Guild Wars 2

Guess there’s no point continuing to play in the TC/GoM/SoS WvWvW at all the rest of the week.

Good game, GoM. Good game. I know it’s not all of you, but until something is done about the people hacking on your server, I sincerely hope never to be matched up with GoM again.

When I saw we were matched with GoM this week, this is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid was going to happen, after hearing about it happening in prior matches with GoM.

I know it’s not all of GoM doing it, but if you folks on that server would please repeatedly and massively report whoever IS doing it, I think the entire GW2 playerbase would very much appreciate it.

Report it in game, AND send email to exploits@arena.net about the person(s).

I have to say that the fights this week among TC, Mag, and EB were perhaps the best since the game launched.

Can we please stop the back-and-forth bickering about “night capping”? What’s next, all of us with 9-5 weekday jobs band together and start complaining about those of you who can play while we’re at work?

It’s pretty much the same thing, and about as useful. This particular horse has been beaten into a thin red jelly; there’s no reason to keep beating it. It’s long since dead.

The devs have spoken: they’re aware of the concerns, they’re considering possible modifications to scoring.

It’s not a client limit. It’s not a graphics engine limit. It has nothing to do with 32-bit memory limitations.

ArenaNet developers have posted in this forum and explained that it’s an “optimization” they implemented on the servers, NOT the clients, to help improve playability for the very wide range of PCs everyone uses.

In short, they did it because a lot of people use computers that can’t handle the strain. Buy better computers, people.

They said they’re looking at ways to adjust it to minimize or eliminate the problem, particularly in areas like WvWvW, where it can pose a significant issue for play.

Thank you, ArenaNet. I’m happy to see you’re sticking to your vision for the game.

People need to start approaching it in the following way (and this applies not just to upscaled toons, but level 80s as well):

• Gear is for looking pretty.
• Skill is for playing well.

• Your reward for playing well is having fun, looking pretty and getting money.

• Your ego will not be fed in GW2 by massively outclassing people with gear that has stats greatly superior than most other people.

Learn those mantras and live by them, and you’ll find you enjoy the game a lot more.

My girlfriend has the same problem.

krakenstar.1674:

actually since the last patch the drop rate seemed to have picked up a bit

Also, this. I noticed yesterday and today that the drop rate seems to have gone up substantially. It’s about double what I was seeing.

Mug.9403:

I’m at 5k+ kills, and I’ve gotten about 1200 badges.

I have probably left a few hundred on the ground.

Looks to be about 1 in 5, I’ll keep an eye on it.

1 in 5 sounds about right. I’m up to about 90, and I’ve got just under 600 kills.

Yes. Yes I will. I’m having fun.

Fun is your reward.

If you’re getting one-shotted and killed by AoE, you need to watch for the targeting circles on the ground, run with a group, and dodge a LOT. Learn to take targets of opportunity and then withdraw. You can’t just jump into the middle of things and expect to survive.

Ruwe.9612:

Whats funny is that you guys are trying to build an alliance against the lowest ranked out of the three…..

If you saw the lack of organization there, you’d know that every little bit helps.

It’s possible the game client is truncating the password, but the backend system handling the forums and official website, and their password forms, aren’t.

Queue, wait 10 minutes, requeue. Lather, rinse, repeat until you get in. It seems to get around the bug in the queue system.

At a guess, it’s probably accepting passwords of any length when you set them, but truncating passwords when it prompts you to enter one. For example, it accepted your 100-length password, but may only (I do not know; I’m guessing) process the first 64 characters when you subsequently use it to log in. Bingo, your saved password and the one the system thinks you entered don’t match.

I agree: It would be good for ArenaNet to make known the maximum acceptable password length, and limit the creation of passwords to that length.

(note: this is just supposition, based on similar behavior I’ve seen elsewhere in the past that matches what you describe).

Dead Parrot.1973:

Another factor is the ability of folks to correct type the password. I would guess the average person has a really poor chance of correctly typing MA4n4%$&7854kkn4q32kl2$(24cb in to a blind password field. They will have a better chance with #blindhorsestompskittens! but many will still miss it a lot. Too high a frustration level and they will use an easy to type(and guess) phrase or just give up.

