Guild Wars 2

SkyShroud.2865:

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

Technically speaking, only a very small percentage actually voted for the 2 month linkings that we got, around 15%, so you should really only be telling 15% of the population to “accept the consequences of their decisions”. The rest of us, the 85%, are immune from your statement because we did not get what we voted for.

Everyone above needs to realize that Coopa is on Gate of Madness, as am I, and has experienced part of that 2v3v4 fiasco in Tier 4. Even now, though, the DH and SF server pairs aren’t strong enough to take on anything that pops down to T4. Yes, the majority wanted to continue with linking per the polls, and the first linking matchups I thought were pretty good. For NA T4 this round…not so much. Hopefully the next round of pairings in late August will restore our faith in server linkings, at least for those of us in NA T4, since most other tiers seem relatively happy.

Warlord.9074:

Like I said I am right and you are wrong jeknar and other people. Thanks.

Only because they gave CD an extra 100 points at the last minute! A one-time fluke does not prove your point to the same degree as repeatable results.

In other news, CD is trailing SoS and YB by a fair margin…guess they were expecting to be in T4 again and got caught with their pants down…they’d better wake up, smell the coffee and get to work!

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nuzt.7894:

SBI queue’d every map ……….

Maybe the goal is to get ppl to quit, because I seriously have no clue wtf is the purpose of this. Sounds like fun for the rest of T4 …..

Darkhaven and Sorrow’s Furnace (and their subsidiary allies) are between a rock and a hard place in T4. Once SBI gets done steam-rolling them this week, CD (or someone else) will drop back down to T4 and they’ll do the steam-rolling.

Which is why in another thread I mentioned that DH & SF really need to get some cooperation going…nothing that drops down into T4 will be easy if we are also fighting each other on top of that.

Yes, the odds are still against CD moving up this next reset, but possibly the extra points and next week’s match score increase could give them a better chance of moving up. But, we’re only 3-4 weeks out to the next re-pairing, so yeah…

They are adding 200 to each server pairing in T4.

shiri.4257:

Can Anet confirm if the t4 matchup will change this reset? if not, i need to adjust my guild’s raid times for pokemon go.

They are boosting CD’s glicko by 185 points, but with what their predicted glicko will be at the end of this week, they’d still be 70 points or so under the lowest T3 server. There is a possibility CD could end up in T3 next reset, but there is at least as much likelihood they won’t until they win a few more matches against the other two server pairs and boost their score a bit closer to T3. The 3 server pairs in T3 will be very close to each other in their predicted scores for the week (all 3 within 40-45 points), which makes it less likely for a server that is trailing by 70 points to move into that tier. If one of the T3 servers performed badly next cycle, that could help, too.

Yep, always lags behind, have to zig-zag when you move to allow it to keep up. It’s really a built-in nerf, not a bug…:)

It’s the incoming LS3 bloatware…

Resets do restart the separatist event, but the event still does not get beyond 9/10 separatists…one went on permanent vacation it seems.

Nuzt.7894:

Who would replace CD T4?
SBI?
YB? (seems to be the least populated)
SoS?

Haven’t played YB enough to say what kind of population they have, but, the other two would probably dominate that tier as well.

Obviously this is a question for those servers facing CD, not for the CD pop that want to get out of dodge.

Won’t know until it happens, if it will even happen in this rotation of server pairings. Obviously, it would have been more balanced if T4 was 3v3v3 instead of 4v3v2. We probably would have been okay with the same matchup week after week if it wasn’t so lopsided.

Akkeros.1675:

but i bet it’s soon

They were going to put up a poll on in first, however, which we haven’t seen yet.

Akkeros.1675:

Just, wow! at the cd prior to linking comparison. No comment
Also, the difference between this thread and the “other threads” that have a similar subject discussed is the way it was presented and the fact that the other thread simply describes the situation in half-joking, half-serious comments in regards to a different topic.
The big pic here is how? and why? these linkings took place and what to avoid using as an indicator(glicko vs pop or time of census maybe?) to revert the situation or prevent it from happening again.
Good comments OP!
So ANET, can you comment on this subject?

They commented in the other thread about the adjustment they will make on the 29th. They also said they could look at modifying how matchups are determined but it is a significant enough change that it would take time out of the current issues they are addressing so it is automatically on the proverbial back burner.

I’m usually playing later in the PST evening hours and haven’t seen a queue on SF in the last week, even on reset night. Interest in this matchup is definitely tailing off.

