1. What TS does the overflow server use?
2. Why is it set up so that the way to defeat Teq (so far once) is to exclude others by not leaving the map and forcing them to the overlfow server?
Once an overflow server can beat Teq I’ll change my opinion on this.
It’s too late to fix season one. There are players leaving servers just to get into a position for some unnamed rewards. Plus servers tanking so they can drop into a lower league.
Anet could have changed it by saying that there will be either:
Scoring handicaps based on Glicko ratings or….
Stat buffs for outmanned and outpointed servers
All so that the lowest tier server has a chance. If Anet would have said that lower population servers would have a better chance of winning, since you have several weeks of data already compiled, you’d get your player redistribution opposite of what you are seeing now.
Handicaps and stat buffs are easier and less painfull than imposing map caps. You’re never going to get people to leave the top stacked servers unless they lose.
(edited by Swamurabi.7890)
I’m more looking forward to what the players are going to do, because regardless what Anet thinks how WvW should be played, it’s the players that have come up with creative solutions to the faults in the game.
A majority of the issues in WvW can be summarized by saying that there are WvW players/guilds have moved beyond being casual and have evolved strategies faster than Anet’s “WvW is casual” Devs can react.
(edited by Swamurabi.7890)
I don’t know how Anet make money out of this game. But I do know there is no monthly subscription fee of this game. If Anet makes money out of gem store, good for them and us. They will use some of the money they make to make the game better. Just my wishful opinion XD. We should show some support guys ^^
No one knows what this league is till we try. What’s there to lose?
No we know exactly how these leagues will play out….. the vast majority of matches will be complete boredom and blowouts. I mean the devs are so out of touch its almost laughable that human beings with any sort of reasoning ability come to these design decisions. It makes me think that they cannot possibly be this ignorant of their game and have some ulterior motive ( Sacrx’s video about trying to funnel us into spvp is a plausible theory).
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you shouldn’t use “You Know Who’s” name in the forums, it will get the thread deleted.
Anyway, in 5 of the 8 matchups, the lowest ranked servers GAINED glicko rating, so they would be more likely to be put in the same lopsided matchup again.
The troll on BG is spending 8 plus hours a day doing this. It really impacts our ability to play especially at reset. I am really kitten ed off that this has been going on for at least 3 weeks. ANet if it is going to take awhile to engineer a solution, then you have an obligation to investigate the hundreds of reports you are getting about one individual who is ruining the playing experience for many others.
There must be a pair of them because I’m on FA and someone dropped 5-6 trebs by Mendon’s gate and after we build a cata they dropped 3-4 more on top of a second cata being built. FA doesn’t need any help losing which is really funny why they’d waste their effort on a server that was going to lose by 200k.
Reasons why Sacrx’s opinion matters:
1. He was an ALPHA tester, meaning he’s played the game longer than almost everyone else. Probably up to a year longer, for a game only released one year.
2. As an ALPHA tester, his likes, dislikes, were communicated to the devs in a personal manner. How many of you have had a lengthy conversation with a dev? In BETA, we were just asked to rate each event and post on the forum.
3. He and his guild have also put enough post release time in the game for him to get 250,000 kills in WvW. Just take your total kills and your time in the game and figure out how much longer you’ll need to play to get to 250,000. Do your own math, 250,000xhours/kills= how many hours you’ll need to play to get to 250,000. That alone should tell you that he’s faced a considerable more battles than most everyone else.
4. He comes from playing games that WvW was based on and realized before GW2 was released that alliances, not guilds or people, would make for a winning server. If your server suffers from coverage problems then he’s outplayed you.
Reason why his opinion won’t matter:
He backstabbed everyone at ANet by releasing “confidential” material. It doesn’t matter if he’s right or not, he crossed the line.
Because it has already been implemented, resources have been spent doing it, etc. You really think they’re going to back up now and say “ok ok we don’t implement this after all” because a bunch of angry forum posts?
This.
Regardless of how many threads/posts are on the forums (especially as out of a 300 post thread it’s normally 20 people repeating themselves) the people posting here will ALWAYS be in the minority of the playerbase – those who don’t mind the changes are too busy playing. You will never please everyone, and forums are far from a representation of actual opinion.
Even though the posters on the forum might be a minority of players, when you go back 50 pages of threads, there are only a handful that get to 300 posts. This should be enough to tell you that it is a topic of interest that the players are seriously concerned with.
3 of those topics deal with matchups, GvG and Bloodlust. The matchup thread has 55,000 views, by far the most read thread in the past 3 months. Something Anet should pay attention to.
The stat boost, while controversial, is there to give the buff meaning in the context of the general WvW battle. Providing boosts like %WXP, etc. don’t have impact in fights against other sides, they are just a nice bonus for you. The stat boost and the points for finishing players mean that not only do you want to have the buff, but you don’t want your opponents to have it.
But people dont care for things like this! People care for FUN fights, these must be equal or close to it, those that every move make a difference in the out come not some silly extra stats due to more coverage on another map
Your wrong. People do like these things, like myself. Don’t just say no one wants it when its just the small forum base complaining.
From another thread,
There is NO valid argument why in a mixed tier matchup that the server with the most coverage/population DESERVES to have their stats boosted.
Considering the complete backwards situation of the Orb buff vs the Outmanned buff I really doubt Anet will give more rewards to the losing servers, after all the outmanned buff is something “insignificant” according to Devon’s latest post regarding the Orb Buff since it doesn’t “affect the fight”….
