Riba.3271

Full stop. Is this the only game you are playing that does match making? Anet pretty much admitted they like all other PvP games are working in collecting stats as they already do in sPvP to both split players and then also rank them during initial sorts. Have you not done the Ranked version of sPvP? They are working on that concept in WvW. Why look at all this additional changes in 1 Up/ 1 Down versus fixing placements as they have been trying to do for years in sPvP but in a larger scale. Why look to reinvent the wheel while they have had the opportunity to refine a similar system in ranked sPvP once placements are done? Guild placement is similar as rolling up player attributes into a larger number to define a guild. It isn't that 1-up-1-down isn't an option, it is just terrible system for 4 weekly server rearranging. I don't understand why you're defending a system that leads to good matchups only 1 week out of 4, when we have option to get system where we would get fair matchups 3 weeks out of 4. Increasing ratio of good weeks to bad weeks by 9 times seems like a good deal to me. Strong and balanced are not the same. Strong is defined as the environment that was encountered. Balanced is in you have three players on three different groups where each played 20 hours per week. How well or strong each were against the others was impacted by factors that the sort is not considering. Anet is looking for balance. They are looking into estimating placements as well per blogs and posts. Are you just throwing around empty words? 1-up-1-down can't converge within 4 weeks to good matchups. You cannot even come up with specific example how the matchmaking is good. Thats how bad the system is. Try to come up with any way that 1-up-1-down will lead to fair matchups from 2nd week onwards. How is current system where strong servers are intentionally placed against weak servers, fun or competitive? Do you have like real thoughts? What is current matchmaking system good at? Do you enjoy when winners get rewarded with more wins, and tiny servers get smashed down by facing giant servers week after week? Why would you defend a bad system with empty words that hold absolutely no substance or basis? Hence the reason why I questioned you when you claimed the new matches were "Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage". What were you using to make this statement? Compared to old systed where we had several 2.0 kdr servers, and even matches between linkings with double full server vs single unfull server. Overall, player or guild playing hoiurs are somewhat balanced now. Difference is just efficiency. 1-up-1-down is equal to putting new players against 1000+ game veterans in their first game of sPvP. Low ranking players should face low ranking players. Or can you point us to another example where a game intentionally avoids putting good players against each other? This seemed like mix metaphors. Not sure what you meant here so will leave it with I don't know what you mean. Its simple, look at the outcome of the last week, and build a competitive matchup for following week. Under the assumption that the worlds were created equal. You will end up putting winners against winners and losers against losers. So 2nd week will already be good matchups. That is what faster converging means, it doesn't need 3 weeks of data to place good servers against good servers and bad servers against bad servers.

And what do you suggest when two sides fight against you? I mean you can defend against one server but there are often situations where 2 servers fight against you and you don't have more people than one side afaik. I've seen two sides on my hbl attacking both hills and bay or they fight each other inside your garrison. You have multiple lives: If you respond fast. you have plenty of time to respawn and take another fight. If you lose 3 fights against 1 server with all the following advantages, do you really deserve to keep the keep? Since you're the only server that can use gate portals to enter or exist, you can choose when to engage You can use siege You can hold a chokepoint You can gank enemies one by one (not option for attackers due to no respawn) Overall, defenders have large advantage even without stats. If it takes 2 servers killing them multiple times to reset 1 objective, it sounds like they're definitely not at a bad spot. You're just too used to every server holding everything. If you take more things from opponents, and opponents take more things from you, it will be much healthier balance with more willing attackers thus more activity for everyone. Of course we could keep a balance where anytime there is a decent commander, vs decent commander, both avoid the enemy objectives because they would lose, but it would feel much less epic or strategic than fighting for towers and keeps. Something you haven't experienced yet, is a WvW where servers constantly pummel on enemy keeps, and there is always activity. and willing decent commanders. It is glorious

I see there has been an misunderstanding. Let me quote my original post Sorry, I didn't understand your misunderstanding earlier. So your screenshot kind of just confirmed that the new system is more balanced.

