Worlds Restructuring: Finally competitive environment?

[Riba.3271]

World Restructuring has been intended to bring better balance between servers together. And it is true, we havent seen 2 kdr servers or landslide victories of over 50 skirmish points ahead. Those were pretty much expected in the old system and restructuring definitely looks and feels much more balanced.

World Restructuring has brought us in a situation where player distribution will be somewhat fair now, but there are still some infrastuctural changes necessary to bring WvW so it feels truly fair regardless of a situation:

1. Matchmaking: While 1-up-1-down might be have decent system at managing longer team assignment periods and diverse matchmaking, this just isn't true after Restructuring. At start of Restructuring, each server has somewhat same potential. So initial week passes, and after that winners face losers. It would just be so much better matchmaking for winners to face winners. In addition to this 40% of EU, and 50% of NA tiers, will have only 1 new server to face against. The matchups are stale and unfair. Winner after initial fair team assignment, will almost always beat 2 losers. It is quite clearly that with 4 weekly team assignments, the optimal system for WvW after restructuring would be tournament matchmaking where winners face winners and losers losers. Do we demand more rewards? Not really even though it is welcome, but we need good matchups and opportunity to show we're the best. Currently it is so bad that if we start in EU T5, we will never even face the T1 servers during the 4 weeks.
2. Borderlands. Desert map is vastly different from alpine maps in both design and popularity. This obviously leads to a situation where your whole WvW experience and matchups are both decided by what map you get. It would just fair, if each side had a borderland of equal terrain and popularity. It is time to choose what is best for the gamemode over catering to people who have traumas about maps with too many or any enemies.
3. Objective Auras: Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage, it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power when they can already utilize tactivators, respawns, siege, first engage and keep portal to their advantage. Objective auras need a large reduction in their potency or even complete rework, so combat itself can fairer. Defenders will still have access to  massive combat and strategy advantage alongside multiple opportunities to kill the assaulters. Even when roaming, fighting open field, or GvGing, you really don't think its fair or fun for nearest tower or camp to provide one side almost 15% worth of damage from stats.
4. Shield generators: If think about all the siege, only ones that are not countered by generators are rams and melee golems. This means everytime you build trebs, ballistas, omegas, arrow carts or catas to defend, destroy or take something, you shouldn't because smart enemy can just counter it. Well, while WvW playerbase has kinda proven it isn't smart enough to spam the most overpowered siege everywhere, it still remains a balance problem and the main reason why almost all commanders use exclusively melee siege. For competitive environment, you need options, so shield gens need a big rework. What I would suggest, is to change the bubble from targeted to occur around the shield gen, and limit shield gens to 1 per twice the radius. This way they still have use, but they won't be permanent.

These 4 changes would make WvW so, that you will feel that who you fight is fair and the fight is fair regardless of where you fight or what colour you are.

Edited January 20 by Riba.3271

[Dawdler.8521]

9 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Matchmaking: While 1-up-1-down might be have decent system at managing longer team assignment periods and diverse matchmaking, this just isn't true after Restructuring. At start of Restructuring, each server has somewhat same potential. So initial week passes, and after that winners face losers. It would just be so much better matchmaking for winners to face winners. In addition to this 40% of EU, and 50% of NA tiers, will have only 1 new server to face against. The matchups are stale and unfair. Winner after initial fair team assignment, will almost always beat 2 losers. It is quite clearly that with 4 weekly team assignments, the optimal system for WvW after restructuring would be tournament matchmaking where winners face winners and losers losers. Do we demand more rewards? Not really even though it is welcome, but we need good matchups and opportunity to show we're the best. Currently it is so bad that if we start in EU T5, we will never even face the T1 servers during the 4 weeks.

For the link system and 4 weeks this is a problem since tiers are inherited (which can seriously mess up initial placement of newly linked worlds) but for WR... Tiers are far more diffuse. I dont think one should even look at them and instead look at weeks - "victory" in a season, if we can call it a victory, would be just 4 weeks of of winning matches. Climbing from T5 to T2 or climbing from T4 to T1 is basicly the same victory. 

But if we really want to adjust for 4 weeks and assume T4-T1 climb is possible for that "ultimate" T1 fight at the end, then the answer is quite simple - 4 tiers in the EU, just as NA. And unlike linking, WR makes that easy. 

But tbh I would like see WvW stat pages start listing guilds and their wins for their team, rather than focusing so much on tiers (ie in season X the team Y consisting of guilds A/B/C/D won 4 out of 4 matchups).

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

World Restructuring has been intended to bring better balance between servers together. And it is true, we havent seen 2 kdr servers or landslide victories of over 50 skirmish points ahead. Those were pretty much expected in the old system and restructuring definitely looks and feels much more balanced.

Really now? https://i.imgur.com/HB4lxuo.jpg

Don't think I've ever seen 2.0 kdr in regular matches other than like reset night.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

(ie in season X the team Y consisting of guilds A/B/C/D won 4 out of 4 matchups)

In what sense? because guild a-b-c-d count as 500 players while guild e-f-g-h count as 100 players. Therefore? help me understand how you want to build a credible competition or confrontation in this pvp game mode.

