World Linking 1/28/2022

[Xenesis.6389]

1 hour ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Actually BG outside of reset, queues one map, maybe a 2-4 queue on a second

Regardless of how you try to spin it, their opponents are always worse off than them. They would be lucky to even get a Q outside of reset and prime, let alone one zerg to cover everything, which I'm sure BG has a much easier time maintaining. Yet somehow they deserve to get linked with a higher pop server than they need. TC sure as hell don't have the numbers to deal with them yet gets a medium link, again, and forced into T1 yet again, was going T3 before beta, then gets forced to T1 after beta, then gets forced into T1 after relink, guess they have been deemed to be feeders for the BG empire. Also... let's not talk about how dumb CD commanders have been....

 

Now bandwagoners, time to pay up to the Anet overlords.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Just now, Xenesis.6389 said:

Regardless of how you try to spin it, their opponents are always worse off than them. They would be lucky to even get a Q outside of reset and prime, let alone one zerg to cover everything, which I'm sure BG has a much easier time maintaining. Yet somehow they deserve to get linked with a higher pop server than they need. TC sure as hell don't have the numbers to deal with them yet gets a medium link, again, and forced into T1 yet again, was going T3 before beta, then gets forced to T1 after beta, then gets forced into T1 after relink, guess they have been deemed to be feeders for the BG empire. Also... let's not talk about how dumb CD commanders have been....

 

Now bandwagoners, time to pay up to the Anet overlords.

Tc isn’t ‘forced’ into anything.  Look at Mag down in T/4.  Farming lesser players and using the ppt excuse to cover why they do it.  
 

If TC is so upset about fighting BG then they need to tank.  
 

Does it suck?  Sure.  Forced?  Heh.  You’ve been here too long to spout that nonsense Xen.

 

Again, they should repost play hour percentages for actual servers (not links) and tag the names instead of this bull.  That way, there would be no spin.  
 

🙂

[Xenesis.6389]

1 minute ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Tc isn’t ‘forced’ into anything.  Look at Mag down in T/4.  Farming lesser players and using the ppt excuse to cover why they do it.  
 

If TC is so upset about fighting BG then they need to tank.  
 

Does it suck?  Sure.  Forced?  Heh.  You’ve been here too long to spout that nonsense Xen.

 

Again, they should repost play hour percentages for actual servers (not links) and tag the names instead of this bull.  That way, there would be no spin.  
 

🙂

 

Oh please it's forced because whatever dumb internal formula(glicko still?) they're using to calculate where servers should be after a shake up, IS forcing TC into that tier. Like I said TC was going to hit T3 before the beta, but somehow gets yanked to T1 after the beta, and then again after relinks. There is no choice there. Mag just came off being a link, a lot of servers that come back to being a host tend to start out low.

 

Still doesn't excuse BG getting a high server. I'm sure BG will still have twice the numbers of everyone else if they bothered to post those numbers again, which they won't, it'll make their linking look even more laughable.

[Strider Pj.2193]

6 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

Oh please it's forced because whatever dumb internal formula(glicko still?) they're using to calculate where servers should be after a shake up, IS forcing TC into that tier. Like I said TC was going to hit T3 before the beta, but somehow gets yanked to T1 after the beta, and then again after relinks. There is no choice there. Mag just came off being a link, a lot of servers that come back to being a host tend to start out low.

 

Still doesn't excuse BG getting a high server. I'm sure BG will still have twice the numbers of everyone else if they bothered to post those numbers again, which they won't, it'll make their linking look even more laughable.

I agreed with you about BG getting a high link if you remember.

 

But yeah, they won’t post the hours.  They don’t want to show how active or not any server is.

 

I would just love them to tie names into a new graph. Instead of what they did 4-5 years ago.  
 

Do I think BG is in the bottom half?  Hell no.  I just think people would be surprised at where they actually are.  

[CrimsonRise.7650]

On 1/29/2022 at 1:54 PM, MarkBecks.6453 said:

Ah Deso was T4, no link last time, no link this time, and to think the Glicko system doesnt work so these are done by hand, pass the socks and light me up

 

Imagine speaking as though T4 in the EU is a bad thing. With a link in the current state of Deso; with its community being split while being full and mostly uncoordinated between two discords, you might of been stuck in T1 with FoW instead.

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by CrimsonNeonite.1048

[Mabi black.1824]

On 1/29/2022 at 1:31 PM, Telgum.6071 said:

And what does Alliances do to prevent you from doing this? Creating a guild cost 1 gold

hi telgum,

I have already explained in other posts how many other players have also done. a group of guilds are absolutely not the same as a server. click on my name and go and re-read those posts and you will agree too.

[Mabi black.1824]

14 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

No thanks.  The current population is fine.  Plenty of queues during prime time.  Consolidation would just make queues worse.  The problem is the population isn't distributed well because we're still using the server system.

the problem is not the team system. the problem is how you built the algorithm that calculates matches to balance teams, and even if you fix it you will find the other transfer problem.

so much so that the first work in progress is the world restructuring with the first objective of counting the active players to be able to redistribute them. the player has to tick the box for his wvw guild and only then is he counted. today no one can count the players actually active.