Berserker is what most of the players with bad hands play. Just spam berserker mode bow f1, don't provide anyone boons or support. It isn't great build for anyone who wants a challenge, but if you really want something simple, that is it. You also have some greatsword stuff, but similarly in that weapon only 1 ability deals decent damage: F1. Honorable mention to Bow 3 as the 3rd best ability in the kit. DPS Vindicators more melee bursty, it isn't as difficult as holo, but its probably not what you want to play since playing melee tends to include pressing stunbreaks fast. Catalyst is also another really good DPS, but like all ele specs, it is so difficult that 95% of the players cant play it, and commanders think it is bad because same reason. Reaper is typically everyones favorite class because of how fun it is. Most people are terrible at pressing right buttons on it (THE ONES THAT REMOVE BOONS!!), but still find it fun. Scourge is easier and has decent DPS builds now. Anyways, I would recommend Berserker, Reaper and Scourge. Just don't forget to remove boons when playing necro specs.

HBLs being all the same is one of the reasons we lost people to the game mode. So if you are going for remove one of the other ABLs for a new map, I agree. In in the tests have seen EBG and then DBL queue followed by ABLs. So your mileage varies here. I think at this point the concept of HBLs has also aged out. Bring on 4 different 3 sided maps. Note different so that players need to know them and not just go on auto pilot. Attack at x. Cata spot? Cata spot. OTW. This is how we have so much scout reporting of [Structure Name]. Keeps need to be keeps not just oversized towers that can be taken with just one set of siege for both inner and outer. You want a fight at both walls. That's what makes fights in SMC and DBL more interesting since it actually takes more effort to take them versus 46 players watching 4 others tear down 2 walls from same siege placement. Yes, I don't care how the system is made, as long as it is fair, and there will be enough playerbase for me to compete. One side having desert map is just not fun or competitive. I do agree there should be higher ratio of 3-way maps compared to home maps. I just don't think we should be asking from developers too much. Maybe 2 EBs, 3 alpines, 1 less tier. Fair and lot of action. Have we? What were you basing this on? Per various threads and in game not sure I would count this one as done personally. Well, honestly I can see my current relinking server struggling with numbers compared to enemies. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to overcome it by building base of 15-20 players and commanding decent amount. This is much less than difference between some of the stacked and underpopulated servers of the previous system. Now difference is just 1 persons effort, when in the past we had servers with 4 map queues vs 0 map queues. I am still not seeing this mass advantage you allude to each time you bring this up. Don't share the math in the buff, I agree its a boost. What numbers are you attacking with and what number of defenders are pushing you off? Is your attacking side not boon sharing? Are your groups not using Havocs and Roamers to slow defenders from responding to the objective under attack? I would use commanding as example here, and I have around 8000 hours doing it, lot of it before objective auras were added. Enemy can be the most stacked server in EU WvW with the best commander, and they can't take T3 keep against random rubble.. It is up to a point where the game becomes boring. I know if enemy has somewhat organised commander, I can't take their T3 tower or keep, and they can't take mine. Even when one side can kill the other on open field without losing 1 player. So we run around taking meaningless wooden objectives because enemy has to come fight else they're bored. Same applies when I am roaming: I fight 1vs1, enemy survives with 3k hp, and surprise, claim buff gave him 400 stats, which is more than enough time to do 4k more. If I have the claim buff, then he loses stats, and I gain them, thus I faceroll him. It is just boring, 400 stats worth is massive amount. It is like 1 big chonker ability, and my kit has only couple of those. Anyways, if you still don't believe in Objective Auras having a big impact, then take 400 to 800 stats away from your build. Try how it feels. Then multiply that feeling by 2 times, because it isn't unusual for the stats to change sides. You're welcome. Siege needs a review and adjustment on a number of issues but that is a topic all on its own. tl;dr version we could use changes, additions and adjustments that make sense for siege on siege, siege on player, siege vs gates and walls and allows for more options that create new tactics on old maps. Yes, but maps are already designed with strategical siege locations in mind. Those are just not used because shield gens, and objective auras kinda force you away from long-range catas and trebs. You're supposed to rush in an objective because defenders are stronger and more numerous (from motivation of higher winrate at friendly objectives) at those places. This makes your sieging strategies limited to rushing ones. So objective auras are the biggest deterrant to trebbing, because if even if you do it, you won't get a good fair fight, but shield gens are the main reason why so many siege weapons or spots should never be used. All you need is 1 smart enemy, and their effectiveness is cut in half or even less. I don't think WvW would ever be fair. Nor can it ever be balanced. It allows for 50v50v50 and 50v50v1. That's also what adds fun. Its the unknown and that unknown requires changes in tactics and keeps things fresh. For Tags, Havocs and Roamers, that not sameness is what keeps players creating content and having to adjust to the changing landscape. Well, you can't balance around 1 vs 20 and expect 20 vs 20 balance to be good. It isn't unfair when you have less people, it most likely just means you didn't build the timezone or communicate well enough. What is unfair is when one side has massive advantage either in home map, stats or past matchup performance. If my server lost, it is fair that my server faces against server that lost as well. If I won, it is fair that I face against a server that won as well. It isn't competitive or fun that winners get given extremely easy matchups and losers extremely hard ones.

