Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Suggestion: Bring back GLICO matchups!


neven.3785

Recommended Posts

One up One Down system has been failing in NA and EU because servers are actively trying to avoid tier 1.  This causing server population volatility and a lot of unnecessary drama behind the scenes. 

 

  So why not go back to the glico system you used but increase the volatility constant so the glico walls won't be as impactful.  As long as the volatility prevents a tier 1 server from randomly getting thrown in tier 4 and vice versa, you won't have the possibility of 4 servers getting tier locked for over a month.

 

Because the glico still has an minor impact, those who play for points still have a goal for getting first place, and those who play for fights have no control on who they will face the next week so won't dodge out for a week to prevent a roll up.  Sure they'll still not bother playing for certain matchups, but it reduces the amount they feel this is necessary.

Edited by neven.3785
  • Like 4
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

System is already there, I know it's pointless to ask for brand new features.   This they have implemented before with various volatility constants to find the sweet spot before they went with one up one down because the glico walls were too big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think 1-up-1-down is the failing part here. It is the server linkings. Glicko system had its own problems since it was very hard to gain glicko by winning matchups unless you played 24/7 and had landslide victories. I remember we spent probably 2 months on some server winning every matchup with very little progress and were nowhere near being taken as a serious server.

 

Servers just never go full since they have links people can transfer to. So there will always be 1-2 gigastacked servers. Tier 1 servers should all be full with similar population. Of course no1 wants to play against servers that have probably 2000 reserve players ready to log in if any equal opposition arises.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

* The number of servers where already too low for Glicko to work properly back at launch. It needs a larger set of samples to match up appropriate servers against each others.
* This has been reduced with the Linking system, we're effectively half the number of "Worlds".
* Glicko follows the server, and not the link, meaning each time new servers gets linked together, the glicko is wrong.
* Glicko is currently frozen for the Linked servers, meaning they can get placed in weird places when they become hosts, etc.
* That's not even getting into how abusable the glicko system has proven in the past, and how much it encouraged server stacking, guild buying, time-zone coverage. (We want to get away from server stacking, for the health of the game)

It could be adjusted to be more volatile, but at the point where it actually has enough mobility that some servers move each week, you're practically back to 1up-1down.

I'll have to vote no on this.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The goal is more randomized matchups, not accurate glico ratings.   At least in NA, Going from t4 to t1, there's actually more activity in the middle tiers than t1, so chances of blow outs will not be as it was back when they last used it.  Players are much more evenly distributed now, but there is still a problem with guilds chasing tier 4 and moving soon after every relink,  this will help discourage them a bit as they will be right in the mix for facing the servers they avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At that point, you'd be more successful with just having random matchups each week. Simply to make it impossible to predict who your World gets matched against.

 

I think the best thing ANet can do to prevent/stop the "Transfer culture" we have, as well as to make more varied match-ups, is to finish World Restructure/Alliance. Which is to say, that I wouldn't expect a swift change to anything anytime soon.

It would destroy and re-create new worlds every X time, while retaining guilds. There wouldn't be a World to avoid in the same way we have now, it would instead be specific Guilds or Alliances, but not the whole World. And at least as far as they've told us, they plan to disable transfers once you're put into a World, so we should avoid most of the problems we have currently. (We're likely going to get a few new problems, once players get creative enough to game the new system, as usual.)

Would that solve most of your points ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not remember how broken the glicko system was??? I was on SBI back in the first year of the game when we were the top-ranked server, and then we encountered the "mass exodus". Literally every WvW-focused guild left the server, and we were left with a small cluster of PvX guilds. Outside of Bannok tagging up on EBG, we were left with maybe 5-10 players on each borderland map fighting against enemy blobs of 50-80, regardless of the time of day or day of the week. It wasn't out of the ordinary to log on and find that we owned 1-2 camps across all maps. And how long did it take us to finally drop out of T1 after the mass exodus? SIX MONTHS!! It took another year before we finally dropped down into T5 (remember there were 8 tiers back then).