[SweetPotato.7456]

There is nothing wrong with the linking, except when my server saw we are on T1 , they immediately plan a T A N K ,  when your server tank, some players don't even come to WvW, that makes the map looks even more empty than it actually is, people on team chat encouraging others to tank on a daily basis, one person even threaten to troll the keep's supply if the server scores is over the RED. (i have multiple screenshots of these)  

In fact my server hates every match up, they hate maguuma, they hate BG, they hate SoS every tier you go someone hates something. 

The match up is totally fine.  Problem is the majority of the players' mentality on my server.

Edited January 31, 2022 by SweetPotato.7456

[Mabi black.1824]

9 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

I agreed with you about BG getting a high link if you remember.

 

But yeah, they won’t post the hours.  They don’t want to show how active or not any server is.

 

I would just love them to tie names into a new graph. Instead of what they did 4-5 years ago.  
 

Do I think BG is in the bottom half?  Hell no.  I just think people would be surprised at where they actually are.  

we can do one thing at a time. getting balanced teams that come close to having similar numbers would already be a great achievement.

how many hours a player plays and how much better or more organized a player is than another takes a back seat.

if I lose to a more organized group than me I will have nothing to say, but if I lose against a group that has twice my numbers it is a whole other thing.

for this reason I asked in another post to add the information on the potential of the team. I don't want to know the numbers but at least the potential. if 1000 players of a team give a potential of 100 you can at least say ...... this week 100 vs potential 80 vs potential 90.

[Mabi black.1824]

a little transparency in this regard would be very welcome by the players. or rather I think it would be appreciated for many of us.

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

a little transparency in this regard would be very welcome by the players. or rather I think it would be appreciated for many of us.

Assuming you're talking about relinks:

They've given us enough transparency to form a general idea where details become less important.

In broad strokes the system is as simple as counting anyone who flips the wood chest as active, rank the servers per population totals and match the largest with the smallest (towards the middle), by hand. Where it applies, the smallest implies no link etc. So, for example, we don't know if they actually use the wood chest as the function to represent the factor, but they do something similar, a low threshold of time spent. We know that.

We don't know every detail and we don't have to know every detail but us players tend to either accept something akin to this as plausible or see the process as some unknown magical thing where the devs make things personal 😅.

Assuming you're talking about restructured world balance checks:

I don't think the balance checks themselves are a transparency issue at this point. There are a number of possible ways to deal with it and I think they have not decided on how to approach it yet, which means they are nowhere near testing it, tuning it or iterating on it. When people have been mad about the beta matchups it feels like they've not understood that no balancing checks have been added to what they're testing in the betas yet.

If there is anything that one can be a bit concerned about at this point it is rather the fact that they have not come further, that the checks and balances that some people assume to be here are not here yet or that the devblog promised to share some of that with us after beta 2 is still not here. That's the valid concern and transparency issue.

In that it becomes as split as the first topic above. Some players embrace what the beta is. Other players do not understand what the beta is and speaks about it as some magical unknown or utterly confuses one piece of the beta with another piece and then become upset about their own interpretation (for example, not being able to tell the difference between alliance and world - then being mad about one word in a context of the other word, etc.) 😅.

Edited January 31, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[GoldenPants.1870]

19 hours ago, Vlad Morbius.1759 said:

I'm curious do you just throw different color pastas at a wall and see who sticks together

That would probably be the likely way they do it yes.

[Chaba.5410]

7 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

the problem is not the team system. the problem is how you built the algorithm that calculates matches to balance teams, and even if you fix it you will find the other transfer problem.

so much so that the first work in progress is the world restructuring with the first objective of counting the active players to be able to redistribute them. the player has to tick the box for his wvw guild and only then is he counted. today no one can count the players actually active.

I'm not sure what your response has to do with reducing the number of tiers from 4 to 3.

[Chaba.5410]

18 hours ago, DragonSlayer.1087 said:

You must be in BG, because no other servers have this problem. The only time there are queues is during reset, which last for about 2 hours every week. 

Yea, that must be it.  Surely the idea that reducing tiers from 4 to 3 would be a bad idea has nothing to do with seeing the NA Prime queues during the world restructuring betas when the NA population was split more evenly across all servers.  /sarcasm

No thanks.  I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the number of queue spots by almost 300 by taking away a tier.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

7 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

a little transparency in this regard would be very welcome by the players. or rather I think it would be appreciated for many of us.

There are old posts giving more transparency on how WvW population is calculated (a rolling average of total play hours in WvW smoothed out over an extended period of time to reduce players' ability to game their play hours).  They've also tracked WXP rank increases as a secondary means of tracking and verifying their assumptions on play hours.  I'll leave it to you to find those old posts in the archive.

From what we've been told, that same population algorithm is used for world restructuring match-making with the potential for additional stats like timezone tracking.  (This is also why a new account or one that hasn't played WvW recently can't be automatically matched onto a team.)