This is the point of this week's tests. We just started it. Why not come back on this after it. Normally after a relink it takes 4 weeks for servers to land where they should have. This is the other bit of coding they stated they are working on which is the initial placement. So even just running two weeks this is a rather light test. Another factor that is hard to measure is how a server would have landed versus what they faced versus what they didn't. I think pulling the trigger on 1 up and 1 down based on initial placement weeks data is a bit early in assumptions you are making. ??? Only way 1-up-1-down would be even removely close is if they intentionally make certain servers weaker and other stronger before Restructuring the servers. If there is a chance that weakest server can be 4 weeks away from lowest tier, and strongest server 4 weeks away from highest as well, then obviously 1-up-1-down won't work. The great matchups can't be that many weeks away in a system that only lasts 4 weeks. Also one charasteristic of 1-up-1-down is that matchups consist of winner - 2nd place - 3rd place. If each server is initially designed to be equally strong, then the placement of the first week will reflect their efficiency and activity the following week. It just isn't great to put very inefficient servers against very efficient servers. Its like putting heavy weights to fight against lightweights. It won't be a competition, but a slaughter. You definitely need to think about this more. There is no pulling rug too early. If you can have a sytem where matchups become closer several times faster, of course you should opt for it.

It is about fair matchmaking. If you win 3 matchups to tier 2, and your 4th week is facing 5th and 6th strongest servers instead of tier 1 servers, there is something wrong with that. (3 of the top 5 will be in tier 1). You can be the strongest server and the best matchup in a whole month you will get is 5th and 6th place servers even if you keep winning. I don't think I need to explain more that 5th place server cannot give 1st place server a fair match. If 4th week is still that unbalanced, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd weeks are much much worse. 1-up-1-down just converges way too slowly into competitive matchups. Even if you put 4 tiers in EU WvW, you're gonna have 3 thrash matchups, just to face something good on the 4th week. 2 of those thrash weeks could become great weeks, with just little bit of tweaking. 3 bad weeks - 1 good week (0.333 good weeks/1 bad week) vs 3 good weeks - 1 bad week (3 good weeks/1 bad week) Thats 9 times better ratio on good weeks to bad weeks. From that, even you should be able to see why faster converging matchmaking algorithm is important. Really now? https://i.imgur.com/HB4lxuo.jpg Don't think I've ever seen 2.0 kdr in regular matches other than like reset night. In your image highest KDR is 1.4, I am not sure where your 2.0 KDR is from. Of course there are some better performing servers due to guild inactivity or quality differences.

