one thing to consider are the wvw weapon master /armor master. they sell exotic gear of various stat combinations for wvw badges. you cannot get all stats sets from them, but they are worth checking out. be sure to check out all the tabs on the buy window to see the stat sets.
On the enemy borderlands – next to TP and repair anvil….
It’s interesting YB was T1 with no partner server and without one it has slid to T3. At the rate they’re shedding Glicko points they are likely to stay in T3 and lock Maguuma in T2.
Which of course does nothing to help resolve the stale matchup in T4.
How true this is I’m not sure but, it’s rumored that YB either lost a bunch of people or they purposely lost to move tiers. I’m thinking they lost people because their population doesn’t seem T1ish.
Both.
Links were very bad (or the timing of them) for YB as we were considered #1 for purposes of the first link and we clearly were not #1 based on more recent data/trends at that time. Specifically Hibergate returned to being Blackgate just prior to the big patch. TC got a bunch of guilds with some of them coming from YB.
Second link occurs and were still #3 in glicko for linking purposes, but again recent trends had us much lower than that. That is, glicko had not caught up yet. At this point, some/many were OK with dropping to T2 to be more competitive.
We roll T2 and 2 more guilds left. 1 wanted back in T1 (so cant really blame them) and the another went to Mag. Included in that was a popular pugmander.
Last part of the puzzle is another pugmander with a massive friends list has had connect issues for some time that are not easily resolved. 1 person should never be that important, but well it is obvious without him. He would message his entire friends list that was online when something was going down (or huge offensive was pending).
All that said, the last few weeks have been fun for the group I play with….
have a default check box on personal reward screen. Purpose is to set the reward track to the marked track when your current track completes. Alternatively, if the track is repeatable just stay on the same track upon completion…
Yup. It’s been YEARS now and every attempted fix has been a failure. Preventing stale match ups isn’t even hard to do.
Winner moves up 1 bracket, loser moves down 1 bracket.
BOOM. A repeat of last week’s match up becomes impossible. Four severs (top 2 and bottom 2) will only see 1 new opponent each week, but the other eight servers are guaranteed to play against two servers that they didn’t play against last week.
But they are likely to repeat every 2 weeks unless a major population shift happen.
which is still better than the exact same matchup every week like t4 has. T1 and T2 have been the same for 3 weeks as well, so T3 must have been too.
Will Glicko ratings be adjusted before or after a match?
Glicko ratings are temporarily adjusted at exactly the time of matchmaking. The adjustment will never be visible. We’re not actually modifying any world’s rating, just preventing matchmaking from letting worlds drift away from the others.
Why not just change the links again?
World links change on a schedule to maintain some stability. Among other reasons, those who maintain voice chat servers don’t have to redo permissions every week. We also wouldn’t want to start shifting world links around on a subjective whim. The frequency of the schedule was previously determined by a public poll.…..
not really. vote was every month not every 2 months with no indication some sort of averaging would take place… if that had held, people would be less likely to transfer every re-link and really bad links ala t4 would only last a month.
It would have made more sense to re-link frequently until you had the the re-link algorithms “perfected”. Then dial it back to 2 months re-links…
You need to go read the poll thread again. The vote is to change linkings every 2 months.
No the vote was for every month, but not by a large enough margin to leave as is. Anet picked 2 months as some sort of averaging of the results of the poll.
Unfortunately the linking was grossly imbalanced by sheer lack of effort in determining population and player activity by the people making the polls and using them as a scapegoat to not fix their mistakes.
Question:
What if, at the time of linking, and the last 2 months statistics said that the current match-up would work very well.
Then once the linking actually happened, all the fair weathers wake up on some servers, goes dormant on others, and a bunch of guilds and players that moved around to get on large server of preference, moves around to somewhere else again.
How are they supposed to ever get accurate numbers and statistics to create balanced links/servers/tiers ?
In this case, would there be any difference in re-linking ? Say they changed it this week, and gave Kain to SF group and ET to DH group.
Now say the new DH group “wins reset”, and all their fair-weathers will be out in storm (DH got lots of fair-weathers), and suddenly all the fair-weathers in CD+BP will go dormant, and suddenly situation is reversed. (Toss in a few random transfers as well for good measure).
that’s part of the reason for a shorter link – will people really change servers every month? will servers continue to buy/rent guilds for 1 month? (they often send them to guest because it is cheaper)
Will Glicko ratings be adjusted before or after a match?