I’m actually speechless.
I remember when players suggested that swapping orb and outmanned buffs would be better for the game. Give the outmanned servers better stats and give the overpopulated servers a better chance to get blues instead of spikes. Orb hacking probably was the deciding factor to remove them.
There is NO valid argument why in a mixed tier matchup that the server with the most coverage/population DESERVES to have their stats boosted.
I can see where Bloodlust was added in response to players wanting the Orbs to return.
I can see where players on DB or FA wanted to go up against BG/SoR/JQ, but not players from BP, YB or CD.
However, I can’t see the new league season as a response to anything that the players wanted. Except for a BG/SoR/JQ matchup, we know who is going to win the current matchup five seconds after reset.
I’m still waiting for the solution to stacked servers and night capping.
Hopefully Bloodlust is a mechanic that stacked servers will need in order to win in a league where the score is handicapped.
You can sort of guess why the League was introduced. It appears to be a response to dwindling competition caused by the randomized matchups and the AC buff.
The devs can’t really go back to the old tier system. (Where you competed week after week in your tier to get enough PPT to go up a tier). So instead they try to reintroduce competition externally with the League structure and its rewards.
Can’t see how it will work though. Most people have stopped caring about PPT. I don’t see how they can get the enthusiasm back.
The league system where you must face everyone else in your league will make this thread,
Server Match up is terrible
even larger than the 1100 posts and 55,000 views. It is by far one of the most viewed threads in WvW. There is not a lot of positives in that thread.
I don’t know much about T4 and below but the Gold NA league is
BG/SoR/JQ in one group
TC alone at 4th
DB/FA fight for 5th depending on matchups
Mag/SoS fight for 7th
Ebay/CD/BP/YB depending on who had the least transfers
Anyone going up against a server higher on the list will lose, and lose badly because that’s how much difference there is in coverages. Just ask CD and Ebay how it felt to face TC, DB and FA. Then ask FA, DB and TC what it was like going up against JQ, BG or SoR. You don’t need a league of 12 with 7 weeks of facing each other server at least once to know what’s going to happen.
Bloodlust will make multi group matches that much worse.
I’m worried that a second season will tempt Ebay, CD, BP and YB to skip matches in season two just for the chance to dominate the third season. Let’s face it, BG/xx/CD is a match everyone knows the winner. Do you really want to lose to win?
I’m also concerned that players on the lowest group might not be able to even qualify for the season ending rewards if 6 of their 7 matches are BG/xx/CD, SoR/xx/CD, JQ/xx/CD, TC/xx/CD, FA/xx/CD and DB/xx/CD.
I think that the highest awards should go to the players on Ebay, CD, BP and YB because showing up day after day knowing you’re in a no win situation and not quitting deserves the best rewards WvW can give you.
Can we get back culling as a counter to Bloodlust?
I can see where Bloodlust was added in response to players wanting the Orbs to return.
I can see where players on DB or FA wanted to go up against BG/SoR/JQ, but not players from BP, YB or CD.
However, I can’t see the new league season as a response to anything that the players wanted. Except for a BG/SoR/JQ matchup, we know who is going to win the current matchup five seconds after reset.
I’m still waiting for the solution to stacked servers and night capping.
Hopefully Bloodlust is a mechanic that stacked servers will need in order to win in a league where the score is handicapped.
Coverage disparity between servers means that most matchups will have one server that would dominate anyway, also get stat buffs by having 3-5 more scouts. Something that would not make a difference.
Bloodlust is not the fix for night capping and server stacking. It just makes both worse.
I don’t have an issue with a server, commander, or guild that doesn’t want to upgrade, defend or even siege up a point simply because seconds after reset when you see who your opponents are, everyone on my server knows who is going to win (I’m not on one of the top 3 servers). If we’re in a match with two servers above us we’ll finish a distant third. If it’s one server above and one below we’ll finish a distant second. If it’s two servers below we’ll finish first.
If we face a server above us I know that:
When I Iog on a few hours before my server’s prime time we will be lucky to have anything in EB or even our own Garrison. The higher server will have T3 keeps/towers and might even have our keep in EB at T3, possibly our own Garrison. If we happen to take back one of our keeps I know that the higher pop server will take it back before we can get our first upgrade done. This goes on for 2-4 hours until our primetime hits. It takes our outmanned crew 5 times longer to cap our own T1 towers than the higher pop server. The only real issue is whether they will let us retake our own towers or wait until we’ve almost got the gate down and wipe everyone and repair the gate to 100%.
If we face two servers below us I know that:
When I log in our BL is our color, EB is mostly our color and the BL of the lowest pop server is mostly our color. The BL of the second server is half our color. I run through the maps looking for someone to fight and there isn’t anyone there, even though it’s one of our weaker coverage times. If one of the other servers take one of their towers back we’ll be quickly there to take it back and farm some easy WxP.
My server doesn’t play for PPT or WxP, we play for fights. It’s more fun and less stressful and less chance of burnout.
This seems more like a scheme by Anet to get more gems via server transfers. Those in charge of decision making can’t possibly be this ignorant of how their game works, or be so completely out of touch with their player base.
I was lucky that I chose SOR when the game launched. But for me, this league will be a few weeks of competitive play, but mostly just a roflstomp against weaker servers. The supposed closest competition to NA superpowers, TC, is in the process of getting utterly destroyed. Those ranked below TC will have a terrible matchup pretty much every single week for 7 weeks.