World Restructuring has been intended to bring better balance between servers together. And it is true, we havent seen 2 kdr servers or landslide victories of over 50 skirmish points ahead. Those were pretty much expected in the old system and restructuring definitely looks and feels much more balanced. World Restructuring has brought us in a situation where player distribution will be somewhat fair now, but there are still some infrastuctural changes necessary to bring WvW so it feels truly fair regardless of a situation: Matchmaking: While 1-up-1-down might be have decent system at managing longer team assignment periods and diverse matchmaking, this just isn't true after Restructuring. At start of Restructuring, each server has somewhat same potential. So initial week passes, and after that winners face losers. It would just be so much better matchmaking for winners to face winners. In addition to this 40% of EU, and 50% of NA tiers, will have only 1 new server to face against. The matchups are stale and unfair. Winner after initial fair team assignment, will almost always beat 2 losers. It is quite clearly that with 4 weekly team assignments, the optimal system for WvW after restructuring would be tournament matchmaking where winners face winners and losers losers. Do we demand more rewards? Not really even though it is welcome, but we need good matchups and opportunity to show we're the best. Currently it is so bad that if we start in EU T5, we will never even face the T1 servers during the 4 weeks. Borderlands. Desert map is vastly different from alpine maps in both design and popularity. This obviously leads to a situation where your whole WvW experience and matchups are both decided by what map you get. It would just fair, if each side had a borderland of equal terrain and popularity. It is time to choose what is best for the gamemode over catering to people who have traumas about maps with too many or any enemies. Objective Auras: Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage, it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power when they can already utilize tactivators, respawns, siege, first engage and keep portal to their advantage. Objective auras need a large reduction in their potency or even complete rework, so combat itself can fairer. Defenders will still have access to massive combat and strategy advantage alongside multiple opportunities to kill the assaulters. Even when roaming, fighting open field, or GvGing, you really don't think its fair or fun for nearest tower or camp to provide one side almost 15% worth of damage from stats. Shield generators: If think about all the siege, only ones that are not countered by generators are rams and melee golems. This means everytime you build trebs, ballistas, omegas, arrow carts or catas to defend, destroy or take something, you shouldn't because smart enemy can just counter it. Well, while WvW playerbase has kinda proven it isn't smart enough to spam the most overpowered siege everywhere, it still remains a balance problem and the main reason why almost all commanders use exclusively melee siege. For competitive environment, you need options, so shield gens need a big rework. What I would suggest, is to change the bubble from targeted to occur around the shield gen, and limit shield gens to 1 per twice the radius. This way they still have use, but they won't be permanent. These 4 changes would make WvW so, that you will feel that who you fight is fair and the fight is fair regardless of where you fight or what colour you are.

Well, I don't think WvW that week would be higher quality. So no. I wouldn't mind if they add like specialty classes that you can pick up at spawn like missing GW1 professions (Dervish, Paragon, Ritualist, Assassin, Monk) or completely new ones like shapeshifter, spy, flame shaman. Only way to get rid of them would be returning to spawn.

This game is obviously coded in a way that the stats shown on weapon are corresponding to the actual stats the give (we haven't seen a single bug about gear stats even when new stat sets were added). I would even say, it is probably calculating it based on rarity and level of the player. Even though we are only talking about 1 gearset, you would have to either revamp the whole system or build a counter for celestial stats that needs to run everytime a person swaps gear or enters the map, and in this case you would have to extend it to the stats it shows in inventory and equipment screen. Both are obviously way too much work and unintuitive, and it would be more realistic to ask celestial being made unplayable in PvE again, so very unrealistic. Guild Wars 2s pride is its impeccable player friendly intuitive system design. And whatever you guys want is not it. It's something you can ask from some eastern P2W B-tier MMORPG game company who don't care about player friendliness. You can't change 1 gear sets stats between gamemodes easily. The gear code is connected to everything. If one faucet can't deal with increased water pressure, you don't go replace whole water treatment plant.

Pve and wvw are split balance wise. So you can totally nerf cele on wvw without touching pve. Because it doesn't exist in the game yet, there is no guarantee the GW2 engine or code will easily allow items to change stats depending on gamemode. They probably would have to do it to each item one by one, including new system that recalculates gear situation after entering WvW, visible and number changes. It wouldn't be intuitional either to only do it for 1 gearset as this would lead to cluttering the UI unnecessary or expect each player to know about it. They need extremely easy and generic solution such as changing effectiveness of some stats in WvW. It is not only very cost effective, but also transparent to players. You guys here are treating coders like its ancient egypt where slaves worked to death building pyramids so a dead guy has place to rest. It just isn't reasonable to expect gazillion effort for small problems with easier solutions.

