Guild Wars 2

My latest suggestion to ANet to try to improve WvW/Matches:
A Whole New Format for WvW

I think there are things in there that everybody from all 3 Servers would enjoy.
(Please leave comments/suggestions in that thread and especially “+1” it if you like it)

Here’s a radical suggestion to completely shake up WvW but also hopefully make a lot of different people happy.

2-Phase Match Structure
Phase 1 – Reset Weekend (Lasts from Reset till Sunday)
The match is played as normal with all sides participating as they do now

Phase 2 – Weekday
Here’s where things get interesting.

At “Reset Time” Sunday (currently 6pm Server) WvW is brought down for a “phase change” but when it comes back up new “Rules” for BLs are in effect:

• EBG – Server vs Server (continues to function as it does now with Scores carrying over from the weekend)
• “Roamer’s Paradise” – One BL is converted into a “Free for all” map where only Party Members are Friendly and everyone else regardless of Server is now Red/an Enemy
• “Guild vs Guild” – One BL is converted into a map where only people from the same Guild (and Server) are Friendly. Anyone not a member of your Guild (including those not currently “Repping”) are Enemies
• “PvE/Map Completion” – One BL is converted to a PvE Map where everyone (regardless of Server) is Friendly and Map Completionists can run wild and free

Which BL is which can be rotated each week so Map Completionists can be happy.

This allows matches to be more competitive throughout the week (a Server only needs to be able to “cover” EBG during the week rather than 4 maps) while also allowing 2 new types of often-requested gameplay as well as making Map Completionists happy.

eithinan.9841:

Teevell.1684:

Why don’t you guys just team up? I mean, if SoS and Maguuma combined forces, it would probably be a lot more fun than what we’re doing now.

And so what if that’s not the way WvWvW is intended to be, either? Maybe if Anet sees us trouble shooting their match-ups on our own, they’ll get some ideas on how to fix this.

This IS how WvW and 3 way matches are supposed to work!!!!!!

To make any competition with 3 teams on the board at the time competitive the 2 weaker participants must focus the 1 stronger participant. Or think about it like war, why did the Germans in WW2, And Napoleon earlier try to conquer europe before pushing into Russia. Why do all the Mideastern countries, who hate each other like Iran,Syria,Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.. all show a united front against the US.

It is about winning. anything less is playing for second. If both weaker teams focus the stronger teams border land and both push north, instead of vulturing off the south mags, the defending server will have to make a choice. What do they lose. Then later when they got to recap the other location they lost the one they decide to keep is vulnerable.

This is basic stuff here.

From a post I made in Server Matchups are Terrible

The Strongest Server in a Tier will take whatever they can hold from the other two opponents. They might focus the Middle Server if the scores are close or the Middle Server has a Coverage Period where they are dominant.

The Middle Server will also take whatever they can hold from the other two Servers, which (since they aren’t as strong as the dominant Server) means mostly taking and holding objectives from the Weakest Server. They might focus the Strongest Server if the scores are close.

The Weakest Server will try to take and hold whatever it can which (outside of especially close matches) isn’t much. They might focus the Middle Server if the scores are close.

There is rarely ever a reason for the Weakest Server to target and draw the attention of the Strongest Server, meaning that the chances of the Strongest Server in a match ever truly facing a sustained 2v1 are very small.

It can happen in small, localized, isolated incidents but with the way Scores and Ratings are calculated it just doesn’t make sense for a sustained one to occur…

and that is a problem.

The scoring system is broken and Rating mostly only represents Coverage not Skill. There are a number of different approaches ANet can take but they do have to do something because what we have right now isn’t working.

UnrepentantProcrastinator.7420:

Not really. There’s nothing wrong with Tier 1. For all intents and purposes it is “balanced”.

TC is the common denominator for the same complaint that has been made in every T2 match up thread for weeks.

And I harbour no ill will toward TC. It is my go-to guest server when I need to. I simply recognize the problem and the most logical solution.

Then why are so many of your posts in your current matchup thread about transfers to T1 with none of them mentioning how those guilds should be going to lower-ranked Servers?

You are disingenuous to the utmost. You never suggested guilds transfer off BG when you were dominating T2 for months. You also know that in this random match system there is a decent chance that TC will be facing one or more T1 Servers in a match and that any of the current “top 3” Servers can drop down into a match with lower-ranked opponents.

So please, just stop with the concern trolling and go back to your T1 Thread ok?

UnrepentantProcrastinator.7420:

Asudementio.8526:

also, bg and sor, and jq.

Is the math really that hard for you?