Edited January 20 by Mabi black.1824

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

 

1. Matchmaking: While 1-up-1-down might be have decent system at managing longer team assignment periods and diverse matchmaking, this just isn't true after Restructuring. At start of Restructuring, each server has somewhat same potential. So initial week passes, and after that winners face losers. It would just be so much better matchmaking for winners to face winners. In addition to this 40% of EU, and 50% of NA tiers, will have only 1 new server to face against. The matchups are stale and unfair. Winner after initial fair team assignment, will almost always beat 2 losers. It is quite clearly that with 4 weekly team assignments, the optimal system for WvW after restructuring would be tournament matchmaking where winners face winners and losers losers. Do we demand more rewards? Not really even though it is welcome, but we need good matchups and opportunity to show we're the best. Currently it is so bad that if we start in EU T5, we will never even face the T1 servers during the 4 weeks.

This is the point of this week's tests. We just started it. Why not come back on this after it. Normally after a relink it takes 4 weeks for servers to land where they should have. This is the other bit of coding they stated they are working on which is the initial placement. So even just running two weeks this is a rather light test. Another factor that is hard to measure is how a server would have landed versus what they faced versus what they didn't. I think pulling the trigger on 1 up and 1 down based on initial placement weeks data is a bit early in assumptions you are making. 

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Borderlands. Desert map is vastly different from alpine maps in both design and popularity. This obviously leads to a situation where your whole WvW experience and matchups are both decided by what map you get. It would just fair, if each side had a borderland of equal terrain and popularity. It is time to choose what is best for the gamemode over catering to people who have traumas about maps with too many or any enemies.

HBLs being all the same is one of the reasons we lost people to the game mode. So if you are going for remove one of the other ABLs for a new map, I agree. In in the tests have seen EBG and then DBL queue followed by ABLs. So your mileage varies here. I think at this point the concept of HBLs has also aged out. Bring on 4 different 3 sided maps. Note different so that players need to know them and not just go on auto pilot. Attack at x. Cata spot? Cata spot. OTW. This is how we have so much scout reporting of [Structure Name]. Keeps need to be keeps not just oversized towers that can be taken with just one set of siege for both inner and outer. You want a fight at both walls. That's what makes fights in SMC and DBL more interesting since it actually takes more effort to take them versus 46 players watching 4 others tear down 2 walls from same siege placement.

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Objective Auras: Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage,

Have we? What were you basing this on? Per various threads and in game not sure I would count this one as done personally.

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power when they can already utilize tactivators, respawns, siege, first engage and keep portal to their advantage. Objective auras need a large reduction in their potency or even complete rework, so combat itself can fairer. Defenders will still have access to  massive combat and strategy advantage alongside multiple opportunities to kill the assaulters. Even when roaming, fighting open field, or GvGing, you really don't think its fair or fun for nearest tower or camp to provide one side almost 15% worth of damage from stats.

I am still not seeing this mass advantage you allude to each time you bring this up. Don't share the math in the buff, I agree its a boost. What numbers are you attacking with and what number of defenders are pushing you off? Is your attacking side not boon sharing? Are your groups not using Havocs and Roamers to slow defenders from responding to the objective under attack?

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Shield generators: If think about all the siege, only ones that are not countered by generators are rams and melee golems. This means everytime you build trebs, ballistas, omegas, arrow carts or catas to defend, destroy or take something, you shouldn't because smart enemy can just counter it. Well, while WvW playerbase has kinda proven it isn't smart enough to spam the most overpowered siege everywhere, it still remains a balance problem and the main reason why almost all commanders use exclusively melee siege. For competitive environment, you need options, so shield gens need a big rework. What I would suggest, is to change the bubble from targeted to occur around the shield gen, and limit shield gens to 1 per twice the radius. This way they still have use, but they won't be permanent.

Siege needs a review and adjustment on a number of issues but that is a topic all on its own. tl;dr version we could use changes, additions and adjustments that make sense for siege on siege, siege on player, siege vs gates and walls and allows for more options that create new tactics on old maps. 

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

These 4 changes would make WvW so, that you will feel that who you fight is fair and the fight is fair regardless of where you fight or what colour you are.

I don't think WvW would ever be fair. Nor can it ever be balanced. It allows for 50v50v50 and 50v50v1. That's also what adds fun. Its the unknown and that unknown requires changes in tactics and keeps things fresh. For Tags, Havocs and Roamers, that not sameness is what keeps players creating content and having to adjust to the changing landscape. 

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

In what sense? because guild a-b-c-d count as 500 players while guild e-f-g-h count as 100 players. Therefore? help me understand how you want to build a credible competition or confrontation in this pvp game mode.

In what sense what? It was a pretty high orbit view of an idea and has nothing to do with player counts. Just what guilds are on which team that season. I didnt literally mean 4 guilds if that's what you think. This is presuming the API will be able pull out which world guilds are assigned to and maybe that the API can pull guild member count then one could even sort them by size too.

[Riba.3271]

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

For the link system and 4 weeks this is a problem since tiers are inherited (which can seriously mess up initial placement of newly linked worlds) but for WR... Tiers are far more diffuse. I dont think one should even look at them and instead look at weeks - "victory" in a season, if we can call it a victory, would be just 4 weeks of of winning matches. Climbing from T5 to T2 or climbing from T4 to T1 is basicly the same victory. 

