What we also have seen is that servers like vizunah which are simply terrible at fighting (look at theit k/d) can not be beaten by servers who are very good at fighting but do not have 24/7 enough population. So maybe you could strengthen the factor of a kill in the system.
This sounds like the same problem as with some NA servers cough YB, in that they are avoiding fights to avoid PPK, because its perfectly possible to win a skirmish due to PPK whilst having a low PPT. In that case increasing PPK is not the answer.
When PPK is active, people say others don’t fight because they will give points to the enemy server. When PPK is innactive people say others don’t fight because it’s not worth it.
Please make up your minds.
There needs to be a balance, right now its too far one way, previously it was too far the other.
When PPK is active, people say others don’t fight because they will give points to the enemy server. When PPK is innactive people say others don’t fight because it’s not worth it.
Please make up your minds.
This. IMO people don’t fight nowadays not because of the PPK, but either because they’re bad or they’re afraid of dying in a game mode where YOU WILL DIE ALL THE TIME. It just gets ridiculous.
When JQ faced YB the previous match they clearly went out of their way to avoid fights so JQ wouldn’t build up a big score from PPK in the skirmish. It was crystal clear what they were doing.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Hey everyone,
I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.
The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.
Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.
Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.
TBH I don’t think players care that much about glicko volatility at all now, in fact they would probably prefer it more volatile than having 1 T1/2 server in T3/4 thrashing them for multiple weeks or having servers getting screwed by having no links and getting full status then having population migrations with barely no room to even try and make it better themselves.
This is a huge issue yet you don’t seem to understand how big an issue it is. And with this demonstrated lack of understanding I don’t expect players will receive making wholesale manual glicko adjustments well.
So why not simply have a poll on making links monthly.
Look at this post, it puts the issue quite eloquently, or look at the other thread on Gunnars Hold:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Linking-transfer-system-annihilating-servers/first#post6342838
(edited by morrolan.9608)
I like them, they haven’t really solved much beyond making all timezones equal, but they were never going to. It gives my guild something more concrete to aim for on our raids. You could maybe change the points distribution to 2,1,1 to prevent 1 and 2 ganging up to keep 3 down.
2 month relinking isn’t going to fix this, it needs to be done every 3-4 weeks so you can keep track of the servers and how they’re performing, along with what is and isn’t breaking a server.
Relinking every 4 weeks is absolutely necessary at this point.
Exactly. The week previous before the link, TC tanked and JQ pushed up because JQ wanted to go to T1. They went, TC didn’t and got a link. And then went back to T1.
And, instead of using actual numbers like a logic person would, we have Anet. Not only did they remove our link, they locked us. Then tried to justify it by saying we have a greater population than Mag and BP. Which is really LoL worthy. Does anyone that actually plays WvW believe that???
Now today they open everyone but, BG. smh
Its past time for them to consider a server and its link in the pop cap somehow. Looking at the T1 scores for the past 2 weeks there is no way Maguuma should be open, presumably there are a lot of maguuma players actually playing from their linked server.
And I really can’t see any difference in the JQ population now and what it was a month ago that JQ should have been locked and now open.
Apart from population disparity itself, server linking and server caps and how they interrelate is now the biggest issue for the mode IMO, bigger than deployable cannons, bigger than further scoring changes.
Guy makes money from playing game, openly trash talks games developers calling them kittenes and kittens….
Doesn’t seem like a good employment decision >.<
This is quite old from before he won his 1st World Championship I think. It is very funny though.
T1 was JQ, DB and BG at the linkings. TC swapped with JQ briefly.
It was actually the opposite, TC were the normal T1 server and JQ rolled T1 for a week or so which just happened to correspond to the re-links and then got kittened by anet with no link and TC rolling T1 the first week of the relinks.
How is WvW? Pretty much kitten.
Well apparently according to anets figures JQ has a higher pop than Maguuma so I think its fair to say the way they calculate players numbers is completely kittened up.
Of course this also shows that anet do not come onto most servers to actually get 1st hand experience of how the servers are going.
Why did YB get links but db/jq got none?
Cause anet apparently want players to shift servers.
surprised to see JQ so low on PPT.
They even have more total kills than YB. At what timezone do they gain that many kills? It has to be NA right?
I would imagine this was during EU, JQs weakest tz.
ETA this actually appears to be during NA time I dunno WTF is happening.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
You’re being naive, it is easy to earn the gold to transfer around low ranked servers every 2 months. Why wouldn’t they do it.