In one family of three children, each child gets a plate of bacon for breakfast.

In another family of three children, one child gets three plates and the other two get none.

Your solution is to take the bacon from the first family rather than having the fatass child from the second family share his bacon?

Considering from what I heard that the guilds leaving SoS are going to T1 Servers the problem actually does lie just as much with SoR, JQ, and BG as any other Server (if you actually believe that it is the Servers’ fault and not ANet’s for how they have let this whole fiasco develop).

If [Agg] had stayed on DB (instead of going to JQ), or [BT] on FA (instead of going to BG) both those Servers would be a lot better off than they are now against TC.

So please stop bashing the people on TC or insisting that we are responsible for cleaning up your (or really ANet’s) mess.

Snowreap.5174:

not sure if I’ll have time to post newer numbers closer to the start of the next match. this week’s match, combined with real life, has kept me very busy.

I sincerely hope we get easier servers next week; I need a rest.

-ken

You guys are doing great against DB!
(of course with your Server’s performance you now have a higher chance of such a matchup again )

Draygo.9473:

Disagree

They need to scrap score from being the in game method of determining a winner and just use server rating. Rating is already automatically handicapped.

Almost nobody wants to “Play for Rating” – read any of the many Threads and accept facts already.

To a very great extent Rating = Coverage no more and no less. Outside of some mythical “perfectly balanced match” Rating has nothing to do with the skill of the Servers involved.

Gamers are often by nature competitive and will play hard for a chance to win. There is no incentive to play for Rating in WvW because all an increase in Rating means for an outmatched Server (coverage-wise) is more imbalanced matches.

Shouldn’t the system encourage players and Servers to play their best and participate as much as they can rather than the opposite?

Chaba.5410:

Like I tell my sons, it doesn’t matter who started it. Who is going to end it?

A Moderator?

Chaba.5410:

Hickeroar, there’s an appeals process just for this very reason. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the mesmer who actually laid the portal had to run back out over the wall TOO in order to port people in. I realize that you see a fellow EP member there and are going at lengths to defend for that reason. I would too if I saw a member of my own guild there. Yet don’t you think that any reasonable and objective analysis of the situation would indicate that Flashypants was just doing the best he could to bring Anet’s attention to the glitch when it is next to impossible, in the heat of battle, to distinguish who is running back over the wall to lay a portal and who is just trying to take the correct course of action to recover from the glitch?

Estus.1726:

If this was a one time glitch that some people took advantage of either knowingly or unwittingly, then I would be VERY surprised if anyone is even warned. I’m sure a bug report was sent to ANET so they can correct it.

If this was caused by a known exploit, then of course that would be different.

ANET not only looks at people who are reported but also at the people that do the reporting. Actions can be taken against a reporter if they deem it’s a frivolous complaint. Something to keep in mind.

The event happened. Apologizes offered. Time to move on.

Excellent Posts!
/Topic

Furiousbeard.7602:

You guys can think what you like. The best part is that it wasn’t me and I should hope will never be.

You people have a twisted view of the world if you think people don’t have a right to call you out for doing inappropriate things. This isn’t an American courthouse where discrediting a witness justifies your opinions.

Grow up.

While Hickeroar sometimes thinks a lot of himself I don’t think he considers himself to be more than one person

Nobody is going to get banned over a single incident involving a glitch Hicke please calm down and stop RPing your Guardian in this thread

Furiousbeard.7602:

Don’t try to play this off as me being the bad guy here. I just posted a video that shows the event. Everybody needs to know these things are unacceptable.

Right!?

Agreed!
(Especially if you sent that video to exploits@arena.net and explained the problem was the glitching and those who exploited it and not those who jumped back over the wall )

Gellor.6497:

I wouldn’t base anything on that week. JQ was gunning for DB and didn’t care if they lost. Only time will tell once you have faced two Tier 1 servers

True.

I also think it would depend on the matchup. I think BG-SoR-TC would play out very differently than JQ-SoR-TC which would also be different than BG-JQ-TC.

Coverages, Server Rivalries, even whether or not it is a “New PvE Content” week can have such huge impacts on the outcome.

etrigan.4213:

SykkoB.9465:

tc does not need 10-15 guilds to compete in t1 LOL that would be overkill. All they would need is

1x 20-30 man oceanic guild to go with there sea
1 × 20-25 man euro

tc has the na numbers to fight t1 and the sea to also do it

Nope.

If you think two guilds are going to help you in Tier 1, you misunderstand how much of a difference there is between Tier 1 and Tier 2.