Unfortunately, even transferring to a lower tier server will just ensure that I will just have a higher chance of being in a boring match.
The only solution to this is to force MASS transfers to lower tiers. Anet needs to completely remove a full borderland, and change wvw to 1v1, to create unbearable queues. Otherwise, the wvw community is doomed to boredom.
Depending on the league schedule, it’s possible that you won’t see a BG/JQ/SoR match. Even if you did face them one week it’s possible to never face them the other 6 weeks. You will face three servers twice in a 7 week season.
I’m sure that most servers in the NA gold division are going to have at least 6 matches that are one-sided. I doubt that there will be more than 5 matches of the 28 that are “competitive”, even if it’s just for second place.
all i have to say is the bigger the zerg the more bags i get. the guild im in only runs a 30 man raid and we just farm the 60+ enemy zergs all night.
Without lag farming the zerg is fun indeed, with lag then it turns into autoattack spam which is quite simply terrible. Lag makes any counter to a serverblob nigh on impossible which gives even more incentive for servers to blob up.
If the current strategy is to run around with enough players to cause lag and you set up your team composition to have a better auto-attack, then shouldn’t that be considered exploiting? After all, that’s not how the game is meant to be played.
Anet should have already said in a statement that the new league setup will make it more difficult for the top servers to win. This alone would help spread out the WvW population. Nothing like being on a server at over 400 PPT and losing the match to make you question why you’re on a single color BL escorting yaks, paying for upgrades and not fighting anyone all while finishing in third place.
Everyone in NA who has played in the latest matchmaking system knows that when you get one server that’s from a lower tier than the others, they quickly get pushed off the maps and it ends up being a 1v1. A match between 3 tiers becomes a route. T1vT2 is a route, T1vT3 even more so and T1vT4, well, we don’t even need to play that week.
Anet should also say that the people who are above a certain rank in WvW are going to have their transfer ability limited. Zero transfers to a server that has more WvW coverage and a set limit to a lower coverage server. This prevents further stacking of population in a few servers like we have now and also prevents the stacking of one lower server, similar to what happened to Kaineg earlier this year.
This is nothing more then a Money grab attempt, knowing that WvW is dying as they insist on ruing it they want to make as much money as they can before they put the final nail in the coffin.
This is a TERRIBLE idea, simply because Anet is in control and they dont like to listen to players. This could work well IF they listened and ACTED on advice the players give:
1) Make it so that the MOMENT the season starts if they transfer to another server they lose ALL rewards no matter how the server they were on does and no matter how well the server they are now on does
or
1.1) Disable server transfers during the season, maybe have a week before the next season begins or something so people can move
2) Make WvW Daily HARDER and make it a requirement for the rewards, not based on how the server does but how the player does.
This could be done by – increasing kill requirements, dolyak kills, camp/tower captures and such and then making it so they need to complete a certain number of them to gain access to the rewards, say 5/7 every week for the duration.
3) Players get rewards for how the server does and how they personally do, with a Gold, Silver and bronze set up these could include laurel, Gear Chests and such on top of what they earn for how the server does.
I don’t think anything done for WvW is a money grab. Anet has shown that they can’t react quickly to changes from the players.
That being said, I’d rather see tagging player accounts as WvW or non-WvW and then blocking all transfers of WvW tagged accounts to higher population WvW servers while also at the same time limiting the number of WvW tagged accounts transferring to a lower population WvW server so that we don’t get NA people transferring from the 5-12 ranked servers to the 13-15 servers like what happened to Kaineg earlier this year.
Another thing Anet needs to do is make the league so that the lowest servers actually have a chance to finish first through skill instead of coverage. This will completely remove the reason why players stacked the top servers and would see players and guilds spreading out to lower servers and not just the top 4.
You can’t have a WvW system where skill matters unless you have a coverage handicap.
Make it happen Devon. You know it’s the right thing to do.
Found .zip file while searching for 1v1v1 schedule on yahoo. You can try it and see that it will create several different schedules. It’s an Excel file that will create a 1v1v1 schedule for any number of teams lasting any number of weeks.
I’m interested in it because there’s no way to evenly distribute the matches in a 7 week season between 12 teams grouped by 3 so that every team plays each other once. Three servers are going to have to face the #1 server twice.
I’m also curious if there’s going to be a 1-2-3 matchup or a 1-2-5 and a 1-3-6. How you set up the matches greatly affects the game. Plus after the schedule is released we can have a poll to see who comes closest to predicting the results, which shouldn’t be too difficult.
Also it would be interesting to see if the first weeks matchups are:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9
10-11-12
or
1-5-9
2-6-10
3-7-11
4-8-12
You are missing one very large factor, Fun, yes that’s right, fun. Regardless of numbers and how YOU think it will work, the lower population servers are still going to get destroyed by the higher populations. Let me rephrase that, they are going to quit playing for the entire match-up because who want to be spawn camped for 7 days ? The larger populations will have nothing else to do but spawn camp, when their opponent can’t even Que 1 map while they can Que all 4.