That’s why programs like LastPass and 1Password exist. You can simply cut and paste. Also defeats keyloggers, for those who worry about them.

myr.8642:

Huh. I’ve never had this happen to me. Whenever I get kicked out of WvW for an imminent patch, sure not everyone shows up, but the 50-100 that are closest to me do. I’ve never had problems aiming ballistas, and only very rarely problems on the extreme edge of cannon range (on the eastern keep in borderlands maps). Trebs are another issue, but I can understand not being able to see the health of a wall 10k units away. That’s what spotters are for.

I’m running a GTX470, 8gb of ram, and a SATA3 SSD though. Have a feeling HDD seek times might have something to do with this.

And I have had this happen to me. And I have SATA3 SSDs as well, with both the OS and game installed on them.

Not to mention the developer stated in this thread that it’s a problem with an optimization they made on the server side, which means it does not have anything to do with your computer.

Best. Post. Evar.

Seriously. I mean, I’m all for organization and trying to win, but Fubuki’s right: A whole lot of people tend to forget that they’re supposed to be having fun.

If I weren’t already on a losing server, I’d move to his. It sounds like a great place to be.

Crise.9401:

@mlc

Well, we are not holding a security seminar, or suggesting people to use it as their bank password model. Like you said yourself an improvement to the general practices.

There was a reason why I kept my post trivial, and that’s the same reason why the blog post did the same, the comic strip can be understood by even young kid. If they just put the blacklist in place, people would just start appending few characters to their old password when forced to change it, a practice they probably have used on other sites on occasion.

There is no need to overwhelm people, no one here or at ANet is capable of fixing the worlds insecure passwords, no matter how much we educate, but they can improve it from the “twilight” level of bad. You start throwing words like entropy around and you loose people. Besides the article reiterates many times that passwords should be unique on all sites, so if that person still starts throwing the same strings-of-words password at other sites then they do not know how to read. The whole article is about unique passwords more than its about hard to guess passwords.

I agree, and I would feel better about that sentiment had there not been a post in this forum just this morning, directly referencing the blog post, asking what to do about the fact that they use the password on other sites.

People are inherently lazy. From a security perspective, I work from the (realistic) assumption that people are going to use that password elsewhere. Given that, I’d rather not leave them with a false sense of security.

That’s all. I’m just trying to make plain the fact that what works in this specific instance is not secure in general, and it’s the general case that got us in this mess in the first place.

Kethryes.5712:

@Mcl: of course you are right, it is not as good as a true random password, but the point in doing this is that it basically transform a “simple” dictionnary attack into a “kind of” brute force attack, because for each word you have to try all the possible substitutions, omission, reordering etc…

And a brute force attack can’t succeed on a remote autentication with high latency like it is the case for GW2.

I agree with your last statement. I even agree with the intent behind trying to get people to use something akin to the xkcd example for password selection as an improvement to the general techniques people tend to use now.

My main quibble here is that many people will read that, and go about their lives thinking that since they’ve used the xkcd example here (and incorporated it into all their other passwords), they’re suddenly much more secure. Which is true, but only to a point.

They’re much more secure in the specific scenario that the current attacks against GW2 accounts present.

But they’re woefully insecure should the hashed or, as is sometimes the case, plaintext password database of some company the person in question has an account with gets compromised. Once those hashes are in the wild, a “random”-string-of-words password will fall significantly faster than is stated by xkcd, for the reasons I’ve discussed above.

It leaves the average person with a sense of security that they’ll carry over into other situations where it mismatches the actual security risk significantly. This wouldn’t be the case if everyone studiously used truly unique (and by that, I mean the passwords aren’t simply variants of each other) passwords for each and every account they have everywhere, but you and I both know they don’t. So someone will use the random-string-of-words password here, and on some fansite somewhere. That fansite will get hacked, their password database stolen, quickly cracked, and then that random-string-of-words password is suddenly totally insecure, because the entropy wasn’t what the xkcd comic said it was, because they used a very naive and inappropriate entropy computation. Actual words are inherently low-entropy. Strings of them even lower still.

I just don’t want people thinking strings-of-words passwords are somehow inherently strong in all situations. They aren’t. They’re adequate in this case, but should that password be used somewhere else where the likelihood of their hashes being stolen are higher, it’ll quickly end up on the list of known passwords those hackers are using against GW2. And then people will feel betrayed, because they were told that strings-of-words passwords were supposed to be really, really impossible to guess.

They’re not.

Oddzball.4280:

Even with the BEST brute force options available it would take YEARS to brute force a password that has roughly 16characters in random word format.

Yes, if it were simply brute-forcing.