You guys faced SoR along with a Tier 4 capable SoS, and got demolished by 125,229 points.

If you guys had to face another Tier 1 server instead of a Tier 4 thrown into the mix, you would have had a hard time of it. Sure they can help take the pressure off, but you guys stole points from SoS. You won’t be stealing easy points from JQ or BG.

This RNG in WvW helps you, but you guys aren’t within 2 guilds of competing in Tier 1, not by a long shot.

When DB was in Tier 1, their Oceanic/SEA got demolished. This was the same Oceanic/SEA that dominated us for weeks in Tier 2.

There’s a HUGE difference in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

First off Wyld is right SykkoB is from SoR.

Second he might be closer to the truth than you think.

The same week that TC faced SoR, JQ lost to BG by ~110,000 points. This week JQ is in 3rd but only trailing by 20k points.

TC doesn’t have close to the coverage to win “Tier 1” or beat SoR or BG 1v1 but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have a fun, competitive, and much more closely-balanced match against 2 T1 Servers than we can against any other matchup combination.

There are many on TC who would rather finish 3rd in a fun match than 1st in these silly blowouts.

(It has the added benefit of making all the spawn-campers, chest-thumpers, and fair-weather fighters run back and hide under the bridges where they belong :P)

Draygo.9473:

Answer the question. How do you tell at a glance?

And drop the “your argument is invalid” meme bullkitten. You are making assumptions about what I’m saying and refuting your own assumptions. Stop doing that.

I’m doing the exact same thing you are doing. A team behind on points on Day 1 will know exactly how far behind they are and can even eyeball how much they are catching up by looking at current PPT. Others have also suggested using the Handicap as a PPT Modifier which would eliminate that concern altogether.

In the meantime, when exactly are you going to explain how someone can look at their Server’s Rating Evolution and know if they can turn it positive before the match ends, or how long it would take, or how it is affected by PPT?

Do you get my point yet? People can look at a Score and current PPT and at least figure out to some extent if they can catch up but the argument you keep using against me is exactly the same when using Rating Evolution only worse!

The other main difference is I don’t mind making the top stacked Servers push hard to see if they can catch up by the end of the week while you don’t seem to mind letting them just blow out weaker Servers before the weekend is over so nobody has to bother playing the rest of the week.

Draygo.9473:

To be clear:
A handicap system would be
*Complex
*Built on top of the rating system to provide something the rating system already provides
*Another point of failure (if anet screws up how handicap numbers are figured)
*Unclear if a server is on track to win or not.
*Muddled by uneven total score values
*Score is comparative not absolute

Glicko is complex.

Trying to figure out how much PPT you need to shift your Rating Evolution is complex.

Trying to figure out if it is even possible for you to switch your Evolution from negative to positive at any point in a match is confusing.

The calculation of Handicaps is quite simple by comparision.

Your objections to scoring are still invalid. All Ratings under my Handicap proposal are calculated as they are now. Scoring is no more or less “uneven” than it is right now.

Because you always subtract the Handicap out before any Glicko calculation everything is at is now…

Except scores will be closer at the end of the week and players will see that their Server has a chance to “win” a Match even when facing a Server with much higher Coverage/Rating.

No Draygo, I’m saying that if you feel Glicko is valid, then you have to agree that a handicap system as I described is valid.

I explained how the exact same figures used in the Current Glicko formulas would continue to be used, including only the points earned by each Server during the match.

Glicko itself wouldn’t change at all.

So which one of us is being disingenuous?

My goal is to create an environment where even in imbalanced matches all Servers would have something to fight for throughout the week. Where as we approach Reset on Wednesday, Thursday, even Friday the winner of a match can still be in doubt regardless of how imbalanced the match is because of Coverage. Where people can at a glance see how many points their Server needs to win, or how hard they have to fight to hold on.

If you think that Lower Tier Servers keep fighting throughout the week against stacked Servers as hard as they can you are delusional. If you think most players care about or are willing to fight for “a chess rating” while seeing both their overall score and PPT completely lopsided and no easily understood relationship between their actions on the battlefield and the Rating you are wrong.

I’ve been part of 4 consecutive matches in a row where the outcome was never in doubt. Other Servers have faced that for even longer. People like to play when they have a chance to win. A Handicap system will give that to all Servers.

Let me put it another way – I want to see people having fun and fighting in WvW every day of the week. There is a reason why Chess players concede matches without even bothering to finish the game. Let’s please get that mentality out of WvW.

@Draygo

If you consider Glicko2 and the ratings it generates valid then arguing that the total score being variable is completely invalid because it is those very same variable scores that are used every week right now to calculate Rating and Evolution.