Glicko ratings are temporarily adjusted at exactly the time of matchmaking. The adjustment will never be visible. We’re not actually modifying any world’s rating, just preventing matchmaking from letting worlds drift away from the others.
Why not just change the links again?
World links change on a schedule to maintain some stability. Among other reasons, those who maintain voice chat servers don’t have to redo permissions every week. We also wouldn’t want to start shifting world links around on a subjective whim. The frequency of the schedule was previously determined by a public poll.…..
not really. vote was every month not every 2 months with no indication some sort of averaging would take place… if that had held, people would be less likely to transfer every re-link and really bad links ala t4 would only last a month.
It would have made more sense to re-link frequently until you had the the re-link algorithms “perfected”. Then dial it back to 2 months re-links…
No ques, FA server, every BL 2 hours after reset. Ouch anet
same on YB with outnumbered buff the time we were on JQBL (like 2-3 hours)…. That said, the fights were great because there was not too many on either side the entire time.
I voted monthly because not at all wasn’t a choice lol!
it was a choice. it was the previous vote to keep linking or trash it. many were way too optimistic in thinking that they would get the linkings right “next time” even though the first linking was poorly timed/based on out of date data/too simplistic..
you only have 3-4 weeks of quad stack after the 29th – and may not even roll t3 on the 29th – just a chance to roll it as I read it……
“…For example, if we use this for NA’s lowest tier of worlds (T4), bumping them up to be just below T3’s ratings, they’ll have a decent chance of being shuffled into T3 during matchmaking. Given the ratings today, an adjustment we might make for July 29th could look something like:
…
"
I still think we should have used shorter re-linking periods up front to balance the pops and discourage the transfers of fair-weathers.
I.e. 1st 2 months = re-link every 2 weeks until pops find some form of harmony and mass transfers are discouraged due to only lasting a short time b4 they may have to transfer again.
Then, move to the 2 month cycle of re-linking once we have confirmed populations are consistent and stable as they can become.
interesting. I voted for every 4 weeks, but hadn’t considered dialing it back after a few links…
Some of us knew linking was fail sauce from the start and voted against keeping it. We had the vote to drop it or keep it. The vote to keep won and it is no longer beta. It just doesn’t work. Yay us the players for keeping it, wishing and hoping and praying it would actually work….
You all do realize that a yes vote on this poll just puts repair hammers in on a trial basis, and then they’ll have a poll to determine if players want to keep it in game.
What better way to see what the impact is? Try ’em out first, if they suck, people vote them out on the poll after the trial run.
At the bottom of the poll, in small type(you would have thought they would have learned from the last time they screwed up the wording of a poll to put important stuff like this in bold font)
After players have had a chance to test repair hammers we will hold a follow-up poll to determine if repair hammers should become a permanent feature of the game.
and linkings worked out so well using this logic… better to cut it off from the start…
I voted no for the simple reason that the dev time could be used on something more important then more hit or miss trial stuff ..
People could always waste supply with troll siege so your spy part is moot point.
If dumb pugs are trying to repair a lost cause piece of siege, they are likely to also be repairing a lost cause wall which is another moot point.
Repair Hammer will have a minimal impact imo as it’s hard to see a siege weapon survive long enough to need repairs.
Agreed minimal impact as anyone repairing siege on a wall will be nuked and siege goes down fast.
I voted No for a different reason. A waste of Anet’s dev time and resources, which is a limited commodity, on something that will be of limited use. Spend the time on better linking algorithms as the current ones don’t work….
I’m on Ebay too and we are not happy being paired up with DH as it is, but this nonstop blobbing is so tiresome, we’ve gone somewhat inactive.
When I was checking on WvW. I kept seeing less, and less activity of my server-bros. What was very devastating to my own morale, was that one of our own actually transferred over to CD because we were constantly losing in last matchup, and to this match up thanks to constant lack of numbers.
Everyone seem to be abandoning the losing servers for the winning ones.
Yeah that is sad. GoM still has a lot of familiar faces I’d gladly run into a 5v10 with but it feels like Anet is telling me to transfer if I want to have fun. Every day it’s the same. Back cap and beat off a blob for hours on a keep with no walls only to have it capped when people finally have to eat or sleep.
