Guild Wars 2

Weren’t warriors thrown out of the frontline meta when revenants came in anyways? Actually more like they rerolled to dh or rev’s and the rest went roaming.

So uh, how did you guys think groups handled conditions before when resistance wasn’t around and boon shared to no end?

On the flip side if links never happened, we probably would be here with people complaining how dead their servers are every day. Let’s not forget the major downward spiral wvw was on after the expansion released, it still is, but links were a minor stop gap from people leaving and may have brought back some players, like myself. It certainly has it’s problems, but it helped revive wvw for a moment.

If you don’t like links fine, but just think what the alternative could have been, your server absolutely dead during the last 6 months. That’s not to excuse anet, been about year since the expansion and things still aren’t looking that well for wvw’s future. Question is, are there even any long term solutions on the table right now.

SMC really shouldn’t be one of those structures to sneak cap with a group of 5, which you can do for everything else, nor do I think a zerg should be able to plow through it with little resistance or response. It’s a castle, the central area of EBG which usually is busy with fights for most servers, it also offers the most points for a structure, it should take some effort to capture. If you want to sneak cap something big go get a garri through watergate or hills/bay double cata wall or something.

I could agree to maybe removing a level of upgrades, no reinforced walls, remove mortars, remove activated tactics, but leave cannons and the lords scaling power.

Leaa.2943:

Servers have always been the reason to why wvw worked better then other game that choose linking, alliance, factions or fluffy pink unicorns. Reason is because servers have their own way and their own identity. With linkings they manage to remove a lot of this, and moving it further will end up like every other game out there were players just move to the group that wins the most.

“Alliance” or “Battlegroups” or “Factions” or whatever else you want to call it can work just as well as single server identity and can promote loyalty and pride for sides, it just depends on how well Anet presents this.

If you look at other games that promote sided pvp, they have the content to give those sides an identity, and not just red blue green. Look at Warhammer and World of Warcraft (no comments on why they are similiar! XD ), but they have two distinct sides that they built the conflict around, and players choose what sides they rally to which has also been given their own distinct flavor by the players and how they act. When wow players clash it isn’t For the Dalaran server!, no It’s for the Horde! or For the Alliance! That’s the identity and pride aspect that anet would need to build wvw around.

Anet essentially replaced the side identity with server identity, instead of Alliance vs Horde, or Order vs Destruction, or Vanu Sovereignty vs Terran Republic vs New Conglomerate, they made it Blackgate vs Jade Quarry, vs Tarnished Coast.

Planetside is a three sided scifi shooter game that runs like wvw, but it’s built around three distinct sides, even their weapons and vehicles are distinct on each side. Dark Age of Camelot/Camelot unchained, same concept, three distinct sides with history and lore built in. Everyone has pride for the side they choose, and then the server.

When people go to eotm, which an alliance system would basically mirror, do you think they give a care about the blue frostreach winterland, red badlands desert or green overgrowth forest? There’s nothing there for them to feel any pride to fight for. The same will happen if they built the alliance system to be run on guilds as the face of those alliances.

What anet needs to do if they move away from server structures is to shift the pride and identity aspects to the three alliances. Example of this would be building the three sides to be The Durmand Priory, The Order of Whispers, or The Vigil. As with the personal story players chose one of the three sides for a reason, they have their own history and ways of doing things, which lined up players own personal style of play, that’s something they can rally behind. Or even choose gods or dragons to be represented. Give each side their own distinct legendary back piece or finisher to go along with it.

This may all sound like roleplaying bull, but it helps getting players to rally behind something to fight for. If they go down the road of the Green [OnS] alliance!, the Blue [FoW] alliance!, the Red [KnT] alliance, then yeah I’m sure people will not care very much other than those guilds and their friends.

Stacking a side is also a problem, but they have ways to deal with that, like planetside will give stat boost to sides that are underpopulated at the time, but given the way anet handles the outnumbered buff not sure they could get that one right. But you could also use side lockouts, or population caps, transfer lockouts, etc. Just a matter of how much effort they are willing to put into it, to make players feel attached and give a care for the warring alliances.