My suggestion of a handicap doesn’t change how Glicko Rating is calculated at all.

Maybe an example will help you:
There are 168 hours in a 7 day week. 4 Ticks per Hour. 695 Potential Points per Tick from Objectives. That’s a total of 467,040 Potential Objective Points per Match assuming perfect Start/Stop Times and no Downtime for Maintenance.

But there can be downtime, and matches don’t always start on time, and on top of that Resets are often highly competitive even in unbalanced matches.

So let’s knock 6 hours off the total which leaves us with 450,360 PPT as the Handicap Pool.

Reverse-Engineer the expected scores based on Rating at the beginning of the week.

Subtract the Top Server’s Expected Score from the Middle Server’s Expected Score for the Middle Server’s Handicap.

Subtract the Top Server’s Expected Score from the Bottom Server’s Expected Score for the Bottom Server’s Handicap.

And then at any point during the Match you can calculate the Server Rating Progressions with the simple formula of (Current Score – Handicap) and now you have the indentical input as is used right now.

I don’t know why you are so against a Handicapping System but your current argument holds no merit.

Gellor.6497:

That or combine servers

Nope.

Even forced mergers won’t create balanced matchups.

DB with TC’s or even FA’s NA is instantly dominant outside of T1 just because of the Server’s SEA strength. Look at what happened to SoR after the arrival of a single EU Guild (and that was in T1 against T1 Servers).

Handicapping accounts for Coverage imbalances and numbers while still keeping matches competitive.

morrolan.9608:

Isn’t that only against guards though?

You keep the Buffs until you die.
(We’re talking specifically about the Rank 10 abilities in each line)

nibbles.2408:

Or, barring that, moving to a server like JQ so the balance of what was T2 is not messed up further.

Sadly that isn’t going to happen (and not because of TC).

Because of the Random Match-ups there is a pretty decent chance that at least one “former T1” Server will drop down to face non-T1 Servers.

What I’m pushing for (shameless plug) is for ANet to start handicapping matches.

We’re never going to have “perfectly balanced” tiers/servers/matches but with handicaps we can make them all fairly competitive.

Also just to be clear before people get too worked up…

If you read the TC Recruitment Thread we are looking for Havoc Squads and EU Guilds only.

We specifically say we aren’t looking for any Medium/Large Guilds outside of EU. Theon’s first response even clearly states we hope any NA Guilds looking to transfer check out FA/DB/SoS instead.

We’re trying to “change our meta” and get better at small-scale fighting and break away from endlessly running around in mega-zergs.

The best small-scale/havoc fighters are all in the lower Tiers where that is all they do day-in and day-out. We’re looking for some of them who also will fit in with our Server Culture to come up and train us and make us better.

I’d think that FA in particular would love that considering how disappointed you are with our individual fighting skills right?

Usagi.4835:

And I thought we were all becoming such good friends… so much for that.

eh? o.0

I feel like I missed something…

No, please don’t.

Even if matches were balanced one week WULD guarantees they would be imbalanced the next week.

Variety in opponents is good so I like the random matchups but ANet needs to add a handicapping system to the scoring so every Server feels like it can win every match.

Gellor.6497:

Fuzzion.2504:

Gellor.6497:

Fuzzion.2504:

PistolWhip.2697:

That’s the thing. TC isn’t a bandwagon Server, it’s been slowly rising but in a stable fashion. A lot of guilds transfer in, not a lot transfer out, it is one of the best communities out there hands down.

TC smacked DB. For that, they get a hug from fuzzy

Here we thought you let that go. Christ

Stop stalking me. Christ

You started stalking me 1st <3

Now, now… admit that you were both stalking TC and then we can move on

Gellor.6497:

Lol you think you could take on TW or TSYM? LOL

Oh hi Gellor. What brings you to our little corner of the Forums?

covenn.7165:

I fully embrace being 2v1’d or whatever is necessary to keep the action going…

Covenn I now give you the new nickname “Finger-Cuffs”

Let’s everybody on all sides tone it down a lil please?

While I’m sure your motivation is purely to provide SHAKA with “quality material” for her next MS Paint Masterpiece I think we can find better sources of inspiration

I very much agree with Ken’s post and that was my point/goal as well.

In the TC-SoR-SoS match SoS did a great job of holding their own especially in EBG but as the week wore on more players started posting how meaningless the match was with the scores so lopsided even though they were gaining Rating.