This was special celestial nerf suggestion because it actually buffs celestial. Players will just mix 9-stat items until they end up with something even stronger. Don't get me wrong, splitting celestial into multiple parts is a great idea, as it makes utilizing the statline bit harder and add some build diversity. You can even do it easily by giving people who are using celestial equipment, a stat choice reset after. But where you're wrong is that it would reduce the effectiveness of celestial builds. You need to nerf overall stats for that. As people have said here, celestial wasn't a problem before free concentration and expertise (40%+ boon and condi duration) were added to it. Before that Full cele builds were already seeing massive popularity in some metas (Core Guard, Condi Shout Reaper, Epidemic variants, D/D GvG elementalist etc.) but even in other metas or scenes celestial was great way to round out your build with mix of offense and defense. Celestial was relatively balanced stat that saw use in WvW, then it received massive buffs. Why did it receive buffs? Because it needed concentration and expertise to succeed in group PvE where defensive stats don't matter. Now you probably can't just nerf celestial throughout the whole game, because PvE is more popular gamemode, but you can still easily adjust celestial in WvW while only nerfing other unused or overpowered statsets alongside. How to nerf celestial in WvW without affecting PvE: Concentration effectiveness: 1% boon duration per 15 concentration -> 1% boon duration per 30 concentration in WvW (unchanged in PvE/PvP) Expertise effectiveness: 1% condi duration per 15 expertise -> 1% condi duration per 25 expertise in WvW (unchanged in PvE/PvP) Now why like this? First of all, reducing overall stats is not option because PvE needs those stats. Secondly, WvW also has other problematic stat sets such as minstrel (half WvW blob players use it) so nerfing it alongside will just be reasonable and increase build diversity. No other concentration gear has been in any WvW build site since their implementation so their nerf is irrelevant. Thirdly celestial only needs adjustment in longer fights and neither expertise or concentration affect shorter engages. And finally, the game needs to return some of the complexity regarding timing your boons rather than them being permanent. Interesting side remark: This summer there was big thread (148 replies) where PvE players complained about permaboons reducing build diversity to builds that can provide 100% uptime on those boons and making the game feel too grindy or easy. Almost no one in the thread disagreed that the boons needed to change. So reducing Boon duration effectiveness in PvE is also an option

You can try staff catalyst. it can be top damage and provides lot of utility for your party: Pulsing AoE Quickness and Protection can turn tide of any fight Long range CC Frost Aura and Transmute Magnetic aura Decent amount of AoE Fury, Might, Resistance, Resolution, Vigor, Swiftness AoE superspeed Jade spheres do very little damage removing aegis from opponents Build in Question (Fire sigils are a must, Sphere specialist trait is an option, can run bit more damage here and there) So it has long range, good damage, lot of utility and great survivability. Catalyst is extremely strong if your squad lacks quickness sources as it also boosts other peoples damage significantly. Catalyst is good example of a build where DPS meter doesn't tell everything, because it boosts lot of allied dps and reduces enemy from the boons and CC it provides.

While it sounds interesting and fun I think issue here is that such concept would be very strong with certain combinations, and lackluster with others. This would lead to lot of skills getting nerfed and other ele specs shafted. Now what Id like to see is 5th element where the skills would have different effects and combo fields depending on last element attuned. So you can double down on being fire mage or support, but it still requires pressing buttons in certain order. Of course it would be lot of work to make skills for each weapon, but maybe weapon could only decide weapon skills 1-3 while 4 and 5 are same regardless of weapon.

Well, initial week will always be lackluster matchmaking. They definitely need to improve the algorithm for following weeks. 1-up-1-down will just make following weeks matchups even more unbalanced.

Restructuring is almost done. Let them finish it. At least it will be better than linking system that is nowhere balanced regarding player quality or amount due to having 0 restrictions on incoming transfers. I still prefer system with only solo servers, but if that ain't an option, then restructuring is the way to go.

Also we know that Restructuring links last 4 weeks. Lets say a server starts in tier 5 and wins all matchups, what will their matchmaking look like? Week 1: As balanced as possible based on Restructuring algorithm (T5) Week 2: Winning server (you) vs 2nd place server vs losing server (T4) Week 3: Winning server (you) vs 2nd place server vs losing server (T3) Week 4: Winning server (you) vs 2nd place server vs losing server (T2) Restructuring So even though they keep winning and might be most stacked server of them all, all they will face is losers and never face those that climbed to tier 1 before them . Same applies in reverse to a server that starts in tier 1 and loses every matchup. Now of course this is just an example but still shows there is high chance fair matchmaking will never occur with 1-up-1-down and 4 weekly Restructuring both in place. Matchmaking should get better every week depending on matchup outcome, not worse.