And then you also have to remember all the matches that lasted for months if not years. There are players/guilds now who transfer servers because they have to face Mag for a week. Imagine those matches lasting for an additional 30+ weeks if not longer and see how many players either transfer off and leave behind an empty server, quit the game-mode, or outright quit the game. Glicko is one of the primary reasons Anet was forced to provide us with linked/host servers after the WvW population declined so much.

The only players who would even consider returning to the glicko system are either those who never had to experience it, or those who have forgotten just how bad it really was

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, neven.3785 said:

One up One Down system has been failing in NA and EU because servers are actively trying to avoid tier 1.  This causing server population volatility and a lot of unnecessary drama behind the scenes. 

One up/down might make you lose players for a week but glicko would have you lose players permanently or server hop. It is not a better solution, it also leads to even more stale fights as it further didn't matter if you won or lost since it would mean the same fights weeks after weeks after weeks. No I think you are using a grass is greener back then perspective, it wasn't. Being on SoR when we had mass guild exoduses and then facing months of months falling from T1 to T8 when you could see your own contribution as a percentage of the total of Warscore for a server is not a good thing. No lets keep the up/down, it does a better job even if its off after relinks and will probably be for a while after WR's release till they test that in a live system. Better to let servers drop faster after they lose players versus drive more of them out while things work out.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dawdler.8521 said:

People dont remember how they complained about matchup balance the week before and after every  restructure beta week, how can you expect them to remembers years of WvW?!

Dawdler, that's why us grumpy peeps are here my cynic from another mother. Don't you remember when we could auto-attack one with the stick and kill 50 with auto-attack 1? When AC-1 would wipe 50 in the first shot?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glicko is broken (i.e. reduced to random) since skirmish points are 3-4-5, as the server ranks are closer than their variation. And it was never able to handle the linking, especially servers  switching from main to minor and back.

Btw. Glicko is still used after relink. You can see it's bad results after every relink 😉

 

Edited by Dayra.7405
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

Imagine those matches lasting for an additional 30+ weeks if not longer and see how many players either transfer off and leave behind an empty server, quit the game-mode, or outright quit the game.

In fact, in the EU this has remained forever. If you are one of the 3 unlucky servers, you will get the beautiful experience you described. Every reconnection you have this fantastic opportunity. Only if you are the ''B'' series player for all the other '' A ' series players will it be different. The average player in EU will accept any change, you can go back to the old system or you can switch to alliances or you can choose anything else, which the player in EU will be fine. 

Just never see more Serie A players and Serie B players.

Main reason why the competition loses all meaning.

Edited by Mabi black.1824
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Dawdler, that's why us grumpy peeps are here my cynic from another mother. Don't you remember when we could auto-attack one with the stick and kill 50 with auto-attack 1? When AC-1 would wipe 50 in the first shot?

Who needed to even press 1? I mained a confusion bubble reflect mesmer and let entire zergs kill themselves.

Alas my glorious trotting Norn is now spending her retirement days constantly carrying around about 3752kg of useless materials.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I guess players could use more weekly breaks from WvW again due to bad matchups. 🤷‍♂️🍿

Servers are avoiding T1 for a specific reason, which you very well know of, at least 1u1d keeps them contained, and players can actually choose to avoid them by tanking or ppt their way to clown tier. Now you want to put back the old system which has the chance that even a T4 server would be matched against them any given week? It sucks when certain servers take the hibernating tanking too far, but the majority of servers are enjoying their time in the bottom half of the tiers. Take the links off the full servers then we can talk about random matches.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not fine the way it is.  Perhaps a Perma t4 host server might not see it, but having 5-6 servers constantly taking weeks off the moment their server has a chance to go to t1, or are in t1 is worse than the issues that glico had.  You also have 3 servers worth of players moving around emptying servers because of this in NA.  With the status quo, you have servers imploding at least every other month.   I remember glico drawbacks well, especially from a player who participated in pushes to break the glico walls constantly, the only reason i want the volatility constant high is to prevent that t4 server thrown into a t1 matchup.  If glico walls establish they could adjust the volatility again or reset it each relink.  I want alliances completed too, but i doubt it will be any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only have to look at relink weeks to see how messy it is when servers are randomly thrown into tiers they don't belong in because of previous glicko, you want that every single week? cause most players don't I'm sure. Also back in the glicko days there was 8 tiers, servers would get thrown 2 maybe 3 tiers ahead of where they should be and it would basically be a week off, now when we have 4 tiers even t4 servers will randomly get thrown into t1? So you want to force all players into bad matchups as your way to avoid tanking from bloated servers? But is the problem the 4-5 tanking servers? or the 1-2 bloated ones that still have links and no one wants to face?