If those same players saw that SoS had the lead in the match, that their efforts to hold as much as they could in EBG and their own BL would allow them to “win” the Match I think they would’ve had a lot more fun and fought a lot harder (to be clear many SoS did fight hard the whole week, just saying they could have had even more out there).

The “meta” in this kind of match would also feel very different. “Zergs” and “Blobs” are pretty standard throughout the Tiers now but in this kind of fight “Take and Hold” will be much more important. That creates a lot more opportunities for the kind of fight Ken mentioned where both sides are putting a lot of effort into a Tower or Keep Defense because “points matter” to all sides.

Also, the more accurate the Ratings (and therefore the handicaps) are, the more Matches there are that will be decided in the final day or hours and I think everyone would like that a lot more than blowouts decided by the end of the weekend.

@Draygo

I don’t understand how seeing your Server down by 41.285 Rating is any different than seeing that you are trailing in Score.

At least with the Handicap (which could also be displayed on the Score Panel) the only Servers that would see themselves down by a huge amount would be the “stacked” or “dominant” Servers in an imbalanced Matchup.

The “hardcore” players will definitely understand the handicap system and if it drives more “casual” players away to see their high-ranked Server trailing (because they don’t understand how the System works) that would just balance matches more.

Trust me there were plenty of people on both CD and SoS who understood “Rating” perfectly and they didn’t care at all about it. The psychological impact of lower-population Servers being able to see themselves in the lead early on and the possibility of them ending the match with the “winning” Score to me far outweighs any dampening effect that has on those higher-population Servers (and I say that being on one of them).

People are used to Tower Defense and Last Man Standing type games and I think can adapt to a Scoring/Handicap System that reflects that. “Rating” just doesn’t mean much to most players – and it isn’t an “educational issue” either. “Gaining Rating” while getting swamped doesn’t feel like much of a victory, but trying to hold on with everything you have to see your Server with the “Highest Score” at the end of the match – people will fight for that.

FearedbytheGods.8617:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

There really hasn’t been a lot of recruiting going on but I think I see where you are coming from…

Stop recruiting in this thread.

o.0

That word, it does not mean what you think it means…

What I’m proposing is a lot more straightforward to understand than “Rating” and only a minor change to the calculation.

The entire method used for the Rating Calc lets you derive the “expected performance” of a Server before the match begins.

The score differential between the top Server and the other 2 Servers is what I’m proposing is used as the handicap, and the delta between expected and actual performance gives them the figures needed to calculate the new Ratings.

People like and are used to watching Scores and PPT. What I’m suggesting is easy for anybody to understand and track the results of and doesn’t require any modifications to the current formula outside of a few derived inputs and outputs.

Kryyg.8576:

Hickeroar.9734:

Le Rooster.8715:

Hickeroar.9734:

WIGZ.8245:

Would’ve preferred a new matchup, this fight is getting dull as the weeks go by.

Just be glad you have fights at all. :-/

The remnants of what were T2 and below are just dull dull dull now. TC is stuck in some weird T1.5 limbo while there’s no lower ranked server that can even come close to creating a real challenge at this point…yet we’re clearly not ready for T1 due to some significant coverage holes during SEA and Oceanic (and a bit in EU).

Argh. This new matchup system is ruining everything. We’re queuing 3-4 maps a night right now so we can wander around doing almost nothing.

Then Stop FLippin recruiting, don’t blame the new system because you would just stomp Dragonbrand and Fort aspenwood anyways, Tarnished Coast did this to themselves nobody said you had to get RE or the CD SEA guilds but you had tooo recruit more. Either leave the server or don’t complain about stomping when you were the ones who caused it.

There really wasn’t a lot of recruiting. Most of it was just guilds expressing interest and then moving over.

Give me a break, TC recruited to become a T1 server. All the guilds that transferred to TC also came to talk to JQ, but you paid them more gold than we could and they went to TC instead. To say they “just came over” is BS and you know it.

Now TC isn’t a T1 server and you over-recruited for T2, it’s your own fault.

There really hasn’t been a lot of recruiting going on but I think I see where you are coming from…

I mean, after all, gold must be the reason these Guilds have been choosing TC over JQ – with your charming personality and recruiting skills on the Forums Kryyg there couldn’t possibly be any other explanation!

Gooj.8561:

word out on the street is that IRON is moving back to Desolation on friday
this’ll make things interesting

Eh?!?

Now that [RG] is paying a visit and some of the commanders of [HB] are able to come back on a limited basis is when [IRON] decides to transfer back?!? Right when they would start maybe getting good fights during EU?!?

