Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Riba.3271

Members
  • Posts

    1,926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,417 profile views

Riba.3271's Achievements

  1. This doesn't do much. All it does make groups think "which player to kick" rather than "what kind of player to add". Eventually all you end up with is hyperoptimized groups and 99% of players unwanted by anyone.
  2. Old system obviously had faults: - Glicko: You had to win by 100k points to get any points in glicko system, which ment servers that reached T2 population were stuck in T3 for months - Servers open every day: All servers (blackgate, jade quarry, desolation, sfr) that were Full during daytime were open during nighttime. Obviously there were massive population differences. It seems you weren't aware of this way of transferring into tier 1 servers. - You had high chance of getting high or low tier matchup even though you were not strongest server in your tier. What you remember from glicko matchmaking was Rank 1 servers facing Rank 7 servers and Rank 8 and 9 servers (bottom of tier 3) facing rank 4 server (top of tier 2), which would never happen in 1-up-1-down. You are generalizing too much that all same tier servers were as strong. Obviously Rank 3 server and Rank 4 server are almost same quality, so them hopping between tier 2 and tier 1 in 1-up-1-down isn't as misbalanced as Rank 1 server facing vs Rank 6 server. So you are wrong like the other guy, when putting any fault to monoservers. Glicko just had terrible matchmaking compared to 1-up-1-down and Full servers were open at night. Also obviously there were massive population mismatches, because there was massive gap between climbing even 1 tier, and much more tiers. So Tier 5 server with massive incoming transfers would have taken serveral months to get to Tier 2, when with 1-up-1-down it would take only 3 weeks. Let me summarize why monoservers with less tiers, 1-up-1-down and weekly population updates would work: - Full servers won't be open at night and will only face against each other - 500 (400 would make more sense) gem servers will be at higher tiers (tier 4, tier 5). - There will be less tiers, so tier 4-5 playerbase won't be split between tiers 4-9 - Matchmaking will be better, only rank 1-4 servers will be in tier 1. Rank 1 server won't randomly get matchup against rank 7 server - It will take only 1 week to drop or climb tiers
  3. Positive: - Siege changes are in good direction. Golem change done perfectly. - Objective contesting is an improvement. Wish it extended to watchtowers. - It is fine to put bit more points in primetime. Should put reins in tanking off-prime. - Regarding sPvP, I like that there are more high level and less daily tournaments since people were just doing it to grind gold. Negative: - Superior treb would be better at 80 supply instead of 60. How shield gens work is still a big problem. - Point difference between skirmishes is too drastic. You're basically saying someones timezone of 8-10 hours is only worth of anothers 2, and thus killing all non-primetime. There are already better suggestions in this thread. - Matchmaking system: combination of Restructuring & 1-up-1-down is biggest flaw in WvW at the moment. Hopefully the superiority of 4 tier monoservers system or winner-faces-winners matchmaking is acknowledged and implemented soon. Hopefully the point distribution of timezones doesn't go through as it is. Knowing how slow WvW changes are it is unlikely it will be revisited for next 5 years.
  4. So your only suggested alternatives to deleting servers, is deleting servers? Merging with another server, maybe even keeping part of your servers name, is not same as deleting.
  5. Linking was the result of the forum kitten-storm resulting from idea that some servers should be deleted and creating empty server does help anything, I don’t want to read the forum if you force move people to new server. ? There were alternatives to deleting some servers: - You can delete all servers and start over with less (fair, but annoying to playerbase) - You could link servers permanently (Same as monoservers, just with 2 servers together: shared transfer cost and no relinkings) If reducing servers was a must, there were ways to keep benefits of monoservers without completely ruining matchmaking and transfer limitation/incentives.