It is about fair matchmaking. If you win 3 matchups to tier 2, and your 4th week is facing 5th and 6th strongest servers instead of tier 1 servers, there is something wrong with that. (3 of the top 5 will be in tier 1).

You can be the strongest server and the best matchup in a whole month you will get is 5th and 6th place servers even if you keep winning. I don't think I need to explain more that 5th place server cannot give 1st place server a fair match. If 4th week is still that unbalanced, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd weeks are much much worse. 1-up-1-down just converges way too slowly into competitive matchups.

4 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But if we really want to adjust for 4 weeks and assume T4-T1 climb is possible for that "ultimate" T1 fight at the end, then the answer is quite simple - 4 tiers in the EU, just as NA. And unlike linking, WR makes that easy. 

 

Even if you put 4 tiers in EU WvW, you're gonna have 3 thrash matchups, just to face something good on the 4th week. 2 of those thrash weeks could become great weeks, with just little bit of tweaking.

3 bad weeks - 1 good week (0.333 good weeks/1 bad week)

vs

3 good weeks - 1 bad week (3 good weeks/1 bad week)

Thats 9 times better ratio on good weeks to bad weeks. From that, even you should be able to see why faster converging matchmaking algorithm is important.

3 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

World Restructuring has been intended to bring better balance between servers together. And it is true, we havent seen 2 kdr servers or landslide victories of over 50 skirmish points ahead. Those were pretty much expected in the old system and restructuring definitely looks and feels much more balanced.

Really now? https://i.imgur.com/HB4lxuo.jpg

Don't think I've ever seen 2.0 kdr in regular matches other than like reset night.

In your image highest KDR is 1.4, I am not sure where your 2.0 KDR is from. Of course there are some better performing servers due to guild inactivity or quality differences.

Edited January 20 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

 

1. Matchmaking: While 1-up-1-down might be have decent system at managing longer team assignment periods and diverse matchmaking, this just isn't true after Restructuring. At start of Restructuring, each server has somewhat same potential. So initial week passes, and after that winners face losers. It would just be so much better matchmaking for winners to face winners. In addition to this 40% of EU, and 50% of NA tiers, will have only 1 new server to face against. The matchups are stale and unfair. Winner after initial fair team assignment, will almost always beat 2 losers. It is quite clearly that with 4 weekly team assignments, the optimal system for WvW after restructuring would be tournament matchmaking where winners face winners and losers losers. Do we demand more rewards? Not really even though it is welcome, but we need good matchups and opportunity to show we're the best. Currently it is so bad that if we start in EU T5, we will never even face the T1 servers during the 4 weeks.

This is the point of this week's tests. We just started it. Why not come back on this after it. Normally after a relink it takes 4 weeks for servers to land where they should have. This is the other bit of coding they stated they are working on which is the initial placement. So even just running two weeks this is a rather light test. Another factor that is hard to measure is how a server would have landed versus what they faced versus what they didn't. I think pulling the trigger on 1 up and 1 down based on initial placement weeks data is a bit early in assumptions you are making. 

??? Only way  1-up-1-down would be even removely close is if they intentionally make certain servers weaker and other stronger before Restructuring the servers. If there is a chance that weakest server can be 4 weeks away from lowest tier, and strongest server 4 weeks away from highest as well, then obviously 1-up-1-down won't work. The great matchups can't be that many weeks away in a system that only lasts 4 weeks.

Also one charasteristic of 1-up-1-down is that matchups consist of winner - 2nd place - 3rd place. If each server is initially designed to be equally strong, then the placement of the first week will reflect their efficiency and activity the following week. It just isn't great to put very inefficient servers against very efficient servers. Its like putting heavy weights to fight against lightweights. It won't be a competition, but a slaughter.

You definitely need to think about this more. There is no pulling rug too early. If you can have a sytem where matchups become closer several times faster, of course you should opt for it.

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Borderlands. Desert map is vastly different from alpine maps in both design and popularity. This obviously leads to a situation where your whole WvW experience and matchups are both decided by what map you get. It would just fair, if each side had a borderland of equal terrain and popularity. It is time to choose what is best for the gamemode over catering to people who have traumas about maps with too many or any enemies.

HBLs being all the same is one of the reasons we lost people to the game mode. So if you are going for remove one of the other ABLs for a new map, I agree. In in the tests have seen EBG and then DBL queue followed by ABLs. So your mileage varies here. I think at this point the concept of HBLs has also aged out. Bring on 4 different 3 sided maps. Note different so that players need to know them and not just go on auto pilot. Attack at x. Cata spot? Cata spot. OTW. This is how we have so much scout reporting of [Structure Name]. Keeps need to be keeps not just oversized towers that can be taken with just one set of siege for both inner and outer. You want a fight at both walls. That's what makes fights in SMC and DBL more interesting since it actually takes more effort to take them versus 46 players watching 4 others tear down 2 walls from same siege placement.

Yes, I don't care how the system is made, as long as it is fair, and there will be enough playerbase for me to compete.

One side having desert map is just not fun or competitive. I do agree there should be higher ratio of 3-way maps compared to home maps. I just don't think we should be asking from developers too much. Maybe 2 EBs, 3 alpines, 1 less tier. Fair and lot of action.

