Imbalance of match complains

[Dayra.7405]

If I look at this weeks normal matches, they are way more imbalanced than the matches of the beta in the last two weeks.

Why do people complain about beta imbalance, but not about normal match imbalance?

[Sahne.6950]

The week after a beta is always imbalanced, because the matchmaker doesnt have proper data to work with.

Next week it will be back to normal.... which is still bad.... but hey.

[Dayra.7405]

8 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

The week after a beta is always imbalanced, because the matchmaker doesnt have proper data to work with.

This is also true for 1st week of beta of course, still it was more balanced and had more imbalance complains.

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 minutes ago, Dayra.7405 said:

If I look at this weeks normal matches, they are way more imbalanced than the matches of the beta in the last two weeks.

Why do people complain about beta imbalance, but not about normal match imbalance?

Beta and normal relinks face the same issues, IMO. This also distorts the betas since is it the sorts or the issues with week 1 placements that create issues. Example, host servers entered beta in T4/3 and landsed in T2 after beta. Is that a beta issue or a mish-mash of code included in the beta? after relinks are rebuilt? In a normal relink week we have seen servers that had been in T1 for weeks land in T3 and T4. So how much of that throws off servers during betas?

[Riba.3271]

Relinking system just doesn't work with 2 month intervals and the fact that link server doesn't share price with main server. It is just too cheap to transfer every 2 months and there are barely any matchups left once linking finds their suitable tier.

This is why linking system fails to find fair matchups. It is unfortunate they replaced completely functional WvW with this.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Dayra.7405]

36 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

It is unfortunate they replaced completely functional WvW with this.

It wasn't functional, we had 1 massively overstacked server, dominating T1, 2 overstacked server loosing against that one, but much to strong for everyting else, a middle field and a lot of ghost matches running (nearly twice as many many matches as we have currently) and the forum opposition was very strong against simply deleting server.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Dayra.7405 said:

Why do people complain about beta imbalance, but not about normal match imbalance?

Because for some it doesn't serve their agenda.

For the ones who enjoy, or did not enjoy (for what ever reason, might even be bad team setup), but realize the potential of the world restructuring system (and its limitations overall so far), it's just not worth the time any more to argue with the nay sayers.

The simple reality is (and I've said this as far back as the earliest discussions when WR was announced 1-2 years back, again): this is happening and the only thing which might prevent it from happening is Arenanets inability to make it happen (aka ditching the project again) which is hardly affected by forum mumbojumbo.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Zok.4956]

3 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

Why do people complain about beta imbalance, but not about normal match imbalance?

Because some people think (wrongly) that this beta is about players testing stuff and giving their beta feedback to Anet. As would be the case with a normal/proper beta.

P.S. Perhaps you are confusing beta feedback with complaints?

Edited June 27, 2023 by Zok.4956

[Thomas.2564]

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

his is why linking system fails to find fair matchups. It is unfortunate they replaced completely functional WvW with this.

Edited 2 hours ago by Riba.3271

Correct!!!!!

[Mabi black.1824]

4 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

If I look at this weeks normal matches, they are way more imbalanced than the matches of the beta in the last two weeks.

Why do people complain about beta imbalance, but not about normal match imbalance?

People who complained about the balance between random teams in the 2 weeks of beta did so without reading the numbers. Because as I have already written, in particular this beta 7 in transverse mod from T1 to T5 in EU was the most balanced ever.

Of course for some, who arrive if overloaded servers with excellent content in terms of effectiveness, they have only complained. Precisely because that content has been redistributed better.

Others of us, however, have snuck here on the forum, to tell you once again, that this design of WR and alliances lacks something. It lacks that part that makes WWW ''magical'' (as someone wrote) being in a great team, feeling part of a great team (we are talking about 2000 players) having more time to make a group. have more time to put all those little pieces together, to make them work better together, and make those little pieces become ''yours'' small pieces.

If you want to make WVW small small, lose that bigger perspective of big teams competing against each other, and reduce everything into what you can consider a single guild, sit down, you've pretty much already done it. 

But,

if you want to use your intellect, open your eyes to something concrete, we still have time to find the right compromise to make the new tools that development is giving us work better. And insert them in the best way within WWW, so that WWW is still world vs world, as it should be.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[hugeboss.5432]

The top 2 ways "unbalanced" occurs in wvw.

1. Population & Coverage (u need a competent map blob of players in minimum 2 different timezones) [Sea+NA mostly]. If a server/team can only cover 1 timezone, it will usually only be able to score a draw at best, but usually it's a losing scenario.

2. KDR (Combat efficiency). Getting totally obliterated against equal numbers of opponents every time means something (it's not random). The enemy has better gear/builds/tactics/organization/movement/experience/+.

- There are a couple of servers that constantly still use "population manipulation" tricks (a type of server blackout from the early-mid years) before relinks, to get a better link. This always causes the first few weeks of relinks to have a severe population & coverage unbalance. The beta seemed to display huge population errors when calculating team strength (moving down a tier ended up meeting a much stronger and more populated team), which I think is a hint of being too easy to manipulate.

