Better matchmaking until alliances released

[exeggcuter.8394]

This week Maguuma is linked with Anvil Rock, 2 extremely active WvW servers. I've noticed that every relink all servers are linked with exactly one other. This might not always be the optimal choice. I don't play on the EU server. However, from what I'm able to look up, it seems some servers aren't linked with any others, while others get tripled up (3 servers on one team). It's widely regarded amongst the players I've spoken with that Blackgate and Maguuma both have huge populations. Do they really need to be linked with another server? I've heard their que's to get into maps are large enough that it kind of sucks for them as well. Note that I have never played with either server, only against them, so anyone on those servers, feel free to interject your opinion. If nothing else, changing the numbers of servers linked at one time would allow a more granular flexibility of matchmaking until Alliances are released.

 

I know I'm not alone in that I really only play Guild Wars 2 for WvW anymore, since it's a unique experience. For all its glaring flaws, it remains quite fun. For me personally, the biggest flaw right now is the matchmaking. This is a bigger flaw than the supposed cheaters (most of the time it's just cheesy skill use, I do it myself sometimes). Yesterday I was playing with my side having ~30 or so players tops, and both other teams having easily >70 players. I am unable to verify whether I am exaggerating (I have zero way of seeing how many players are online on any of the teams). But the fact remains that imbalance that bad really should not be *possible* much less something halfway expected at this point!

 

Anyway, this is really just food for thought. It would be nice if it was implemented in some way for the next servers relink.

 

In summary: always 2 servers probably bad, sometimes 1 or 3 servers probably good.

 

Have a nice day.

[Kate.3679]

2 minutes ago, exeggcuter.8394 said:

 It's widely regarded amongst the players I've spoken with that Blackgate and Maguuma both have huge populations. Do they really need to be linked with another server? I've heard their que's to get into maps are large enough that it kind of sucks for them as well.

 

Maguuma only has a big NA population, and even then, they only queue EB and one borderland at most during primetime. The EB queue is usually in the 30-40s but the borderland queue is in the single digits. 

Blackgate has a more evenly distributed spread of population, with decent numbers throughout the entire day, but I'm pretty sure the only time they queue a map is when the rawr omni boonblob is online.

The only reason why these two servers seem like they have significantly more population is because there's always a portion of the wvw community on the third t1 server that straight up won't log in to play against Mag or BG, let alone both of them together.

Also, in EU, historically the unlinked servers have always sat in the lowest tier (t5). This suggests that any two linked servers will always have more population than a single server. 

 

12 minutes ago, exeggcuter.8394 said:

Yesterday I was playing with my side having ~30 or so players tops, and both other teams having easily >70 players. I am unable to verify whether I am exaggerating (I have zero way of seeing how many players are online on any of the teams). But the fact remains that imbalance that bad really should not be *possible* much less something halfway expected at this point!

 

 

I was also on last night, and I can tell you for at least an hour on green borderlands, all three sides had roughly equal numbers. Mag had two 20-25 guilds online, BG had the rawr omniblob, and ebay had BADA + pugs (at least 50 of them). The only problem is that BADA are just a small step up in skill compared to beginner ai bots so they just got farmed on repeat whenever they came close to mag or bg. ebay does have less coverage throughout the day compared to mag or bg but it's not like they're significantly outnumbered. they're in fact ticking the highest right now

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, exeggcuter.8394 said:

This week Maguuma is linked with Anvil Rock, 2 extremely active WvW servers. I've noticed that every relink all servers are linked with exactly one other. This might not always be the optimal choice. I don't play on the EU server. However, from what I'm able to look up, it seems some servers aren't linked with any others, while others get tripled up (3 servers on one team). It's widely regarded amongst the players I've spoken with that Blackgate and Maguuma both have huge populations. Do they really need to be linked with another server? I've heard their que's to get into maps are large enough that it kind of sucks for them as well. Note that I have never played with either server, only against them, so anyone on those servers, feel free to interject your opinion. If nothing else, changing the numbers of servers linked at one time would allow a more granular flexibility of matchmaking until Alliances are released.

 

I know I'm not alone in that I really only play Guild Wars 2 for WvW anymore, since it's a unique experience. For all its glaring flaws, it remains quite fun. For me personally, the biggest flaw right now is the matchmaking. This is a bigger flaw than the supposed cheaters (most of the time it's just cheesy skill use, I do it myself sometimes). Yesterday I was playing with my side having ~30 or so players tops, and both other teams having easily >70 players. I am unable to verify whether I am exaggerating (I have zero way of seeing how many players are online on any of the teams). But the fact remains that imbalance that bad really should not be *possible* much less something halfway expected at this point!

 

Anyway, this is really just food for thought. It would be nice if it was implemented in some way for the next servers relink.

 

In summary: always 2 servers probably bad, sometimes 1 or 3 servers probably good.

 

Have a nice day.

Pair them with Baruch Bay since this scourge they insist on inflicting on EU unlinked servers plays in NA timezones anyway. BB: also never closed to transfers come hell or high water. So since they would probably get blown out because they are in fact pretty bad at WvW and highly farmable and the only thing going for them is greatly outnumbering the opponents and playing in the middle of the night for EU countries, they could always recruit even more players.

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, Ruru.1302 said:

 

Also, in EU, historically the unlinked servers have always sat in the lowest tier (t5). This suggests that any two linked servers will always have more population than a single server. 