Here’s the main thread on this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Nageling-Event-Bugs-merged/first#post6253116

Alternatively, if you take away more of the defensive tools, no one would want to bother defending an objective and would just go do something else, like hit an empty keep on the other side of the map, so more PvD and less PvP if that were the case.

If you check their Known Issue Tracker, you’ll see two disturbing things. The first is that this issue (and probably many other recent ones) isn’t even on their list for investigation or verification. The second is that they’ve only fixed one issue the entire month of July so far. Guess they pulled everyone into working on the latest Living Season release as well as the upcoming expansion, and let all the bugs run amok.

Aileras.9460:

Crapgame.6519:

Aileras.9460:

I personally don’t think a solo player should be able to easily take a camp, at least make it a bit harder. Sorry solo players but gw2 is a group game. Just my opinion.

Hmm…when I login I’m not in a group. In fact, I seem to recall earlier that I wasn’t in a group until I accepted or initiated invite.

It isn’t a requirement.

Ok group wasn’t the right word I guess. It’s a multiplayer game and wvw is a multiplayer aspect of that game. I’m not saying it should be impossible to take a camp solo, it just needs to take a little more work. If it didn’t effect scoring then I would be fine with it, but it does and one persons actions shouldn’t have that big an effect on a whole map full of players.

Think about the current score for killing an enemy player…2 points, same as 1 tick each 5 minutes for a camp. They’ve made it so that a camp really isn’t worth as much. You could go around and kill an enemy player every 5 minutes and accomplish the same thing. So if you see solo players out there fighting, they could be affecting the score as much if not more than by flipping a camp.

I am assuming you are coming from “I’m running in a romp-n-stomp zerg, we just flipped that camp, and some solo enemy just took it back, I’m so mad, nerf it!”

Ideally, a zerg should be leaving a couple extra zerglings at each camp to dissuade solo roamers, and those guards can still be granted participation so they don’t lose out by just standing there. If you want the camps to upgrade, you have to guard them. That’s too boring? Well, the life of any real soldier or law enforcement officer is 90% boredom followed by 10% SHTF adrenaline rush.

Ben K.6238:

We did have the 1-up 1-down system during one of the tournaments. The result was every single match in the mid-tier was broken. It is not a better system.

I wasn’t there, but this time with re-linkings every 2 months, it won’t be the same situation. In fact, as it currently stands, we’re seeing how broke glicko is in not reacting fast enough to the re-linkings.

Lalainnia.3598:

I really don’t think its the projectile hate the projectile defensive’s they have is fine its literally the fact that its specifically projectile (reflects) that are the main issue its extra damage outside of the normal damage they do while using abilities it’s overkill and unnecessary.

A ranged shooter is generally going to try and stay outside of the 180 melee range of the Electro Whirl or even the Scrapper’s auto attack, so the Scrapper is not usually getting damage on that ranged shooter on top of projectile reflection at the same time. If the Scrapper is somehow able to close the gap with his really slow leap, the ranged shooter can either swap to a melee weapon or get out of melee range to continue with ranged weapons.

Ging.6485:

Scrapper’s real strength though, is in it’s sustain. Condi pressure is strong against scrapper but power pressure is extremely weak. This means that Scrapper is king of the power battles. Good counters are Necros, Condi Warriors, and Revenants. Thieves and Mesmers will get eaten alive. Bunker Ele and Druid is a stalemate. DH can’t win a fight but will stay alive longer than Thief or Mesmer.

So…3 classes better than Scrapper, 2 are stalemate vs Scrapper, and 3 are worse than Scrapper? Sounds like it’s balanced to me!

schlake.2718:

It’s all Lord of the Flies out here, and we’re all the short kid with glasses nicknamed piggy.

…and that did not end well for Piggy…

Roxanne.6140:

Buy Some Apples.6390:

If you have to manually adjust the rating system, that implies the rating system is not suitable!

Additionally what is the extent of manual interference involved. Is it going to be a case of subjective opinion

I suspect the lowest tier is always going to need manual interference now and then, as it is hard for any server in that tier to stand on the shoulders (points) of the other two servers to climb into the next tier when the distance to the next tier is as large as it currently stands. The overall points just aren’t there to allow that to happen. The gap needs to be bridged so that a T4 server can move up into T3 and latch onto some higher glicko ratings to keep the whole ladder healthy. If they are then matched back into T4, their higher rating boosts up the scores of the other two T4 servers as well.