Is this true?

lunatuna.6823:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

You guys are aware that as of now ANet doesn’t consider playing in Windowed Mode or running a 3-Monitor Setup to be an Exploit right?

I’m all in favor of ANet locking down the aspect-display ratio to 16×9/16×10 maximum but as of right now not only are you violating Forum Policy by accusing people of cheating you are embarrassing yourselves by doing it about something that isn’t even considered an Exploit by ANet.

Link please to the post that says this isn’t an exploit.

Open a Support Ticket with ANet asking if running the game in “wide screened Windowed Mode” or on “3 Monitor Display” is an exploit and you will get your answer.

But honestly the answer is in what I just told you – the game allows you to run the game in Windowed Mode and scale it to a wide-aspect angle. You can also run the game displaying across 3 Monitors if you have the hardware. No 3rd Party Tools. No Hacks or Exploits.

GW2 natively supports these display options.

I’d love for them to “lock-in” the aspect ratio as I said but it is silly to accuse people of cheating for doing this right now.

(And it is also %100 against Forum Policy to accuse anyone of cheating on the Forums so you are only hurting yourself by doing it )

You guys are aware that as of now ANet doesn’t consider playing in Windowed Mode or running a 3-Monitor Setup to be an Exploit right?

I’m all in favor of ANet locking down the aspect-display ratio to 16×9/16×10 maximum but as of right now not only are you violating Forum Policy by accusing people of cheating you are embarrassing yourselves by doing it about something that isn’t even considered an Exploit by ANet.

In this “new era” of Randomized WvW Matches something needs to be done to encourage players to have something to fight for throughout the week, especially in highly-imbalanced matches.

Suggestion: Handicap
If, at the time a match is generated, the “expected performance” of each Server is calculated and the weaker Servers are given a “handicap” in the form of a “Starting Point Total” so that if all the Servers perform to expectations the Final Score would be tied.

So (for example with partially made-up numbers) in last week’s “T2 Match” between TC, SoS, and CD we would’ve seen the following Starting Scores at the beginning of the Match:
CD: 261,437
TC: 0
SoS: 218,410

Had these “Handicapping Scores” been used the Final Score would’ve been a 3-way Tie.

I think this would do several important things to improve the “meta” and competitiveness of matches:
1. It removes the psychological barrier of people on Lower-Ranked Servers of having nothing to fight for.
2. It changes the meta because now both taking and holding objectives is of premium importance to all Servers
3. The more accurate that Ratings/Handicaps are the more tension and drama as to the outcome will be carried late into the week.

I really do think this would go a long way towards making Matches more fun and interesting all week long.

You can check my posting history to see I’ve always argued against WULD.

You will also find that I favor variety over stagnation.

You can even find some posts where I initially supported the changes.

But what you won’t find me doing is defending a system that is showing its inherent flaws more and more.

I’ve read enough of your posts now across multiple threads to get the sense you like this system – you are enjoying all the statistical analysis you are getting to do. You are enjoying tracking expected vs actual performance. You enjoy seeing how pairings match up to their probabilistic chances of occurring.

What I don’t see you doing is using any of your ability at analysis to provide suggestions to ANet to improve their system.

I can’t speak for EU matchups because I haven’t been analyzing them as much but I do have issues when you tell Servers to blow out others (or to just not play and be blown out if weaker) to escape imbalanced matchups because it won’t solve anything.

There are 2 Servers in NA each week that have to go up against either 1 or 2 of the “Top 4” and that will remain true no matter how much Rating those Top 4 Servers gain nor how much Rating the other Servers shed.

And if you (or more importantly ANet) wants a Suggestion to at least try to make this kittened-up system more fun/enjoyable:

Why don’t they take their Ratings and “Expected Performance” and do what Golf or Chess does and calculate a “Handicap” score that is generated at the beginning of every Match.

It might not change much but I think people would have more fun if (for example with made-up numbers) Kaineng had started this week with 125,000 Points and Fort Aspenwood with 75,000 Points and TC had to spend the week trying to overcome that.

With that one change Lower Ranked Servers would be playing “Tower Defense/Zombies” against Higher Tier Servers in really imbalanced matches and both taking and holding objectives for Points would be important for all Servers even late into the week.

It would change the dynamics and the entire psychological feel of how matches play out because it would be easy for people to see at a glance (by opening the existing Scoring Panel) how their Server was doing compared to expectations.

Furiousbeard.7602:

Bandwagon Eva?

Oh she’s out there being all bandwagony on a bandwagon wagon of band somewhere

Ps anybody have a good hiding place while I wait for Eva to read this?