Why do YOU assume that BP or YB is going to be put in a match with BG? College and pro teams in a football league don’t face every other team in their leagues. Even an eighteen handicap golfer is going to lose badly to a two handicap golfer without handicap adjusted score, but with the handicap they just might win, and the possibility of winning makes the match FUN. Look at Anvil Rock, the lowest ranked server in NA, getting 95ppt and NOT QUITTING. Their 139K score is higher than four other servers, one of which is #7 Maguuma. Anvil Rock will probably never get to the 272K score that TC has, but if AR does better with the addition of a handicap than BG/JQ/SoR/TC/FA/DB with their handicaps, AR should get the rewards they deserve.
So really, the rewards don’t mean kitten, Glicko scores doesn’t mean kitten, what rank you are in or perceived to be in doesn’t mean kitten, its going to be a kitten show of epic proportions.
And yet after one year there are a lot of people still playing, lining up at the portals on Friday night. All this without any rewards, drops, or even balanced matchups. Everyone knows on Friday reset what the outcome of the matches is going to be.
Also to be honest, the Glicko system was a joke from the start for these types of matches and now that Anet has “tweeked” it, its even more of a joke, so if they base it off of what your saying, then they should probably just pick server names out of a hat and call them winners.
Irrespective of the rating method, after a year everyone knows that population is proportional to points and Anet should have enough data to predict the score of every possible matchup. Wouldn’t you rather play WvW knowing that on any given matchup, your server could win with a handicap? Wouldn’t that be FUN?
Ware you talking about?
They never said they would determine the winner by the DELTA or the increase/decrease…
They are matching the top 12 by"WvW Rating"
Quote Here:
“Europe will feature three leagues and North America will have four leagues two leagues, each league containing several 12 worlds (sorry for the confusion there!). The idea here is to look at recent WvW ratings and match up worlds in similar levels, with a gold league, a silver league, and so on.”
Then based on your position….1st 2nd 3rd (Green, Red Blue) you will be awarded points…weekly, bi-weekly I don’t know….at the end of the season they add up all of your points for every server… order them within your league 1-12 / 12-24 if your N/A…that determines the winner. They will matchup the servers by WvW Ratings…so that the matches are “balanced”
Quote here:
“As the first season progresses, each world will have a shot to earn points every week based on its standing. First place awards the most points, but your side will still get some points for lower rankings too. At the end of the season, the points will be added up and the world with the most points will get a cool trophy and a unique custom finisher. However, there will be smaller rewards doled out along the way, and even if you don’t participate in WvW, you could be on the receiving end of some goodies if your server does well.”
IF you want a league where the skill levels of the players are different, then you MUST use a handicapping system to have a FAIR game. Think bowling or golf leagues. The way the game is played isn’t changed(buffs, debuffs), just the score at the end. Everyone can win as long as they play better than they are expected to play. You adjust the handicaps after each match and at the end you find out who was best.
What if first place isn’t determined by score but instead determined by your increase/decrease in Glicko. After each match you rank the servers 1-12 or 1-9 for EU based on delta Glicko and give the top team 12 or 9 points on down to 1 point for the worst. Modify each servers Glicko just like it’s done now and create new randomized matchups. Repeat till the season is over and you’ll get a winner.
Don’t assume that points = game score and ranking = Glicko rating. You think that Anet wants to have a game where everyone wants to be on a single server so everyone wins? That’s not a business model that survives. Queues, skill lag, megablobs on the top servers and vast empty spaces on the lowest servers. Is this what you think Anet wants?
Handicapped matches means that ANY server can win a season. That’s a better model.
Anet just needs to find a way to prevent players from gaming the system, which they will try to do.
You don’t need to do anything to player stats or map populations to get players to move from stacked servers. It’s already here. Use Glicko rating change to determine winners of the league instead of points/wins and the top servers will finish way behind the lower servers.
As the bandwagon players of the stacked servers realize they aren’t on the top of the new leaderboard anymore, they’ll leave the stacked servers. Anet just needs to prevent the entire WvW population of BG moving to ET.
Here’s the delta Glicko Leaderboard for the past 7 weeks with the server rank at the start.
Server End Start Delta
22 Sorrow’s Furnace 1,188.49 1,026.79 161.695
19 Isle of Janthir 1,299.96 1,148.63 151.329
14 Borlis Pass 1,590.30 1,439.16 151.145
24 Eredon Terrace 1,091.69 957.332 134.356
16 Northern Shiverpeaks 1,308.02 1,215.50 92.52
18 Henge of Denravi 1,232.21 1,152.81 79.392
23 Ferguson’s Crossing 1,072.35 1,017.56 54.793
3 Jade Quarry 2,157.11 2,128.43 28.675
4 Tarnished Coast 2,037.64 2,025.18 12.464
10 Crystal Desert 1,665.37 1,654.34 11.039
6 Fort Aspenwood 1,875.22 1,867.44 7.774
17 Gate of Madness 1,183.25 1,189.51 -6.265
7 Maguuma 1,748.71 1,760.68 -11.976
15 Darkhaven 1,340.30 1,355.73 -15.426
13 Stormbluff Isle 1,416.35 1,441.59 -25.236
2 Sanctum of Rall 2,153.04 2,179.48 -26.434
1 Blackgate 2,144.83 2,184.36 -39.534
21 Devona’s Rest 1,052.35 1,093.42 -41.072
5 Dragonbrand 1,863.97 1,927.91 -63.938
8 Sea of Sorrows 1,682.15 1,747.92 -65.767
12 Yak’s Bend 1,488.32 1,560.78 -72.468
20 Anvil Rock 983.737 1,107.99 -124.256
9 Ehmry Bay 1,572.50 1,740.11 -167.616
11 Kaineng 1,421.99 1,643.07 -221.087
Looks like the best “Gold division” server is JQ finishing in 8th place. Take a look at the other stacked servers BG and SoR, coming in a respectable 16th and 17th out of 24. Makes it worth it having 24/7 queues, skill lag and megablobs doesn’t it?