Again, I would suggest, as others have, that we just move to a winner up, loser down system…so much easier and adds at least a bit of variety to the matchups compared to what we have now with the tier gaps gating server progression.

Jeknar.6184:

Sylvyn.4750:

it takes skill and coordination to be at the top, not just having the most blobs.

ha
ha
ha

I did say “ideally”, but we know that’s not reality.

Yeah, we (GoM) were merged with SoS last round and heard that they were going to lose at least one core group. SoS sometimes had a hard time keeping up with SBI prime time blobs, but their OCX people kept the points up. Maybe those SBI blobs were mostly CD? Guess there is only one way to find out how their coverage has changed. :-)

Dayra.7405:

Jeknar.6184:

Well, that means we’ll still have at least 2 more weeks of CD/SF/DH…
Oh well, at least there still hope.

That’s that big question should you hope for SI+ or SoS+ instead of CD+ or fear it …

This is true and also points out how populations are still not balanced. The other 2 server pairs in T4 probably can’t compete with any server pair moving into T4. Ideally all server pairings should have close enough populations that it takes skill and coordination to be at the top, not just having the most blobs.

At least the GoB is not broken like the PvE event that is holding everyone up on the very first precursor for the legendary hammer Juggernaut. It’s been broken for about 2 weeks now. I earned my GoB in 5 or 6 evenings.

Teon.5168:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Teon.5168:

I’d rank the #2 idea in your OP right up there with repair hammers.

Please tell me whats wrong with #2.

Just my opinion. I don’t think it would be worth much effort. /shrug

Might help restore some server identity lost in the server pairings, as we were discussing in the other thread. As it currently stands, it’s already hard for guest servers to attract people and to recruit them into guilds, especially when any PvE zone is a blend of servers.

Draeyon.4392:

Why cant the winning server move up and the losing server move down?
A server could than push to move out of a tier that they are deadlocked in, at least for a week.

It would also be alot more competition for the new server linking system to face as many different servers as you can instead of the same matchup for the whole linking duration.

I have also brought this up before…a type of ladder system.

Teon.5168:

I initially voted for linking, as I thought it sounded like a good idea, especially since I was on a server where wvw was seriously dying. And initially, linking was fun. But the novelty wore off pretty quickly.

(Edit: Although I do need to point out that I do play wvw more now than I did before the linkings when Kaineng wvw was becoming a ghost town.)

Now, at least for me, the linkings have become a bit of a head scratcher. I think that just merging servers to combat the wvw population problems on the lower tiered servers would have been a better idea. In the first place, doing that would have allowed a lot of us to rebuild a new server identity/pride/whatever you wanted to call it. And, had they done a merge of certain servers, glicko(or whatever they use to determine rankings) could have been reset, and then we could have had a good path to reestablish new server rankings, overstacking could have been more effectively addressed, server transfers would have made more sense and would have caused a lot less frustration, voice comms transitions would have been easier, etc.

And yea, I know….hindsight is 20/20.

Pretty much in the same boat that you are, coming from GoM. The activity level is a lot higher (which is good) than it was prior to linkings, where back then I’d be the only one guarding SMC and I’d yell out when a Kain zerg (around 10 was a zerg in our tier) started hitting SMC, and I’d get maybe a couple people to come help defend. And yes, I have also been thinking a permanent merge might have been better, because as it is, no one wants to transfer to a guest server that won’t have much of an identity floating around every 2 months. With the prior 2-server linking for 3 months, it was better because coordinating on comms between 2 servers was a lot easier than the 3 and 4 server links we now have for only a 2-month stretch in T4. With that many servers for a shorter period of time, not many in my pairing are bothering with inter-server communications.

Great discussion so far…but back to the point of this thread’s title…what is the point? It seems that WvW needs some kind of weekly award for winning the tier, one that would draw out more players to help secure the win (of course then it would help if population balance existed). The award for the winning servers or server pairs could be similar to the meta event reward in Auric Basin where Tarir opens up the inner sanctum with all the exalted chests to loot, or the reward could be opening up a dungeon or raid wing for the following week that only the winning servers would have access to until the next WvW reset, or maybe restrict it to those that had a certain level of activity in WvW during that week. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas that might generate a bit more incentive for people to keep playing or even to give WvW a try.

It may restart the separatist event, but the 10th separatist never shows…

Mag has a larger NA presence than the other two, so when facing such opposition one often uses any available means at their disposal.