Last I saw she’s back posting in the T1 Thread with her sig showing [BT] again…

My guess is she’s afraid to face Sonar Beards

Snowreap.5174:

it’s not that I consider it important, it’s that I don’t see any reason for people to complain about it if it’s not important to them. if rating isn’t as important as having fun, and you don’t think it’s fun to camp enemy spawns, then don’t do it. but don’t expect the rating system to reward you for choosing fun over points.

this is the unfortunate part of the system. if you think an opponent is too far below you to be fun, and you don’t want to play them again, you need to ensure that your rating goes up. if you don’t spawn camp them and your rating ends up going down, you are going to get more of these mismatches.

likewise, if you think you are hopelessly outclassed, but you’ve been doing your best regardless and gaining rating as a result, then expect to see more of this kind of matchup. if you want to see less, you need to lose by more, so that you lose rating, so that the system will give you this matchup less often.

I think this is a fundamental problem of the rating system. the system as it exists does do one thing fairly well — it gives us reasonable matchups (but not perfect ones) and it gives us some variation in who we play (arguably too much variation sometimes). but the quality of the matchups depends on the quality of the ratings, because the ratings are what the system uses to determine which matchups are “good”.

if you ‘throw’ your ratings then you’re not going to end up getting the appropriate matchups. going easy on lower opponents (and scoring lower than expected) is going to give you lower opponents more often. fighting hard against higher opponents (and scoring better than expected) is going to give you higher opponents more often.

-ken

Your analysis is well-intentioned but horribly flawed.

First the Ratings as they are calculated and used are statistically corrupt as drawing global inferences from localized data is fraught with the risk of completely invalid conclusions. The system assumes a true “1v1v1” when that situation is easily drowned out the moment any one of the 3 Servers in the match is inordinately stronger or weaker than the others. Here are two clear examples:

• Virtually no valid data can be gathered or assumed from the TC-SoS-CD match especially regarding SoS vs CD because their relative strengths are completely drowned out by the much stronger (coverage-wise) TC
• If the Ratings were “meaningful” or “accurate” there is no way JQ can be both over 100k weaker than BG two weeks ago and statistically even with them now yet that is what the replacement of DB with SoR shows.

Another major flaw in your assumptions is that “if only the Ratings are accurate we would then see better matches” because Servers aren’t always going to be grouped in nice even multiples of 3 strength-wise. There are 3 “T1-Strength” Servers and 1 “T1.5-Strength” Server that unless they are matched up with each other will completely destabilize whatever match they are in. No matter how much Rating TC gains that situation will not change.

That means every week at least 2 lower-ranked Servers will be paired up in a non-competitive match with one of them and according to you that one Server then needs to stomp on those Servers for the week to gain as much rating as possible in order to try to avoid being the one selected for the imbalanced match.

Finally, any Ratings System that basically requires “systematic griefing” (especially in GW2) for a week or weeks at a time to attempt to create “fun” or “balanced” matches is horribly flawed. ANet really shouldn’t want a system that drives players away from playing for long periods of time.

You can spin it however you want but it is in ANet’s best interest to devise a system that promotes and encourages fun matches regardless of how balanced or imbalanced they are.

Snowreap.5174:

server ratings do not measure how well a server could do if they tried really hard. the ratings measure how well a server actually does. why your server does that well, rather than doing worse or better, is immaterial.

if your server doesn’t have the fortitude to do more than win by “just enough” then your rating will reflect that. if you want the kind of high rating that says “we will stomp you into the ground”, then unfortunately you’re going to have to stomp people into the ground to get it.

it’s important to keep in mind that the purpose of the rating is to estimate what your average score will be if you play another server with a different rating. in most cases, score is a good indicator of “strength” but sometimes it measures other things like “pity”.

-ken

This post reeks of somebody who considers “Ratings Purity” more important than “Having Fun” in a Game.

The Ratings, the Scoring System, the complete lack of any kind of Balancing or Handicapping Mechanics – these are all serious flaws in WvW.

I love WvW and have never really experienced anything else like it in a game I’ve played but ANet really needs to get their priorities in-line. Ratings and Rankings are perfect for things like sPvP but are statistically meaningless in WvW. There is way too much variation and too many non-controllable factors to produce “meaningful” results.

The focus needs to be on getting people to participate and have fun in great fights – not “maximizing Rating” or “statistical accuracy” or any of that kitten.

People from other matches coming in and posting in your thread…

oh wait…

alcopaul.2156:

What is BT? the best example will be WM, if i may.