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Objective Auras: Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage,

Have we? What were you basing this on? Per various threads and in game not sure I would count this one as done personally.

Well, honestly I can see my current relinking server struggling with numbers compared to enemies. But it doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to overcome it by building base of 15-20 players and commanding decent amount. This is much less than difference between some of the stacked and underpopulated servers of the previous system. Now difference is just 1 persons effort, when in the past we had servers with 4 map queues vs 0 map queues.

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power when they can already utilize tactivators, respawns, siege, first engage and keep portal to their advantage. Objective auras need a large reduction in their potency or even complete rework, so combat itself can fairer. Defenders will still have access to  massive combat and strategy advantage alongside multiple opportunities to kill the assaulters. Even when roaming, fighting open field, or GvGing, you really don't think its fair or fun for nearest tower or camp to provide one side almost 15% worth of damage from stats.

I am still not seeing this mass advantage you allude to each time you bring this up. Don't share the math in the buff, I agree its a boost. What numbers are you attacking with and what number of defenders are pushing you off? Is your attacking side not boon sharing? Are your groups not using Havocs and Roamers to slow defenders from responding to the objective under attack?

I would use commanding as example here, and I have around 8000 hours doing it, lot of it before objective auras were added. Enemy can be the most stacked server in EU WvW with the best commander, and they can't take T3 keep against random rubble.. It is up to a point where the game becomes boring. I know if enemy has somewhat organised commander, I can't take their T3 tower or keep, and they can't take mine. Even when one side can kill the other on open field without losing 1 player. So we run around taking meaningless wooden objectives because enemy has to come fight else they're bored.

Same applies when I am roaming: I fight 1vs1, enemy survives with 3k hp, and surprise, claim buff gave him 400 stats, which is more than enough time to do 4k more. If I have the claim buff, then he loses stats, and I gain them, thus I faceroll him. It is just boring, 400 stats worth is massive amount. It is like 1 big chonker ability, and my kit has only couple of those.

Anyways, if you still don't believe in Objective Auras having a big impact, then take 400 to 800 stats away from your build. Try how it feels. Then multiply that feeling by 2 times, because it isn't unusual for the stats to change sides. You're welcome.

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1. Shield generators: If think about all the siege, only ones that are not countered by generators are rams and melee golems. This means everytime you build trebs, ballistas, omegas, arrow carts or catas to defend, destroy or take something, you shouldn't because smart enemy can just counter it. Well, while WvW playerbase has kinda proven it isn't smart enough to spam the most overpowered siege everywhere, it still remains a balance problem and the main reason why almost all commanders use exclusively melee siege. For competitive environment, you need options, so shield gens need a big rework. What I would suggest, is to change the bubble from targeted to occur around the shield gen, and limit shield gens to 1 per twice the radius. This way they still have use, but they won't be permanent.

Siege needs a review and adjustment on a number of issues but that is a topic all on its own. tl;dr version we could use changes, additions and adjustments that make sense for siege on siege, siege on player, siege vs gates and walls and allows for more options that create new tactics on old maps. 

Yes, but maps are already designed with strategical siege locations in mind. Those are just not used because shield gens, and objective auras kinda force you away from long-range catas and trebs. You're supposed to rush in an objective because defenders are stronger and more numerous (from motivation of higher winrate at friendly objectives) at those places. This makes your sieging strategies limited to rushing ones. So objective auras are the biggest deterrant to trebbing, because if even if you do it, you won't get a good fair fight, but shield gens are the main reason why so many siege weapons or spots should never be used. All you need is 1 smart enemy, and their effectiveness is cut in half or even less.

  

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

5 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

These 4 changes would make WvW so, that you will feel that who you fight is fair and the fight is fair regardless of where you fight or what colour you are.

I don't think WvW would ever be fair. Nor can it ever be balanced. It allows for 50v50v50 and 50v50v1. That's also what adds fun. Its the unknown and that unknown requires changes in tactics and keeps things fresh. For Tags, Havocs and Roamers, that not sameness is what keeps players creating content and having to adjust to the changing landscape. 

Well, you can't balance around 1 vs 20 and expect 20 vs 20 balance to be good. It isn't unfair when you have less people, it most likely just means you didn't build the timezone or communicate well enough. What is unfair is when one side has massive advantage either in home map, stats or past matchup performance. If my server lost, it is fair that my server faces against server that lost as well. If I won, it is fair that I face against a server that won as well. It isn't competitive or fun that winners get given extremely easy matchups and losers extremely hard ones.

Edited January 20 by Riba.3271

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

In your image highest KDR is 1.4, I am not sure where your 2.0 KDR is from. Of course there are some better performing servers due to guild inactivity or quality differences.

Your original post says 2 kdr servers, is there another meaning for this?

[Riba.3271]

3 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Your original post says 2 kdr servers, is there another meaning for this?

I see there has been an misunderstanding. Let me quote my original post

6 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

we havent seen 2 kdr servers or landslide victories of over 50 skirmish points ahead. Those were pretty much expected in the old system

Sorry, I didn't understand your misunderstanding earlier.

So your screenshot kind of just confirmed that the new system is more balanced.

Edited January 20 by Riba.3271

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

So your screenshot kind of just confirmed that the new system is more balanced.

