EU is a complete blowout.

[Reztek.7805]

22 hours ago, lindstroem.3601 said:

KDR is the only relevant factor to get a balance. If those servers would take ppt serious, you would see pretty much all maps in the same color. Which is a bit dissapointing that they dont do, caues this would show even more what a hot carbage their new system is.

Ummm, no. The only relevant factor is the warscore distribution per skirmish.

- If your k/d is high but your warscore low, you probably run around as full zone blob. -> easy to raise k/d, but unable to defend more than 1 objective.

- If your warscore is absurdly high compared to the other two teams it's probably in the middle of the night or anets matchmaking failure

And all matchups show the same problems as before, there's always a couple of hours where 1 of the 3 teams outnumbers the other 2 teams. e.g. https://www.gw2matchup.com/matchup?id=2-3

And as long as time zones are not taken into account, this won't improve.

[Zok.4956]

56 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

The first matches _should_ have blow outs as teams aren't yet rated against each other. 

You can never completely avoid blow outs, but I think that you could make them the exception rather than the rule.

A hypothetical example: Anet determines the "Wvw activity" to determine the population of the servers. But if Anet also determines additional metrics (per player) (I'll leave open what these could be for now) from which strength, skill, playing style, etc. could be derived, Anet could then also determine/rate this in total for the newly formed servers and then try to let servers of roughly equal strength play against each other right from day one.

There would still be blow outs (e.g. because the players on a new server don't want to coordinate and prefer to play against each other or because the composition of players is different to before when the player metrics were calculated), but less often and for a shorter period of time.

[Chaba.5410]

21 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

You can never completely avoid blow outs, but I think that you could make them the exception rather than the rule.

A hypothetical example: Anet determines the "Wvw activity" to determine the population of the servers. But if Anet also determines additional metrics (per player) (I'll leave open what these could be for now) from which strength, skill, playing style, etc. could be derived, Anet could then also determine/rate this in total for the newly formed servers and then try to let servers of roughly equal strength play against each other right from day one.

There would still be blow outs (e.g. because the players on a new server don't want to coordinate and prefer to play against each other or because the composition of players is different to before when the player metrics were calculated), but less often and for a shorter period of time.

We also don't know how the teams of the first match are being placed against each other.   Maybe it is still Glicko of the underlying servers.  Theoretically, those ratings are going to get even closer to each other as teams are remade to keep population disparities low.  It might make sense to remove earlier randomization that was added in many years ago to the Glicko matchmaking.

Edited June 18 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Nash.2681 said:

Serious question- I sticked to my main guild which has basicly just two active players (my wife and me). We play WvW occasionally, mostly for daily/monthly WV achievements, seldomly more. We got put in tier4 "Silent Woods" and (besides lot of new/unfamiliar names and guilds that we used to fight in the past) it didn't feel much different than before. Like people still running from fights even if we have the advantage, etc. 

But now to the question: are we stuck with this team forever (unless we tick another WvW guild for the next matchup that's on a different team) or will we get shuffled again in a few weeks?

No, see Rubi's schedule in this other thread. This first link will be longer since they didn't launch at a normal relink (they didn't say why as I saw). So first one is longer and the rest go back to 4 week groups as we go and they refine their sorts. So if you are going with the float on the wind method every 4 weeks your teams will change. If you are looking for more familiar faces versus take a world tour then you are options are to link with a bigger guild or find a community guild as you go. If you go with floating, start to ID pugmanders as you go so you know when you link with them and can group. ID your havocs and scouts so that when you get jumped around you can know which callouts might be real versus fake. Lol even tag the trolls so you can avoid their callouts as re-sorts scramble people around. 

 

[Zok.4956]

30 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

We also don't know how the teams of the first match are being placed against each other.   Maybe it is still Glicko of the underlying servers.

Yes, of course that can be the case, although it would be pretty stupid to use the Glicko from the old server for the new one (which just happens to have the same name but may have completely different players). 

[Chaba.5410]

21 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:

Yes, of course that can be the case, although it would be pretty stupid to use the Glicko from the old server for the new one (which just happens to have the same name but may have completely different players). 

