Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Back to monoservers: Best in every metric!


Recommended Posts

Original system (No links)

Matchmaking:  Guaranteed matchup against servers close in tiers  (Best matchmaking)

Serverwide Progress: If you played/entertained more you got more transfers and average gamehours went up (Best serverwide progress)

Overall quality: You could train pugs and had more time to integrate them (Best quality)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose all teammates and preferred population (Best player choice)

Linking system

Matchmaking: Terrible  first 3 weeks of 8

Serverwide progress. The more hours you played a day, the less players you had next linking but you could still get numbers advantage by using alts/relying on transfers to links.

Overall quality: You could only train same server pugs (30-40% unreachable)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose 60-70% of teammates, but not preferred population

Restructuring system

Matchmaking: Absolutely terrible. Tier 5 server could fight tier 1 server, and this goes on for whole 4 weeks. (Worst matchmaking)

Serverwide progress: The more you play, less players you have next restructuring -> Cannot even game the system -> Focus on 1 timezone (Worst serverwide progress)

Overall quality: Can't train anyone outside your guild (80%+ of server unreachable) (Worst quality)

Player choice: Can only choose own guild and the environment around your guild can't be controlled. (Worst player choice).

 

Why is everyone focusing only on one timezone bad for your group? Because pugmanders (on voice) are dead and enemy guilds are also only playing 1 timezone, you will have less opponents to choose from. This naturally leads to stacking since you no commander wants to gamble that 1 enemy group online at same time is similar smaller numbers (-> best to make queue blobs). The pugs will get worse and worse as they are not reachable by anyone, so your recruits will be years behind.

 

We should go back to Monoservers, but keeping following changes

- No 9 tiers, but only 4-5 (Back then there were ~4 active tiers and 5 with very few players)

- Keep 1-up-1-down (monoservers used glicko making it impossible to climb/drop tiers)

- Keep weekly population updates (full servers used to open in middle of night making "superservers": Blackgate, Seafarers Rest)

 

Summary

Monoservers was the best system in all metrics but the server amount, population control and matchmaking were just mismanaged. All we needed to do was half the amount of servers: Delete all (already done) and start over with half the amount.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 26
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As a sidenote I would like to point out this: Servers having similar numbers does not matter if they are not facing each other.

So it does not matter if T4 server has 40% less population than T1 server if they are not facing each other. As a player you actually benefit from this as it gives you choice of multiple different environments: You can avoid lags, queues or even large scale fights/quality/opponents that you dislike simply by transferring.

Main point is that matchmaking will be best with monoservers. Both link system and restructuring will not be able to avoid putting weakest server against strongest server and always perform badly at matchmaking.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 1
  • Confused 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Riba.3271 changed the title to Back to monoservers: Best in every metric!

I would love EBG to become EOTM, that would be amazing and a breath of fresh air. (also it would kill that stupid SMC castle finally and force people to care about objectives for once.)

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dusk.4708 said:

I would love EBG to become EOTM, that would be amazing and a breath of fresh air. (also it would kill that stupid SMC castle finally and force people to care about objectives for once.)

This is hate speech against Maguuma. Blocked and reported. 

  • Haha 7
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

show us where you get that 

On 6/30/2024 at 2:08 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Original system (No links)

Matchmaking:  Guaranteed matchup against servers close in tiers  (Best matchmaking)

Serverwide Progress: If you played/entertained more you got more transfers and average gamehours went up (Best serverwide progress)

Overall quality: You could train pugs and had more time to integrate them (Best quality)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose all teammates and preferred population (Best player choice)

Linking system

Matchmaking: Terrible  first 3 weeks of 8

Serverwide progress. The more hours you played a day, the less players you had next linking but you could still get numbers advantage by using alts/relying on transfers to links.