The porting enemy players out of the Keep when the timer runs out is the new idea part. Just thinking of wacky things that would add some fun if done for like a week.
or “enrage” timer ala Rift – when timer runs out 1 shot deaths like every second…..
yeah, i understand, but how many times at reset do you care about your rewards from the previous week?
I know, all week long, the overall idea is to “win”…
but if winning on its own starts to become pretty boring, wouldn’t most people wanna shake things up? If not, then everyone would just run dire/perp pu mesmers, lol.
You need to think like the majority man, and the majority of the players are casuals who pop in WvW with the intention of winning and not to have fun with fights or whatever. Their fun is based in their capability of winning. If they can’t win, they will just bail and do somenthing else or even transfer to somewhere where they can “win”.
I’ve been at the bottom of the barrel many times and it ain’t pretty. People don’t want to be there, and sure as hell they won’t be if they have a choice of not being there.
add in the new personal reward tracks and yes winning is very important to some…..
C’mon, I think world linking is quite ok. Maybe the issue is: unfortunate terrible matchups in EU (t2, t3, t5) and stall/inert glicko rating in NA (t3, t4, t5)?
Unfortunate loopsided matchups wouldn’t be a problem if they changed in the next week. The stallness glicko creates make these unfortunate matches a worse issue than they are suposed to be.
very true. 1-2 weeks of a bad match – simply do silly things like all Mesmer or all Minion Mecromancers for fun. 8 weeks though – hard to come up with ideas to make it fun (on either side – ktrains get old for most too) ….
I am still not convinced 1 up 1 down is as horrid as some think it is. It isn’t perfect, but it would resolve the problem with this match in particular. I just wonder how many are going to still be around from these 9 servers after 8 weeks (assuming this continues) ….
Yeah they need to fix something fast. Unless their intention is to kill off all small servers and let players pay to redistribute themselves on the main servers.
Like we already said in other thread: People who voted for 2 months were expecting just that servers would be cycling in pairs around the tiers. If we knew Arena Net would do such kittened things like linking 4 servers and keep them stuck in the lowest tier, we certainly wouldn’t have voted for 2 months.
I do wonder how the keep linking or nor vote would turn out now compared to a few weeks into the first link….
We’ve only been back a couple days so all we know is it’s every two weeks. So seeing as how the link was there before reset is it safe to assume the new linking will be next reset ?
On another note, why did they bother with linking?
Why didn’t they just merge servers so it wasn’t as chaotic?
Recruiting is a nightmare because of Linking.
I just don’t get the thought process behind this brainchild.
we are 2 weeks into an 8 week link.
There was a vote to keep linking or dump it and “keep” won. there was another vote for how long to keep links. 1 month was the ‘most popular’ (not a majority) choice of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, or 6 months. It was not overwhelming, so Anet did some averaging of votes to come up with 2 months. Some were ok with the averaging and some thought it was a way for Anet to avoid more work since Anet originally proposed 3 months…
lol – with those #s how did ANY “reds” in that group get downed?
It’s interesting you notice that. The “reds” you see dead or downed are SF. CD’s zerg is steamrolling over SF’s zerg on their way to my little group of 4 or 5.
LOL
But, we don’t care. We always manage to kill one or two before we succumb to the wizardry of Anet’s WvW mechanics.
I’d also like to point out, CD never engages us unless and until they are in their zerg. When my partner and I encounter 1-3 of them out there, we pursue, but they always run. What’s up with that? I mean, come on.
truth be told, I edited out ‘CD’ for ‘reds’ because just couldn’t tell and thought might be a small group of 1 server trailed by a blob….
Asgard I feel your pain from the other side. The server I’m on is linked with 3 other servers. We barely have to blink and we are killing the other two linked groups. Borrrrrring… I don’t care even a tiny bit about the score or ranking since you get absolutely nothing for winning a week. But I do care about seeing things so lopsided that I know the other guys must be disillusioned as well. This past week I’ve probably gone into wvw for a total of 2, maybe 3 hours… used to be a couple hours a day. Frankly I’m pretty much to the point where I don’t care period.. I go in to have some fun with a few friends then leave.. meh.
