Tie Breaking System

[murdermonkey.1245]

Please keep your statements general in nature (no mention of specific servers or match ups) I'd like this thread to be open for as long as possible.

WvW needs a tie breaking system, whether it be using the winner of the last skirmish to move up and down on the ladder or warscore/glicko.  I would like to know if it was intended to leave the players to their own devices in this regard or whether it was just an oversight from changing the scoring.  Also, will we see a tie breaking mechanic added?  

[kanderous.7512]

In case of a tie

The one with the higher KDR goes up.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

When you realize that winning and losing is a choice made by the WvW Illuminati 💀

[neven.3785]

I have no issues with the current system, it seems fair.  Why waste dev time on something this temporary.  They could simply just go to randomized matchups using their old system, or just stick with the status quo while alliances get hashed out

[murdermonkey.1245]

 

1 hour ago, neven.3785 said:

I have no issues with the current system, it seems fair.  Why waste dev time on something this temporary.  They could simply just go to randomized matchups using their old system, or just stick with the status quo while alliances get hashed out

I understand your point, I'd be just fine with random matches with an odd beta week or two here and there.  But there should imo never be a case where 2 servers can lock 7 into place.  It is so unhealthy for the game mode which is already low in population.  I think temporary depends on your view.  I can remember when alliances were first mentioned way back at the end of Season 2.  I'll just say I'm not on the hopium train as far as alliances are concerned. (we will get them.. eventually)

Edited May 20, 2023 by murdermonkey.1245
sm add

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

there needs to be actually be rewards for winning the match and more rewards for higher tiers before Tie Breakers ... if there's no incentive to win or go up a tier, then what's the point of a tie breaker? If there's no incentive to stay in the higher tier, then servers will still intentionally lose. if there's no incentive to go up a tier, then servers will tie. but servers will complain about population imbalance if there are these rewards, so Anet has to finish the Alliance system first. and it still might not be worth investing time in tie breakers.

they could also do away with the tier system altogether, and make the season more like a regular season in american professional sports, simply making sure that each server faces each other server, and then at the end of the season, a post-season series would be based by season standing. (ie, like how skirmishes reward points for the match, but then matches would reward points for the season, then the post season would determine the season winner with tiers and up/down) but that could also lengthen seasons, so regular seasons would have to be (hypothetically)  6 weeks, and post season 2 weeks, to maintain the current 8 week team makeups.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Forgotten Legend.9281

[andrewlcl.8176]

There's no need for a tie-breaking system. I'm just curious to see how long people will keep up these shenanigans. 

[murdermonkey.1245]

5 minutes ago, andrewlcl.8176 said:

There's no need for a tie-breaking system. I'm just curious to see how long people will keep up these shenanigans. 

well I think in theory they could do it if they wanted for the duration of a link.  think about that for a minute - digest - still think we don't need one?

[murdermonkey.1245]

9 minutes ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

there needs to be actually be rewards for winning the match and more rewards for higher tiers before Tie Breakers ... if there's no incentive to win or go up a tier, then what's the point of a tie breaker? If there's no incentive to stay in the higher tier, then servers will still intentionally lose. if there's no incentive to go up a tier, then servers will tie. but servers will complain about population imbalance if there are these rewards, so Anet has to finish the Alliance system first. and it still might not be worth investing time in tie breakers.

they could also do away with the tier system altogether, and make the season more like a regular season in american professional sports, simply making sure that each server faces each other server, and then at the end of the season, a post-season series would be based by season standing. (ie, like how skirmishes reward points for the match, but then matches would reward points for the season, then the post season would determine the season winner with tiers and up/down) but that could also lengthen seasons, so regular seasons would have to be (hypothetically)  6 weeks, and post season 2 weeks, to maintain the current 8 week team makeups.

I totally agree we need better rewards and have needed it for a long time.  I don't dispute that.  The point is that a tie shouldn't even be a thing regardless of rewards or alliances.  And as far as I can remember has never been a thing until now either  because the scoring was set up differently or because you couldn't actually get 2 servers to do it.  

[andrewlcl.8176]

8 minutes ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

well I think in theory they could do it if they wanted for the duration of a link.  think about that for a minute - digest - still think we don't need one?