The point I’m trying to make is that nobody with half an ounce of sense is going to use straight brute-force attacks these days. There’s just too much known about too many aspects of password selection, word choice, human memory, cryptography, and so on to resort to the caveman equivalent of password cracking.

Word-frequency analysis would narrow the search space considerably. Again, humans are horrible at randomness. You may pick a word that you think is random; it isn’t. It’s n-gram occurrence frequency with surrounding words may be very low, but the occurrence frequency of the word itself is likely quite high. And given priming effects in human memory, the n-gram occurrence frequency of the adjacent words will be much higher than random.

Kethryes.5712:

Mcl is right, such a password is not as strong as it may seem, because the words came from the english dictionnary. (You know, as in “dictionnary attack”).
And even if hackers don’t use such efficient multiple dictionnary attacks for now, that’s just because not many people use such password. But they can addapt very easily.

However, a minor trick will make it strong: replace some of the letters with symbols, like
corr3ct horse ba|tery 5taple

Now you password is really solid, and easy to remember. (It was actually discussed in the forum thread of XKCD)

Cheers

No, simple substitutions like that are not any more secure, and are easily guessed at. Almost any pattern-substitution or symbol-substitution currently used for password creation has been discovered, analyzed, and incorporated into modern day password-cracking software. Again, Schneier wrote about this in 2007.

That means things like:

• 1337-5p34|< substitutions
• spatial pattern usage (e.g., !qAz@wSx#eDc)
• any known substitution cypher (and there are many)
• spatially-shifted symbol substitution (e.g., “yjododsyrdy” for “thisisatest”)
• omission-based passwords (e.g., “thsstst” for “thisisatest”)
• reordering-based passwords (e.g., “tsetasisiht”)
• simple symbol appending or prepending (e.g., 123thisisatest123)
  …and so on, and so on.

If you can think of it, it’s almost certainly already been used ad nauseam, analyzed extensively, and incorporated into cracking software. Humans simply aren’t good at generating randomness, i.e., true, high Shannon entropy.

AsteriskCGY.5931:

Well that explains Fort Aspenwood, They have nearly 24/7 people playing.

…which is interesting, since Dragonbrand do as well. Yet both TC and Maguuma are between those two in the rankings and neither have a strong off-peak presence.

Rodarin.6058:

I was looking at peak hours, the whole ‘work week’ argument doesnt fly. Peak hours happen after people get home from work. So there should be a steady ‘mountain peak’ effect each day. Look at Crystal desert for an example.

Every server had those peaks, but as the week went on the peaks got smaller and smaller and in some cases completely disappeared. Weekend should actually be a plateauing effect where it stays pretty flat since most people arent working and are trying to play. So the mt peaks are a little less dramatic.

People do other things besides “go to work” and “play GW2”. I’d wager the vast majority of people with GW2 spend their time doing other things in addition to playing GW2 every waking and/or available moment. Like eating, sleeping, seeing to personal hygiene, leaving the house, socializing, dealing with household upkeep, and pursuing other recreational activities. You can’t assume such a simplistic model and then use the absence of a pattern from that model as evidence for anything.

Crise.9401:

SwiftChocobo.3781:

First of all, the ‘correct charged battery horse’ or whatever example he used to demonstrate what apparently Anet considers a ‘strong’ password. IT IS NOT.

It is a strong password, what matters most in the event of an automated attack is password length. Only if the attacker is targeting a single individual and knows something of said individual does the meaning (or lack thereof) of the password matter.

To a computer a character is a character, whether it is a fancy symbol or not doesn’t matter. Even if we assume everyone followed ANet’s advice and created their password from words from the english dictionary and the attackers adjust their automated tool to check for it the following basic math applies.

Without getting into the problems of counting words in certain language, lets assume that there are at the very least 250 000 distinct English words. Then (250 000 choose 4) = 1.6275651 * 10^20. (if we were to assume each letter can begin with lower or uppercase letter then the number of actual combinations that need to be tested changes).

Now lets look at how a regular passwords compare to the above, regular password is assumed to be 8 or 12 characters in length. Before that, however, lets compare how a typical brute force attacker would approach the example given in the blog.