Agreed. There have been some fun fights here and there, but being so dominant with 4 servers just gets downright boring for the most part. It was fun the first week, but now, I can’t wait for a new linking and/or matchup.
As someone else posted a while back, it is like we have become the BG of Tier 4. zzzzzzzzzzzzz……..
i don’t think any servers are bad at wvw. i have thousands of hours inside wvw and i’ve played on a handful of servers and every single one of them has the mentality that the servers they play against in any matchup are bad/keep huggers/siege humpers etc. i honestly think this is due partly to the fact that there’s no cross server communication in wvw and the enemy players just become <Server Name> Gold Soldier.
the truth is that every server is playing wvw in the exact same way. we all have pugs/pugmanders, we all have roamers, and we all have guild groups. we all have blobs and casual players that stay in keeps and fire acs at passing guild groups.
instead we should focus on which server has the most cancerous, elitist guild groups that try and lure pugs out of EB so they can do ‘muh zerg bust’ when in reality rolling 40-50 deep against an unorganized pug zerg on another server is just an effortless bag farm – the thing guild groups actually seem to be after. the second any kind of challenge arises, they just switch maps to find another easy, unorganized bag farm. if that doesn’t work they’re guaranteed to go troll on gw2wvw because they are le epic uncaring stoic internet hero.
inb4 trite ‘lel u mad bro’, packet-of-salt.jpg replies
Have we gotten an explanation on how exactly this is supposed to work yet?
re-links were 2? weeks ago. they only re-link every 8 weeks. the vote that got the most votes for frequency was 4 weeks, but that wasn’t enough for anet to not go the route of averaging… be glad it wasn’t 3 months or more as anet wanted..
we are partially responsible for not overwhelmingly vote 1 month re-linking… imagine if 3 months or more had won…
Nobody expected that we would have a 4 link monstruosity locked in a tier with 2 other teams that cannot compete in numbers.
Exactly. We were hoping for better balancing with the server pairings. If we had known their would be that much volatility in the pairings themselves but not in the glicko, we would have voted accordingly.
based on the first set of linkings, it was obvious anet would never get them right…. I am starting to believe servers must be nuked to get balance…. even then that balance may never be achieved.
I’m sorta dumb when it comes to any crafting or pve, why were people complaining again about crafting stations in wvw and what was the benefit? Some type of magic find wvw booster or something?
An x-guild turned me into this monster who never leaves outside wvw
the main reason was people could leave Orr / JPs / out of the way locations, come to wvw for crafting, and return back to where they were in pve land.
Well, nobody down here want CD to stay either. The only ones content with that outcome is Arena Net (since they are not bothering in do somenthing about it). I mentioned on another thread, we already seen this happen before and the only solution was manual intervention. But problably since the pairings will change eventually, they will use that as a excuse to do nothing.
we are partially responsible for not overwhelmingly vote 1 month re-linking… imagine if 3 months or more had won…
Why? ‘Seasons’ did more to kill commanders and guilds than anything else. It was a mistake from the start. As for the amazing rewards…. really? All that trouble and hassle for some skins? It should never, ever come back in any form.
never say never, but as long as we have the current server system I agree….
sorry all, i really dont have time to read through 5 pages of this thread so please excuse me if this question has been answered:
will the server match ups change again? is RoS destined to be passed from server to server like an unwanted step child?
Ive been away for a couple of months, i had joined a wvw guild on gandara (which had previously left ros) but came back last night to find im now on desolation fighting against my gandara guild and then to discover ive been removed from that guild as im on a different server :/
Yes the server linkages will be changed every 2 months.
and yes passed around like a red headed step child. Vote already took place to keep linkings so going to around for some time i’d imagine…
Inactive accounts already are not counted for server population, haven’t been for almost a whole year now.
while this is true, BG got so large so fast because those inactives that ’didn’t count’ were still on BG when they came back from hiatus for the big patch. Granted it seems many have left again, but at some point maybe you should be no longer attached to a wvw server….
OR
Could be we wont ever see that sort of one off influx again so not a problem…
Oh I see. Yea that “potential population” is not something players/guilds looking to transfer or Anet’s server linking can realistically account for with regards to population balance. It is truly fairweather. Not sure about it though considering that it disappears again. WvW is very cyclical. Too many people seem to panic transfer just because of those fairweathers.