Well I mean we could suggest it's implementation, considering this might move at the speed of mud. The question is whether we should just wait for Alliances, which itself is taking awhile to crystallise. 

[murdermonkey.1245]

Just now, andrewlcl.8176 said:

Well I mean we could suggest it's implementation, considering this might move at the speed of mud. The question is whether we should just wait for Alliances, which itself is taking awhile to crystallise. 

Right, totally understand what you're saying.  Which is why I say we need it.  For all we know it could take another year or more to actually get alliances.

[Dayra.7405]

Probably a simple die-roll deciding the order (blue higher tier, red higher tier, green lower tier, blue lower tier) between the 3 (to 4, both tiers could theoretically have a tie) involved server is better than doing nothing.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

The point is that a tie shouldn't even be a thing regardless of rewards or alliances.

Why though?  What would be fair about two servers being unable to tie?  Things like Warscore and Glicko mean the winnner of a match is always decided before the end.  That would disincentivize play near and at the end of a match.

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

well I think in theory they could do it if they wanted for the duration of a link.  think about that for a minute - digest - still think we don't need one?

Anyone can do anything for the duration of a link.  A server don't like their link?  Tank for the entire time.  Go play on alts.  A full server doesn't have a link and wants to open up?  Tank.

These aren't reasons to mess with the tie mechanic.

[Bristingr.5034]

4 hours ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

well I think in theory they could do it if they wanted for the duration of a link.  think about that for a minute - digest - still think we don't need one?

Ahh, the year of the T1... good times. Good times. BG, TC, and JQ all perma-locked in T1 for a year because of the old glicko scores... I think that's what led to the +1/-1 system? 

[Xenesis.6389]

They should also prevent spawn camping... You know, just to be fair to every server that goes against this one server...

Btw, the lock up isn't affecting 7 servers, only 1.

😏🍿

[MedievalThings.5417]

5 hours ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

 

I understand your point, I'd be just fine with random matches with an odd beta week or two here and there.  But there should imo never be a case where 2 servers can lock 7 into place.  It is so unhealthy for the game mode which is already low in population.  I think temporary depends on your view.  I can remember when alliances were first mentioned way back at the end of Season 2.  I'll just say I'm not on the hopium train as far as alliances are concerned. (we will get them.. eventually)

What is unhealthy, is 1 up 1 down.  It allows even full servers to drop to tiers where there are none.  A system easily abused by large groups who do nothing but hold SMC and not defend anything else to drop to lower tiers for easier fights.

[Kayowin.9217]

6 hours ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

 

I understand your point, I'd be just fine with random matches with an odd beta week or two here and there.  But there should imo never be a case where 2 servers can lock 7 into place.  It is so unhealthy for the game mode which is already low in population.  I think temporary depends on your view.  I can remember when alliances were first mentioned way back at the end of Season 2.  I'll just say I'm not on the hopium train as far as alliances are concerned. (we will get them.. eventually)

Unhealthy for the game mode?  I think in this ONE SPECIFIC CASE, it's been the best thing to happen to the game mode for a LONG time.   There has been more activity and fun to be had since the last beta or no downstate week.  (Or the 2 days of the silly Pogo Stick Vindi buff) Its nice when players can make creative use of the system to counter others tanking or for the purpose of fixing community problems.

[murdermonkey.1245]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

They should also prevent spawn camping... You know, just to be fair to every server that goes against this one server...

Btw, the lock up isn't affecting 7 servers, only 1.

😏🍿

That is in fact not true.  It effects the tier being tied + the tier above/below.  My bad then only 5 servers.

I also don't like spawn camping(also if you think your server hasn't done it; I can assure that you are wrong), there are things built into the game for that (3 ways out of spawn + other bls to play on.)

Edited May 20, 2023 by murdermonkey.1245
sm add

[murdermonkey.1245]

5 minutes ago, Kayowin.9217 said:

Unhealthy for the game mode?  I think in this ONE SPECIFIC CASE, it's been the best thing to happen to the game mode for a LONG time.   There has been more activity and fun to be had since the last beta or no downstate week.  (Or the 2 days of the silly Pogo Stick Vindi buff) Its nice when players can make creative use of the system to counter others tanking or for the purpose of fixing community problems.