The t3 #7 server fighting the t2 #4 and #5 servers, and expecting to win. Ok.

I think maybe SMC needs a cleanup on it’s structure. Not long ago they did an update on walls that supposedly help reduced lag, I wonder if any of that polish could be applied to smc, I’m sure there’s graphical enhancements that could be looked at, but I wouldn’t destroy it’s concept. In any case lag happens when 3 blobs collide almost everywhere else, so tearing stuff of smc may help, but lag will still be around.

Also too many spots in smc that you could double wall cata, so I wouldn’t go with that suggestion. Nevermind there’s usually an outer wall down somewhere, so it’s usually sitting there with only 1 barrier of defense like a tower. All the gimmick hot upgrades like airship chilling and cloaking waters should have never been introduced.

Here’s the balance changes you should be excited about and really looking forward to.

PREVIOUS UPDATE

• North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed.

NEW UPDATE

• Green Keep: House added to swamp area northwest of keep. One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed.
• Blue Keep: House added to north side of the keep next to Overgrown Grub. One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed.

Enjoy!

PariahX.6970:

Hell, I would blow up SM entirely, turn it into a giant ruined fortress with mazes and broken up chunks of wall everywhere and maybe 3 capture points distributed in the rubble that could add up SMs point value if all controlled.

Oh god the horror! it would be like running through a haunted tunnel and stubbing your toe on every corner sticking out! Mashing that space button while shouting profanities at the screen!

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Xenesis.6389:

Just take out the castle it’s not needed, keep the outer walls up with the open gates and just the lord and capture ring in the middle.

Heck the open space would be perfectly big enough to server as an arena too!

There multiple problems solved.

would you also remove doors on outer?

I believe, if they changed SMC to be more openfield friendly while being less blobby they would not only have to change SMC, but they’d have to change all of EBG. All the way down to how the towers sit and the keeps are placed. Thus, they mines well just make a new map because the maps design is designed off the center Castle which is suppose to be the jewel of WvW structures.

Mal:

I just edited a post

Absolutely! that also solves the problem of revenants CoR through doors!

I’m kidding of course, EBG is fine the way it is, would be nice if they can find ways to reduce the lag without having to destroy smc.

Triggered.1850:

Xenesis.6389:

Just take out the castle it’s not needed, keep the outer walls up with the open gates and just the lord and capture ring in the middle.

Heck the open space would be perfectly big enough to server as an arena too!

There multiple problems solved.

You mean to have GvG in a game called Guild Wars 2? NEVEAH!

This will bring the GeeVeeGee guilds back I swear it on my dead wvw toon!

Just take out the castle it’s not needed, keep the outer walls up with the open gates and just the lord and capture ring in the middle.

Heck the open space would be perfectly big enough to server as an arena too!

There multiple problems solved.

Seems to me that boon duration shouldn’t be in the game, it’s a big part of the balancing problem. Every boon has a set base time or stacks, a recast time, and whether or not you can share it with your allies for a reason, and adding variables that can mess with those can break that balance. If they really were going add variables to those settings plus random boon procs from runes and sigils and traits, then hardcaps should have been looked at.

The same can be said about condition durations, which for a long time forced players to run minus condition duration foods to help negate that damage since resistance wasn’t in the game before. There’s a reason why certain conditions such as chill have a maximum stack of 5 while others have 25.

Well they tabled it, much like the legendary weapons, which are now back in production. If the complex plan was going to take more than 6 months to work out, then they should have just implemented the link system which was easier to accept and quicker to implement, then moved on to finish the overhaul.

Acceptance of that overhaul was of course going to be a problem at that time, which I think at this point because of links many more are seeing that type of solution is probably the only thing left to help revive wvw at this point. A lot of the lower tier communities have already lost a lot of players, wvw has lost a lot of players altogether, but server identity and pride is pretty much gone for many.

I always figured links were going to be a temporary solution. I just have no fate in anet willing or bothering to finish the overhaul, since they seem to like pulling people off the wvw team. Either way the overhaul was going to be needed, unless they really expected links to be the best solution to solve wvw problems for the future, I hope the last 5 months has shown them it isn’t.

