Atoclone.4810 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 On 6/16/2024 at 9:32 AM, Gud.6829 said: They have built a system that actively undermines any sense of progress for the average player. no one wants to get involved in a system that feels like it was built to exclude them. hire a real user experience designer you fools Except for all those many many players that have been happily getting involved all weekend. 4 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gud.6829 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Atoclone.4810 said: Except for all those many many players that have been happily getting involved all weekend. yeah... all one colour per server. thats maybe fun for low effort boon ball players 11 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackthetripper.9035 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) (=*UwU*=) Edited June 17 by Jackthetripper.9035 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One more for the road.8950 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Every relink first week (and sometimes even second and third): Uneven MUs due to servers thrown willy nilly around and ppl transferring. WR first week before anyone moved a single tier: THIS UNEVEN MU IS THE NEW SYSTEMS FAULT 2 3 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leaa.2943 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 4 hours ago, Kishijooten.5817 said: Indeed, this is unplayable and definitevely unfair. Red MOL complaining about no content when they mainly attack the weakest tier's group... Massive boonblob vs 10 players. All day long. 😔 We have que on all borders so there is no other way to do it if people want to play wvw. But i can tell you this, it is not much fun for us either and i wonder why Anet added tier 6 instead of giving your worlds more people, especially when EU asked them to remove tier 5 for years and years. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrew.3059 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, One more for the road.8950 said: Every relink first week (and sometimes even second and third): Uneven MUs due to servers thrown willy nilly around and ppl transferring. WR first week before anyone moved a single tier: THIS UNEVEN MU IS THE NEW SYSTEMS FAULT A “wait and see” approach is a valid take, but when people have been burned -for years- by waiting, you can imagine that’s not going to be their go-to. Especially when the problem they are experiencing was supposed to be fixed by the change. 12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zok.4956 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, One more for the road.8950 said: Every relink first week (and sometimes even second and third): Uneven MUs due to servers thrown willy nilly around and ppl transferring. WR first week before anyone moved a single tier: THIS UNEVEN MU IS THE NEW SYSTEMS FAULT With so few servers, it hardly makes sense to have different tiers where you can level up/down a tier every week, because if you reorganize the servers every 4 weeks, that basically means you spend more time playing outside of your tier (and against servers from other tiers) than in it. But that's an issue that Anet doesn't want to or can't address. If the new system has been announced for many years and has finally been tested to the extent that it is introduced permanently after various betas, players should be able to expect it to be better and not just to divide winners and losers differently. A great idea would have been, for example (good companies do this with system changes/fixes) to write to customers in more detail beforehand about what they can expect as an improvement and what they cannot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atoclone.4810 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 24 minutes ago, shrew.3059 said: A “wait and see” approach is a valid take, but when people have been burned -for years- by waiting, you can imagine that’s not going to be their go-to. Especially when the problem they are experiencing was supposed to be fixed by the change. Whilst I can understand people's frustrations of they're unwilling to say least give it a chance then anet after really stuck in a no win situation 3 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeria.3578 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 They're killing WvW so that people will focus back on PvE and buy the new expansion. 11 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riba.3271 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 I have been saying for years that the World Restructuring was going to wrong direction. We needed less frequent population shuffling and stable worlds/tiers/communities, so people could find a place they can enjoy WvW in which will remain relatively unchanged. Back in days of monoservers, people who wanted things to change transferred and people who didn't want change didn't transfer. It was perfect setup for everyone, outside the fact that there were too many worlds. Relying on randomized matchmaking is like being fish in a barrel and someone shooting shotgun through it: Half will have live, half will die. At best, it will be about as good as sPvP matchmaking where there are plenty of 500-0 blowouts. There were always people who preferred blobbing (T1/T2), Guilds (T2/T3), and less population/tryharding (T4/T5). Taking away the servers providing such environment and the choice to transfer there, was always going to end up with most people unhappy. And guys, score disparity means very little. There have always been decent commanders that lead 8+ hours a day for couple weeks, then disappear to return one day. And this is why World Restructuring will never succeed adjusting people equally. You had players not play this week, and enemy had more players play this week. No algorithm can predict that.- 15 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystalreves.3965 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1. too many big alliances so some of the shards are mostly just pugs. Need to reduce alliance size since there is not enough wvw guilds. 2 change 5 tiers back to 4 and make eotm playable again since most of the queues are on reset only. 3 need real reward system 4 need transfer system 5 weely relink, nobody is going to sit thru 6 weeks of bad link. Edited June 17 by Crystalreves.3965 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWhitey.9076 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 5 minutes ago, Crystalreves.3965 said: 2 change 5 tiers back to 4 and make eotm playable again since most of the queue are on reset only. Some guilds would not play on EotM and wait until the next matchup because EotM rewards are trash. Guilds not playing until the next matchup would make the balance worse so T5 is a necessary evil. Unless that is included in reward system that can give performance in EotM to the warscore in the skirmish but that sounds like a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riba.3271 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 minutes ago, ChrisWhitey.9076 said: 9 minutes ago, Crystalreves.3965 said: Some guilds would not play on EotM and wait until the next matchup because EotM rewards are trash. Guilds not playing until the next matchup would make the balance worse so T5 is a necessary evil. Unless that is included in reward system that can give performance in EotM to the warscore in the skirmish but that sounds like a mess. However main reason they should make EotM rewards decent again is so