Stupid or not, it's most likely.  We had changing players with server links too and Glicko was still used.  🙂

[Cuks.8241]

17 hours ago, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

FWIW I think the linking would have gone much better if the WvW fight guilds had NOT been allowed to group themselves into mega guilds for alliances. By doing that they have created a situation where many alliances won't have any WvW fight guilds on their side which is going to lead to very unbalanced K/D ratios. I can't see how it works for them either as surely it means they end up fighting very few other organised fight guilds? (since they are all grouped into probably 5 or 6 alliances, likely the same 6 alliances which have positive K/D ratios in NA).

On eu the number of big guilds are not a problem. Most guilds/alliances grew substantionally because of WR and there are a bunch of 50 man guild blobs on in prime time on each world at least in our tier.

We were trying to cap our core raid group at 25-30 but its just hard to compete against everyone having 50+. And also many players interested to join.

Now many of these groups grew from fight guilds, so they dont really ppt much or care about score at all. Theres also wr hype and new guild hype and everyone is online more than usual and joining raid groups.

I think things will settle down eventually. Hype will diminish, players will get bored of 50v50 fight all the time (I think most prefer lesser numbers especially in this support meta). And then we will see more realistic state.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

2 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

On eu the number of big guilds are not a problem. Most guilds/alliances grew substantionally because of WR and there are a bunch of 50 man guild blobs on in prime time on each world at least in our tier.

We were trying to cap our core raid group at 25-30 but its just hard to compete against everyone having 50+. And also many players interested to join.

Now many of these groups grew from fight guilds, so they dont really ppt much or care about score at all. Theres also wr hype and new guild hype and everyone is online more than usual and joining raid groups.

I think things will settle down eventually. Hype will diminish, players will get bored of 50v50 fight all the time (I think most prefer lesser numbers especially in this support meta). And then we will see more realistic state.

I wonder if your matchup is the norm? Certainly our NA alliance is unable to muster an organised Zerg when I play but then I do play out if us time zones (but on my old world this was fine, we had good numbers of players when I play)

Edited June 18 by Mistwraithe.3106

[shrew.3059]

But what does settling down look like? I don’t necessarily want everything to go back to where it was, since that was not ideal for many players. The WR status quo as of today also doesn’t work long term.

It seems there’s a gap between fight-farming GvG and objective-based WvW that needs to be bridged, and I’m not sure if the new system achieves that. Ideally, there would be room for the big guild clashes with support from small scale roamers, but this can’t work if there are huge population, coverage, and skill imbalances. It’s wait and see, but 1U1D might mean we might continue to find some unpleasant pairings for the foreseeable future.

[Dayra.7405]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

We also don't know how the teams of the first match are being placed against each other.   Maybe it is still Glicko of the underlying servers.  Theoretically, those ratings are going to get even closer to each other as teams are remade to keep population disparities low.  It might make sense to remove earlier randomization that was added in many years ago to the Glicko matchmaking.

But where do you get the glicko from after a relink? The only thing that remains from the last period is the name and the glicko score attached to it has 0 meaning, if all players are exchanged.

[Chaba.5410]

43 minutes ago, Dayra.7405 said:

But where do you get the glicko from after a relink? The only thing that remains from the last period is the name and the glicko score attached to it has 0 meaning, if all players are exchanged.

It doesn't matter if players are exchanged.  They've never zero'd out the ratings at relink.  The Glicko rating continues to change on whatever the host server is after every match.  The rating on a server that gets linked doesn't update until it becomes a host server.  Has been like that since server linking started.  The only thing that they've ever reset is IIRC the volatility.  Not even sure if they continued to do that at every relink or quietly forgot about it.

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw

Edited June 18 by Chaba.5410

[Nash.2681]

14 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You're not stuck forever.  Check out your guild panel.  The new countdown timer for when teams will be reformed is showing.  You don't have to tick another guild.

This first time will be 6 weeks.  Future team formation events will be every 4 weeks.

So pretty much like the old re-links, we just have to get used to a whole new bunch of people every time. Got it, thanks.