At this point we have WR coming, it would be better to revisit glicko then, when servers aren't so unbalanced, when t1 isn't dominated into a wasteland by one server or another, first bg and now mag. Players don't want to face those type of servers anymore, it's best to keep them contained as much as possible from everyone else. Take links off full servers and we can talk about glicko again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, neven.3785 said:

I want alliances completed too, but i doubt it will be any time soon.

But it might be better to have them focus there versus reinstall glicko logic. Remember one of the things that impacted glicko was transfers, they discussed ways to have transfers less impactful with the WR system. We will have to see. But even with the new system, yes people will find ways to try and undermine any programmed balancing, because that is what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that 1U1D is unsatisfactory.  But I also remember Glicko hell.  A hybrid system is needed I think.  I made a post in the old forums about a way to do it during one of the seasons.  And this would be the perfect system to move to when Alliances drops because there will be 8 weeks of matches and then it starts over.  It could also be tested now since we are already in 8-week rotations.  You would need to come up with something besides Glicko to use though since Glicko would make no sense in Alliances.  You could use Anet's population algorithm predictions. 

Here is the post and the actual link to the old forums.  (If you want a great read go through these old forums; there are some awesome threads there):

-----------------------------

I think I’ve come up with the best system to use when making matches for the WvW tournaments. Anet feel free to use this system, I make no claims to it. You could name it after me though – on second thought don’t do that in case it screws a server over, lol.

But seriously, I’ve run several simulations using various match making systems and this is by far the best. Its pretty good – it gives matches with servers close to one another and it provides variety. The best of both worlds.

It is a modified Swiss System. The modification is that it takes into account Glicko rating and puts a limitation on the pairings (or triairings?) that are allowed.

The scoring that seems to work best is 5 points for first place in a match, 3 points for second and 2 points for third.

All servers in a region are in the same pool, i.e. all 24 NA servers and all 27 EU servers. (I didn’t run simulations for EU but it should work there too, someone can feel free to do it).

The first week of the tournament will be determined by Glicko score as usual. The key is that at the start of each subsequent week, instead of simply making the matches by tournament score, you put a limitation in that if two servers Glicko scores differ by X amount then they cannot be matched together.

The other thing that must be done is that each match must be chosen by beginning with the server that has the highest Glicko score and that has not been given a match already. This is important because if you begin the matching using tournament scores, the system falls apart toward the end of week two.

An example for NA. Week 2 is beginning. The first two tier matches have been made and it is time to make the tier three match. Of the available servers, you begin the match by slotting DB. You do this, not because DB has the highest tournament score of the remaining servers, but because DB has the highest Glicko rating of the remaining servers.

To proceed to match servers with DB you then begin to consider tournament score. Of the remaining servers SBI, NSP, DR, DH and EB have the highest tournament score from Week 1 (they each have 5 points from winning Week 1). However only SBI falls within the range of Glicko scores alowed to play DB. So you slot SBI.

You then skip the rest of them and start to look at the remaining servers that have the next highest tournament score. Because this is only Week 2, you look at servers that have 3 points from coming in second in Week 1. Of these remaining servers, FA is next (they have the highest Glicko score of the remaining servers with a tournament score of 3). Since FA is allowed to play both DB and SBI according to the Glicko limitation, you slot FA. So the T3 match for Week 3 is DB/SBI/FA.

And you proceed from there to make the rest of Week 2 matches in the same manner.

-------------------------------

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Modified-Swiss-system-to-fix-WvW-tournaments/first

 

Edited by Johje Holan.4607
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...