Overall quality: You could only train same server pugs (30-40% unreachable)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose 60-70% of teammates, but not preferred population

Restructuring system

Matchmaking: Absolutely terrible. Tier 5 server could fight tier 1 server, and this goes on for whole 4 weeks. (Worst matchmaking)

Serverwide progress: The more you play, less players you have next restructuring -> Cannot even game the system -> Focus on 1 timezone (Worst serverwide progress)

Overall quality: Can't train anyone outside your guild (80%+ of server unreachable) (Worst quality)

Player choice: Can only choose own guild and the environment around your guild can't be controlled. (Worst player choice).

 

Why is everyone focusing only on one timezone bad for your group? Because pugmanders (on voice) are dead and enemy guilds are also only playing 1 timezone, you will have less opponents to choose from. This naturally leads to stacking since you no commander wants to gamble that 1 enemy group online at same time is similar smaller numbers (-> best to make queue blobs). The pugs will get worse and worse as they are not reachable by anyone, so your recruits will be years behind.

 

We should go back to Monoservers, but keeping following changes

- No 9 tiers, but only 4-5 (Back then there were ~4 active tiers and 5 with very few players)

- Keep 1-up-1-down (monoservers used glicko making it impossible to climb/drop tiers)

- Keep weekly population updates (full servers used to open in middle of night making "superservers": Blackgate, Seafarers Rest)

 

Summary

Monoservers was the best system in all metrics but the server amount, population control and matchmaking were just mismanaged. All we needed to do was half the amount of servers: Delete all (already done) and start over with half the amount.

Show us your statistic? where all this comes from or did you just wrote a fiction? 

  • Like 5
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2024 at 8:08 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Original system (No links)

Matchmaking:  Guaranteed matchup against servers close in tiers  (Best matchmaking)

Serverwide Progress: If you played/entertained more you got more transfers and average gamehours went up (Best serverwide progress)

Overall quality: You could train pugs and had more time to integrate them (Best quality)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose all teammates and preferred population (Best player choice)

Linking system

Matchmaking: Terrible  first 3 weeks of 8

Serverwide progress. The more hours you played a day, the less players you had next linking but you could still get numbers advantage by using alts/relying on transfers to links.

Overall quality: You could only train same server pugs (30-40% unreachable)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose 60-70% of teammates, but not preferred population

Restructuring system

Matchmaking: Absolutely terrible. Tier 5 server could fight tier 1 server, and this goes on for whole 4 weeks. (Worst matchmaking)

Serverwide progress: The more you play, less players you have next restructuring -> Cannot even game the system -> Focus on 1 timezone (Worst serverwide progress)

Overall quality: Can't train anyone outside your guild (80%+ of server unreachable) (Worst quality)

Player choice: Can only choose own guild and the environment around your guild can't be controlled. (Worst player choice).

 

Why is everyone focusing only on one timezone bad for your group? Because pugmanders (on voice) are dead and enemy guilds are also only playing 1 timezone, you will have less opponents to choose from. This naturally leads to stacking since you no commander wants to gamble that 1 enemy group online at same time is similar smaller numbers (-> best to make queue blobs). The pugs will get worse and worse as they are not reachable by anyone, so your recruits will be years behind.

 

We should go back to Monoservers, but keeping following changes

- No 9 tiers, but only 4-5 (Back then there were ~4 active tiers and 5 with very few players)

- Keep 1-up-1-down (monoservers used glicko making it impossible to climb/drop tiers)

- Keep weekly population updates (full servers used to open in middle of night making "superservers": Blackgate, Seafarers Rest)

 

Summary

Monoservers was the best system in all metrics but the server amount, population control and matchmaking were just mismanaged. All we needed to do was half the amount of servers: Delete all (already done) and start over with half the amount.

You still love your percentages, I see. You gotta start basing them on real math tho.

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

Why weren't monoservers with low player population merged?

I remember Aion doing that and it was for the better. My world got rid of a very destructive ally guild that way (they got moved somewhere else) and everybody on the (new) merged world was happy kumbaya my friend.

When I chose to pick GW2 as my new game I chose a low population world without knowing what a bad choice that is in a game mode that I'd come to love - wvw.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tula.6021 said:

Why weren't monoservers with low player population merged?

I remember Aion doing that and it was for the better. My world got rid of a very destructive ally guild that way (they got moved somewhere else) and everybody on the (new) merged world was happy kumbaya my friend.