Excepting CD, every server in the gold division finished lower than their inital ranking.
What do you think would happen at the end of the season if this was the results?
People would leave BG, JQ and SoR because they want to win and stacked servers can’t win in a handicap based league.
I like that Anet is trying something new. However the concept that BP #10 has a chance against FA #5 or DB #6 is laughable. DB nearly doubled our score last week. I didn’t mind the uphill fight but pitting servers and corresponding rewards based on this system is ridiculous.
There is virtually no chance a 10, 11, 12 server can win against a 5, 6, 7 server. The odds have to be fantastically high.
On a high note, servers that already dominate in WxP/Karma/XP generation will continue to dominate in new rewards.
They have a chance if you use Glicko rating gained as the determining factor…
4. Tarnished Coast 314,319 -6.162
9. Crystal Desert 112,153 19.633
5. Fort Aspenwood 189,331 -13.084
6. Dragonbrand 284,547 -6.575
7. Maguuma 186,021 -37.988
11. Borlis Pass 147,545 45.069
Looks like the #9 and #11 servers beat servers #4-#7 if you look at rating change.
Do you REALLY think Anet is going to allow the entire WvW population to be stacked into a few servers?
Looking at the NA matchups, the only favorites (IoJ and FC) are winning according to Glicko gain/loss. All the other matchups have a lower ranked server winning. EBay is getting STOMPED in points by DB and SoS but with Glicko handicapping they are stomping both of them.
The EU side is more difficult to analyze because they have so many “interleague” matchups, but in the 2 matchups that aren’t interleague…
- PS is STOMPING #1 VS and #2 SR, 40 to 13 to -52
- Vabbi is beating #23 BT and #26 WR, 9.5 to 7.6 to -15.5
11) Ebay +40
8) SoS -3.7
6) DB -37.5
So tell me how can EBay, Vabbi and Piken be demoralized by getting stomped in the field but WINNING on the handicapped scoreboard, if what matters is the handicapped score????
I really don’t think this is going to work out for the NA side of things. The population difference between ranks 1-3, 4-6, 7-12 are huge. Considering how badly the random match ups have been under the new system, it should stick out like a sore thumb and you can see T2 cannot compete with T1 servers, T3/4 cannot compete with T2 servers. What’s worse is all the losing servers every week have been getting falsely boosted ratings, which has not let some servers settle into their proper places.
So have the league, but it’s a given, one of ranks 1-3 servers will be winning because of their population and coverage.
That’s making the assumption that points is the deciding factor in who “wins”. I think Devon and Anet are smarter than to put BG/JQ/SoR against CD/YB/BP and expect an even match, and that the players would “balance” out by wanting to move to CD/YB/BP. But if you have your change in Glicko rating be the deciding factor in who wins you’ll find that anytime a lower tier server goes against a higher tier server, the lower tier server gains rating or “wins with a handicap”.
The players have been complaining about night capping and being outmanned and out pointed and how it’s not a fun setup. With Glicko as a handicap instead of stat boosts, everyone is the same in the maps and you’ll find that the stacked servers won’t win if the league uses a Glicko handicap. Look at Milennium scores for the past weeks, lower tier servers gain rating when matched up against higher tier servers. This would cause those players to rethink why they want to be on a server with queues 24/7 and in game lag and all they get in return is 7th or 8th place finish out of 12.
And then the people on those high pop servers would complain to no end alongside the players on the low pop servers who are getting steamrolled on the maps anyway. Anet knew off the bat how imbalanced WvWvW was and tried to play it down with marketing spin. Even if guesting had been working from launch and transfers were never free there would still have been major population problems especially with how attractive GW2 can make 3rd party RMT.
Glicko handicapping is going to save WvW, it has to. That’s the only way to get people to leave voluntarily the stacked servers. It also means that those who have since launch stayed on the Tier 3-4 and Tier 6-7 will get rewarded. Just look at the past 7 weeks results at Milennium. When a lower tier server went up against 2 servers from the tier above, the lower tier server GAINED rating. WvW league will have to use Glicko gain as the deciding factor as to which server wins.
Glicko handicapping solves most of the issues with WvW.
It also creates other issues.
Night Capping is irrelevent because that is already baked into the Glicko. You are supposed to be Night Capped if you are on a lower tier server facing a higher tier server. Nobody’s effort is diminished by using a score handicap.
Population size is also irrelevent for the same reason. You are supposed to get less points when you face a higher rated server.
Currently the WvW population drops after a few days because the match is already decided. With a Glicko handicap you might not have a clear winner until Friday.
Zergs/blobs will be less rewarding for higher population servers because they will have to defend against the lesser servers flipping points just before tick. If yaks heading to a destination give 3 points when killed it would force the zerg to spread out. I’d argue that yaks that don’t have a destination should give nothing. That way if a roaming group killed 4 yaks and then flipped a camp just before tick they would get +17 ppt. Do that for 3 camps with 6 people and you can easily get 50 ppt. Multiply that by 3 or 4 and a small population server could get 150-200 ppt by just flipping camps and killing yaks. That alone would win if you have a handicap. The 80 man zerg would be forced to defend 3 keeps, 4 towers, 6 camps, the 5 new lake points and 12 yaks. That’s 30 targets to defend at any one time.