Forcing people from other servers to not play or to quit the game is healthy?  I can remember a time when we didn't need links for people to have somewhat equal populations.  When there we tons of guilds to play against.  WvW is a shadow of what it once was and you want more people to leave?  I get it, X server has done bad things over the years, but then every server has and if you don't think yours has I have a pile of gold I"ll give you.

[murdermonkey.1245]

1 hour ago, Ubi.4136 said:

What is unhealthy, is 1 up 1 down.  It allows even full servers to drop to tiers where there are none.  A system easily abused by large groups who do nothing but hold SMC and not defend anything else to drop to lower tiers for easier fights.

I agree, but you can't force people to play the game.  If the matches get stale people go do something else or play something else.  When there is content or something new they come back.

Edited May 20, 2023 by murdermonkey.1245
word change

[blp.3489]

2 minutes ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

That is in fact not true.  It effects the tier being tied + the tier above/below.  My bad then only 5 servers.

In the case of tier 1 the first and second place servers stay anyway so they aren't affected, in tier 2 the two tied servers are staying there by their own choice to tie, so they can't be said to be adversely affected, and the tier 2 third place server still goes down so they aren't affected.  It seems that the only server "adversely affected" is the tier 1 server that wants to go down to tier 2.  Is "the right to lose" really such a worthwhile thing that the devs should get involved?  In the sense that being in tier 1 is supposed to be a good thing the desire of a server to go down a tier seems to be the real problem.

[Kayowin.9217]

10 minutes ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

Forcing people from other servers to not play or to quit the game is healthy?  I can remember a time when we didn't need links for people to have somewhat equal populations.  When there we tons of guilds to play against.  WvW is a shadow of what it once was and you want more people to leave?  I get it, X server has done bad things over the years, but then every server has and if you don't think yours has I have a pile of gold I"ll give you.

I don't see the "forcing people from other servers to not play or quit"?   Where is that coming from?   I don't think that's the topic of discussion here or relevant to the conversation.  

[Xenesis.6389]

15 hours ago, murdermonkey.1245 said:

That is in fact not true.  It effects the tier being tied + the tier above/below.  My bad then only 5 servers.

I also don't like spawn camping, there are things built into the game for that (3 ways out of spawn + other bls to play on.)

No it only affects that particular server that's losing, the 4 others are winning and I'm pretty sure are happy with their positioning and the affect it's having on that one server. These three weeks of blocking doesn't even come close to the mess that server did to T1 for a year. 

As for the spawn camping, I personally don't care either way I'm just being a argumentative kitten pointing it out. When I was on mag years ago I hated when it happened, I use to sit in the keep watching and waiting for the enemy to break through so we could get back to fighting in the field over objectives and not scraps trickling out of spawn. It's the morale breaking that's the issue and beating other servers down for that long in that way has consequences, one of which is, you won't find a drop sympathy for your plight when it's reversed. It was the same with BG when they were over stacked and ruled T1 for all those years.

You have another week to deal with it, I'm sure the relinks next week will shake it up enough to break the blocking with random server placements and servers needing to settle in their proper tiers. It would be a miracle for servers to repeat it again the next two months. But let it be a lesson on how you treat others, yeah it's a war game, but there's lines you should maintain, many commanders and guilds figured that out years ago, hence why they don't usually cover maps fully in their color anymore.

🤷‍♂️🍿

Edited May 21, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[murdermonkey.1245]

1 minute ago, blp.3489 said:

In the case of tier 1 the first and second place servers stay anyway so they aren't affected, in tier 2 the two tied servers are staying there by their own choice to tie, so they can't be said to be adversely affected, and the tier 2 third place server still goes down so they aren't affected.  It seems that the only server "adversely affected" is the tier 1 server that wants to go down to tier 2.  Is "the right to lose" really such a worthwhile thing that the devs should get involved?  In the sense that being in tier 1 is supposed to be a good thing the desire of a server to go down a tier seems to be the real problem.

I understand your point, the 2 full servers will be there anyway so what does it matter?  To me, it matters in the respect of having a "fresh" server to play against.