If the low player population servers got merged... how on earth did your server "get rid" of destructive guilds when they "got moved" elsewhere? With a merger of servers, you'd never loose players on your own server.

If you are talking about some kind of more free form joining of a new server (ie like 4 gets "deleted" and 2 new are created with everyone choosing one of the 2) then that's... Basicly the same thing that WR does, lol.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tula.6021 said:

Why weren't monoservers with low player population merged?

Because it would be bad PR. Around half the players (mostly PvE) would see that their world is deleted and think the game is dying. You must take into account that lot of players take years to learn their own servers name or do not understand that deleting worlds would only affect WvW.

8 hours ago, Tula.6021 said:

I remember Aion doing that and it was for the better.

Different systems. Merging servers would have helped WvW massively, but it wouldn't have had any positive impact to PvE in GW2 since it was already using megaservers.

 

What was chosen is bad game and good PR over better game and bad PR.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matchmaking

your take

Quote

 

  • OG : garanteed MU for servers close in tiers (using something akin to a Glicko rating), with a 2-week rotation. (source )
  • relink system : terrible half of the time, waiting for the sorting of teams to take place
  • WR : Tier 5 server could fight tier 1 server, and this goes on for whole 4 weeks

 

My critic of your take: 

  •  for the OG system to work, you have to bet on having enough servers that fit the bill of being equal. 
    • extremly susceptible to matchup lock
    • even if you don't have MU lock, it still does not incentive variation
    • extremly scusceptible to big guild moving to less inhabited worlds
    • a rating system with 27 entities to rank is.. well, taking out a fire with a bazooka. 
    • no control over team composition
  • in my view, the relink system is probably the worst iteration. Yes, even worse than what we currently have. The only thing that was redeeming it was the server communities that built up over the last 10 years
    • MU after the MU are created randomly, when they have actual data on a team is supposed to operate. That was a strong point of the aggregating system, and anet did not use it. 
    • teams are doomed to be placed at some point against much stronger/weaker opponents
    • the balancing of teams occurs in 2 steps : first an aggregation of 27 entities into 15
      • this did not work (and every one seems to have forgotten that)
      • it's the least flexible system of the three
    • control over team composition is still quite absent
  • the current system does need some iteration
    • but it has the enormous advantage of having several thousands of entities, which actually makes a rating system more relevant
    • you are practically assured to have no MU lock
    • the biggest down point of the current system is that it sill uses the tier system. There are multiple alternatives (they could use a bracket sort instead of a division sort, for example)
    • you have near full control of the team composition from the balancer perspective, only limitation being on  500-maxsized chunks

 

Serverwide Progress

Quote
  • OG : If you played/entertained more you got more transfers and average gamehours went up (Best serverwide progress)
  • relink : The more hours you played a day, the less players you had next linking but you could still get numbers advantage by using alts/relying on transfers to links.
  • WR : The more you play, less players you have next restructuring -> Cannot even game the system -> Focus on 1 timezone (Worst serverwide progress)
  • ok, so if I understood well, you are considering the played hours progress. Well,, ok but
    • in the OG system, you count on bandwagoning to say the "average gamehours went up"., because you made people want to transfer on your server. Personnally, I don't consider bandwagoning a "serverwide progress". The progress is there when the server is active enough so that people on the team want to play. 
    • same sh*t for the relink, except you count on the fact that you rely as well on a system that is not designed for competitive play (=alts)  in order to "game" the system
      • your words not mine
    • the fact that team transfer is left to the discretion of the administrator is actually a good point of the WR
    • you seem to forget two points in your conclusions
      • hours played via alts and transfer is a zero-sum game and directly negatively impact your "overall quality" metric.
      • there are limitations on the number of teams anet can make. So when you say "the more you play, the less you have next restructuring", you are completly forgetting that whatever happen, there will be a point when playing more won't strip you from "newer player". Just from players that play a lot, which is still a bandwagoning problem anet had troubles dealing with with the previous systems.
  • Your "focurs on 1 timezone" has no logical link with the previous remarks
    • this happened with the relink system has well.
    • the main reason there's a focus on the prime timezone is because the GW2 population is aging and guess what happens when you age ? You work during the day, and it turns out the "prime" is the same hours as when my own parents looked at prison break on the family TV.  It's almost like the reason there's a focus on a specific timezone comes from the fact that this TZ is the most convenient for players to play on, which it turns makes it the TZ in which it is easier to bring players together. Strange.