Electra.7530:

Liston.9708:

Electra.7530:

I hear you. We have same problem.

lol – with those #s how did ANY “reds” in that group get downed?

It’s interesting you notice that. The “reds” you see dead or downed are SF. CD’s zerg is steamrolling over SF’s zerg on their way to my little group of 4 or 5.

LOL

But, we don’t care. We always manage to kill one or two before we succumb to the wizardry of Anet’s WvW mechanics.

I’d also like to point out, CD never engages us unless and until they are in their zerg. When my partner and I encounter 1-3 of them out there, we pursue, but they always run. What’s up with that? I mean, come on.

I’m only seeing a half dozen SF there too, so typical CD using a blob to mow down smaller roaming groups.

Skynet.7201:

Everyone’s own server is ultimately responsible for recruiting guilds/people and for making it a place where people want to move. And if no one wants to move there, or if people keep leaving, that’s not Anet’s fault, nor should people keep bothering them about it.

And yet guild recruiting was made much more difficult with the mega-servers for cities and PVE zones. I see occasional recruitment ads on map chat but it is never for the server I am on. They either need to only link PVE maps according to how they linked WvW servers or they need to totally decouple PVE and WvW servers, making WvW matchups based on some other criteria, such as one of the 3 orders.

Zerg busting after the HoT expansion discussion: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Zerg-Busting-still-a-thing

Current popular builds for all game modes: http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki

If CD had to defend on DBL, we might have had a chance to get more points on them. ;-)

Two other threads about this were already merged: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Nageling-Event-Bugs-merged/first#post6236921

On top of that, sniperman, DH was given the short end of the stick this rotation, being paired with just one other server while SF & co have 3 servers and CD & co have 4 servers. If your server doesn’t blob to match CD’s blobs, then it has a harder time just surviving. It’s often unreal how many blobs CD is able to run late at night compared to SF, where I am linked, so I can’t imagine what being on DH is like.

Same Bat time, same Bat channel.

Same reasoning that made them link four servers in T4 to create a stompfest over the other two teams.

Jeknar.6184:

Liston.9708:

we are partially responsible for not overwhelmingly vote 1 month re-linking… imagine if 3 months or more had won…

Nobody expected that we would have a 4 link monstruosity locked in a tier with 2 other teams that cannot compete in numbers.

Exactly. We were hoping for better balancing with the server pairings. If we had known their would be that much volatility in the pairings themselves but not in the glicko, we would have voted accordingly.

Yep still bugged.

May as well do the server merges now for the lower tiers because trying to get 3 or more servers coordinated and then get shuffled again every two months is probably going to frustrate and wear out a lot of commanders and players.

Sus.3610:

I call us foster kids, you call us a type of leach lol tomatoes tomahtoe

Hey, I leach off the K-trains as much as possible!

Since we just finished Shark Week, an analogy came to mind that we can use for Guest Servers, being that of a remora that clings to the side of a shark, where the shark takes on the big prey and the remora feeds off its droppings and smaller parasites that attack the shark, while the shark offers protection from larger predators. There’s no verbal or written communication or agreement between the two, just an implicit understanding of the mutual benefit each receives by having the one tag alongside the other, and also knowing that the partnership is temporary and the remora will eventually move on to another host.

Yep…I voted for 1 month, too…saw this kitten-train of stale matchups coming a mile away. It would have also prevented a lot of server transfers due to stacking or boredom, and kept server populations more stable for Anet to better link them each round.

Josh XT.6053:

Sylvyn.4750:

CD gained a little over 100 glicko at the end of last week, which put them at the top of T4, but still about 300 away from the bottom of T3, and the current prediction is that they will only gain 25 glicko if the points trend the same from now until this Friday’s reset. I really don’t see where this “volatility” is coming into play.

They’re losing guilds to other because the match up is already boring for a lot of people, including my own guild is leaving.

Well, perhaps T4 will end up being more balanced after all. Still, the fact remains that glicko has pretty much doomed all T4 servers to remain locked in that tier, so the matchup in T4 will not change for 2 months. Was the same last pairing, too.

CD gained a little over 100 glicko at the end of last week, which put them at the top of T4, but still about 300 away from the bottom of T3, and the current prediction is that they will only gain 25 glicko if the points trend the same from now until this Friday’s reset. I really don’t see where this “volatility” is coming into play.