Well what will prolly happen is that i won’t see 3-4 tagged up WM magically appearing in 4 of the borderlands when we will have the chance to face Blackgate at reset.

At least the D|E|RP spy had class and actually bothered to pay gems to be on enemy servers.

My reply was to Zook, but if what you are upset about is spying do you realize how silly that makes you look?

First off, TC has more than enough Sentries and Scouts to track Zergs. Second, if those [RE] were so set on “spying” wouldn’t it make so much more sense for them to simply turn their tags off and avoid this whole situation?

You are calling them “spies” and “traitors” like it is impossible for them to actually be fighting for KN while still there. Haven’t you and your friends ever had a “pick up game” of basketball or football/soccer where even though you are all friends you still play against each other?

I really do think it is best if this is bothering you so much for you to just step away and take the week off. You are only causing a lot of strife where there doesn’t need to be any.

Kingzook.1620:

Then at the end of the day, have SoR come on the forums and give you pointers on how to be better?

Well honestly most of that happened (without the “guilds transferring off TC” part)…

The main difference I see here is nobody picked these Matches – TC had no interest in fighting CD or “rubbing it in” in any way. The “ANet RNGMonster” belched it out at us and there was some hostility between a few people on CD and a few of our Guilds originally from there.

Rethesis definitely had no control over the RNGMonster putting KN against us.

There’s no question this match is pretty kitten-y.

But are you going to throw a tantrum and rant at [BT] if you get matched up against BG?

Copied from the “Server Match us is terrible” thread as it applies even more here:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

The Strongest Server in a Tier will take whatever they can hold from the other two opponents. They might focus the Middle Server if the scores are close or the Middle Server has a Coverage Period where they are dominant.

The Middle Server will also take whatever they can hold from the other two Servers, which (since they aren’t as strong as the dominant Server) means mostly taking and holding objectives from the Weakest Server. They might focus the Strongest Server if the scores are close.

The Weakest Server will try to take and hold whatever it can which (outside of especially close matches) isn’t much. They might focus the Middle Server if the scores are close.

There is rarely ever a reason for the Weakest Server to target and draw the attention of the Strongest Server, meaning that the chances of the Strongest Server in a match ever truly facing a sustained 2v1 are very small.

It can happen in small, localized, isolated incidents but with the way Scores and Ratings are calculated it just doesn’t make sense for a sustained one to occur…

and that is a problem.

alcopaul.2156:

Ketharius.9018:

Why would they leave their guild that has still a lot of their friends in it?

why would not they follow their friends and roleplay in their new server?

Costs a lot of Gems to transfer yo… Rethesis is working to bring more of their people over but it takes time.

They definitely weren’t expecting to see KN and TC in a match against each other either.

Blaming or attacking them for it is pretty kitten IMO.

LetoII.3782:

Karmasutra.9351:

As someone from JQ who never has the numbers to fight BG or SoR, I feel like those birds almost every day. Reset nights are fun but the lag is terrible and by Wednesday we are outmanned on every map. FUN STUFF! Seriously though, everyone in JQ is sick of the same match-ups and I think its pretty safe to say we wouldn’t mind dropping to any tier if it means new opponents.

you’re a few dozen guilds too many to fight DB or TC. JQ might enjoy a week with them. but this is the match, the ONLY match, for BG and SoR. The only way out of it is to transfer away.

TC is definitely in the “T1.5” role right now.

We can’t match any T1 Server 1v1 but we’re too large for any Server outside of T1 to handle.

Oh well, at least “T1” and “T3-T7” seem to get fairly decent matchups /sigh

Furiousbeard.7602:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

Ok quick for old times sake…

• KN quick update your Recruitment Thread!
• TC everybody go say nice things about KN!
• FA complain about it!

I missed you guys sooooo much!

That’s sooo two months ago. Get with the times man.

Hehehe!

(oh… and Sonar Beard Sighting! )

Draygo.9473:

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

Ok quick for old times sake…

• KN quick update your Recruitment Thread!
• TC everybody go say nice things about KN!
• FA complain about it!

I missed you guys sooooo much!

But why you guys be so mean to us then?

Mean?

Sorry, I was just teasing and didn’t mean anything bad by it

Ok quick for old times sake…

• KN quick update your Recruitment Thread!
• TC everybody go say nice things about KN!
• FA complain about it!

I missed you guys sooooo much!

CHIPS.6018:

That said, get ready for TC and DB. :P

That’s not quite completely fair or accurate. While it is the most likely matchup for SoS, it also only has a 5% chance of occurring.