Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Petition for a Re-Link after 3 weeks


Recommended Posts

Since World Restructuring launched in the middle of the month, Anet decided to extend the first matchup to 6 weeks and then go back to monthly re-links. But this puts the first matchup, which is always going to be the most poorly-balanced matchup, as the longest one. We need more rapid match-making in the early days, to get to a place where it's better balanced.

I propose that Anet do an additional re-link after 3 weeks, making the first 2 resets slightly shorter than usual.

Do you support this idea?

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More frequent reshuffles will lead to less balance, because there simply won't be enough time for worlds to move into appropriate tiers. And i doubt anet will constantly adust their world creation algorithm, so it is very unlikely that subsequent reshuffles end up with better balance anytime soon.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frazazel.7501 said:

Since World Restructuring launched in the middle of the month, Anet decided to extend the first matchup to 6 weeks and then go back to monthly re-links. But this puts the first matchup, which is always going to be the most poorly-balanced matchup, as the longest one. We need more rapid match-making in the early days, to get to a place where it's better balanced.

I propose that Anet do an additional re-link after 3 weeks, making the first 2 resets slightly shorter than usual.

Do you support this idea?

Yes but for an entirely different reason.

It would seem a lot of people haven't picked a proper alliance or won't be happy with their current alliance, or got left behind or some kitten due to the confusion of this being the first permanent thing post servers. This could get people to readjust properly.

Alternatively, just keep at 4 weeks; I am not really sure why Anet can't just do that or is it that they set alarms for the end of the month and can't change them?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaos is as chaos will be, does it matter if 4 versus 6? If anything this first being 6 preps peeps for 4 week links.  

Edit: For server peeps like me we are already at the point of no return, so what is 4 versus 6? 4 will be norm so one period of 6, get informed so you don't have the issue when it's 4 now versus later.

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
Edit: Sorry confused peep
  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

so what is 4 versus 6? 4 will be norm so one period of 6

It affects the ranking system.  If you have X number of participants to rank, you need at minimum (X divided by 3) number of matches to determine the ranks.  With more tiers than weeks, the ranks of the teams will never be finalized.  A server in T5 will never have a chance to play a T1 match when there's only 4 matches.  When there are more matches than the minimum, the ranking (or at least Glicko rating) gets more accurate.  And the Glicko rating affects how the first match after relinks are rolled.  Theoretically, with this finer-grained reshuffling than what server linking did, the Glicko ratings will become even more close to each other.

But as you know, the playerbase has been tired of the old 8 weeks periods for a long time.

Edited by Chaba.5410
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It affects the ranking system.  If you have X number of participants to rank, you need at minimum (X divided by 3) number of matches to determine the ranks.  With more tiers than weeks, the ranks of the teams will never be finalized.  A server in T5 will never have a chance to play a T1 match when there's only 4 matches.  When there are more matches than the minimum, the ranking (or at least Glicko rating) gets more accurate.  And the Glicko rating affects how the first match after relinks are rolled.  Theoretically, with this finer-grained reshuffling than what server linking did, the Glicko ratings will become even more close to each other.

But as you know, the playerbase has been tired of the old 8 weeks periods for a long time.

I admit I was taking this as more of another version of the why is the first one six week threads, which I don't think anyone knows why they didn't just wait two weeks to launch it in the normal cycle. 

Edit: Potential analyst team asking for more time on first numbers more likely than other.

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
edit: add remove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, frazazel.7501 said:

Since World Restructuring launched in the middle of the month, Anet decided to extend the first matchup to 6 weeks and then go back to monthly re-links. But this puts the first matchup, which is always going to be the most poorly-balanced matchup, as the longest one. We need more rapid match-making in the early days, to get to a place where it's better balanced.

I propose that Anet do an additional re-link after 3 weeks, making the first 2 resets slightly shorter than usual.

Do you support this idea?