  6. Overstacked servers existed during linking system. And even during restructuring. The only difference is that monoservers placed overstacked servers against each other (Rank 1 vs Rank 2). 1-up-1-down would keep this true from 1 week to next. Were you aware of the fact that main reason overstacked servers were overstacked was because they were open at night. With weekly population updates, no one can get in. If they tanked to open up , then their status of being unbeatable would drop and they wouldn't be as stacked. Even with tanking, there would finally be limit of how many people can transfer in before even that doesn't work. So lets say person is a troll, then how does throwing him randomly around to another server stop them from trolling? The best way to deal with a troll are to mass report (which stable servers allow better) and actually trying to reform them (which stable servers incentivise and give time to). With restructuring people who are trolls will just troll different people and no1 will have the time or power to get them out of WvW. There are lot of psychological/verbal techniques to end trolling. ? Deleting worlds and adding new worlds is easy. That was developers job, they just didn't do it. As I said biggest issue with monoservers was that 9 tiers were too many. It is no different than 2 tiers being too little. Developers have to adjust amount of tiers.
  7. 9 tiers didn't work glicko matchmaking didn't work monoservers worked It seems you're still confused about what is what since all 3 systems were changed at same time. Would you go back to 9 tiers? Never. No one would. Would you go back to glicko matchmaking? Never. No one would. Whereas lot of people are open to going back to monoservers with reduced tiers. So there were 2 amazing changes and 1 bad change at same time. The bad change should be reverted.
  8. So if overall population drops - players randomly get forced on a different server, because the one they are on currently is over the cap? No? Well, then the cap is worthless, because population decline tends to be worse at the bottom and players from "full" servers would be even less inclined to transfer, because they won't be able to get back. If you're unsure if you want to leave because you're already having good time, then there is high chance your current server is best one for you. Having good time and not transferring to ruin it is a good thing. You should only transfer if you are having bad time. Anyways, I don't think its necessary to mark many servers full. 2-3 servers is enough and 400 gem transfer cost to lowest tier. Maybe 4 tiers instead of 5. This would guarantee decent populations everywhere. Not every commander wants massive queues and dreams of tier 1. 1-up-1-down also incentivises groups transferring down since its much easier to climb tiers when you don't have to win by 100k points to get higher tier matchup like it used to be in glicko system.
  9. 2nd placed server would stay right were it was ... I started in 2nd rank server during monoservers and it was great facing 1st rank server almost every week. We had similar populations during daytime and we knew each others timezones. Rivalries developed and there was lot of drama/emotion. Plenty of fights and commander options. Was it hopeless to beat rank 1 server? Not really. Did we have drop in activity sometimes leading to drop to tier 2? Yes. So rank 2 server by no means is stuck facing rank 1. Actually high-tier servers changed often... Sometimes it was FSP, sometimes gandara, sometimes Piken, sometimes kodash, sometimes Desolation, sometimes Jade Sea. So while you are assuming rank 2 will be stuck, in reality they aren't... They are just rank 2 until someone overtakes them.
  10. I don't think queueing to transfer is a great idea because it will just clog the queue with players that already quit. All queues do is make it harder for active player to transfer in when server is actually open. What they should do is: 1. Incentivise transfers to lower tiers with reduced cost (never 0 because groups would abuse it to stack a server). 2. Mark highest population servers full so no incoming transfers (linkings failed at this because people just transferred to link) 3. Allow 1 free guesting week to low population servers for the matchup once in a while (limited to once per 2 months to prevent permanent organised server stacking). This would allow you to play there with your main account for a week to figure out if you want to transfer permanently.
  11. It literally was the "best" bronze servers that got steamrolled by the "worst" silver servers. The very same servers would have faced each other in a 1up1down system too, because there were simply not enough servers with even enough population. And i'm not talking about losing, i'm talking about getting steamrolled 24/7 - week after week. Which had nothing to do with glicko and nothing to do with too many tiers. ? How would you get steamrolled week after week in 1-up-1-down? If you lose and drop back to your old tier, you would just face bronze servers again. Did you think this through? If your problem is that some servers will be better than some and worse than others.. Restructuring and linking system don't exactly fix that either. You won't get ever get matchups where each server has equal chance to win and same kill death ratio. Point of monoservers with 1-up-1-down is that you will get fresh matchup every week, and as fresh as possible if in lowest or highest tier, and still face servers that are within 4 ranks of yourself.