Overall quality

Quote
  • OG : You could train pugs and had more time to integrate them (Best quality)
  • relink : You could only train same server pugs (30-40% unreachable)
  • WR : Can't train anyone outside your guild (80%+ of server unreachable) (Worst quality)
  • there's no real difference between the OG system and the relink, you just invented whatever pleases you on that point. 
  • training "out of guild" pugs has big limitations. What it amounted to was builds posted on discord, tutorial videos and banning people from open tags when they did not show up with the correct class
  • actual training for fights has always occured in guild environments, where you can take the time to review gameplay footage and organize scrims
    • wait.. it actually turns out that what you call worst quality actually delivers the highest possible standard for training ? 
  • WR actually incentivizes people to join guild, and forces guilds to think about what they want to achieve in WvW. 

Player choice

Quote
  • OG : Can transfer anywhere and choose all teammates and preferred population (Best player choice)
  • relink : Can transfer anywhere and choose 60-70% of teammates, but not preferred population
  • WR : Can only choose own guild and the environment around your guild can't be controlled. (Worst player choice).
  • is environement around the guild really that relevant ?
    • from my experience, it was mostly relevant for players that had alternative play hours from the rest of their guild
    • we successfully went around that by founding an alliance with other guilds. 
    • most big guilds usually organize opens several times a week when it's not their planned closed raiding times. 
    • it's about time you realize open fight squads in the servers were organized by guilds with very few exceptions. 
  • you make it sound like "preferred population" was all glithers and sparklers, but it was very far from the case. 
    • whole guilds were server hoping just to bully one guy
    • you could actually be locked out from playing with your friends if you did not chose the correct server and did not want to micro-transaction
    • "player choice" also means "risk of lack of fairplayness"
    • people were litteraly waiting for relinks to change servers
      • which litteraly means team balance was an actual joke

 

What's funny is that you prove your cherrypicking in order to your draw conclusions in the "what we should do part". -By adressing problems of the previous systems and carefully getting them out of your "metrics" or saying it was "mismanaged". You even took metrics that are questionnably relevant with the WR just to be able to add a line where "monoserver is the best" and "WR is the worst". 

And yet, 

  • you still have to merge servers if you want to go from 9 tiers to 4/5, so you don't even regain the benefit of server identity
  • you still keep the 1-up-1-down system which is the whole reason there are balance problems currently (what you need is a system that does not rely on random-then-sorting)
  • 1-up-1-down fused with the "player choice" has no meaning, we saw that for 10 years with the relink sysem, and yet you want more of the same ?
  • you over-inflate the difference between "monoserver without glicko" and "relink system". There are no difference except that your proposed system is less choice + less diversity than the relink system. 

 

 

Clap on being worse than anet at building a competitive system. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, latlat.4516 said:

is environement around the guild really that relevant

 

You are probably confused because linking system lasted so long and you or your opponents couldn't control your server tier, but before linking system, guilds could not only choose their allies, but opponents in same tier. Almost all fighting guilds stayed around T2-T3, which ment plenty of fights.

It is a big deal having 8 different enemy guilds to fight in a matchups over 2 in average. It also gives your guild extra incentive to do open tags some weeks to fight better guilds, or not drop to lowest tiers with 0 activity. With world restructuring and linking system, one thing was in common: You couldn't control your servers tier with just discussion since links provided 40% population and you were thrown in random tier every 4 weeks. So you lost your control over what guilds to fight... Or what tier/server to be for best fights.

Anyways, while you might be sceptical that you can control your servers tier with your guild, lot of guilds have done so in the past when we had monoservers.