You have more wildcards then you are assuming here. The coding and sort logic are a fixed process that they will be adjusting over time. Your wildcards are players entering and leaving the game mode, players shifting guilds, community guilds forming and separating and seasonality. Plus you might be discounting the time it takes for any of the devs reviewing the matches expectations versus what happened and trying to determine if they need to attribute play behavior more to change the way that matches are created. On top of that is initial placement which has been a thing since linking started way back when. So no, I don't think faster relinks would help at all personally. If anything with more tiers it might need to have been adjusted to be longer in order to see if final placements looked better after the up and downs were played out.

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 8:59 PM, frazazel.7501 said:

Since World Restructuring launched in the middle of the month, Anet decided to extend the first matchup to 6 weeks and then go back to monthly re-links. But this puts the first matchup, which is always going to be the most poorly-balanced matchup, as the longest one. We need more rapid match-making in the early days, to get to a place where it's better balanced.

I propose that Anet do an additional re-link after 3 weeks, making the first 2 resets slightly shorter than usual.

Do you support this idea?

You make this sound like the 6 weeks is a single match-up, so we don't have Friday resets, move up/down in tiers, etc.

Re-shuffling the WR-Teams more often, is going to make it impossible to let Teams move up and down in Tiers and find other Teams of similar levels. Something that would be beneficial stats for ANet to observe.

That said I do agree with others commenting that a shorter re-shuffle would be beneficial to get more players into guilds that didn't register in time for the first WR.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the serverguilds will stay at their rank anyways ? but the soloplayers and smaller guilds which are not part of any ally play less or no wvw. i see it on my server, in my guild (where 95% wvw players switch the daily/weekly to pve and reduced the playtime from 1+ hour each day to 1 or 2 hours the week), and at least you can read it here in the forums.

with players which are inactive till the matches are better you won't get any working statistc anyways.

in case of my guild it was the idea to check for a while till we find any alliance fits more to us and our playstyle.so shorter periods would speed it up to find a place to stay for players like us and to get working statistics for anet.

[not directly topic but for a better understanding]

and also in our case we are anyways sad about anets way to ignore all the violations of the gamerules through mostly very well known players/server. and now we got exactly that as opponents and sitting on an empty alliance with in most cases very bad players. its not that funny to play alone vs world. especial if the opponents are cheating. so i've also been thinking about playing less. i need one day to get my diamond chest. but i want to check the alliancesystem. so i am more active instead less atm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you look at the calendar you might see why they implemented it when they did and not two weeks later. I don't know about NA where they sit, but in Europe summer vacations are starting from now, exactly when depends on where you are/live - but most have it between end/mid-June and end of Aug/beginning of Sept. If they implemented it and things went kaboom just as people was about to leave the office for a bit, or worse - had already left, that would have been extremely bad planning.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 11:45 PM, Zyreva.1078 said:

More frequent reshuffles will lead to less balance, because there simply won't be enough time for worlds to move into appropriate tiers. And i doubt anet will constantly adust their world creation algorithm, so it is very unlikely that subsequent reshuffles end up with better balance anytime soon.

it depends if they are actually using some advanced logic in monitoring the guild performance or not. If not and they go around amount of people and something like last login of users, ye, no matter how frequent you will get no benefit. If they monitor something like aveage K/D on user level, extrapolate to guild numbers and have some logic to put those fighters against each other, it might actually improve the situation the more you shuffle things early on. By temporarily making the cycles fast, it could settle faster.

I am afraid that the premise of my argument is however completely delusional 🙂 

edit: It has a problem of "what is the goal"? match active vs active, or have balance to have something 20% active, 20% semi-active (ie. once a week in WvW) and the rest 60% to fill with people who do not belong anywhere and likely are not interested in WvW at all. I could picture T5 and T6 which will be empty and stack players in 4 matches instead of 6. 

Edited by Altex.6083
added last point
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Altex.6083 said:

it depends if they are actually using some advanced logic in monitoring the guild performance or not. If not and they go around amount of people and something like last login of users, ye, no matter how frequent you will get no benefit. If they monitor something like aveage K/D on user level, extrapolate to guild numbers and have some logic to put those fighters against each other, it might actually improve the situation the more you shuffle things early on. By temporarily making the cycles fast, it could settle faster.