No it didn't it's the same thing, there's people complaining about being outnumbered, there were still 50-70 victory point gaps in the middle of the week, that screen wasn't even at the end of the match. And one match had a 0.7 gap in kdr.

It all looked like pretty normal matches to me. Just pointing out, your numbers are conflicting. 🤷‍♂️

[RisingDawn.5796]

15 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

World Restructuring has been intended to bring better balance between servers together. And it is true, we havent seen 2 kdr servers or landslide victories of over 50 skirmish points ahead. Those were pretty much expected in the old system and restructuring definitely looks and feels much more balanced.

 

There was hardly 2.0 KDR, because most leads and maybe guilds were bored of the content, also due to the queues, during the WvW rush event.

Edited January 21 by RisingDawn.5796

[Gehenna.3625]

19 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Objective Auras: Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage, it isn't necessary for defenders to have up to 30% more combat power when they can already utilize tactivators, respawns, siege, first engage and keep portal to their advantage. Objective auras need a large reduction in their potency or even complete rework, so combat itself can fairer. Defenders will still have access to  massive combat and strategy advantage alongside multiple opportunities to kill the assaulters. Even when roaming, fighting open field, or GvGing, you really don't think its fair or fun for nearest tower or camp to provide one side almost 15% worth of damage from stats.

And what do you suggest when two sides fight against you? I mean you can defend against one server but there are often situations where 2 servers fight against you and you don't have more people than one side afaik. I've seen two sides on my hbl attacking both hills and bay or they fight each other inside your garrison.

And what about boonball zergs against your not so well organised group? 

Or when a spy pulls the tactivators just before attacking?

 

Really, the biggest and most urgent problem as far as balance/fairness is concerned is boonball groups. Let's fix that first.

Edited January 21 by Gehenna.3625

[Riba.3271]

56 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

20 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

 

And what do you suggest when two sides fight against you? I mean you can defend against one server but there are often situations where 2 servers fight against you and you don't have more people than one side afaik. I've seen two sides on my hbl attacking both hills and bay or they fight each other inside your garrison.

• You have multiple lives: If you respond fast. you have plenty of time to respawn and take another fight. If you lose 3 fights against 1 server with all the following advantages, do you really deserve to keep the keep?
• Since you're the only server that can use gate portals to enter or exist, you can choose when to engage
• You can use siege
• You can hold a chokepoint
• You can gank enemies one by one (not option for attackers due to no respawn)

Overall, defenders have large advantage even without stats. If it takes 2 servers killing them multiple times to reset 1 objective, it sounds like they're definitely not at a bad spot.

You're just too used to every server holding everything. If you take more things from opponents, and opponents take more things from you, it will be much healthier balance with more willing attackers thus more activity for everyone.

Of course we could keep a balance where anytime there is a decent commander, vs decent commander, both avoid the enemy objectives because they would lose, but it would feel much less epic or strategic than fighting for towers and keeps. Something you haven't experienced yet, is a WvW where servers constantly pummel on enemy keeps, and there is always activity. and willing decent commanders. It is glorious

Edited January 21 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

??? Only way  1-up-1-down would be even removely close is if they intentionally make certain servers

Full stop. Is this the only game you are playing that does match making? Anet pretty much admitted they like all other PvP games are working in collecting stats as they already do in sPvP to both split players and then also rank them during initial sorts. Have you not done the Ranked version of sPvP? They are working on that concept in WvW. Why look at all this additional changes in 1 Up/ 1 Down versus fixing placements as they have been trying to do for years in sPvP but in a larger scale. Why look to reinvent the wheel while they have had the opportunity to refine a similar system in ranked sPvP once placements are done? Guild placement is similar as rolling up player attributes into a larger number to define a guild.

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Also one charasteristic of 1-up-1-down is that matchups consist of winner - 2nd place - 3rd place. If each server is initially designed to be equally strong

Strong and balanced are not the same. Strong is defined as the environment that was encountered. Balanced is in you have three players on three different groups where each played 20 hours per week. How well or strong  each were against the others was impacted by factors that the sort is not considering. Anet is looking for balance. They are looking into estimating placements as well per blogs and posts. 

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

, then the placement of the first week will reflect their efficiency and activity the following week. It just isn't great to put very inefficient servers against very efficient servers. Its like putting heavy weights to fight against lightweights. It won't be a competition, but a slaughter.

Hence the reason why I questioned you when you claimed the new matches were "Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage". 

What were you using to make this statement? 

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You definitely need to think about this more. There is no pulling rug too early. If you can have a sytem where matchups become closer several times faster, of course you should opt for it.

This seemed like mix metaphors. Not sure what you meant here so will leave it with I don't know what you mean. 

Side note I know we go back and fourth on DBL, so figured I would grab and share to provide context: https://imgur.com/a/2HrSzvv This is later and lower than normal on my normal server but was during the beta. Hence the mileage varies comments for context.

[Gehenna.3625]

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You have multiple lives: If you respond fast. you have plenty of time to respawn and take another fight. If you lose 3 fights against 1 server with all the following advantages, do you really deserve to keep the keep?

Well it's not really about deserving in that sense. Bottom line is that if your side loses all objectives, deserved or not they will stop playing because what's the point?