- The most essential team combat stat (KDR) is ignored by the match-making & team-rating bot, and that means it will almost always end up making unbalanced matches & wrong team strength ratings.

[As reference, the beta team+match building bot managed to place 2 large "low kdr / non fight guilds" on the same team and put them into T1 :D LOL It can't really be made worse. At this point, even random teams + random initial tier placement would prolly be better and a more enjoyable + fair solution imo. This affects both beta and regular matchups.]

 

 

 

[Mabi black.1824]

37 minutes ago, hugeboss.5432 said:

The top 2 ways "unbalanced" occurs in wvw.

1. Population & Coverage (u need a competent map blob of players in minimum 2 different timezones) [Sea+NA mostly]. If a server/team can only cover 1 timezone, it will usually only be able to score a draw at best, but usually it's a losing scenario.

2. KDR (Combat efficiency). Getting totally obliterated against equal numbers of opponents every time means something (it's not random). The enemy has better gear/builds/tactics/organization/movement/experience/+.

- There are a couple of servers that constantly still use "population manipulation" tricks (a type of server blackout from the early-mid years) before relinks, to get a better link. This always causes the first few weeks of relinks to have a severe population & coverage unbalance. The beta seemed to display huge population errors when calculating team strength (moving down a tier ended up meeting a much stronger and more populated team), which I think is a hint of being too easy to manipulate.

- The most essential team combat stat (KDR) is ignored by the match-making & team-rating bot, and that means it will almost always end up making unbalanced matches & wrong team strength ratings.

[As reference, the beta team+match building bot managed to place 2 large "low kdr / non fight guilds" on the same team and put them into T1 😄 LOL It can't really be made worse. At this point, even random teams + random initial tier placement would prolly be better and a more enjoyable + fair solution imo. This affects both beta and regular matchups.]

 

 

 

Even if your observations are accurate, this leads us to a reasoning to do together. What do we mean by balance between servers? Once you have put the three teams with a similar flow (players and hours of play) your task should be finished. If you go online and find 3 servers with two maps in the queue each one you should be fine. You play your cards and if your opponent is better, he will put you under and go on to win the week. You'll have to admit he was better.

and avoid going to the forum to complain because it is not balanced. Balanced does not mean that no one wins. And it doesn't mean that suddenly your or my gaming skills will suddenly be better.

If you go online and find your map in the queue against 3 maps in the queue, constantly, without ever seeing an alternation of those who have the best numbers, then everything changes. It will be fair to argue that the game lacks balance.

[Zok.4956]

1 hour ago, hugeboss.5432 said:

1. Population & Coverage (u need a competent map blob of players in minimum 2 different timezones) [Sea+NA mostly]. If a server/team can only cover 1 timezone, it will usually only be able to score a draw at best, but usually it's a losing scenario.

Most servers (in know only EU) do not have a 24/7 coverage for the whole matchup week.  If a server has an "early morning crew/comm/zerg" or a "late morning crew/comm/zerg" or an "afternoon crew/comm/zerg" or an "evening crew/comm/zerg " or a "night crew/comm/zerg" and one or both other severs in a matchup don't have that, then the server can dominate during that time of day, enemies will be zerged down and nearly all stuff will be flipped. And from my experience in EU it doesn't matter if you are T1, T2 or T3. It happens on all servers (some more, some less).

The upcoming alliances, as announced, will not solve this problem of strongly fluctuating player numbers during a day.

 

1 hour ago, hugeboss.5432 said:

2. Combat efficiency. Getting totally obliterated against equal numbers of opponents every time means something (it's not random). The enemy has better gear/builds/tactics/organization/movement/experience/+.

I agree. But "equal numbers of opponents" happens (if it even happens) only during a few hours per day/week. It's either zerg-versus-zerg during prime time if all maps have large queues or nearly empty servers during night time when all players are sleeping and if no server has a night crew.

If the player numbers differ too much, skill doesn't matter.

[XenesisII.1540]

11 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

If I look at this weeks normal matches, they are way more imbalanced than the matches of the beta in the last two weeks.

Why do people complain about beta imbalance, but not about normal match imbalance?

We already get regular match complaints on the week after every single relink.... 

It's all pointless anyways. 😐

[ArchonWing.9480]

11 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

This is also true for 1st week of beta of course, still it was more balanced and had more imbalance complains.

 

Could be different people complaining. Like if you were some one on a stacked server normally and ended up on a bad one, etc.

[goldengut.9134]

yeah i don't feel it was balanced our maps were like a ghost town and we were getting destroyed their zergs had 50+ and if we were lucky we had 30+ thats a big mismatch the population for WVW was very low. hell when there's video's on youtube on how bad we were getting beat that says something.  though that was the first WVW beta where i felt it was that bad

[TheQuickFox.3826]

If only there was a way to ditch the server system and move to something that is easier to strive towards balance.