Bingo! People greatly greatly overstate the difference between any full server and a medium server on EU. Looking at K+D and having an educated guess that Gandara is the largest server (except BB)  and it's the benchmark to close other servers participation is something like:

#1 BB=100

#2 Gandara =80

#27 Smallest server = 40

Hence, you can understand how Gandara won't ever beat BB, when unlinked, unless people do play a lot more during the week than usual (it happened more than once, but it usually also requires the 3rd server not to be a beating drum and to be very strong in the early morning like one of the German servers). No other server will beat Gandara when unlinked. Any host+link will usually exceed 100 participation and, in any case, 2 servers also have an advantage of having better spread coverage.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Mabi black.1824]

There are many arguments that work here. We just need to know what Anet thinks. And I take this opportunity to give my humble advice to our friends at Arenanet. Give a little help to your WWW players, we are also passionate and loyal players as PVE (I even bought all your expansions even if I never practice PVE and I would buy more, just to support you)

While we wait for alliances, during this period of transition from one mechanic to another mechanic, we can achieve something new and undemanding for you guys. Do we reconnect monthly instead of every 2 months? Do we limit transfers? Let's lower the thresholds and try to see if the players redistribute better? in short anything just to see something new, the mode is rather confused by the coming change, It might be a good time for anything new to propose to us, without generating extra work for you.

[AlCapwnd.7834]

4 hours ago, Ruru.1302 said:

but I'm pretty sure the only time they queue a map is when the rawr omni boonblob is online.

The "omniblob" wouldn't be needed if you didnt build 1000 AC's, Catas, Trebs and Ballistas.  everywhere. But we enjoy pulling you one by one off of those and getting bags.

[AlCapwnd.7834]

5 hours ago, Ruru.1302 said:

I was also on last night, and I can tell you for at least an hour on green borderlands, all three sides had roughly equal numbers. Mag had two 20-25 guilds online, BG had the rawr omniblob, and ebay had BADA + pugs (at least 50 of them). The only problem is that BADA are just a small step up in skill compared to beginner ai bots so they just got farmed on repeat whenever they came close to mag or bg. ebay does have less coverage throughout the day compared to mag or bg but it's not like they're significantly outnumbered. they're in fact ticking the highest right now

Last night was A TON OF FUN! Each side put up good fights. We had a really good time fighting BRRR/CTH and BADA. Wish it happened more often 😃

[Kate.3679]

1 hour ago, AlCapwnd.7834 said:

The "omniblob" wouldn't be needed if you didnt build 1000 AC's, Catas, Trebs and Ballistas.  everywhere. But we enjoy pulling you one by one off of those and getting bags.

 

no, omniblobbing is a way of life there, blackgate will do it regardless of what their opposition does, just like how mag will cloud no matter what

[exeggcuter.8394]

I'm just happy this is leading to potentially good ideas. I do wonder, though, how ANet calculates how active each server is. Do they just add up the total number of times each individual player secures a batch of pips?

 

Like if I play enough this week to get that every 5 minute pip income 30 times this week, that counts as 30 for my server?

 

That's probably how I'd calculate it if in their shoes. Then again I'm a pretty lazy coder in the rare instance I'm programming something.

[Volzmir.4831]

They need to split Maguuma's population into two. I don't mind if they do that with Blackgate and other large/max population Worlds.

 

Once that happens and players cannot transfer back into these high worlds, then maybe matchmaking might be better.

[exeggcuter.8394]

How would ANet even do such a thing as splitting those servers, anyway? The first thing that comes to my mind is forcing everyone currently in those servers to swap servers (for free obviously) on their next login, with those 2 servers as a potential option assuming they aren't "full".

 

Side note, but I do find it kind of hilarious that ANet calls their low population servers "Medium" to make it sound... I'm not sure, better? Reminds me of how Starbucks calls their small drinks "tall" as if calling it that makes it not a small drink.

 

Crap like that makes it easier for the "WvW is dead" memes to circulate.

[Xenesis.6389]

On 11/7/2022 at 8:20 AM, exeggcuter.8394 said:

This week Maguuma is linked with Anvil Rock, 2 extremely active WvW servers. I've noticed that every relink all servers are linked with exactly one other. This might not always be the optimal choice. I don't play on the EU server. However, from what I'm able to look up, it seems some servers aren't linked with any others, while others get tripled up (3 servers on one team). It's widely regarded amongst the players I've spoken with that Blackgate and Maguuma both have huge populations. Do they really need to be linked with another server? I've heard their que's to get into maps are large enough that it kind of sucks for them as well. Note that I have never played with either server, only against them, so anyone on those servers, feel free to interject your opinion. If nothing else, changing the numbers of servers linked at one time would allow a more granular flexibility of matchmaking until Alliances are released.

 

I know I'm not alone in that I really only play Guild Wars 2 for WvW anymore, since it's a unique experience. For all its glaring flaws, it remains quite fun. For me personally, the biggest flaw right now is the matchmaking. This is a bigger flaw than the supposed cheaters (most of the time it's just cheesy skill use, I do it myself sometimes). Yesterday I was playing with my side having ~30 or so players tops, and both other teams having easily >70 players. I am unable to verify whether I am exaggerating (I have zero way of seeing how many players are online on any of the teams). But the fact remains that imbalance that bad really should not be *possible* much less something halfway expected at this point!

 

Anyway, this is really just food for thought. It would be nice if it was implemented in some way for the next servers relink.

 

In summary: always 2 servers probably bad, sometimes 1 or 3 servers probably good.

 

Have a nice day.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Transfers-Links-and-Population-Data/6664495

 

Quote

 

1. World sizes are based on WvW play hours and players. People who do not play WvW, or are guests, do not factor into the population size of a server. If a world is locked, it is because it has a larger population than our “Full” threshold.

2. Yes and no. We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with a lot of people. There are not enough off-hour worlds that we could link to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations.

3. Yes, high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds. For example, if Blackgate has 10 players and it’s the highest populated server, then we try to link worlds so their populations are also around 10. We can’t be totally precise so sometimes worlds might end up with 12 or 9 but we try to get as close as possible.