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• Since you're the only server that can use gate portals to enter or exist, you can choose when to engage

Lol, especially big enemy groups can melt through gates and walls allowing them to choose.

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You can use siege

So can they and there's really no place on any wall that enemies can't reach with their ranged abilities. I can put siege way on the back of a wall and position myself at the furthest most place to operate that siege and I still get damaged or pulled forward off the wall.

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You can hold a chokepoint

Only if you have a group of roughly equal size that's equally organised. Which isn't the case a lot in my experience

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You can gank enemies one by one (not option for attackers due to no respawn)

The amount of times I got ganked between the garrison and bay by a group of around 3 gankers in that location... tells me you're wrong. Besides the bay side hasn't got a long ways to go for attackers either if they're from that corner.

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Overall, defenders have large advantage even without stats. If it takes 2 servers killing them multiple times to reset 1 objective, it sounds like they're definitely not at a bad spot.

I disagree. I feel that most of the advantages are with the attackers. Like boonballs and rams (that have a ridiculous amount of health nowadays) will melt through the gates before you can even kill one of them. They can kill anything and everything on top of the walls and sometimes even behind the walls. They can put down siege to take out some of your defensive siege.

And don't assume I meant it takes two sides to take out your garrison. They just farm bags for fun.

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

You're just too used to every server holding everything. If you take more things from opponents, and opponents take more things from you, it will be much healthier balance with more willing attackers thus more activity for everyone.

No I'm not, I'm used to losing objectives to a superior force that I can't do anything about.

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Of course we could keep a balance where anytime there is a decent commander, vs decent commander, both avoid the enemy objectives because they would lose, but it would feel much less epic or strategic than fighting for towers and keeps. Something you haven't experienced yet, is a WvW where servers constantly pummel on enemy keeps, and there is always activity. and willing decent commanders. It is glorious

I know there will never be balance but your suggestion that the defenders have too much of an advantage is false. Also perfect balance is a lie, so I'm not asking for that either. What I am asking for is for Anet to nerf boonballs.

The reason is that there aren't too many fights, especially during the day where there are more equal fights going on and as such defenders do need certain advantages or they'll get roflstomped continually and that leads to people quitting to play (at least for the time being).

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

In what sense what? It was a pretty high orbit view of an idea and has nothing to do with player counts. Just what guilds are on which team that season. I didnt literally mean 4 guilds if that's what you think. This is presuming the API will be able pull out which world guilds are assigned to and maybe that the API can pull guild member count then one could even sort them by size too.

sorry, maybe I misunderstood. are we basically saying that: since all the new servers are similar, for comparison/competition we keep track not of the server but of the guilds on that server that won the week? did I get it right? if the random server wins the week the guilds on it earn 1 point.

If I understand correctly we have a couple of problems to understand how to deal with. the first is single players who have no guild. the second is, it's true that the random server has a similar number of players, but how much different does a guild of 500 men have compared to a guild of 10 men? building a common action between different guilds takes more time. for the guild of 500 there would be no problem.

[Riba.3271]

Just now, TheGrimm.5624 said:

14 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

??? Only way  1-up-1-down would be even removely close is if they intentionally make certain servers

Full stop. Is this the only game you are playing that does match making? Anet pretty much admitted they like all other PvP games are working in collecting stats as they already do in sPvP to both split players and then also rank them during initial sorts. Have you not done the Ranked version of sPvP? They are working on that concept in WvW. Why look at all this additional changes in 1 Up/ 1 Down versus fixing placements as they have been trying to do for years in sPvP but in a larger scale. Why look to reinvent the wheel while they have had the opportunity to refine a similar system in ranked sPvP once placements are done? Guild placement is similar as rolling up player attributes into a larger number to define a guild.

It isn't that 1-up-1-down isn't an option, it is just terrible system for 4 weekly server rearranging. I don't understand why you're defending a system that leads to good matchups only 1 week out of 4, when we have option to get system where we would get fair matchups 3 weeks out of 4. Increasing ratio of good weeks to bad weeks by 9 times seems like a good deal to me.

9 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

15 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Also one charasteristic of 1-up-1-down is that matchups consist of winner - 2nd place - 3rd place. If each server is initially designed to be equally strong

Strong and balanced are not the same. Strong is defined as the environment that was encountered. Balanced is in you have three players on three different groups where each played 20 hours per week. How well or strong  each were against the others was impacted by factors that the sort is not considering. Anet is looking for balance. They are looking into estimating placements as well per blogs and posts. 

Are you just throwing around empty words? 1-up-1-down can't converge within 4 weeks  to good matchups. You cannot even come up with specific example how the matchmaking is good. Thats how bad the system is. Try to come up with any way that 1-up-1-down will lead to fair matchups from 2nd week onwards.

How is current system where strong servers are intentionally placed against weak servers, fun or competitive? Do you have like real thoughts? What is current matchmaking system good at? Do you enjoy when winners get rewarded with more wins, and tiny servers get smashed down by facing giant servers week after week? Why would you defend a bad system with empty words that hold absolutely no substance or basis?

17 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

15 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

, then the placement of the first week will reflect their efficiency and activity the following week. It just isn't great to put very inefficient servers against very efficient servers. Its like putting heavy weights to fight against lightweights. It won't be a competition, but a slaughter.