But having said that: also with the alliance system, balance will still be off at times.

[DESOLATION.3514]

double post

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by DESOLATION.3514

[DESOLATION.3514]

i will restart my sentence bcs some words are wrong,  hi . i have ,an question...abt select servers EU,bcs this its just does'nt make sence . piken squar full ? lie . drakkar full ? lie .far shiverpeaks full ? lie . augury rock full ? lie .whiteside ridge full  ?lie .desolation full ? lie . vabbi only medium ? lie. gandara ,sry i mean gankdara just verry high ? lie . and i can continue like that bcs this its just (fcking) insane joke.. so please anet i have a question.    are,      u,     ( kiding),   me   ?  i guess yes so me i think i will do a breack abt this game bcs this its just does'nt make sence ,but totally .

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by DESOLATION.3514

[Tinka M.3964]

We love our WvW, but we're getting tired of it. It cannot be that a server or the link stays full or empty for 1.5 months, because most jump after 2 weeks.

 It's the same with every new re-linking!🤮

The re-linking should be EVERY month and not just every 2 months

or

make a transfer window - jumping from 2 weeks before the re-linking

I know most people will laugh, but I would like the Allianz system to be implemented very, very quickly

Edited July 3, 2023 by Tinka M.3964

[XenesisII.1540]

3 hours ago, DESOLATION.3514 said:

i will restart my sentence bcs some words are wrong,  hi . i have ,an question...abt select servers EU,bcs this its just does'nt make sence . piken squar full ? lie . drakkar full ? lie .far shiverpeaks full ? lie . augury rock full ? lie .whiteside ridge full  ?lie .desolation full ? lie . vabbi only medium ? lie. gandara ,sry i mean gankdara just verry high ? lie . and i can continue like that bcs this its just (fcking) insane joke.. so please anet i have a question.    are,      u,     ( kiding),   me   ?  i guess yes so me i think i will do a breack abt this game bcs this its just does'nt make sence ,but totally .

 

Yeah the entire system is a lie, every server should be listed as medium only, then the servers will truly be balanced.

🤔🍦

[Sonderm.4639]

On 6/27/2023 at 9:41 AM, Sahne.6950 said:

The week after a beta is always imbalanced, because the matchmaker doesnt have proper data to work with.

Next week it will be back to normal.... which is still bad.... but hey.

If only. Just take a look at the matches in tiers 4 and 5. It is mind boggling that they did not simply continue where they left off before the beta and instead put two really dominant server linkings (FOW/GH and UW/Vabbi) in tier 5 after the beta.

[TheGrimm.5624]

45 minutes ago, Sonderm.4639 said:

If only. Just take a look at the matches in tiers 4 and 5. It is mind boggling that they did not simply continue where they left off before the beta and instead put two really dominant server linkings (FOW/GH and UW/Vabbi) in tier 5 after the beta.

Again, I am not certain this is just due to the beta, after any relinking we see servers thrown in the wrong tier after a relink. The app logic that is used for placements after a relink and also applied during betas and after is quite questionable. Its also impacts beta weeks as well which could in part be why people see swings beta to beta not due to changes in the sorting logic but by the logic that was used to place a server in the tier it was placed after a sort. Some of the match variations may be due to the new server was not placed where it should have been. Lack of communication between betas leaves the player base with questions which leads us all to assume and try and black-box theory craft based on what we can observe from the outside. So its hard to tell, but based on history we have seen even without betas that after relinks servers that might have been stable in a tier for 8 weeks may now move 3 tiers from where they were before that. So we see 3 weeks of mixed matches as servers move back to where they should be based on actual match results. 

[Nherro.4528]

https://www.zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=23/28/oaj8.png

 

They have completely abandoned server-to-server fair matches. A picture speaks louder than words. And it is very regularly like that. Where is the difficulty in getting the big mcm servers to play with each other, the medium ones with each other and the small ones with each other? No here it prefers to spoil the game of several players for several weeks. So much so that we don't even want to go back.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Nherro.4528

[Leger.3724]

The beta matches had more people playing and then the other problem is that with the beta ending it seems like we're doing a complete showing to rebalance the servers as they were.

The next beta better test something meaningful and not just a "lets shake things up". Do or don't shake up servers. Do or don't double rewards. Those are choices that don't require a beta.

Don't test it and then have all the servers thrown into a hat after its over so that over the next 4-6 weeks the old servers can rebalance to where they were at before the beta.You're just going to cause more people to leave and never come back. Beta test something significant. Changes to combat. Changes to scaling of zergs. Maybe change how different objectives can be upgraded and fortified and how much siege you can stuff in them. Test something meaningful.

While there was nothing wrong with the beta the weeks after have been a complete and unmitigated disaster. And we also learned nothing.

Next time the devs decided to completely kitten over matchmaking for 10 weeks... try to get something achieved. Slight rebalancing of server pops by describing them as "alliances" achieved nothing.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Leger.3724