Roaming would become relevent.
Servers of every size would have to have use strategy and teamwork to win instead of counting on who can put the most people on the map.
The first issue I see with this is that eventually the high population servers would have resort to spawn camping as the best way to secure a victory. The other issue is that when players from high population servers get tired of losing, they could jump to a single server like what happened to Kaineg to guarantee a win the following season
I really don’t think this is going to work out for the NA side of things. The population difference between ranks 1-3, 4-6, 7-12 are huge. Considering how badly the random match ups have been under the new system, it should stick out like a sore thumb and you can see T2 cannot compete with T1 servers, T3/4 cannot compete with T2 servers. What’s worse is all the losing servers every week have been getting falsely boosted ratings, which has not let some servers settle into their proper places.
So have the league, but it’s a given, one of ranks 1-3 servers will be winning because of their population and coverage.
That’s making the assumption that points is the deciding factor in who “wins”. I think Devon and Anet are smarter than to put BG/JQ/SoR against CD/YB/BP and expect an even match, and that the players would “balance” out by wanting to move to CD/YB/BP. But if you have your change in Glicko rating be the deciding factor in who wins you’ll find that anytime a lower tier server goes against a higher tier server, the lower tier server gains rating or “wins with a handicap”.
The players have been complaining about night capping and being outmanned and out pointed and how it’s not a fun setup. With Glicko as a handicap instead of stat boosts, everyone is the same in the maps and you’ll find that the stacked servers won’t win if the league uses a Glicko handicap. Look at Milennium scores for the past weeks, lower tier servers gain rating when matched up against higher tier servers. This would cause those players to rethink why they want to be on a server with queues 24/7 and in game lag and all they get in return is 7th or 8th place finish out of 12.
Just ran some numbers from the past 7 weeks.
Going from a delta Glicko as determining order we have:
Sorrow’s Furnace 161.695
Isle of Janthir 151.329
Borlis Pass 151.145
Eredon Terrace 134.356
Northern Shiverpeaks 92.52
Henge of Denravi 79.392
Ferguson’s Crossing 54.793
Jade Quarry 28.675
Tarnished Coast 12.464
Crystal Desert 11.039
Fort Aspenwood 7.774
Gate of Madness -6.265
Maguuma -11.976
Darkhaven -15.426
Stormbluff Isle -25.236
Sanctum of Rall -26.434
Blackgate -39.534
Devona’s Rest -41.072
Dragonbrand -63.938
Sea of Sorrows -65.767
Yak’s Bend -72.468
Anvil Rock -124.256
Ehmry Bay -167.616
Kaineng -221.087
Using 25pts/first, 15/second, 5/third you get:
Borlis Pass 145
Isle of Janthir 145
Sorrow’s Furnace 145
Stormbluff Isle 125
Eredon Terrace 125
Tarnished Coast 115
Sea of Sorrows 115
Yak’s Bend 115
Henge of Denravi 115
Devona’s Rest 115
Gate of Madness 115
Sanctum of Rall 105
Blackgate 105
Dragonbrand 105
Crystal Desert 105
Darkhaven 105
Northern Shiverpeaks 95
Ferguson’s Crossing 95
Fort Aspenwood 85
Kaineng 85
Jade Quarry 75
Maguuma 75
Ehmry Bay 55
Anvil Rock 55
Which goes along with Devon saying that the best server in the lower league could get more than the 5th or 6th in the upper league.
Now which server do you want to transfer to????
I wondered about this in another post as well. Obviously the glicko system has a built-in handicap – do better than expected and you gain points, do worse you lose. Seems a much better model for determining the real winners rather than PPT.
The only issue with this type of scoring is that the high coverage servers would end up spawn camping to protect their precious PPT to maintain their expected Glicko results. The counter would be to bump Siegerazer from Champion to Legendary and have him take a tower, camp and a keep.
A Glicko based results system would also promote roaming camp flippers at 5 minutes before tick, who could end up being the reason a lower pop server wins against a larger server. You send a small group to tag a keep, then as the entire map’s population swoops down on you, you have 6 roaming 2-3 man groups flip every camp on the map, getting your side a +30 PPT per map. I’m sure 120 PPT would be enough for server #12 to out Glicko the #1 server.
As more and more stacked servers lose in the league their population will end up spreading out to other servers. But then you’d still see massive player transfers the week before a new league starts to a lower server so they’d be guaranteed a win during the next season.