Hence the reason why I questioned you when you claimed the new matches were "Now that servers have somewhat equal amount of players and timezone coverage". 

What were you using to make this statement? 

Compared to old systed where we had several 2.0 kdr servers, and  even matches between linkings with double full server vs single unfull server.

Overall, player or guild playing hoiurs are somewhat balanced now. Difference is just efficiency. 1-up-1-down is equal to putting new players against 1000+ game veterans in their first game of sPvP. Low ranking players should face low ranking players. Or can you point us to another example where a game intentionally avoids putting good players against each other?

22 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

15 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

You definitely need to think about this more. There is no pulling rug too early. If you can have a sytem where matchups become closer several times faster, of course you should opt for it.

This seemed like mix metaphors. Not sure what you meant here so will leave it with I don't know what you mean. 

Its simple, look at the outcome of the last week, and build a competitive matchup for following week. Under the assumption that the worlds were created equal.

You will end up putting winners against winners and losers against losers. So 2nd week will already be good matchups. That is what faster converging means, it doesn't need 3 weeks of data to place good servers against good servers and bad servers against bad servers.

[Mabi black.1824]

4 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Its simple, look at the outcome of the last week, and build a competitive matchup for following week. Under the assumption that the worlds were created equal.

You will end up putting winners against winners and losers against losers. So 2nd week will already be good matchups. That is what faster converging means, it doesn't need 3 weeks of data to place good servers against good servers and bad servers against bad servers.

this is pretty much all true. we will have no alternative if the server container becomes useless, we kick it out of the scoring system, a new one needs to be built. and in any competitive event, when a team passes the round, it finds other teams that have passed the round.

[Riba.3271]

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

59 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You have multiple lives: If you respond fast. you have plenty of time to respawn and take another fight. If you lose 3 fights against 1 server with all the following advantages, do you really deserve to keep the keep?

Well it's not really about deserving in that sense. Bottom line is that if your side loses all objectives, deserved or not they will stop playing because what's the point?

What? In that case, it will be easier to take objectives back without the objective auras. Objective auras don't only make it easier for you to defend, but also harder for you to take objectives.

If you were much dumber and weaker than the enemy, do you still think you were entitled to hold on to what you own in a competitive game where you're supposed to take objectives.

With your reasoning, we should boost those stats up to +10000000000000 so no one ever takes anything, so everyone can always hold objectives no matter how bad they are. Please, man up and fight to prove that you're stronger and smarter.

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

59 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• Since you're the only server that can use gate portals to enter or exist, you can choose when to engage

Lol, especially big enemy groups can melt through gates and walls allowing them to choose.

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Defending blob can choose when to engage and from which side to engage, because only they can choose when to go out or in.

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

59 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You can use siege

So can they and there's really no place on any wall that enemies can't reach with their ranged abilities. I can put siege way on the back of a wall and position myself at the furthest most place to operate that siege and I still get damaged or pulled forward off the wall.

Well, clearly if you place a treb or ac as attacker it will probably not last very long. Because it cannot be defended without walls and the incentive at objectives is for attackers to move inwards. There are plenty of spots for defenders to place siege so that attackers can't reach them or have to spend minutes to get there.

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

59 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

• You can hold a chokepoint

Only if you have a group of roughly equal size that's equally organised. Which isn't the case a lot in my experience

Well, if you think you're entitled to hold an objective when you're much weaker, then you have absolutely no respect for your opponents and lack desire to take anything from your opponents. I am guessing you just avoid enemy objectives and stay in your own? Good strategy, but what enemies do the same. Who will attack?

When I am online I would rather have the option to attack and win because there is no guarantee that the enemies will be around to fight or attack anything.

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

59 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Overall, defenders have large advantage even without stats. If it takes 2 servers killing them multiple times to reset 1 objective, it sounds like they're definitely not at a bad spot.

I disagree. I feel that most of the advantages are with the attackers. Like boonballs and rams (that have a ridiculous amount of health nowadays) will melt through the gates before you can even kill one of them. They can kill anything and everything on top of the walls and sometimes even behind the walls. They can put down siege to take out some of your defensive siege.

And don't assume I meant it takes two sides to take out your garrison. They just farm bags for fun.

Are you're really saying attackers have advantage just because they're better?

 If you or your server is getting killed because you're using all the options that defenders have wrongly, it is a you issue and has nothing to with balance. You have same options as attackers (going same spot, building same siege), and lot of extra. You can build siege so far enemy can't reach it, you can try to respawn after death, you can use tactivators. Your issue is that you're trying to go on the edge of the wall, when you could just build a treb 4000 range away.

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

59 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

You're just too used to every server holding everything. If you take more things from opponents, and opponents take more things from you, it will be much healthier balance with more willing attackers thus more activity for everyone.

No I'm not, I'm used to losing objectives to a superior force that I can't do anything about.

Yes, and that why shield gens should be nerfed. So you can build trebs around, and buy some time for your server to mass up.

I do agree that rams and other siege have too much hitpoints these days (since the crit chances to siege), and siege damage to siege should be increased by at least 50%. I have made lot of posts about that already.