This has been discussed
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Legendary-back-pack-for-wvw/

Quite liked the idea Warhawk.7095 had.

Warhawk.7095:

Also please make it look like a big heavy tombstone, so we can show everyone how dead we are inside.

Xenesis.6389:

Well, since we have Hero weapons for wvw already, and Mistforged Hero weapons is the upgrade, I suppose we could have the precursor be a Hero Eulogy Tombstone, and the legendary be the Mistforged Hero Eulogy Tombstone.

Glider should have ghost wings on it. XD

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Yes, It’s the system Arena Net hinted about for months. They fully designed most of the mechanics then they told their Sponsors. These are people who Arena Net chooses for their program. It’s mostly streamers and shoutcasters. When Arena Net tells these folk these secretive plans, 9 times out of 10 they are leaked to reddit.

So from my sources, the sponsors were worried about the destruction of server communities if and when they chose to overhaul the system. Arena Net didn’t cancel it for their opinion. They canceled their plans, when they decided to poll the community to see if we wanted to keep server links. The community voted “yes”, for keeping server links in, But then Arena Net said right afterwards, that since Server links are now in, they would be scrapping the overhaul for server links.

So because we voted on server links, it scrapped their original idea without us even hearing it for what it could be. We replaced a well rounded near perfect system for Server links and no one even knows besides the select few.

Your perception seems to be 100% accurate. I will explain why.
remember when I moved to TC and everyone kept screaming I had insider information? Well, the only insider information that fueled my move was the leaks given by reddit. However, right around the time we were preparing to move Arena Net invites guilds to what they call an alpha test. In this they took direct feedback from the guilds involved. then they produced the results live for feed back. Then while in the alpha test, which was nothing but a forum, they started the live beta in which they got the dumbest idea to start polling the community. When they decided on this idea, they closed down the alpha test because they said they’re just going to poll the entire community now.

During this alpha, I noticed they switch WvW directors with this poll and with the “Yes” vote we canceled out anything that was planned for before hand and left it up to the global GW2 community to vote on what they decide.

It’s very clear to me that Arena Net doesn’t understand the community, the reasons we transfer, the reasons we play where we play and how this live beta effects us all. I really wish they stop with these polls. It’s really killing the game and we aren’t even given enough information on what we are voting on or the stipulations it will bring us.

The idea of a “Live” Beta is disastrous as it is. Because whatever happens will have a permanent effect on us all just like it is.

Wow, if it’s true, just wow.

I mean I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that anet decided to scrap a fully designed plan and go the easy route. They’ve already admitted they’ve wasted time creating upgrades that never made it into the game in the past, that’s why Colin came out and said after the expansion they’re focused now on just building on what they have in place and not creating more new mechanics.

I’m sure if they had even presented the plans for alliances things would be different today. I always figured that was just a rumor and that they wouldn’t have put that much effort into fixing wvw.

Listening to a couple streamers and shoutcasters on the fate of wvw? Typical anet, that whole new game experience which was not needed that earlier in the game life was from opinions of some closed door “testers”, which led to the trait system revamp 2.0 that was a disaster. Little good it did since both alliance and linking systems destroy communities anyways, one is instant and the other is a slow burn on low tier servers.

Wvw is never going to get the treatment it needs, who knows by now the turnover they’ve had on the wvw team over the years. It already sounds like they trimmed down the department yet again with Tyler shipped off to living story, after the supposed reorganization when Mike fully took over in the spring.

If they really did scrap a major overhaul, at a time they really needed plans to stabilize wvw (right after the clusterkitten the expansion created for wvw), I believe there’s really no hope for the future of wvw now. A once beautiful combat game, dying each and every passing day.

Perfect timing with siege/build groups?
I don’t think that exist, but most organized ts guild groups would build stuff quick.

Hardcore siege/ppt guild? maybe Footsteps of War on YB?

X T D.6458:

There is a difference between Map politics, and organized weeklong double teaming. Nobody likes it, everyone complains about it, and yet some people think the scoring system should be changed to reward this playstyle so we always have 2 servers focusing 1 server. Like I said, some people dont seem to understand IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOUR SERVER to, and then you are going to be the same people back on here complaining to anet to do something because wvw is dead. Just stop with this ridiculousness.