Why should they do it?
To ensure their server remains open and has a linked server.
You don’t know why the servers are not full… there are in fact reasons for 1 of those servers to be open. Cause and effect… you only see the effect if your not directly involved.
Mags will lock up soon I’m sure of it.
You’re being naive, it is easy to earn the gold to transfer around low ranked servers every 2 months. Why wouldn’t they do it.
As pointed out on another thread servers are probably gaming the system by having players transfer to their linked server instead of the main server hence the population of the main server doesn’t change or even decreases.
This is a fix to punish the servers that purposefully have guilds move to their linked server so their main server stays open and not full like they should be. And don’t say they don’t, there’s a kitten good reason why a server currently in NA T1 is not full and yet 2 servers in T2, one of which is falling down to T3, are declared full. Besides, who do you know in WvW who switches servers multiple times in the course of 3 months? Only those gaming the current server linking.
2 servers in T1 are not full, the system is riven with exploits and servers who choose not to purposefully exploit get punished. Its absurd. At this point they should just do server merges and leave it at that.
Australian players are stacked mostly on 2 servers – Blackgate and Sea of Sorrows
Asians are stacked mostly on 2 servers – Jade Quarry and DragonbrandTC and Mag don’t have ocx. And if they do, it’s seasonal not permanent. They each have 1 oceanic guild only, both of which are small and both of which are serial server hoppers so you can’t even trust that they’ll still be on those servers in a month.
You need to keep up. Maguuma has I think 4 ocx guilds now and TC a couple I think. The players left on sos are casual pugs.
Maguuma or TC are open and have aussie players.
Here is the NA server activity since the linking.
I’m not sure if Northern Shiverpeaks could actually compete in Tier 1 but its activity is comparable.
Dragonbrand’s activity is taking a dive.
And JQs is at T3 level so why is it closed? If population is based off the last month during that whole time the JQ population has been less than Maguuma and now YBs. YB is full but Maguuma isn’t, there is an inconsistency here. Moreover YB’s population is not at Maguuma’s size.
Players are more likely to leave lower tiers to go to higher tiers.
With Tier 1 open and JQ full, there are likely more players leaving JQ to tier 1 servers.
This is a business after all.
You’re saying anet has deliberately closed JQ to get players to move? If I thought anet were that manipulative I’d leave the game.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
OK so YB and JQ are now full TC and Maguuma are not. My question to anet is how can you justify this? JQ have lost 1 major guild (and gained another) but our numbers are not that great this week and last, not even in SEA, and Maguuma has been pushing BG in T1. It is especially ridiculous with JQ being without a linked server.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
They tried it. Courtyard really didn’t work.
Deathmatch as a mode is still feasible, that map wasn’t the best setup for it, or at least to me it seemed too small for that game mode. Double its size and that might have changed it up.
Yeah, I really feel they just didn’t put any work into that map. Compared to other maps, it’s just so plain. And it is way to small. Death match can still work, they just have to get more creative with the map.
Deathmatch also needs to be round based.
Well did anny team run without druid and/or revenant ?
nope
Only the 1st map of the final was good the rest were mundane. As for viewership it hasn’t improved at all its probably worse.
Could you back this with some numbers?
Well for starters the final only had just over 4000 viewers.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Anet do not seem to understand how hamstrung servers get when they don’t get a link for 2 whole months.
Nah. It’s the players still thinking it is 2013. Ever since the world population calculations were changed, it became clear what the vision was for server size.
Yeah I guess but then linkages distort that.
FA wants GOOD ppl to fight running though zergs that put up no fight is not fun. That why FA wanted to stay in T2 that is where all the gvg fight guilds are and FA was and still is a major world for this.
GvG guilds in T2… What is this? 2014? Pretty much the last remaining fight guilds are on T1 right now. No one in their right mind would want to be stuck with JQ and DB.
Thats rather ironic coming from someone on YB.
It’s was fun…still anet has long road to make ESL watchable for less hardcore players but they are improving….viewship also seems to improve…I wonder how esl will look like when new elite specs will be released.
That last round Denial vs Rank 55…superb match.
Only the 1st map of the final was good the rest were mundane. As for viewership it hasn’t improved at all its probably worse.
That the problem Glicko should never = population its a ranking system if ppl move then they move that should not make the RANK of a world go up. Playing wvw should be the only thing that makes rank go up.