that they can delete desert map and absolute casuals that only want to flip things with very little opposition have a map to play. The reason why desert map is important to remove, is because having 4 map choices is better than 3, and scoring is fairer if one side doesn't have completely different BL. 3 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Boyer.6524 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 On 6/15/2024 at 3:34 AM, Arheundel.6451 said: What an awful system. There is no distribution of quality, a complete disaster, far worse than previous system....... No It's because guild ratings haven't been placed yet. This is no different than if a ranked pvp season ran its very first season and there was no historical MMR and everyone was ranked 0. It takes awhile for rating systems to sort things out. Stop jumping the gun. 2 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jski.6180 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Its likely to even out over time as its a lot harder to bandwagon to one server. Also not all groups are fight base some are ppt base and maybe after objective keep an eye on on your over all group points and not just fight in the given moment. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schloumou.3982 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said: We have que on all borders so there is no other way to do it if people want to play wvw. But i can tell you this, it is not much fun for us either I dont get that logic. What makes you chase 15 roamers with a full zone across the map when its not fun for you? Are you getting paid for it? Edited June 17 by schloumou.3982 5 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said: There were always people who preferred blobbing (T1/T2), Guilds (T2/T3), and less population/tryharding (T4/T5). NA, blobbing was T4, T1/T2 was more mixed of all scales and T3 was leaning towards groups that would only be on with a tag and players looking to cover everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike.3196 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 I love how everyone think gonna perfectly balanced everyone should be happy it works and it didn't blow up on reset. As months go it will be better how introducing a new system works smh. 2 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caffynated.5713 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Mike.3196 said: I love how everyone think gonna perfectly balanced everyone should be happy it works and it didn't blow up on reset. As months go it will be better how introducing a new system works smh. This system has been in design and live testing for years. They should know what results the system would produce. If they weren't confident it could produce better matches than what we're seeing, then they shouldn't have moved forward with it. 13 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jul.7602 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 4 hours ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said: No It's because guild ratings haven't been placed yet. This is no different than if a ranked pvp season ran its very first season and there was no historical MMR and everyone was ranked 0. It takes awhile for rating systems to sort things out. Stop jumping the gun. It's impossible for anet to come up with any accurate measure of a guilds power contribution to a server, and even more fruitless for them to evaluate how strong each server will be. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Boyer.6524 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, jul.7602 said: It's impossible for anet to come up with any accurate measure of a guilds power contribution to a server, and even more fruitless for them to evaluate how strong each server will be. My guy, it's like the same exact system as the old system. The only difference is that it is measuring its metrics of "participation & victory points" from the population within guilds, rather than the population within servers. 2 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jul.7602 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 40 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said: My guy, it's like the same exact system as the old system. The only difference is that it is measuring its metrics of "participation & victory points" from the population within guilds, rather than the population within servers. The old system didn't work either. The new system isn't the same or is perhaps worse because the distribution of players when guilds/alliances are the vehicles are different than when they were on servers, and under these distributions its very difficult to form fair teams. Primarily we see so far: (1) Super-alliances: carefully curated alliances with at least a dozen guilds, commanders across several time zones that lead outside of schedule raids, and highly active dedicated wvw players. These alliances usually at around 425-500 players, and were probably planned months to years in advance. There are almost certainly less than 9 of these alliances. (2) Normal alliances: Maybe 1-3 guilds + some friends. Little to no consideration for timezones or anything going on outside of their respective raids. These alliances are probably planned a month ahead of time, and have maybe 100-200 members. (3) Solo guilds: Self explanatory. (4)Solo pugs: Self explanatory. Now here is the matchmaking issue and why its different. Alliances such as (1) bring vastly more combat power to the server because they're more organized and bring along with them an entire infrastructure consisting of: (a) consistent raid times (b) Drivers to lead (3) ability to muster up zergs. Any team without a super alliance, facing a team with a super alliance is probably getting destroyed. So the matchmaker needs to ensure that that not only player-activity hours are equal, but that each server has the same number of (1). But the alliances are discrete variables and there aren't enough of them to distribute equally among the servers. In the previous system, even the smallest of linked servers had some sort of infrastructure that (4) and (3) can build off of. 8 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Boyer.6524 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 @jul.7602 Arenanet should probably be a bit more transparent with us on the details of how this works. I think at this point, people very seriously want to know what exactly is going on here. 10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jul.7602 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said: @jul.7602 Arenanet should probably be a bit more transparent with us on the details of how this works. I think at this point, people very seriously want to know what exactly is going on here. At this point it doesn't matter. It's impossible because historical player participation doesn't predict future participation. When people are winning, participation skyrockets. When they lose it goes to zero. When there are commanders it increases, when there aren't it decreases. Alliances aren't any better than the server-links. At the end of the day, only the 1UP1Down system can guarantee that matches are as fair as possible. So no improvement. Edited June 17 by jul.7602 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sobx.1758 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Yeah, for now it seems pretty garbage. 1 stacked team +2 mostly inactive ones. Not that this outcome is surprising. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now