Proposal: 4-week relinking period and initial server placement after relink

[Dayra.7405]

While I am a fan of the 4-weeks relinking (and voted for it years ago) I see a bunch of problems in combination with the pseudo-random (I know Glicko is involved in it, but the Glicko of a server is completely unreleated to its strength since linking so it's quite random as well) initial server placement.

If the initial placement put a server into (EU) T5 it cannot even reach T1 in 4 weeks, similar a server placed in T1 cannot even rech T5. That means the 4 weeks are barely sufficient to sort the links by strength, and we don't have any saturation phase anymore where server are placed where they belong and can enjoy play.

How could that be improved?

I think a possibility is to measure the K:D per server (or guild/alliance later on) over some period and (weighted by play hours) average it over all server (guilds).

Put the high KD into the top tier and the low KD into the bottom tiers. This is unlikely be worser than the random placement of WSR into T5 this relink period.

If anyone has a better proposal for the initial placement: your welcome 🙂

Another possibility could be the swiss tournament we had once in wvw-tournaments, but the winner-up/looser-down is to slow for 5 tiers and 4 weeks.

Generally I see 2 possible directions:

• make the initial placement better (that's what the KD is targeting)
• make the sorting faster (that's what the Swiss tournament is targeting)

Edited December 6, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[TheGrimm.5624]

Good topic. I admit I was, probably incorrectly, hoping that part of the unstated 4 week relink is to allow them to get more data points at the player level to test initial placement logic that will be used. In both the WR with and without Alliances I assume they are going to the player level and then rolling those stats up to the Guild and previously the Alliance levels to sort and determine initial placements. I couldn't see a reason where they couldn't test these placements out during the existing relinks by replacing the Alliance level with a server level calculation. But that is assuming a lot I admit. Have to think on this one considering what data they might be collecting versus not. +1 from me.

[XenesisII.1540]

Why would they do any extra work to the current system(they haven't since 1u1d) when WR is right around the corner for them?

Bad random placements due to whacky glicko or whatever after a relink is the exact reason why I thought 4 week relinks right now would be a bad idea. Now you all get to experience it, and will have to live with it until WR. The 4 weeks is also a temporary measure after WR release because transfers will not be available, and whether it stays at 4 weeks after transfers are implemented again is still questionable.

Going forward after WR, which will hopefully distribute the population more evenly, if they are going for actual "seasonal play" then they need to get rid of "tiers"(since every server should be near the same potential playtimes/coverage), and they should be looking into the wvw tournaments format again (round robin or swiss, whatever would work best, but 4 weeks doesn't even sound like it would be enough time for any of it either).

Edited December 6, 2023 by XenesisII.1540

[Dayra.7405]

I am not WSR, we had to experience them last week 🙂. But thats just an actual example, not the reason I wrote this, but maybe the reason why I noted this general problem: halving the 8 weeks unfortunately cuts awas the nicer 4 weeks and leaves the worser ones. (For everyone I guess)

Edited December 6, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[TheGrimm.5624]

If we were just looking for a fix in placements to deal with relink oddities then I could see some system that would use the primary servers previous week ending placement for their new placement and add in logic that could account for a server becoming a host. But the time would better be spent in coming up and testing the algorithms in the WR since they effectively have live fire exercises in server placement every 4 weeks with the new changes. Which I can't say they aren't doing so currently.

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

Seems that things are some one settled in NA but looking at the warscore imbalance in EU that is not even fair and probably not fun to go up against.

[Dayra.7405]

16 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

would use the primary servers

No, we will not have primary servers in the near future. I was pointing to a problem that will occur with guild/alliance-linking as well.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 minutes ago, Dayra.7405 said:

No, we will not have primary servers in the near future. I was pointing to a problem that will occur with guild/alliance-linking as well.

Oh no, I wasn't implying you were. More just saying in general we have had initial placements issues after relinks since forever. 

[Dayra.7405]

29 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Oh no, I wasn't implying you were. More just saying in general we have had initial placements issues after relinks since forever. 

Yes I remember several times where we were placed unlinked in T1 to fall down the long way down to T5, but up to now, we could rely on that they are settled in the first half of the linking and then had better matches in the second half, but now we will get pushed into the next bad initial placements, maybe even before they are settled.

[TheGrimm.5624]

Yeah whenever you see those flipflops. Lower tiers going to T1 after a relink or the opposite where a T1 get put into the bottom tier after a relink, those just tell you the next set of weekly matches are going to be all over the place.

[Dawdler.8521]

I thought the answer was obvious? Back to glicko style which resets at relink and recalculate matchups every week to match the 3 closest in points top to bottom. That way worlds can jump way more than just 1-up-1-down if they dominate or loose hard.