1. (63 choose 28) = 6.2930829 * 10^17 (ANet’s example password, when attacker knows what characters it can contain)
2. (95 choose 28) = 9.28986927 * 10^23 (ANet’s example password in a more typical scenario, using ASCII table)
3. (191 choose = 3.78643234 * 10^13 (Typical, short, password, ISO-8859-1 charset)
4. (191 choose 12) = 3.45849632 * 10^18 (Typical, long, password)

So yes, in the event that the attacker knows that a certain persons password is composed only of English words and spaces and can thus limit the group of characters used for the search, then a 12 character password containing symbols is in theory stronger by comparison. However, keep in mind that if only “symbols” from the ASCII table are used or allowed then the above math changes because ASCII only has 95 printable characters total, thus (95 choose 12) = 5.46585073 * 10^14.

So it turns out that attackers working with words is actually counter productive for them, unless they can significantly limit the number of words used in the search.

tl;dr: Only an attacker that knows what words a certain user is likely to choose for their password would benefit from actually doing a word based dictionary search, for a standard automated brute force attack, length is the deciding factor.

That isn’t true. Rather, it’s only trivially true. Let me describe three reasons why:

1)Modern password cracking software developers use an existing corpus of millions of existing passwords to determine common password generation techniques, including “string of unrelated but extant words in a given language”. This means that the software isn’t brute-forcing each character. It’s making much more sophisticated attempts than that, which invalidates the guesses per second metric, and modifies the impact of the entropy as calculated in the comic. Schneier wrote extensively on this in 2007.

2)Yes, the password example in the xkcd comic has roughly 44 bits of entropy, based on the assumptions present in the xkcd comic. However, his estimate of guesses/sec necessary to crack it is woefully low when using cracking software coded to today’s GPU APIs. It’s off by several orders of magnitude. To be blunt: he’s assuming the software being used is much slower than it actually is.

3) Furthermore, any linguist would be quick to point out that computing the bits of entropy based solely on the number of possible symbols in a given position (H=L[logN/log2]) is naive, because of the decrease in entropy caused by symbol use frequency in isolation, and in various n-grams, in a given language (English, in this case). This invalidates the claim of roughly 44 bits of entropy in the “strong” password shown in the comic.

This is why the poster above you, myself, and others repeatedly point out that using common words in a password, regardless of length, doesn’t buy you the amount of security you think it buys you. The bits of entropy in the xkcd comic are miscalculated, as are the guesses per second necessary to find the password. It’s better than nothing, but it’s nowhere near as good as a long, truly random (i.e., generated by a properly-seeded PRNG, not by a human thinking they’re being random by picking symbols) password.

XDeuxEliah.5926:

Because that in itself is a massive security risk.
Consider this: people are not security-conscious. Probably a lot more than 1.5% of your users right now use a password they share with something else.
Okay, you force them to change it (which could easily turn into a big PR CF, if the things I’ve read in my guild’s chat etc. are any indication), and add their old password to your blacklist. Now, you have a list of passwords that contains ones that are known to hackers, and ones that normal people use in other places.

WHAT IF THAT LIST LEAKS?
How many people will get screwed over on other sites because you had a perfectly fine password on a random list of passwords?

Yeah, it won’t affect your game or the game’s accounts. It will affect your customers. Seriously, you cannot enforce security in this manner – because if we consider the 1.5% hacking rate, then with this move, you are endangering the remaining 98.5%!

So please, reconsider the adding of old passwords to that blacklist. Have it store hacked passwords, sure. That makes sense. Do NOT, please, do NOT add valid passwords in there!

Don’t use a password that you use on any other site or game or …well, anywhere.

Yes, I’m assuming it will work. My premise merely requires everyone be patient,and we’ll eventually know whether or not it works. Your premise requires everyone to simply believe you when you say it doesn’t work.

I never claimed it creates “fair” matches prior to settling on a stable set of groupings. In fact, I’ve claimed the opposite: Here, or elsewhere, I have specifically claimed that the matches made prior to the mechanism stabilizing will often be quite poor, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

It’s a known problem the devs have acknowledged, and it’s a server-side issue. It has nothing to do with your PC.

It would be quite interesting to see these graphs annotated with the start of the week-long WvWvW match, and have the scores for the three servers in that server’s grouping under each day on the graph, so one could examine the effect of winning/losing WvWvW over time on the queues.

No mounts, please. Thank you.

It’s been acknowledged by the devs. There’s no need to keep posting threads about the issue. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/The-real-problem-here-is-invisible-enemies-Give-their-algorithms-time-to-match-servers-properly/first#post183838

But it fixes nothing. It’s useless code. It solves absolutely no problem.