Like I said, maybe it was a one off thing never to be repeated again, but those blobs right after patch were insane…
Inactive accounts already are not counted for server population, haven’t been for almost a whole year now.
while this is true, BG got so large so fast because those inactives that ’didn’t count’ were still on BG when they came back from hiatus for the big patch. Granted it seems many have left again, but at some point maybe you should be no longer attached to a wvw server….
OR
Could be we wont ever see that sort of one off influx again so not a problem…
It seems like the smaller worlds might just get absorbed into the host worlds over the longer term just through transfers. For instance, I know a pretty major BP guild recently transferred back to FA, and some individuals have done this as well.
OP, what will you do if DR isn’t linked to Mag at the end of the next cycle? If your answer is “transfer guild to Mag” (or another host server), then your recruitment problem may just be short term.
I am not so sure this isn’t what Anet wanted all along. Let’s put guest servers in limbo without any real visibility until so many move to hosts, that the remaining WANT the server merge step that may have been too controversial when this all started.
Whether it’s guilds from the guest server transferring to the host server (convenient ANet opened transfers after that first relink in when people from guests were thrown into a new match) or host members transferring to guest servers to be with a new guild, it is definitely some major $$$$$ for ANet no matter what.
I don’t want to transfer. Not even a little. So my problem (unfortunately) isn’t short term. Not to mention, we keep a lot more gold in our pocket if we help a few Mag (or other host server) roamers move to DR than it would be to get our DR folks all over to Mag (cuz fewer people to move and it’s way cheaper to transfer to DR).
But that’s the issue – how many want to be the vagabonds? If you are on a host, you have decent guess on where you land in the tiers when re-links happen. As a guest, you could be who knows where. Will t1 remain unlinked? Will t4 continue to have 3 and 4 linked servers? Will anyone care anymore if they are in a bad match for 2 months?
It seems like the smaller worlds might just get absorbed into the host worlds over the longer term just through transfers. For instance, I know a pretty major BP guild recently transferred back to FA, and some individuals have done this as well.
OP, what will you do if DR isn’t linked to Mag at the end of the next cycle? If your answer is “transfer guild to Mag” (or another host server), then your recruitment problem may just be short term.
I am not so sure this isn’t what Anet wanted all along. Let’s put guest servers in limbo without any real visibility until so many move to hosts, that the remaining WANT the server merge step that may have been too controversial when this all started.
“Beta” =/= “unofficial”. That’s my entire point. Whether it is in alpha or beta or final release has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is official.
In this case, the thought was beta/test would try links. Links would stay or be removed from gw2 wvw dependent on a vote. Vote has taken place, so no longer beta. Can the way links work evolve? Of course things can change with how links work, but it is not beta in the way it was implied.
we had this vote to continue linking or not. some saw this as a form of immediate gratification, but with no real long term benefits. we lost that vote (and I am on a host btw)….
Is not an option for us, our people is tired of moving because server implosions and stuff. And believe it or not we don´t have the gold or gems to move anymore. Blackgate is not stacked in EU to NA, we play in that slot and we are many times outnumbered.
Ask around, some servers would pay handsomely for an EU guild to help with your transfers.
All of our player want to stay at one server, and thats BG. We are here before YB was winning by a huge margin.
It does not matter if the guilds can´t join a full server, but at least to a guild already in a server let the players join (to play with my friends). This system has flaws but i think is a good idea.
In other words…
If a guild is already on a full server, they can recruit from any server and expect the system to allow them to move to said full server? This is what would happen….
Our own fault for not overwhelmingly voting in favor of 1 month re-linking….. I know it got the most votes of all the choices, but wasn’t enough to prevent #anetaveraging…..
easy solution and guaranteed sales. airship pass and the DR equivalent takes you back to where you were when leaving ala WVW. This was why crafters went there in the first place….
IMHO GH were the major cause of death to wvw when HOT came out, not the dbl. Guild Halls are very expensive to level (or were) making small guilds useless….
Since they flipped the +5 from top to bottom of the guild hall upgrades, small guilds now only need a level 6 guild for the basics (compared to 37 before or whatever it was). 5 peeps (or probably as low as 2-3 if they are in good PvE classes on good builds and get lucky) can cap a guild hall.
good to know, but too little too late for many of those guilds…