The point is the current system did not react fast enough on the population changes that happened, thus creating blowout-matches. So I think the population has to be a factor the arenanet admins have to take into account as well a) for linking and b) for matchmaking. It can play a minor role behind the performance of a server of course, but especially for having a server move up or down a tier it surely would be a good variable to find out how good the server would perform there. For this tier changes the performance of the server in a lower tier is not a good predictor variable because the opponents also are likely to have far less population than in higher tiers.
The GW2 glicko is manifestly inadequate in matching servers and in responding to server changes and yes server population could somehow be factored into the matchmaking calculations.
On linkages however anet is manually making decisions and is clearly doing a woeful job. Of course server population at a point in time has to be taken into account when deciding who is linked, however in deciding what servers don’t get a link I would now argue that actual results should play a large role in deciding whether a server gets a link or not. Anet do not seem to understand how hamstrung servers get when they don’t get a link for 2 whole months.
MOB has always been in ultimate charge of the game.
You might have missed this, but the past few months WvW has been the top prio for anet.
Except it hasn’t, they have left a small team on WvW but have moved the 1 dev that showed some understanding of the mode to the xpac. No-one in any actual authority at anet makes any statements about it not even the person who we were told a while ago is in charge of the WvW team.
The xpac is the no. 1 priority for anet.
Except it has, and thats their own words – look it up. WvW has gotten far more attention than any other game type the past months…. Whether you like the kind of attention it got or not is subjective and I couldnt care less what you think about it. But nonetheless its gotten alot of attention.
You’re not actually dealing with what I said. They said WvW was a top priority before HOT IIRC, do you really think that has persistsed until now? Taking the best WvW dev off the mode is not a sign of priority. They did not halt development of all legendaries to move devs onto WvW but to the xpac.
Just like the last ‘World Championship’
They are still the best NA team.
Helseth’s persona is beginning to grate with them being so dominant, especially in person where he doesn;t come across like he’s trying to be entertaining unlike on his stream.
Please stop all this nonsense hype.
Please note they did not manage to even introduce the new map properly. In WTS top players were set at the tables (in random order) to try the new map, then they set up 2 breaks of a about 7 minutes each to prepare for fight, and then out of nowhere they announced the trial will no longer take place because of technical difficulties in servers. And all that in a pre-announced and prepared official PVP streaming, with top players at the table, 2 days before official map release.
Now… let’s see the hype. Do you really think it will be that awesome?!
Just the typical lack of professionalism.
You might have missed this, but the past few months WvW has been the top prio for anet.
Except it hasn’t, they have left a small team on WvW but have moved the 1 dev that showed some understanding of the mode to the xpac. No-one in any actual authority at anet makes any statements about it not even the person who we were told a while ago is in charge of the WvW team.
The xpac is the no. 1 priority for anet.
You guys must be joking that Discord is better than TS for WvW purposes lol.
Discord latency and sound quality is worse. Discord capture and sells your personal info. While Discord also have bots and such, TS ones like auto-verification that are super useful aren’t there yet.
This again! Discord does have verify bots, some servers are using them.
More conquest is a yawn. A new gametype might get me to come back to spvp but not this.
Wow so anet knew there was a problem after EU reset but it wasn;t fixed by NA reset and they didn;t hold off NA reset. Simply inexcusable negligence.
The results have been equalised via skirmishes which is fair.
I don’t know what precisely you mean by this. It’s true that the impact of night-capping has been reduced in extreme circumstances but that doesn’t address the fundamental premise that population imbalances create imbalanced skirmishes and that those imbalanced skirmishes should provide less points than balanced skirmishes.
I mean that winning the skirmish at 4 am is worth exactly the same as winning it at 8pm. The imbalance in points is the effect, the cause is the population imbalance. If you treat the effect you don’t fix the actual cause and indeed it would create other undesirable consequences.
You’re still going to be outnumbered it won’t change that except because of players leaving the game.
I am curious to know how many players would actually leave as a result of increased impact of NA skirmishes. To the best of my knowledge, most guilds ignore it for the most part.
There has been feedback to the effect that players who play during non US peak times would be extremely unhappy and would leave the game. This feedback was in response to the leaked document a while back with proposed new scoring changes including making points during prime time worth more.
Yes by all means marginalise the off NA peak time players and then see what happens.
Speaking as an OCX player, yes. When one server has 120 players and the other two servers have 50 players, the skirmishes should be marginalized because they are unfair.