Step 1: Prevent higher pop servers from having more people enter WvWvW.
Step 2: Higher pop server is probably winning, so higher pop people, knowing they’re the higher pop server, stay in WvWvW as long as possible.
Step 3: Lower pop server people drop out of WvWvW, higher pop people continue to steamroll them.

Yes, clearly, that solves the problem.

All this does is implement a useless limit, because the above is what already happens.

^^ that, exactly.

Daish.6139:

mcl.9240:

So…only let the low-pop server into EB, while the high pop server(s) get to go into all the Borederlands maps as well as EB?

Somehow, I don’t think that will end well.

its a new game players are learning if your first experiance with world vs world was entering a boarderlands and leaving your spawn to be attacked by 20vs1 and have none reply to you when you ask whats going on because its empty

most players dont even know there is 4 maps its driving players away

Yes, it’s a new game. If your first experience is being forced into only one map while the more populated server has the run of all the maps, and you suddenly discover that server owns every inch of the rest of the maps because you weren’t even allowed into them, that’ll drive ’em away faster than what you describe.

Sevati.6724:

I think the majority of these complaints comes from the servers that dominate WvW 24 hours a day with large forces. Once you get out of the top 4 servers, you rarely have a queue, and if you do, its only a couple minutes.

Not true. I’m on a server not in the top 10, and I often have a 30-60 minute queue, and we routinely get steamrolled overnight.

No. There isn’t.

If you want to argue about how GW2 deals with this vs. how other games dealt with it, you should at least be arguing based on games that used the same engine as GW2 but didn’t suffer from the same problem.

What kills games faster than anything is a bunch of impatient people running around saying the game is dying simply because they don’t want to wait for the matchmaking system to play out as intended.

If you don’t want to wait for the matchmaking system to settle into a stable configuration of server groupings, then suggest a viable alternative that allows arenanet to accurately determine reasonable groupings. Provide support above and beyond, “I think this will work”. This support should entail a fair bit of math (as that’s what went into deciding on the existing matchmaking system).

And since you’re worried that protracted annealing will drive people away from the game, your solution should be a one-shot fix.

The first thing that would help with WvWvW queues is for ArenaNet to implement the fix they’ve developed to correct the bug in the queuing system that’s causing inordinately long queue times and seemingly random queue ordering.

Nobody has enough data to answer that question except ArenaNet. Anyone else claiming this as a fact is merely speculating.

I’m certain the gains made by servers on off-peak hours play into it, but the mere mechanics of it likely aren’t the primary reason. It’s that players on the other two servers just give up after they see this happen once or twice, particularly when they look at the score before deciding whether or not to participate.

Over the coming months, as the matchmaking system has the chance to settle on a set of stable server groupings, the lopsidedness of the matches being seen this week should diminish or disappear. But some people are too impatient to wait and give the matchmaking system a chance to work. They think every match it makes should be balanced, when in reality it’s going to go through a series of poor matchups before it finds adequate ones.

So…only let the low-pop server into EB, while the high pop server(s) get to go into all the Borederlands maps as well as EB?

Somehow, I don’t think that will end well.

I’m okay with all but 6 and 8. WvWvW should be available to an entire server, and there shouldn’t be separate WvWvW just for 80s or guilds.

After clicking on a person’s name and choosing to ignore all posts from that person, I can still see new posts from that person. It seems to be broken.

You have two options:

1) Force people to participate in WvWvW
2) Force people out of WvWvW.

Which do you support? And how do you intend to explain it to the people being forced to do something against their will?

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

All of that and you still havn’t a clue.

I see you’ve opted to ignore what I’ve had to say. Sadly, I’ll simply return the favor from this point forward, as you refuse to listen to reason.

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

You are not getting me. What I am concerned is the fact that the ranking matching system does not address the already apparent issue of certain servers being overpopulated. In fact you can argue that it has, coupled with free transfers caused certain servers to become overpopulated. The problem is the match making system has already caused most of the problems we are seeing right now. Which is partly why I do not really want to give it much more of a chance to further damage the game.

I get you very clearly. What you aren’t hearing is that the matchmaking system hasn’t had a chance yet to stabilize. You’re working from the premise it never will, without proof. I’m simply advocating letting it run for a few months and at least try 20-25 total groupings before claiming it’s broken. Running around and claiming it’s never going to stabilize now is like jumping off a cliff and claiming you’re never going to hit the ground immediately after jumping, because all you’ve felt is a falling sensation.