What is not done anymore is calculating population by the number of players because the scoring system really favors numbers and coverage.  So a player who plays 2 hours is equal to 2 players who play only 1 hour.  What this means is that a handful of players who play longer hours than everyone else can end up with vastly more play hours which causes their team to have a lower number of players than another team, as it should be since those players with their longer play time are trying to win through coverage.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Super Hayes.6890]

On 1/30/2022 at 12:20 PM, Zikory.6871 said:

I blame Sorrow's Furnace. FA has always been a solid t2/t3 server if the link does all the work. 

Hey, not cool! I'm trying my best here. I just wish there were... you know... other people on my server 😬

[Mabi black.1824]

52 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

There are old posts giving more transparency on how WvW population is calculated (a rolling average of total play hours in WvW smoothed out over an extended period of time to reduce players' ability to game their play hours).  They've also tracked WXP rank increases as a secondary means of tracking and verifying their assumptions on play hours.  I'll leave it to you to find those old posts in the archive.

From what we've been told, that same population algorithm is used for world restructuring match-making with the potential for additional stats like timezone tracking.  (This is also why a new account or one that hasn't played WvW recently can't be automatically matched onto a team.)

What is not done anymore is calculating population by the number of players because the scoring system really favors numbers and coverage.  So a player who plays 2 hours is equal to 2 players who play only 1 hour.  What this means is that a handful of players who play longer hours than everyone else can end up with vastly more play hours which causes their team to have a lower number of players than another team, as it should be since those players with their longer play time are trying to win through coverage.

I understand thanks. I do not think we agree with the last part. also to incentivize the player.

I try to explain if I choose to play 2 hours at gw2 I do not understand why I have to be counted differently from my brother who plays 1 hour at gw2 and an hour at fortnite.

I would like to be counted as him and maybe get some results more than him because I commit myself a little more than him.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I'm not sure what your response has to do with reducing the number of tiers from 4 to 3.

sorry chaba,

I was referring only to your last sentence '' the problem is that the population is not distributed correctly because it uses the server system ''

[Chaba.5410]

9 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I try to explain if I choose to play 2 hours at gw2 I do not understand why I have to be counted differently from my brother who plays 1 hour at gw2 and an hour at fortnite.

I would like to be counted as him and maybe get some results more than him because I commit myself a little more than him.

What makes you think you're counted differently?  Everyone is counted by their play hours so it's a uniform counting system.

You do get more results if you play longer.  You reach Diamond chest before someone else.  You progress through reward tracks faster.  You gain more WXP and loot because you kill more players and cap more structures than someone who doesn't play as long.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Mabi black.1824]

no . I am counted differently from my brother in reference to the team. I occupy a player box, he occupies half a player box.

if there are 50 players like me and my brother a team will have 50 players and one 100 players.  but they are considered the same if I understood correctly.

his team dominates the first hour and my team dominates the second hour. only that I have dedicated the double commitment of him, my team should be ahead of his not equal score. after all, I did not have fun with fortnite and he did.😅

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

quite sure anet only counts played hours, not what u actually do or what your activity levels are

 

@Chaba.5410 i mean we on EU want to have the tiers reduced to 4, we currently still/again have 5. then again, waiting for alliances to make this tier blubbery irrelevant.

Edited January 31, 2022 by kamikharzeeh.8016

[Chaba.5410]

48 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

no . I am counted differently from my brother in reference to the team. I occupy a player box, he occupies half a player box.

if there are 50 players like me and my brother a team will have 50 players and one 100 players.  but they are considered the same if I understood correctly.

his team dominates the first hour and my team dominates the second hour. only that I have dedicated the double commitment of him, my team should be ahead of his not equal score. after all, I did not have fun with fortnite and he did.😅

How is it being counted differently?  It's the same counting system for everyone.  You're asking for inactive players to occupy a server's "player box".  So the other team with 100 players has maybe only 5 of them actually playing.  And what happens when a "full" team has everyone log out momentarily so that more players can transfer to it because all the player boxes got emptied?  Real good "balance" there.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

25 minutes ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

 

@Chaba.5410 i mean we on EU want to have the tiers reduced to 4, we currently still/again have 5. then again, waiting for alliances to make this tier blubbery irrelevant.

Yea that's possible.  I can only speak for my experience on NA and reducing to 3 tiers.

[Heibi.4251]

And mysteriously, the bandwagon begins on Kaineng. Very High as of today. Seriously, ANET should have a 2 week no transfer after relink rule until alliances are implemented. Or a 2 week moratorium on transfers to the link of Full servers. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Heibi.4251

[toppas.5364]

9 hours ago, Heibi.4251 said:

And mysteriously, the bandwagon begins on Kaineng. Very High as of today. Seriously, ANET should have a 2 week no transfer after relink rule until alliances are implemented. Or a 2 week moratorium on transfers to the link of Full servers. 

 

Or make relink happen every month or every 2 weeks , will put more strain on the pockets for those who like to bandwagon