Oh no it can happen to my server!?!?!

I know quite well it can happen to my server thanks, I’ve experienced it multiple times being the last place server in the matchup, when our enemies would take turns running through our borderlands flipping everything with their blobs and we were down to 5 people still trying to pitifully defend something. I kitten well know it can happen and have had it happen playing this game for 4 years.

Don’t act like it doesn’t already exist, last place team players that give up on the week cause they can’t even muster up enough to hold anything from the two other sides. Hey guys we both are taking your stuff, but we didn’t formally announce it in the forums so technically it really isn’t a double team, btw thanks for your hills garri and bay, we’ll hold on to it for a couple hours. Don’t worry we won’t waypoint it, troll siege, /laugh at you while you try to take it back with an omega and 5 people, oh wait you brought 10 lemme call in my blob from ebg. /extralaugh haha blue team taking their ebg shtuff.

The tables need to be turned, stacked/more populated/better coverage servers deserve to be more pressured in a matchup than the last place team.

Whatever, keep beating on the 3rd, enjoy your boonsharing blobs.

Yeah guys just run an army of necromancers.

X T D.6458:

Can you people please stop with the double teaming talk, it is so incredibly absurd, biased and shortsighted to even suggest that scoring be changed so as to encourage this. You do understand it can work against your server as well, and then you same people will be back on here complaining about how anet killed wvw because your server is being double teamed all week. Just seriously stop.

Hi, Hello, It’s a 3 sided game, there’s always a double team. You just don’t hear about it every minute of the match because the front lines change so often. When you do hear about it’s usually the losing team giving up all their space to the other two heavily fighting for their points, as in k-training their entire borderland, and nothing can be done until a commander shows up to gather up numbers, or wait it out until the trainers leave.

Really the only time the double team happened big time was when BG managed to get double teamed by JQ/TC that actually lasted for more than 5 mins during a season. Which by the way is a good example of what can happen if you pit the 2nd and 3rd teams against the 1st team.

I had a really long post typed up, but let me put this as short as possible.
Team games award a win/loss record, sometimes they do points so 2-3 points for a win, 1-2 points for tie, 0 for a loss. So we really should be scoring this 2-0-0.

Team games are based on even sides, with skill, strategy, and team play getting you the wins, in wvw we’re just awarding points for coverage. Hi thanks for showing up you get 3 gold points for buying poeple, you there get 2 silver points for managing to hold on to your people, and you over there get 1 bronze out of pity.

As mentioned the double team is always in effect, so essentially it’s still a 2 sided fight with 1 random side swaying back and forth. So award it, 2 points for the win, 1 point for the try, 1 point for the king maker.

2-1-1
I sayed it long long time.

Move the double team off 3rd to 1st, that is one of the major things missing in wvw and it’s points system, and actually one of the things that can lighten the load on population imbalance. As both 1st and 2nd can use 3rd as “reinforcements” instead of them both beating down on 3rd for free points.

I’ve always been for 1 up 1 down, but… that was before linking when there was a wider range of servers to have closer matchups between tiers. Now that we have half the matchups and also linking for tiers by population size in place, I don’t see this working at the moment.

The only t4 server that had a chance to compete for a decent match in t3 was the 4 headed monster, and even then they lost. So unless they plan on balancing populations out to that tier and the one next to it, I don’t see 1 up 1 down working well.

But probably still better than glicko which takes too much time to adjust to new links, especially if they go down to monthly relinks.

Cecilia.5179:

Why did YB get links but db/jq got none?

Because DB was (“most stable server” – fallen 2014) in t1, and yb was in t3 without a link when the relinks happened, the same thing happened to yb before they fell. After the relinks happened, db NA guilds decided to bandwagon off, yb got their link and their star pug commander came back.

Links have a schedule, they won’t get a link till next time, unless Anet wants to throw them a favor…. lol.

May I subscribe to your newsletter?

So dumb how they messed something up that’s so simple. Giant sized guildhall, but a dinky sized arena. GvG dead now anyways why bother.

