Problems with 1 up 1 down match manipulation

To start, 1 up 1 down match making was somewhat of an improvement to the glicko match ups. Now it has resulted in servers trying to out tank each other to drop down a tier or to try and fool Anet into opening them or to get a link. The matches are not alot of fun as this tanking makes things rather boring as whole servers don't come out to play normally.Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.Match making needs a rework imo.

Hm, haven't experienced people on alts helping to ppt but it's a nicer change from having them to pull tactics at every tower/keep for a change lol. It could be happening and I just don't realise though, but there is always a tactics tugger every week, more so on weekends. I wouldn't be surprised though the lengths some people go to, nothing is sacred.

Agreed! The match manipulation, tactics pull and wasting supply on useless seige seems to get worse if anything. At least with skirmish chests the tactics aren't coming out of guild pockets like they were before.

The alternative, Glicko which was used for matchmaking in the past would result in a much slower process. This would basically lock servers into matchups, sometimes for over a year with the same servers. Each system has flaws and advantages. You can't force people to play. I think it's incredibly stupid to "tank" on purpose, and a lot of people just use it as a crutch because they cant handle losing, but whatever...to each his own.

Before reworking match making, anet should address:

1. Kitten stop relinking bimonthly - please open up servers and let servers build up community
2. Not every server needs to be on equal footing between all tiers, stop trying to do that.
3. It is also demoralising being a t1-2 server with current link, then suddenly drops to a t3-4 server the next link. Making people feel pointless in server position, since the links dictate which tier they will belong every two months.
4. Stop blindingly link up servers just because it’s cummulative activity indication tells you that they have the same or more activity than the strongest server.
5. Be patient and give times for server to adjust without constant relinking. Yes. They adjust - just look at pre hot era (t1-4 are relatively balanced and whenever you get 4 servers that belongs in same tier, 1 of them always implodes and rest adjusts). It’s DBL that killed the population (50 queue on ebg while dbls are empty), not bandwagons.

If these don’t solve kitten matchup issues, then we can talk about match making overhaul.

I don't think people realize that tanking also affects the Glicko rating.

Ikr? Tanking is just stupid. T1 seems to be BG sleeping to occasionally come out to play and 2 other servers tanking to get away from BG....it's just dumb.Glicko did suck...not sure what the answer is but the 1 up 1 down is too open to abuse. Perhaps if there was decent reward for coming first or second and the third one got virtually nothing...idk.It is a combo of alot of things as ThunderPanda says above. Much to fix.

@Shazmataz.1423 said:Ikr? Tanking is just stupid. T1 seems to be BG sleeping to occasionally come out to play and 2 other servers tanking to get away from BG....it's just kitten.Glicko did suck...not sure what the answer is but the 1 up 1 down is too open to abuse. Perhaps if there was decent reward for coming first or second and the third one got virtually nothing...idk.

BG is not sleeping, a lot of us are just bored of the game and wvw just like a lot of other people across the game. We come out strong on weekends, and the rest of the week is pretty quiet.

I wouldn't say glicko sucked, it had its flaws, but also advantages. With glicko it was a little different, because a server could lose for weeks and still remain in the same matchup, and by winning one matchup they could regain a lot of points and stay in a tier. This was good for servers that were not focused on scores, but bad for servers that went through a mass exodus of players and would have to endure many weeks of being in outnumbered matchups.

I do not want to see rewards for server performance, an extra pip or 2 for skirmishes is enough.

Both can be manipulated. but 1 up 1 down reflects reality better. if you win, you go up. Of you lose, you go down. Such is the way of competition.

tanking was especially done to manipulate glico. it just so happens it works with 1 up 1 down.

thats just how it is.

the issue here is gamer mentality. what does wvw mean? unless there is a.clear goal, it will be simply a glorified pk field. and people will simply look for an easy time to farm bags.

We have been in the middle of EU tiers for some months now. Sometimes we have managed to win and go up a tier, then drop back, mostly staying in same spot. The servers we fight are also mostly same ones, if one wins the match and goes uptier for a week then they normally drop back next week. So, I would say for majority of servers current system works, and we should not hastiliy throw it away just because there are problem with some very specific server.

I doubt anyone who played WvW before current system, when servers had to raise their Glicko rating to get out of low tiers, wants that back.

it should not be thrown. 1 up 1 down is simply better.

