certainly doesn’t recognize recent mass movements…..
the problem is that even if they were current and well done, the players continue to mass move on the cheap and everything is out of balance again. If the re-link was every month, I wonder if servers would continue to buy guilds / players continue to pay gems to keep moving. It is one thing to pay 500 gems every month versus every other month… Maybe the simple answer to charge gems at the highest ranked server in any linking. Would ET, DR, IOJ have gotten that fat (at least temporarily) if it wasn’t so cheap?
Its the infusing that gets pricey unless an infused ring happens to drop. Once it does drop, chances are it isn’t the stat set you want anyway…. Oh to be able to change stats similar to ascended weapons / armor via forge……
I see a lot of situations where two servers hit a single objective. That’s not collusion. It’s how the game works…
If you were on BG during Season 2, you know the difference.
or you were sbi when yb/ebay turned the match into a real 2 v 1 in seasons as well…
Omg I was there. I think that was one of those things that made large amounts of people quit WvW.
I’m on SBI and loved that match.
Oh, and it produced the greatest matchup thread of all time. 30 pages! In fact, I just Googled it and was able to find it. Oh man, anyone who wants a great read…
to be honest, I enjoyed the forum thread more than the actual match. Ebay and Yb having a Que v Que dance party at SBI spawn on EBG at the end of the week was enough of the match for me (and I have never been on SBI) ….
“But that comes with issues too. The cost for moving is a moot point, because the guilds who are in this situation are in it because of moving worlds so often. So they have the money, maybe not every guild member … but that’s a guild & player issue. It sucks though.”
or recruited from a linked world that is no longer linked – but they knew they wouldn’t be linked forever so still a guild / player issue…..
pretty sure the genesis of this request is to get people to play with their guild on a non-linked full server, otherwise they could simply transfer to the server the guild is on or its linked partner…
If I am wrong, then OK, but this is how the system would end up being used without limitations of not allowing guests on a full server. If the main server the guild is on isn’t full or has a link, then there already is a way to play with them…
guesting will never work. too much manipulating to get around full status. TC wants more people to fight of DB/BG – start a guild or recruit ANYONE anywhere to guild and they guest to a full server….
Bg/DB want TC out of their tier, guest to JQ or Mag to destroy the other the other servers helping to push one up…
All servers I used could be replaced by any other – they are just examples of the manipulation that would occur….
If we are all to be mercenaries, just get rid of servers altogether…….
Oh but we are mercenaries already. Everything that you’ve said could be done just the same without guilds; except it would cost some gems. So your argument is kind of invalid… If somebody wants to swap, they can swap. Not like you couldn’t add a 7 day limit (or 14) to the guild servers?
please explain HOW you play on a full server that has no links while located on a different server. You can only hope it opens for transfer and then transfer as far as I know……. Hardly the same as guesting for free….
This upcoming linking will be one of the first linkings where they have a lot of data on how the current match ups went. I would assume the farther along into the linkings we go the better the match ups will evolve to. Until then, it’s a tough road that has to be walked, but I believe it will be slightly better.
I wouldn’t be surprised if T4 again has one lopsided pairing, while they try to work on a happy median.
Also, I would expect to see IoJ removed from DB and likely provided to the Dbay pairing (whatever that looks like next linking)
except the linkings seem to use outdated data points from the start that become even more dated when people move around the first week of the new linkings. I hope I am wrong, but 0-2 on the linking logic so far…..
guesting will never work. too much manipulating to get around full status. TC wants more people to fight of DB/BG – start a guild or recruit ANYONE anywhere to guild and they guest to a full server….
Bg/DB want TC out of their tier, guest to JQ or Mag to destroy the other the other servers helping to push one up…
All servers I used could be replaced by any other – they are just examples of the manipulation that would occur….
If we are all to be mercenaries, just get rid of servers altogether…….
SoS and YB have continued focusing CD this week and CD is still fighting through it making for one of the more competitive tiers.
We generally just switch back and forth depending on who gets the most annoying. I suspect it’s much the same for CD and YB.
Pretty much this for SoS, we go out looking for things to do and just find the opposition in the objectives with more ACs than a provisioner.
You end up having to PPT when there aren’t any fights hopefully getting the opposition to come out and play.
Reset is pretty full on as it’s the weekend and I think all servers are fielding near full squads, later in the week once everyone is back at work or school the numbers drop back so it’s not unusual to see a drop in the scoring.
It was fun to see YB make a push on you guys last week though, we were pretty much thinking they were covering CDs backs rather than looking for a fight with CD.
I guess it’s all a matter of perspective depending on which server you are on.
and WHEN you play…. Servers play much differently when they are about equal numbers versus outmanned everywhere during that time slot…..
thank the molasses like slow re-link for this. people can wait out bad links for 4 weeks, but not 8…. better yet, revisit links at all. I bet that vote looks different now after 2 clueless links….
I’m surprised DB is open still, but I think it’s because players have been moving to IoJ rather than DB, much cheaper transfer cost, 500 than 1800.
Next watch they be dumpstered at T4 with other dead server like the bandwagoners from ET and Kain were.
They will just move again, but not to t1. “If” db is still open they wont be linked anymore, why pay 1800 gems AFTER already paying 500 (I know many player/guilds were bought) – that seems silly paying 2300 versus 1800 gems.
So JQ/Mag will buy them for their server or linked server, to push T1. And the cycles continues until we all realize that the server structure has passed the expiration date of their meaning.
they said at the time scoring by time zone was controversial and hinted would be a last resort type of thing for balancing not a given that scoring changes would include that.