Kimiku.1652:

At least with the old system we knew, even if the gap appeared kind of large, we had a chance to do some game changing, which was motivation to rally the troops. Now that’s gone.

Meh you know how many times servers actually came back from large point gaps? very rarely and only because they had overnight coverage that could take advantage of that, or commanders playing overtime into those more empty zones to make that happen, and these days there’s no point to burning yourself out doing so.

If people want motivation, stop picking on the 3rd place team and put more pressure on the 1st place team so you can keep the scoring closer. If you’re 3rd then stop picking on 2nd and go after 1st. If you just settle for the position you’re in and don’t want to pressure 1st for their place, then those players deserve the scoring outcome they played for. Start playing for first and stop going wherever the hell the squirrel leads you.

MrFluffy.9307:

There’s plenty of vids where 20 man guilds fought and won against 60 man guild groups.

Oh you mean a 20 man “gvg” “zergbusting” guild that had all their traits and gear and combos synergized and on ts, to take out 60 pugs that had hodge podge gear and trait choices and not all on ts?

Eotm is still around you know.

DB is not in the right spot.

Also what do you plan for the matchups?, tournament for each tier? do you plan on having all tiers in the same tournament brackets? Should I save you some trouble now and let you know who’s going to win?

Jana.6831:

He only speaks of EU, not NA – you used NA as an example and he said nowhere that the same rules of EU apply for NA.

Oh right ok, so they don’t balance according to tier for NA………. so why are lower tier servers getting demolished by higher tier servers in their matchups?

Jana.6831:

I really should’ve read that post – I skipped it because I was and am mad that they deleted a tier on EU. But he speaks of EU, not NA – so your example is the exact opposite – on NA it should be balanced, on EU we are supposed to have the very same MU every week.

How exactly is it the opposite? they’re linking according to the tier in EU and NA, you asked me where they said it, it’s right there.

Just so you all know what was going on…
https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/53jc4b/wvw_dead/?st=itaouat5&sh=3baa1e0b

Jana.6831:

Xenesis.6389:

Would be nice that servers are balanced to have a good chance against each other (out of tiers), but that’s not the current method they are using. For NA they balance servers according to the tier they are in, in other words tier 4 servers might be balanced to have populations around 500 players, in tier 3 population are balanced around 800 players, etc. So if a server jumps into a tier it doesn’t belong in they will get do really well if they went down, or get clubbered if they went up.

Did they officially say so somewhere? Just because that makes no sense, but maybe it makes sense in their minds, I don’t know – but facing the same opponents over and over is usually beyond boring.

This very thread, page 4.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-8-26-2016/page/4#post6308545

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hello everyone,
I know a lot of EU players are asking why Far Shiverpeaks is linked with Whiteside Ridge and Fissure of Woe so I figured I would clear up why this link was made.

Our goal with World Linking is good matches. This doesn’t necessarily mean that worlds in tier 4 are intended to be competitive with worlds in tier 1, but ideally every world in tier 4 should be competitive with the other worlds in tier 4 and likewise every world in tier 1 should be competitive with the other worlds in tier 1. It would be nice if worlds in tier 4 were competitive with tier 1, but it’s not realistic since the distribution of players across worlds is not consistent.

The issue is compounded in EU, due to the fact that we are avoiding linking worlds with different languages. For example, there is only one Spanish world, so they’ll never be linked and thus might never be competitive in tier 1 worlds. Similarly making each set of German worlds have equivalent populations has proved equally impossible because if we were to link them they would have a much higher population than other worlds, making match-ups against them not competitive.

Far Shiverpeaks was linked with two worlds because we needed a third world that would have similar population to the French worlds, specifically Jade Sea and Vizunah Square so that the matchup could be competitive. Far Shiverpeaks, Whiteside, Ridge, and Fissure of Woe linked together gave us the best population to create competitive match-ups for that tier.

It is also important to keep in mind that this is the very first week of match-ups and it will take time before glicko adjusts worlds into their correct tiers.

The numbers I threw out were just example numbers to show the difference of the balancing they were attempting. So of course when you face an opponent that doesn’t belong to your tier it will be a blow out, but glicko variance is there to try and throw in some randomness to the matchups.