Whether its better or even matters is a different story. Ideally even the link system should create balanced worlds - we know it doesnt, but again, ideally - so that tiers are irrelevant. The very goal of world restructure would be the same. So what if a "T5" world cant get up to "T1"? The tiers should be so similar that it's the same. 

[Riba.3271]

Actual solution instead of trying to make dysfunctional infrastructure even more so:

• Solo servers
• No relinkings
• Delete excess servers
• Lower tiers will stay alive due to cheaper transfers and how easy it is to climb in 1-up-1-down

Result:

• Server communities revive and commanders can train pugs
• Guilds will care more about points and be more involved in server activity due to stable server environment and long-lasting effects on serverwide decisions
• Fair matchmaking: Better be in Tier 4 facing Tier 4 servers than in Tier 4 facing Tier 1 servers
• Worlds that are full, will be full. Underpopulated worlds will be cheap for transfers
• Capturing objectives won't be as shunned since it won't lead to less populated links or even being unlinked.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Riba.3271

[RisingDawn.5796]

6 hours ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said:

Seems that things are some one settled in NA but looking at the warscore imbalance in EU that is not even fair and probably not fun to go up against.

Probably also the problem is the amount of  transfers that happened in the EU, in such a short space of time, even with relinks from this week, being under 3 weeks from changing.

Edited December 7, 2023 by CrimsonOneThree.5682

[XenesisII.1540]

Alrighty... well after seeing toxic chat between natives and a fight guild tonight I guess I welcome 4 week relinks.... 🤷‍♂️😒

[Dawdler.8521]

9 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Actual solution instead of trying to make dysfunctional infrastructure even more so:

• Solo servers
• No relinkings
• Delete excess servers
• Lower tiers will stay alive due to cheaper transfers and how easy it is to climb in 1-up-1-down

Result:

• Server communities revive and commanders can train pugs
• Guilds will care more about points and be more involved in server activity due to stable server environment and long-lasting effects on serverwide decisions
• Fair matchmaking: Better be in Tier 4 facing Tier 4 servers than in Tier 4 facing Tier 1 servers
• Worlds that are full, will be full. Underpopulated worlds will be cheap for transfers
• Capturing objectives won't be as shunned since it won't lead to less populated links or even being unlinked.

Your wishful thinking results seems to have nothing to do with the solutions proposed.

I especially like that the “fixed” server communities is in direct conflict with relying on players to solve the balance issues by transferring.

[Riba.3271]

21 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Your wishful thinking results seems to have nothing to do with the solutions proposed.

Ofc not, how would bad ideas mix with good ones? Matching servers by KDR has nothing to do WvW scoring or playing hours. It wouldn't change any flaws anyways since servers are linked and people transfer anyways. People will just tank KDR like they're doing with score right now. Also KDR isn't implicative of servers activity since 1 person server can easily get 50 kdr, they just need to dive into blob fight, tag people, and die.

21 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

especially like that the “fixed” server communities is in direct conflict with relying on players to solve the balance issues by transferring.

My point isn't to get rid of transfers, it is to allow people to transfer to a server that fits them and make it so that server doesn't get ruined by periodical changes in playerbase. Of course servers will still lose or grain players gradually, but that will be much slower than relinkings and reflect how entertaining they are. The best server for a player or a guild would stay best server for years, rather than 1 or 2 months.

 

This is the power of solo servers. System we already had. Asking for it, but with approriate amount of servers for the playerbase, isn't "wishful" but completely reasonable. They just need to copy paste and adjust some code from the past.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

4 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Alrighty... well after seeing toxic chat between natives and a fight guild tonight I guess I welcome 4 week relinks.... 🤷‍♂️😒

Have lived that a number of times now in my first server, from both sides, the ktrain side and the fight side. Both are limiting their options and impacting others that aren't playing all aspects. Wasn't a fan of being asked off map to allow either more fighters or more people to take empty objectives. It lead to losing the week in different ways.

If you ran into that with SBI and EBAY, I admit, makes me kind of grumpy. 

[Dayra.7405]

11 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Back to glicko style which resets at relink and recalculate matchups every week to match the 3 closest in points top to bottom. That way worlds can jump way more than just 1-up-1-down if they dominate or loose hard.

That's a very good idea for faster sorting as well.

The old problem of Glicko sepaating tiers would be solved by the reset of Glicko with every Relink.

The whitewashing of the 5-4-3 skirkmish score unfortunately also influences Glicko, so maybe a 0. 1, 2 or even a 0, 1, 3 would help Glicko as well.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Gop.8713]

I like that the shorter relink period gives tanking servers less time to manipulate their way down into weaker tiers, but perhaps that's not as much of a problem on EU idk. Tbh it's been a while since I've been a part of a really unbalanced matchup in NA. I don't pay attn to matchups I'm not involved in, so perhaps I've just been lucky . . .