38 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

The reason is that there aren't too many fights, especially during the day where there are more equal fights going on and as such defenders do need certain advantages or they'll get roflstomped continually and that leads to people quitting to play (at least for the time being).

You do realise that for defending situation to exist, there must be willing attackers. So your suggestion to increase amount of activity, is to make the game so that defenders win everytime and there are no willing attackers anymore?

If you want there to be activity, you need to buff attacking. Maybe only reason you face is strong boonblobs is because only stacked servers and groups think there is a chance of taking something?

Edited January 21 by Riba.3271

[SweetPotato.7456]

On 1/20/2024 at 11:12 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

But tbh I would like see WvW stat pages start listing guilds and their wins for their team, rather than focusing so much on tiers (ie in season X the team Y consisting of guilds A/B/C/D won 4 out of 4 matchups).

agree with this.
 

  

On 1/20/2024 at 10:38 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Do we demand more rewards? Not really even though it is welcome, but we need good matchups and opportunity to show we're the best.

Please don't use we , I always want more rewards

Edited January 22 by SweetPotato.7456

[SweetPotato.7456]

15 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

And what do you suggest when two sides fight against you? I mean you can defend against one server but there are often situations where 2 servers fight against you and you don't have more people than one side afaik. I've seen two sides on my hbl attacking both hills and bay or they fight each other inside your garrison.

And what about boonball zergs against your not so well organised group? 

Or when a spy pulls the tactivators just before attacking?

 

Really, the biggest and most urgent problem as far as balance/fairness is concerned is boonball groups. Let's fix that first.

This game mode is a 3 side battle, every team is  facing 2 enemies 

[TheGrimm.5624]

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It isn't that 1-up-1-down isn't an option, it is just terrible system for 4 weekly server rearranging. I don't understand why you're defending a system that leads to good matchups only 1 week out of 4, when we have option to get system where we would get fair matchups 3 weeks out of 4. Increasing ratio of good weeks to bad weeks by 9 times seems like a good deal to me.

 

To be fair, you did ask for me to not consider both sides when we discussed threads which I agreed to. I have been stuck in T1 matchups for months on end and in T8 matches month on end. Both were not optimal. The 1 Up 1 Down side allows more variety in matches and allows faster changes in bad placements. This applies to relinks already and also handles the new WR approach while allowing them to adjust coding on predicting server placements after dividing teams as they try and do in sPvP. Going with Winner versus winner doesn't solve wrong placement if the system does drop new groups in the right tier but moves them after to a bad tier since they won. You just move the bad call down the line of events.

 

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

It isn't that 1-up-1-down isn't an option, it is just terrible system for 4 weekly server rearranging. I don't understand why you're defending a system that leads to good matchups only 1 week out of 4, when we have option to get system where we would get fair matchups 3 weeks out of 4. Increasing ratio of good weeks to bad weeks by 9 times seems like a good deal to me.

We are on 4 weeks now as Anet test aspects. Why apply a change that impact the normal 8 week matchup? Why muddy the numbers and results and them impact the longer end result? You are just going to confuse the test results.

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Are you just throwing around empty words?

Sure, if you think I don't look for middle ground normally and you asked me not to do so. Yup that is what is up. lol, this is the reason I look for middle ground that you asked me not to do to not to distract from points. Sorry, I have a habit of trying see both sides. So when I agreed I with you is iempty words or when I disagreed you it was empty words?

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

1-up-1-down can't converge within 4 weeks  to good matchups.

I guess you missed where I said 4 week groups don't handle normal relinks well due to the random initial placements.

I wasn't actually trying for this point. I have already said a number of times with the link system that new links are placed in bad initial placements. I have used this in the past that we agree and you asked that I not do so. 

So to try and do what asked... You want to go back to Glicko system? Where players asked for more Varity 

 

[Gehenna.3625]

9 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

This game mode is a 3 side battle, every team is  facing 2 enemies 

Which creates certain issues when it's 2 vs 1. And that's why the defending team (on their hbl) should have some advantage when defending their stuff, but as it stands the offensive teams have most of the advantages. It's just that people who complain that are on the offensive side, don't seem to realise all the advantages they have and so they complain about the defenses. But also the opposite is true. Defenders don't realise/use all the advantages they have either. That's why most people don't build or even use siege and why people rarely use siege disablers. And if you're in a minority group then you need to focus their siege and not try to kill a boonball (which is pointless at that time). If you kill their siege they can't come in. It's as simple as that.

However, currently the advantage is on the attackers' side because they can put siege in places where the defenders cannot reach much more easily. And certainly not when they still have to build siege when the attack has already begun. A decent size zerg can melt through walls and gates in a matter of under 20 seconds. Also there are places on keeps where you only need to use one set of siege weapons to get through both layers. And opening things up that fast also takes away the possibility of the defenders to choose where they want to fight. That advantage is only true when the objective is still intact.

Now, it's clear that when you have a smaller group than the opponent that you'll likely lose. But what are defenders supposed to do when they see a larger force than themselves? Just port out and let the attackers take the map and when they leave ppt it back again? That's just bs but that's what the other person was suggesting or at least implying. And I do that already when I play during the day mostly, because I can tell before the attack starts that there's no point in defending. So, again where's the fun in that? Why should people even try to defend if they don't have some advantages to stand a chance?