People complain either way, oh we’re in a blowout not playing this week, oh it’s this match again for the 4th time not playing this week. Can’t have it both ways because of the population differences between tiers. Otherwise just have to ride it out until the rolls go your way, or I guess a request goes through to move servers out of your way.

My other suggestion before was to make t1 and t2 closer and t3 and t4 closer in population, place the wall between t2 and t3, so that proper rotation can happen to those 6 servers in them.

But whatever, at this point I don’t know why I’m still posting on here lol.

Snickers
Look at the responses, it was ok to do this for YB, but oh no not FA. lol

Looking at the standing right now, looks like TC doesn’t belong in t1, DB doesn’t belong in t2, FA doesn’t belong in t3. When can we expect special glicko adjustments for them? Maybe they should just do -150 glicko to DB to help them drop faster.

Hey let’s save everyone the trouble and just move TC to t2, YB to t1, DB to t3, FA to t2, CD back to t4, SoS to t3, then lock tiers till next links. Everything will be even and everyone will be happy don’tcha think?

Jana.6831:

Xenesis.6389:

And there are servers who have had to suffer longer. The problem isn’t FSP which is what the majority of the complaining seems to be, it’s the glicko variance that allowed you all to roll into bad matchup 3 weeks in a row. Unless you wanna ask anet to manually move FSP to the t1 match, seems that could be a thing these days.

Then why are servers even linked? Shouldn’t it be that the linkings balance populations thus Glicko wouldn’t matter that much anymore as all servers would have a good chance against each other?
What anet did with the current linking was reverting back to what we had before the linkings.
But you’re right, the problem isn’t FSP, the problem is anet
And if we have that vastly different populations again, then we could go back to having 9 tiers as well.

Would be nice that servers are balanced to have a good chance against each other (out of tiers), but that’s not the current method they are using. For NA they balance servers according to the tier they are in, in other words tier 4 servers might be balanced to have populations around 500 players, in tier 3 population are balanced around 800 players, etc. So if a server jumps into a tier it doesn’t belong in they will get do really well if they went down, or get clubbered if they went up.

EU I would guess they balance according to language first then populations while trying to maintain their tier rankings. I think the increase in variance has really screwed with the match making in EU though. I’m not sure why the tier one servers are receiving links unlike the NA counterparts which have had their links removed since the first set. But you EU players would know about this than me as I only casual glance the EU stuff.

In any case it isn’t FSP’s fault or problem, the linking methodology needs to be look at. As I mentioned in a post somewhere, they need to stabilize what they want to accomplish with links, just to keep servers in tiers as before?, or try and eventually even out all populations that everyone has a good shot to be competitive with each other?. Like for NA, would folding t4 into t3 servers give them enough players to be competitive with t2 or even t1 these days?

Some players won’t like that which is obvious by the complaints in here, but you can’t have it both ways, ask for lower pop server and then complain when you get matched with a higher pop one, still a big separating in population by tiers.

Straegen.2938:

Anet should take the top 5 skills/traits for each class and adjust them down a bit each month. Do the same for the bottom ones only adjust them to be more powerful. Keep going on each class until all skills/traits are close to the median average in usage.

They barely seem to want to do any balancing every quarter, plus it would interfere with spvp seasons. Just saying.

mordran.4750:

Xenesis.6389:

You’re in a bad matchup this week, the 7th and 8th ranked servers fighting the 1st ranked server in t2, bad roll, suck it up and try and find your fun elsewhere till friday. Everyone has gone through matches like these.

For us it´s the 3´rd week in a row we get such kittened matchups mate, first against vizunah, and then 2 times fsp. You don´t suck that up then, people have every right to complain

And there are servers who have had to suffer longer. The problem isn’t FSP which is what the majority of the complaining seems to be, it’s the glicko variance that allowed you all to roll into bad matchup 3 weeks in a row. Unless you wanna ask anet to manually move FSP to the t1 match, seems that could be a thing these days.

Not exactly a new idea, years ago there was a brainstorm about what would attract players to buy more gems, stuff like finishers and more guild themed stuff, or themes for claimed stuff like imagine turning your claimed tower into a haunted house tower type of place, themed siege etc.