@Shazmataz.1423 said:To start, 1 up 1 down match making was somewhat of an improvement to the glicko match ups. Now it has resulted in servers trying to out tank each other to drop down a tier or to try and fool Anet into opening them or to get a link. The matches are not alot of fun as this tanking makes things rather boring as whole servers don't come out to play normally.Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.Match making needs a rework imo.

Did you ever think that the servers that tank are bored from constantly losing?

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Shazmataz.1423 said:To start, 1 up 1 down match making was somewhat of an improvement to the glicko match ups. Now it has resulted in servers trying to out tank each other to drop down a tier or to try and fool Anet into opening them or to get a link. The matches are not alot of fun as this tanking makes things rather boring as whole servers don't come out to play normally.Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.Match making needs a rework imo.

Not sure if he is blaming the tanking servers for the why. More the process of tanking which, to me, would be a factor of all of the reasons servers tank: poor matchups, no fights, better fights elsewhere, getting steamrolled, etc etc.

Tanking does impact the base negatively and has become immensely easier with 1 u 1 d.

It's also why making a choice of opening 'losing servers' isn't a good idea.

How easy would it be for the two 'overstacked' servers from NA and EU to really tank for three weeks in order to open their servers up for transfers....

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Shazmataz.1423 said:To start, 1 up 1 down match making was somewhat of an improvement to the glicko match ups. Now it has resulted in servers trying to out tank each other to drop down a tier or to try and fool Anet into opening them or to get a link. The matches are not alot of fun as this tanking makes things rather boring as whole servers don't come out to play normally.Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.Match making needs a rework imo.

OP wants better matchups but doesn't realize that as soon as you enter the map and see who you are facing you already know whether the week will be fun or not.

Why should any server in a T1 blowout, non fun matchup try to finish in second place?Why should a server in T2, knowing if they win will face a T1 blowout, non fun matchup, try to win?

@Shazmataz.1423 said:Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.

Oh that's hilarious.And honestly does not surprise me.Bad, bad, bad NA children! tsk tsk.

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:Before reworking match making, anet should address:

1. Kitten stop relinking bimonthly - please open up servers and let servers build up community
2. Not every server needs to be on equal footing between all tiers, stop trying to do that.
3. It is also demoralising being a t1-2 server with current link, then suddenly drops to a t3-4 server the next link. Making people feel pointless in server position, since the links dictate which tier they will belong every two months.
4. Stop blindingly link up servers just because it’s cummulative activity indication tells you that they have the same or more activity than the strongest server.
5. Be patient and give times for server to adjust without constant relinking. Yes. They adjust - just look at pre hot era (t1-4 are relatively balanced and whenever you get 4 servers that belongs in same tier, 1 of them always implodes and rest adjusts). It’s DBL that killed the population (50 queue on ebg while dbls are empty), not bandwagons.

If these don’t solve kitten matchup issues, then we can talk about match making overhaul.

Bingo. All of this.

Particularly the wait for dust to settle bit. People are so impatient.

Honestly, just booting off some of the population on the overstacked servers, based on seniority of when you joined the overstacked server, would do a lot too. If it splits guilds, then maybe offer some kind of incentive for those guilds to move down too. You'd think it would be a source of pride for some guilds to push a server up from the bottom and say "I did that."

TLDR;

Would you rather have, weeks and weeks or even a month of stale matchups -or- fresh match-ups every week?

To me the answer is obvious.

1u1d is 10x better than the original glicko system.

To put this into perspective ... if a server "tanked" via the glicko system, it wouldn't be for just a week, but for 2,3 or even 4-weeks to the point where it would begin to negatively affect their rating.

Additionally, if said "tanking server" bounced back right after tanking, they'd regain a lot of that lost glicko to remain in a different tier because the poor bastard servers that were matched up against the tanking server would have an artificially inflated rating.

P.S. -- In NA, as far as I know given my involvement with several other GMs and server contacts; players are not manipulating the 1u1d system, they are burned and are taking breaks from the game or just quitting the game all together. It's an indirect effect that's negatively impacting WvW, in the now. I'm sure ANET will just link more servers together to help balance population in a month.