Watch as your group while in a T3/4/5 server won’t be able to take anything but camps and maybe a unguarded tower during European/Oceanic/SEA against T1/2 servers that you probably won’t hold for the point tick. Watch the karma train while sitting in a T1 or T2 server against T3/4/5. Watch in the lower tiers the literal ghost town at these times. Then you’ll understand the true gaps between the servers and maybe then it will lead you guys to a solution. As many have stated it’s not skill and never will be skill it’s all coverage and population
This maybe true in NA, where the rating gap is really big between rank 4 server (TC) and rank 5 server (FA): currently 169 rating points. Here in EU we have 27 servers (vs 24 in NA) and the rating differences are smaller. I play for Desolation, which is currently rank 3 (but going to drop down). We are now matched up against rank #11 (Abaddon’s Mouth) and #14 (Gandara). So this is a tier #1 server against a tier #4 and a tier #5 server. Exactly what you were writing about. See:
http://mos.millenium.org/euWe are going to win this match up, but only because we got a bit better night time coverage. During prime time we are constantly at the brink of being outnumbered. Our enemies, Gandara and AM, are high population and Deso is very high population. I would claim that the actual number of WvWvW players at prime time doesn’t show any indication of this. Our enemies can summon a zerg + several roaming teams on the same map. Last night I saw us ticking as low as +150 at prime time. Surely we felt like both enemy servers concentrated on us.
The things to take into consideration: Despite Desolation is so called EU tier 1 (rank 3) server, we currently don’t have any major queues to speak of. Except for prime time I can get to any map without any waiting. 20-25 man guild group is big for us. Even in prime time usually just one BL map has a queue, if 3 big guilds are having a raid or gvg there at same time. After 2 hours, when the raid / gvg is over, queue is gone and we get outnumbered buff on that same BL. Desolation really is unlike any other server in EU. We are hosting the best tpvp/spvp players and also the unofficial pve capital of EU, but our WvWvW attendance is relatively low and we are still lacking big WvWvW guilds. In our previous match up against SFR and VS (EU rank 1 and rank 2 vs rank 3) we had the outnumbered “buff” on us almost all the time. Despite having clearly less than half the numbers of our enemies we were able to tick pretty well due good coordination using server wide TeamSpeak.
What I understood is that the top 4 servers of NA (JQ, BG, SoR and TC) are all very stacked servers. Here in EU we have just 2 stacked servers: SFR and VS. The league is going to be won by either SFR or VS. There is no other choice, unless some major population shifts occur e.g. a lot of people band wagon to SFR and its main guilds will /ragequit due having too long queues (happened before) or Piken Square getting bandwagoned, because it is only a medium population server and has the lowest transfer costs of any top server.
Yes, I fully agree that the winner is mainly decided by the WvWvW population and coverage. And EU is much much more volatile than NA in this respect. If 1-2 big NA guilds would move to any top 6 server in EU, that server could easily be winning the league, because of better night and morning time coverage.
Current score of your match
11. Abaddon’s Mouth 101 913
14. Gandara 93 502
3. Desolation 135 673
Current glicko rating change of your match
11. Abaddon’s Mouth 14.777
14. Gandara 30.052
3. Desolation -43.434
What if the winner was decided by glicko instead of score?
esme, Maguuma was blue last week, red two before that, green, and blue.
However, Mag keeps getting paired up with TC. Out of the last 4 weeks, Mag has been against TC 3 times.
Mag will have to really tank this matchup to lose rating points. As it usually is when a lower tier server goes against a higher tier server, the higher tier server (TC) will lose rating points, unless they spawn camp or lie in wait at Mags breakout towers. Mag will gain rating points, which makes the possibility of future matchups with TC more likely.
Does it make you want the old matchup of Mag/SoS/CD week after week after week?
@ original post
NO. WvW was intended to be a large scale pvp format. Large zergs are the intention of the format not a side effect. Large zergs are also not the only viable strategy either. Get creative and coordinate your small groups on the map. I assure you if you’re coordinated enough that the enemy’s large zerg will become a detriment to their ability to hold things.
@Swamurabi
Proximity check is actually quite cheap when you use the Manhattan distance calculation
Given two locations a(x,y,z) and b(x,y,z): if you want to find if these locations are within 600 units of each other
dx = a(x) – b(x)
dy = a(y) – b(y)
dz = a(z) – b(z)
proximity = (600)* (600) >( dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz)It’s like the true distance formula which takes the square root of the delta side but deals with the squares of the numbers instead. This is because square root is an expensive function computationally while the above had 4 multiplications, 3 subtractions and 3 additions. Your CPU doesn’t even notice that it does this. The only thing you have to watch for is data overflow where one side of those multiplications creates a number too big for the memory to represent.
PS: This is also why the AOE cap isn’t a technical issue for the CPU but more of a balance issue for the game format. The AOE cap prevents 5 elementalists from destroying a 40 man group. The same AOE cap is used for PVE so that players can’t AOE the content easily. Otherwise the group of 5 eles can nuke an entire room of skelk at once.
What I’m worried about is that if the system can’t handle more than 5 AoE hits after a specific player skill is used, how can it handle the entire map population proximity check each second?
That would be the 5 capture points where the quaggan/krait are now.
But about the lag, I’ve lagged in WvW in EB before, mainly at SMC during a three way fight. Recently I’ve had lag in Frostgorge Sound doing the champ farm, while almost everyone else in the server was doing an invasion on another map. I’ve also seen lag when we in WvW went up against a T1 server and it looked like it was 60v60 or more.
Are there different causes for lag server side? Can there be lag derived from map population (WvW or PvE) as well as lag from server population?
I’m not a programmer, but I was wondering how much processor resources would be used to have some kind of continous proximity check. I’m guessing it would be so high that it would turn GW2 into a text based game.
Bad, bad, bad, bad.
First of all, a PvE living world “world” event causes many overflow instances, none of which are possible in WvW.
Secondly, since the normal population in a WvW map stays within WvW for hours, getting any amount of PvE influx will leave out a majority of PvE players from even getting to see the “event”.