In any case wvw is only a small part of the game’s population, and shrinking every day. In the end pve is all that will be needed to keep the game going.

briggah.7910:

no they betrayed YOU. i just love when players speak for the entire wvw community.

are you even playing the t3 match up? or did you quit like that other guy? its not a bad match up at all.

You know that applies to you too right?
right?

YOU may like the matchup, doesn’t mean you speak for the rest of t3, or the t2 server that got dumped there either, not everyone will be happy with what happened.

Caliburn.1845:

Question, will the +150 extra glicko continue to be given to YB after the end of this current week’s match-up? Because that would put YB squarely in the middle of T1 if current scoring trends continue.

Naw man they should just do an emergency link and give YB two servers like I dunno SoS and Sbi as links, and then place them in t1, move BG out.
Yah man that sounds good.

P.S I’m all for boosting servers ratings if it’s to fix a situation that has no end to it, this is mostly when there’s glicko walls. I don’t agree boosting one server, because you are affecting another server above them with this boost, what does that tell the players on the other server who worked on maintaining their ranking? Too bad someone else deserves your spot because they got a better link this time around, we’ll just give it to them.

If they were already heading to t2 then let them do it on their own time, they were already in range, not like the t4 match that had no hope of that happening for 2 months. It’s come to the point now that glicko ratings no longer have any meaning, you might as well set up all the tier matches as you think they should be and leave it at that.

If you feel the need to boost individual servers now, then do the soft reset of glicko ratings every link, 2000 1900 1800 1700. I’ve sayed it many times already.

Jeknar.6184:

Yes, I agree that DB problably would be much fitting to be in T3 than FA, but they still have too much glicko to lose and might take some time. Also, YB already had around 2% chance of rolling this matchup (just like FA rolled T1 last week). If you put aside the fact that Arena Net admited manual intervention, what would you say if FA had rolled T3? “kitten you Arena Net for putting us on T3” is the first thing that comes to my mind. Oh wait, it’s already what this dude is doing…

I would have said nothing because it was done by the system, they would have gotten a bad roll, like what has happened many times in the past. Did I come in here and complain about FA rolling t1? nope.

This was a manual displacement of a server because one person comes in here asking for them to move a server they don’t like playing against.

BTW I don’t care for FA, I’ve had a hatred of them from back in the TC/SoS/FA wars, always playing for second style. Doesn’t mean what was done to them was fair.

Hell why don’t we just save everyone some trouble next relink anet should link them with 2 servers! and plop them in t1!.

QuickRain.4735:

you didn’t complain about CD gaining you? If not your justice is irrelevant

No because that link was badly done, and players complained for more than a month because there was also a 300 point glicko wall between t3 and t4, they were going to be stuck with that match for 2 months because CD restarted as a host and had a low rating to begin. Also to refresh your memory, all 3 servers gained a glicko boost when it happened.

Now go look at the ratings for t2 and t3, YB was already on the verge of breaking into t2. One person comes in here and requests YB gets a boost to get them out of t3, it didn’t even get out of page 1 of discussions and it happened. Never mind how that affects the other server taking their place.

What’s next on the slope?

Jeknar.6184:

kefro.9312:

what does FA have to do with this? Anet need to fix this and fire that person who did it

FA was the lowest T2 server, so they were the most likely to be moved… If FA was in a better position, it would be other server that would be moved. but when a server don’t win a matchup in months and is placed last in most of them, they are likely to move down sooner or later… FA lasted longer than expected considering their recent performances in T2.

DB has started it’s free fall and they are the ones who may end up in t3, they’ve lost a good amount of NA guilds. Given some time FA could have sucked glicko ratings from DB, but hey guess who’s doing that now.

FA has fought for it’s t2 standings for years now, they’ve made visits to t3, but it’s not fair to that server to get chucked to t3 because some ppt idiots couldn’t deal with YB for another week. If they get a bad roll and head down to t3, fine they’ll suck it up, they have in the past, but because someone decided to push another server ahead of them from t3? That’s very unfair to FA.