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Shazmataz.1423 said:To start, 1 up 1 down match making was somewhat of an improvement to the glicko match ups. Now it has resulted in servers trying to out tank each other to drop down a tier or to try and fool Anet into opening them or to get a link. The matches are not alot of fun as this tanking makes things rather boring as whole servers don't come out to play normally.Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.Match making needs a rework imo.

I agree. I can't/don't blame people for using the system they have to get the result they want.

But that applies to all aspects of WvW. Tanking, server population, PPT, PPK, siege, fights.

Tanking is the only way people feel they have control to get the play they want.

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:Before reworking match making, anet should address:

1. Kitten stop relinking bimonthly - please open up servers and let servers build up community
2. Not every server needs to be on equal footing between all tiers, stop trying to do that.
3. It is also demoralising being a t1-2 server with current link, then suddenly drops to a t3-4 server the next link. Making people feel pointless in server position, since the links dictate which tier they will belong every two months.
4. Stop blindingly link up servers just because it’s cummulative activity indication tells you that they have the same or more activity than the strongest server.
5. Be patient and give times for server to adjust without constant relinking. Yes. They adjust - just look at pre hot era (t1-4 are relatively balanced and whenever you get 4 servers that belongs in same tier, 1 of them always implodes and rest adjusts). It’s DBL that killed the population (50 queue on ebg while dbls are empty), not bandwagons.

If these don’t solve kitten matchup issues, then we can talk about match making overhaul.

Theres not enough players for it, the problem beside wvw core design is ANet will continue to make wvw worse and worse, they forget that mostly pve players dont like to fight other players, while they made the gamemodes wide to cater the pve players only, reason spvp on this game is awfull...

The issue with WvW is its own core mechanics.... wich is what Anet needs to change, cause pve players only want to blob empty servers for wards tracks and mats farming if they cant do that they wont do WvW and servers look empty, making the other side ending with more players ktraining back....sometimes theres arround 10-15 players in each server... sometimes one server gets like 5 player only vs a zerg...

if it is what Anet really intended... they made the worst pvp warfare/siege system i hever seen and played for the worst reasons...

..sorry about the bad english.

1u1d might have worked better if it was implemented in the past. The population was higher and people were more content to remain in a tier, therefore there would be more motivation to win a matchup. This would have also made it easier for servers to deal with a mass exodus of players which used to be more common.

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Shazmataz.1423 said:To start, 1 up 1 down match making was somewhat of an improvement to the glicko match ups. Now it has resulted in servers trying to out tank each other to drop down a tier or to try and fool Anet into opening them or to get a link. The matches are not alot of fun as this tanking makes things rather boring as whole servers don't come out to play normally.Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.Match making needs a rework imo.

And tanking ruins the matchup for everyone else....The glicko days were bad in the fact that it doesn't respond fast enough to change and being locked in stale matchup forever. I never said anywhere that I wanted glicko matchups back...But tanking is also killing the game imo...people get bored from not raiding/ppting or whatever they do so leave game. In a declining game population this is really damaging.Guess no matter what Anet implement there will be some people who "game the system" and manipulate for the own selfish ends.

@"X T D.6458" said:people were more content to remain in a tier

Quite the rose-tinted glasses you got there. Try to have a larger perspective than T1 only. The glicko cliffs between the tiers in NA were disastrous. One server would get stacked in a tier and make the matches painful for the other two servers in the tier yet that stacked server could not move up into a T2 or T1 match. The other two servers would lose guilds and players as a result of being unable to drop down a tier and struggled to build their communities because they kept facing a stacked server practically every single match. No one wanted to xfer to those "loser" servers. People were NOT content to remain in a "broken" tier.

You forgetting the so-called Alliance had to super-stack a server by mass-transferring in to break the T1 glicko cliff? It essentially drained the populations from the other two servers as guilds and players fled to lower tier servers. None of that would have ever happened if there had been 1u1d back then.

@Shazmataz.1423 said:Latterly, servers from the same match up have been using alts to ppt on the opposing server to further manipulate the match.

Entire guilds would have to hop on alts and ppt on opposing servers several nights of the week to make an actual difference. Are people really that desperate?

~ Kovu

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"X T D.6458" said:people were more content to remain in a tier

LoL, thats not why the "alliance" moved. I seem to recall your server FA was pretty happy being in t2 all that time wasn't it?