It isn't just about server that gets 2nd, but also the fact that they face 2 losing servers following week.They wouldn't think that is fair matchmaking either. I used lowest tier as example, but winning tier 1 is also a problem. One of the following weeks enemy server will already have lost to you. So there is extremely high chance they lose again. It is much better matchmaking for winning server to face 2 other winning servers. Even looking at mid tiers, 1-up-1-down actually makes matchmaking worse after first week since it will always be winner vs 2nd place vs last place. No one will see this as fair matchmaking for servers that were made balanced just week prior

I just noticed that my server is in Tier 5 (same score, same objectives etc) and with 1-up-1-down this means even if we get 2nd place, we stay in tier 5 with obviously weaker server. This wouldn't be great matchmaking. Alternative: If each server is truly made equally populated, system where servers that win first week should face other winning servers in higher tiers. Servers that place 2nd, should but in midtiers facing against each other, and losing servers should be placed in bottom tiers. This would also guarantee completely different matchups first 2 weeks and it is better than facing same server twice in a row. Summary: World Restructurings first week should be a placement week, after which winners face each other and losers each other. This will converge into better tier and matchup distribution faster.

Alliances were too high-tech to implement in 7 years. Soon guilds will be removed too 😂 "We just can't make it work"

There has been a person spamming teamchat insulting every commander for several years on Desolation. There have been several tickets about him, and probably several thousand reports. The person even pulls tactivators and builds troll siege, then types that he did it in chat. Reporting does nothing. They only act on swearing and racial/gender slurs. Not actual bullying. Of course you should still do it, but it will do nothing if very bad words aren't included.

Emotions make your leads entertaining (numbers) Logic and thinking make your leads succesful (skillful players) You need both. Emotions can be faked and right actions can be learnt, so it isn't like you need to be particularly emotional or smart. I will even give you one specific advice: If there is stronger server on the map, do not go their objectives. They want bags, so they will come near your towers, or meet you at 3rd servers corner. This allows you to take fights you might actually win.

The real answer here is to transfer away to the link of your friend (should be 500 gems) after Restructuring beta is over if you're not daring enough to fight the trolls by questioning their intellect based on their current actions. After all, you're already avoiding them. Easiest way to get personal attacks to stop is have them walk away from every conversation fuming from anger while being at loss of words until they start avoiding you. I agree with @bq pd.2148 that you must have left the actual conversation you had out. There are gazillion pugs out there, why would they pick on you for weeks? What exactly did you do? Is the guild leader some old guild mate with different account name? 🤔

There are no real worlds to fight for anymore so people don't care about long-term goals Defenders almost always win a fight nowadays, so there is no competitive objective scene anymore, just groups that blob to farm. It is really developer issue. It just isn't competitive gamemode anymore.

WvW was designed with defender having following advantages: Closer spawn: Holds true for almost all objectives Possibility of respawn: Defenders with proper scouting will have multiple attempts to kill attackers, whereas attackers have to win 3-4 fights in a row to take bigger objective. Information: See how many enemies are FIRST, then decide how many to send First engage: Only defenders have luxury of being able to choose when to engage -> Typically when they have high chance to win Siege: Can be a big deal if utilized correctly Keep portals: Losing fights isn't as damaging since half players can just escape Now together, it is obvious that defender having multiple lives and ability to choose how and when to fight are massive combat advantages. ⬆️Nobody is saying the original ones should be removed⬆️ ⬇️Some of the following are the problem ⬇️ Since first expansion following have been added to defender arsenal: Tactivators: EWP is worth extra life for everyone, chilling fog couple of players, dragon banner couple players Gliding: Only defender advantage Mounting: Attackers basically stuck in combat with no option to get out of combat Objective Auras: 400 stats is worth 13%+ damage, 800 stats 27%+. This accounts for combat power of having 10% to 20% more players. Several times faster upgrading keeps and castles: Stronger walls, more siege. Much more supply available Tankier lords: Not big deal Now you can easily see that if game was relatively balanced for attackers before expansions, it is hardly so now. ⭐Remember that when attacking, you do not only give up all the bonuses above, but your opponent gains them. So it isn't surprising the WvW scene is a joke and full of objective camping servers that almost never attack now⭐