They pushed glicko ratings on the previous monster of t4 and in fact all 3 servers there got a boost, fine go ahead, that mess was create by anet in the first place by creating four t3 servers, they needed to clean it up and get them rotated after a month of sitting and destroying t4.

This was not going to be the case now, YB could have gained enough and DB could have lost enough to switch eventually.

If you are going to manually move servers with glicko boost then you kitten well should start fixing glicko, instead of taking personal request from players to move servers. Now the devs are fixing the teams and matches.

Hey can we setup a plan ahead for next week, switch FA with DB, thanks guys you da best! xoxoxoxoxoxox

X T D.6458:

Guys, settle down seriously. Anet did not alter a matchup because some guy on the forums asked them to, ok, stop being ridiculous and stop kidding yourselves. They did this because glicko is a fundamentally flawed matchmaking system that can be very slow to adapt to changes in matchups.

Riiiiiight, they have been keeping an eye on YB and decided they need to be in t2 right now because they were absolutely wrecking t3, suuuure. When’s this happening for EU again? Hmmm, I’m sure FA was the server that needed to be in t3 this week. Uhhhh huh. Who’s being the ridiculous one here?

Nothing wrong with someone requiring teamspeak to run with them, even if it’s to just listen to commands, it’s faster and more efficient for battles. Someone puts up a tag and creates a squad, they have the option to run open or closed, and make their own requirements.

Make your own squad if you don’t like how others run theirs, or find another commander that’s running open. If you like to run on your own and do your own thing you can do so without a squad, it’s not stopping you from playing the game.

Oh boohoo other tiers have been locked for months before, you all just didn’t want to play against yaks bendyouoverwitharrowcarts any longer, now they’re t2’s problem until DB finally drops to t3. I mean might as well have asked to swap DB with YB and saved everyone a few weeks glicko changes. Looks like FA will be enjoying their highest kdr ever at 1.9

Why bother having glicko ratings anymore, if players just come in here, make a request for a server to move out and it gets accepted. Is everyone happy where their opponent servers are right now? should we just lock the tiers?

joneirikb.7506:

But ANet specifically stated when they released the game that as with GW1, they didn’t plan on making a game to keep players playing all the time, they planned to make game people could come and go from/to.

Really? Cause the two week living story thing says otherwise.

I believe that line of thought was in regards to gear, players could leave and come back in a year and not worry about having to catch up, the free to play model makes this happen also. But it’s something they kinda lied about when they brought in ascended afterwards, especially now with raids and players feel they need to equip ascended to get in, which has shot it’s mats threw the roof.

Any company that relies on a gem store to survive and then thinks it’s ok for players to get bored and leave for however long of a period of time to never returning, is running a terrible business. Sorry but it is.

If you want your customers to buy from you whether that’s gems or a subscription or an expansion, you need to keep them interested in the game, or you risk them leaving for another game and never returning, something a lot of wvw’ers have done unfortunately.

Game was never balanced for zergs, it’s been balanced for 5v5 for spvp and probably enrage checks in raids which is only for 10. If it was ever balanced for wvw zergs they would have a lot more checks in the system for certain things, like boon duration, which doesn’t really matter in spvp, since fights are much shorter and you don’t have 10 other people spamming boons. It’s why condition was useless from day one in big group fights because of mass cleanses.

The only other big zerg that happens is in pve world bosses, but who cares about balance to those.

Roscoe.2348:

Suggestions like 2,1,1 could also be replaced with 1,0,0 or 101,100,100.

You mean 200, 100, 100, or 50, 25, 25, or 20, 10, 10, or 10, 5, 5 etc etc etc etc etc.
Because no one would give a care for 101, 100, 100, use x not +. The point is putting 2nd and 3rd at the same points to motivate them to go after whomever is leading. Rather than what we have had for the past 4 years, 1st and 2nd beating on 3rd because it’s easier points to fight over, 2nd sees they can’t catch 1st so no point on focusing them, they just make sure to beat 3rd.

If you point 2nd and 3rd towards 1st constantly you can overcome a bit of 1st’s coverage and population.

nerovergil.5408:

your night is my day. we live in earth

And now everyones night or day scores the same 1, 2, 3, points.