Thirdly, based upon the grief from the PvE crowd on the OS JP content you’ll get more grief from the PvE crowd when they’re blocked from their achievement by a 30 man zerg. Add to this that since there are very few close matches, or even “balanced” matches, on Tuesday when these living world events start, you will have an even greater PvE percentage that’s not getting any rewards. At the time I post this, 7 of the 8 NA matches has one team getting twice the PPT as another, while 4 of the matches has a team getting over 400ppt.
And finally, if your goal is to get PvE players into WvW, one time events are not the way to get them here. The best way to get more PvE players into WvW is to increase the drop rate of loot.
You’re on JQ, which is going to run with and against megablobs. The best profession with the highest survivability while only using skill 1 because of lag is staff Guardian.
Since when has GvG been 20v20? Did anyone play guild wars1? 8v8, kill the enemy lord using your guild hall (the pre Faction ones looked cooler) as the battle ground.
Since in GW1 max guild size was 100, 8v8 only took a minimum of 8% of your guild to play. Now you can have guilds with max of 500, so 40v40 would be the scaled version for THIS game. (Anet wisely responded to player complaints and raised guild maximum for GW2)
The reason 15v15 and 20v20 is thrown out is that in WvW you can easily have a guild group with that many in it any day of the week. Also taking 20 away from the total map population doesn’t restrict the “non-GvG” players from being able to play the way they want to play. Most of the larger WvW guilds in the top 6 servers can field up to 60 players on reset night. (Hopefully Anet will likewise respond to player initiative and incorporate a GvG option)
I don’t foresee a quick implementaion of GvG just because of the delay in getting a third map for WvW or even removing the krait/quaggan has taken months after the initial player complaints. I also realize that Anet would have allocated resources for and have a schedule made for content that they wanted to be in GW2 and any player requested changes would have to be fit into that plan and wouldn’t happen quickly.
But the longer players form their own GvG community, and that community continues to grow, the more likely that Anet will accomodate them, irrespective of whether you think GvG should only be 8v8 or that only skilled PvP players play 5v5.
Anet has some choices here.
Change WvW to bring the GvG crowd back into the “main” game.
- WvW changes are made with the mindset of sieging points in mind, won’t happen.
Make a separate GvG area and hope that WvW survives.
- Any semi-hardcore guild that is in WvW every day has at least a little interest in GvG, if all of the main gvg guilds stopped playing WvW, it wouldn’t die but there would be an even bigger gap between servers.
Leave things as they are and hope the GvG players don’t leave GW2.
- Sadly this is what will probably happen. There are a lot of game set to come out, all with better open field, open world PvP than GW2.
Edited my responses next to yours.
sPvP arena is no where NEAR GvG, please don’t suggest putting it in there and if you do, you have no idea what you are talking about. Come watch some gvgs and see what they are all about
However, in order for there to be GvG ranking, you will need to be able to go up against anyone at any time, which isn’t possible with the current WvW 3 server matchups. Even though GvG has started inside WvW, it will have to move to PvP to grow.
Anet has a history from GW1 of taking what players invented and incorporating it into the game (Dragon Arena). Whether you dislike the term GvG for 15v15 or 20v20 in GW2 is irrelevent because there is an ever increasing number of players/guilds that are getting organized outside of GW2 to set up and maintain a GvG.
Anet has some choices here.
Change WvW to bring the GvG crowd back into the “main” game.
Make a separate GvG area and hope that WvW survives.
Leave things as they are and hope the GvG players don’t leave GW2.
I find it hard to believe that someone on the 4th most populated WvW server in NA is losing money.
<snip>
If you are brainlessly running around in zergs, then sure, I would find that hard to believe – but that clearly isn’t the case with the OP and most of the people on this thread.Too true.
1 Hour spent defending Hills against repeated attacks from a small group (5-8 people) during the off hours – good for my server but pathetic in terms of gold for me.
I’ll give you that playing for PPT is not as rewarding as playing for fights, but still, being on the 4th most populated WvW server in NA you should be able to find someone to relieve you of your boring “defend Hills” assignment. Or you could let the 5-8 people take hills and you come back with your 30-40 and get all the WxP, karma and still maintain your precious PPT.
I find it hard to believe that someone on the 4th most populated WvW server in NA is losing money.
http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/21263
The cost of being a commander far exceeds the cost of the badge, and if you are a helpful/zealous WvW player yours will be close to that cost.
If you are brainlessly running around in zergs, then sure, I would find that hard to believe – but that clearly isn’t the case with the OP and most of the people on this thread.
Regular flame rams are built with Flame Ram Blueprints, which can be bought from a Siege Master for either 6s or 6 badges.
If you’re a good commander you should have plenty of one of them and not have to buy them for 16s on the TP.
2 things a 20v20 GvG will have that 5v5 PvP will never have.
A better chance for every profession to participate.
A better chance for a variety of team composition and builds.I’d add a 3rd:
A monkey can participate and be successful.
You mean like a spirit ranger in the current meta?
2 things a 20v20 GvG will have that 5v5 PvP will never have.
A better chance for every profession to participate.
A better chance for a variety of team composition and builds.
I find it hard to believe that someone on the 4th most populated WvW server in NA is losing money.
The couple maps I was on that failed wasn’t because of champ farming, it was because there were too many contested WP’s or had bugged events.