The results have been equalised via skirmishes which is fair. Population disparity is not a scoring issue and attempts to address it via the current scoring system will just result in distortions and force players in non NA peak times away from the game because anet would be saying their contribution is literally worth less. You’re still going to be outnumbered it won’t change that except because of players leaving the game.
If its to be addressed via scoring then scoring has to completely change to be done via player activity such as capturing and defending as a number of players have suggested. This would reflect player activity in a timezone and be fair without marginalising the contribution of players.
I wonder how hard it would be to have a total team population counter for each server that’s in WvW .Or would that cause to much flak with in the server.I don’t know,it was just a thought.
Anet do not want us to know how many players are on a map at any 1 time. They completely lack transparency in this regard.
Seriously, if PPK mattered more (worth more points), you’d see a lot less fighting as no one would want to take the chance of giving a bunch of points to the enemy (this assumes people care about the war score for a particular match).
Actually this is already starting to happen.
I don’t think the 2-hour format should be adjusted. What I would be interested in seeing is increased VP during high-population time periods (i.e. NA is worth twice as many points as other time zones for NA servers, EU worth twice as much for EU servers).
Yes by all means marginalise the off NA peak time players and then see what happens.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
WvW is both about the PPT and the PvP, right? Seems like this notion is still not a fact. When will PPK start to matter? I know some things has been done to make these scores be more equal but clearly, it’s not enough. Attached to the post is our current matchup score and it is apparent PPK does not matter at all.
The PvP aspect of this gamemode should be way more reflecting on the score, I know there are a lot of people who agree with me on this. When will this scoring update take place and why has it not been done sooner?
The skirmish over my guild raid last night 1 server was coming significantly last in PPT the whole 2 hours but leading the warscore due to PPK. They won a greater percentage of fights than us but they weren’t totally dominant and they didn’t have bloodlust. This says to me that its skewed too far towards PPK.
One thing that skirmishes have highlighted to me is that the balance in scoring has turned too far towards PPK. Its possibly to have a very low PPT but be winning the skirmish due to winning some fights and it doesn’t even require dominating the fights or having bloodlust.
I would say its around 75 per server per map.
2. My idea..
Queues and war score multipliers have already been suggested to fix population imbalance. Both ideas have been shot down for good reasons.
Tyler Bearce listed population rebalancing as one of the goals of the Scoring changes.
- In conjunction with population rebalancing, updating Scoring allows us to decide a winner of a match more fairly, and thus reward players more fairly
- Currently we can’t give out worthwhile rewards for winning, as most match-ups are already decided before they begin
Just wait and see what he comes up with.
Tyler has been taken off the WvW team to work on the xpac.
I believe the system detailed Arena Net created before the introduction of the polling voting system was way better than linking and it enabled the community to decide who they wanted to play with in a more clear fashion. This system earned the name “Overhaul” or “Alliances” and only sections were leaked to the public.
Tyler stated before he was removed from WvW that they had decided not to proceed with that system at all. Given he is no longer working on WvW and given that no-one with any authority at anet seems to take any notice of WvW at all (Stephen Clarke-Willson where are you) I doubt they’re going to backtrack on that any time soon.
I was pretty sad to see DB and JQ lose their links. I don’t really understand this linking system, it’s very ANet but just silly. Every 2 months you smash two communities together and then if they do well they’re torn apart. Just seems silly. I could understand if they were dominating t1, but JQ was barely breaking in, and DB hit top ranked, but they were hardly dominating.
I’d like a 3 way fight, but right now that’s not happening.
Yep those decisions were ridiculous, and the 2 month link time just exacerbates the initial poor decisions. They definitely need to develop some better guidelines around when to completely unlink servers, because their decisions ATM seem to be ad hoc with far reaching consequences for the servers concerned.
To the OP you’re marginalising the players in non prime time hours and therefore run the risk of them leaving the game. The new scoring system has brought more equality to the system, and thats enough. Population disparities are not a scoring issue and need to be addressed differently.
No server in T1 or T2 NA is good for fights any more.
Well I like the system even as an ocx player on the NA servers. It gives guild raids a more concrete goal, we set ourselves to win the skirmishes in our raid time and we did. IMO there can be no more complaints about off hours score blowouts, it doesn’t however solve population disparities but it was never going to.
Would you rather have no tier motion at all? The revolving door is better than the immediate alternative, which is basically a wall.
Revolving is good the issue is why it happens and if there is an issue that arises with a server that it can be 2 months before anything happens
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.