I am afraid that the premise of my argument is however completely delusional 🙂 

edit: It has a problem of "what is the goal"? match active vs active, or have balance to have something 20% active, 20% semi-active (ie. once a week in WvW) and the rest 60% to fill with people who do not belong anywhere and likely are not interested in WvW at all. I could picture T5 and T6 which will be empty and stack players in 4 matches instead of 6. 

Since we didn't get a fresh blog on the actual logic, the previous statements were more of a balance in number of players, play hours and then later with tags and potential times of play, but unsure if that made it in. Hence the shorter time frames to get that higher level refined first as well as work out bugs in getting people in the matches they should have been linked to based on their settings. 

A more detailed match making was hinted at in some unknown future.

Edited by TheGrimm.5624
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2024 at 3:23 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

That *is* a good question.

The only other thing that popped up, and I figure it would have been better PR to say it outright, was someone made a good case internally that since we added in more tiers, should the first test be able to handle all of them so that we can see what a full 1 up 1 down would look like since the 4 week runs may mask some of the data sets. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of more frequent team shuffles What they need to do is have more frequent matches. They should have 1-day matches for awhile to get the system in shape. In fact, they should have 1-day matches for the first week of each relink. That way 1U1D can work faster and teams won’t have to spend half the time (or more) in the wrong tier. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

Instead of more frequent team shuffles What they need to do is have more frequent matches. They should have 1-day matches for awhile to get the system in shape. In fact, they should have 1-day matches for the first week of each relink. That way 1U1D can work faster and teams won’t have to spend half the time (or more) in the wrong tier. 

I understand your thoughts. But that doesn't give time for new teams to figure themselves out. Took a week of jumping around to see my side let alone to get a feel for the others. Plus reset, Saturday & Sunday usually play differently, weekdays are more consistent but also vary based on guild runs and how many guilds have active players outside of their runs. I am not sure daily matches would result in the expected results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I understand your thoughts. But that doesn't give time for new teams to figure themselves out. Took a week of jumping around to see my side let alone to get a feel for the others. Plus reset, Saturday & Sunday usually play differently, weekdays are more consistent but also vary based on guild runs and how many guilds have active players outside of their runs. I am not sure daily matches would result in the expected results. 

Oh it won’t be perfect but from the way players are talking Anets algorithm didn’t create very balanced teams AND also didn’t place them appropriately within the tiers. And if there’s only 4 weeks of matches before the shuffle, by the time you get to the “correct” tier it’s time to shuffle again.   As for the weekend being different; yep it definitely is but that shouldn’t matter for daily matches. There have  even been suggestions in the past to have two resets a week so you have a weekend match and a weekday match. Or resets in Fridays and Mondays for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

Oh it won’t be perfect but from the way players are talking Anets algorithm didn’t create very balanced teams AND also didn’t place them appropriately within the tiers. And if there’s only 4 weeks of matches before the shuffle, by the time you get to the “correct” tier it’s time to shuffle again.   As for the weekend being different; yep it definitely is but that shouldn’t matter for daily matches. There have  even been suggestions in the past to have two resets a week so you have a weekend match and a weekday match. Or resets in Fridays and Mondays for example. 

We’ve been down that path of discussion before and at the end of the day, WvW is a perpetual, casual and social event. It becomes a habit. Even if people aren’t on every day, they can still be a part of the match. Reset is a thing people look forward to.

If you add in a more resets, it loose its meaning. Entire matches will go by that people miss.

It would be the same thing if you increased the period, a 4 week matchup would be absolutely painful unless you’re on the dominating team.

Just like so much else, you’re left with something decent in between.

Edited by Dawdler.8521
  • Like 3
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

This 6 week link might be a test for initial sorts and might be a test of a potential new norm in match length. Again it was kind of out of the blue with no background information attached as to the why of it.

Or just as simple as them not bothering to think when they released it so it ended up mid month and then they needed either a 2 week or 6 week shuffle. They choose the later.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...