[Mabi black.1824]

21 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

That means the 4 weeks are barely sufficient to sort the links by strength

You're so addicted to how this mechanic works badly (for so many different reasons) that you don't even see the problem anymore. Let's see if we can understand better together. You say it's better 8 weeks than 4 weeks, so at least after the first 4 weeks (lopsided) you can play 4 weeks better. No I'm sorry, this way you're not addressing the problem. You're not asking the right question. 

How can we even imagine 'balanced' matches if we don't address the transfer issue in the first place? How do you put a server with no links in T1 the first week? What are the benchmarks of this algorithm? 

[Dayra.7405]

22 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

How can we even imagine 'balanced' matches if we don't address the transfer issue in the first place?

The guild/alliance system will not have transfers. That’s why the link period is shortened. You will be put into your new WvW-guild only on next relink.

WvW Update: Guild Hall Arenas and World Restructuring Beta:

Team Transfers: Once a match has started, there will not be a way for a player to initiate a transfer between teams. Players will need to wait until the next team-creation event or season to be placed with a different guild. To help mitigate this in the short term, we’ll be reducing the duration of a season from eight weeks to four weeks.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Mabi black.1824]

27 minutes ago, Dayra.7405 said:

The guild/alliance system will not have transfers. That’s why the link period is shortened. You will be put into your new WvW-guild only on next relink.

WvW Update: Guild Hall Arenas and World Restructuring Beta:

Team Transfers: Once a match has started, there will not be a way for a player to initiate a transfer between teams. Players will need to wait until the next team-creation event or season to be placed with a different guild. To help mitigate this in the short term, we’ll be reducing the duration of a season from eight weeks to four weeks.

If you're referring to WR with this post, then you'll have to excuse me I misunderstood. With WR you won't have the problem of 4 or 8 weeks for broken matches. Servers are rebuilt and reshuffled every time. ''The balance'' in terms of flow, coverage, hours of play will be very similar from T1 to T5. What breaks down (for some players) is the purpose, the motivation, the confrontation between servers and communities in the long and medium term.

[gloflop.3510]

I am happy that the op raises an important topic. I agree that it is an issue that one cannot play in t5 if one starts in t1. Solving it by some kind of external measure does in my opinion not work because the purpose of the relink is to redistribute the strength level. So, if I am in a high K/D guild, I might end up with low K/D fellows in one world. The same is true for other measures.

I would instead voice for a quick solution of the other problems by anet and the introduction of alliances as intended with world swapping to a limited extent and with longer link periods.

[TheGrimm.5624]

22 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I thought the answer was obvious? Back to glicko style which resets at relink and recalculate matchups every week to match the 3 closest in points top to bottom. That way worlds can jump way more than just 1-up-1-down if they dominate or loose hard.

Whether its better or even matters is a different story. Ideally even the link system should create balanced worlds - we know it doesnt, but again, ideally - so that tiers are irrelevant. The very goal of world restructure would be the same. So what if a "T5" world cant get up to "T1"? The tiers should be so similar that it's the same. 

Getting initial placement correct is a bit of a deal in a 4 or 8 week mix. Its hard to tell if some of the betas that people see as worked or failed were due to bad initial placements and might have been different if the initial placement worked. This is a similar issue to accounting for not only players, play hours but time of play is important and to some sense tags. Else you might end up with equal numbers on opposite sides of the clocks and the matches are way imbalanced in a given timezone. 

[XenesisII.1540]

18 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Getting initial placement correct is a bit of a deal in a 4 or 8 week mix. Its hard to tell if some of the betas that people see as worked or failed were due to bad initial placements and might have been different if the initial placement worked. This is a similar issue to accounting for not only players, play hours but time of play is important and to some sense tags. Else you might end up with equal numbers on opposite sides of the clocks and the matches are way imbalanced in a given timezone. 

Placement in the betas shouldn't matter, cause like Dawdler mentioned, ideally with the WR system worlds should be closed to "even", more so when they actually start using time zone in the sorting, so what should make the difference is the ppt work put in during the match. But the other problem is because the betas are temporary one week things, people are not going to care to "win" a match, much like the last week before a relink. And then there's the lopsided random ratio of ppt and ppk players in every world. So the betas will feel uneven, we'll only see the full effects of people wanting to win once WR is permanent.

In the current system, placement obviously matters because there's a huge range between populations and activity from T1-T5. But we're moving to WR within maybe the next 6 months. So again really, not much point to a fixed placement after a relink/WR, unless they move to a fix matchup system like a tournament, which they should and get rid of the free styling tier system. KD or KDR is still a bad statistic to base placements on as you'll just have people gaming the system as usual (guess what could happen on the last week of the season, servers already do it for better links), so placements should remain random, and it should potentially be better when WR is fully on. 🤷‍♂️

Edited December 7, 2023 by XenesisII.1540