  12. It is simple, you can just drop full threshhold until lowest tier is guaranteed to have at least some players. For example you could cap Full status at 10% of total WvW population, then top 10 servers are guaranteed to have at least 8% Total WvW population. If lowest tier is still relatively dead, you can just close it and have people queue up. Sitting in 30 man queue is always worth it if you're guaranteed to have 2 enemy servers with queues on the map as well. What people seem to think that "queues are always bad" but they never consider what makes the experience after the queue much better: Enemies having queue as well. It is extremely rare to get equal numbered unarranged fights on nonqueued map whereas expected on queued maps.
  13. Player base was split between 9 tiers from the start, but low tiers servers weren't dead right away. It was the result of a process and that process isn't stopped by deleting tiers. Playerbase of game near release, is not same as playerbase after years. Also most people who "tried WvW" and stuck around, eventually became only PvE players. You don't see 200 man queues with 5 tiers anymore like you did with 9 tiers in the past. Obviously if you have only 5 families, you need only 5 apartments and 9 is excessive. As I said, this was mostly fault of Glicko system throwing tier 3 servers occasionally against tier 1 servers. With 1-up-1-down how would rank 1 vs rank 2 vs rank 3 be more imbalanced than rank 1 vs random rank vs random rank. It does not matter if you are in high or low tier, there is always winner and loser in matchup. So your argument that "losing" matchups made people quit would have applied to every matchup in higher tiers as well. Main thing is that monoservers with 1-up-1-down would only place worst silver server against best bronze servers occassionally to see if one has overcome the other. it wouldn't take random bronze server and place it against random silver server. What you are remembering are the worst part of monoservers: Glicko matchmaking and existance of too many servers for WvW population to support. These problems do not exist in 5-tier 1-up-1-down system. So while 5-tiers and 1-up-1-down improved WvW massively, the linking/restructuring systems were actually worse but it is easy to give credit to wrong feature since they came out at same time.
  14. It does sound bad when you have stale and dead and massively imbalanced matches tho - and that's exactly what happened in the old mono server system. Dead: Of course since potential WvW playerbase was split between 9 tiers Stale: Yes, balanced. Servers enjoyed competition and knowing enemy strong timezones immensely so they logged in to face them at that time. Imbalanced: Faults of the Glicko at the time, Only servers facing best server at the time should be rank 2, rank 3 and rank 4... Which is what 1-up-1-down does. Actually lower tiers were dead because there were no commanders left so no1 could play. If commander distribution is 25%/20%/15%/15%/10% in first 5 tiers, then remaining 4 tiers have only 15% commanders split between all servers there. Low tier players started playing as soon as linking system came out and they could finally play in a group.
  15. What you are describing here is not an issue with the teambuilding or matchmaking system. As long there's players like who you don't even try to fight unless outnumbering and getting hardcarried, balanced matchmaking and fights are impossible to achieve. Imagine if they implemented sPvP system where one team can be 7 premades and other team is often just 5 solos. In addition to this, they would try to match bronze players against diamonds intentionally. Then you proceed to say: "It is player fault, everyone should have queued as 5 solos" 😅 The matchmaking system is failure: 1-up-1-down matches losers against winners converging to good matchups very slowly. Even great matchmaking system would require at least 6 weeks, but we are dealing with 4 and an extremely slow system There are too many tiers so not enough large groups or commanders for every side Players in same team don't even speak same language now that french, spanish, german and english servers are mixed up With only 4 weeks there is no time to train people or even get them to same page regarding builds, roles or communications. So external teambuilding was killed and only internal remains So biggest issue with restructuring is that after initial weeks it should place winners against winners, and losers against losers, to get data about relative server strength allowing it to converge faster. Placing strongest server against potentially 3rd weakest server after facing potentially 2nd weakest server after facing potentially weakest server, won't ever give you enough data to improve matchups with.
×
×
  • Create New...