Quote

people were litteraly waiting for relinks to change servers

  • which litteraly means team balance was an actual joke

I didn't suggest we keep linkings, I suggested we go to monoservers without linkings. While Rank 1 and Rank 2 servers will be stacked, they will be fighting each other, so matchup balance will be better. It does not matter if Tier 4 server has noticeably less population than Tier 1 server, because they're not fighting each other.

Imagine real life: 1vs1 tennis matches are fair and 2vs2 tennis matches are fair, right? Every match doesn't need to be same population, which both restructuring and linking system attempted and failed to do. Maybe you actually prefer 1vs1, and someone else prefers 2vs2. Main thing is that teams facing each other have almost same population (rank1 vs rank 2) or (rank 15 vs rank 14) and not rank 1 vs rank 15 every 1 month like restructuring is doing.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2024 at 11:08 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Original system (No links)

Matchmaking:  Guaranteed matchup against servers close in tiers  (Best matchmaking)

Serverwide Progress: If you played/entertained more you got more transfers and average gamehours went up (Best serverwide progress)

Overall quality: You could train pugs and had more time to integrate them (Best quality)

Player choice: Can transfer anywhere and choose all teammates and preferred population (Best player choice)

 

 

First, yes.. you can choose which server to transfer but not necessary you will be able to do so.. in N/A before the restructure.. most if not all of the high and mid tier servers are full and closed.. let's say my fight team has a group of 30 ppl want to join Mag server.. good luck with that.

I don't really see any fight guild will 'train' pug more than just saying "stay tight or die.." they're not going to give you training like how to be a support firebrand or being a cele scourge. This is the training you got after you joined the guild. I have seen good fight guild just avoiding fighting another fight guild when there are lot of pugs around or sending those pugs to die at the first encounter to avoid any rally for enemy team later in the fight. Will pugs learn how to fight this way? I really doubt that. 

If old system has 'Guaranteed matchup against servers close in tiers' than we won't have a say about 'Mag week'.. basically it's PVE week for a lot of servers in NA when we saw our next matchup is coming against Mag. I have seen they were in T1 to T3 and, if I remember correctly, they have been T4 before as well (I maybe wrong on this). In NA, we only had 4 tiers back then. 

The only thing I missed about old system is those server-mates that not in my guild but i had been playing with for years. However, I also meet new friends in new system so it's good.. life just move-on!

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, sduFire.8420 said:

If old system has 'Guaranteed matchup against servers close in tiers' than we won't have a say about 'Mag week'.. basically it's PVE week for a lot of servers in NA when we saw our next matchup is coming against Mag. I have seen they were in T1 to T3 and, if I remember correctly, they have been T4 before as well (I maybe wrong on this). In NA, we only had 4 tiers back then. 

You have misunderstood. Old system is one where no one had links. Reasons you had so many incidences of facing against outnumbering Mag as lower ranked server is:

- They always had linked server, meaning they were always open and had numbers advantage due to incoming transfers after every relinking (f/e You lost 100 people, they gained 400 people from all servers -> 500 people advantage despite being full server)

- Your and their server were misplaced initial weeks after relinking

- You couldn't train your server mates to reach necessary skill level because around 40% of them were from a link, and you only had 4-8 weeks to teach them with no incentive to do so

- Maximum pop server could have before being marked full was much lower than it would have been with soloserver system. This ment more full servers and proportionally less fairweatherers and new players at top servers.

- It was extremely easy to tank during "desert home weeks" and climb during "alpine home weeks". It required no coordination.

so all of them were related to how 2 servers linked together failed at controlling population and providing decent matchups... Or just bad map layout.

7 hours ago, sduFire.8420 said:

most if not all of the high and mid tier servers are full and closed.. l

This is because of how links affected population. Monoserver system would have no links and maximum 3 servers would be closed.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The restructuring is clearly having issues, but this is like rose-tinted spectacles looking through a cloud of nostalgia. Let's remember the fundamental downsides of monoservers:

  • Servers were locked for months on end, meaning you couldn't play with your friends. (I think Blackgate was locked for well over a year).
  • Bandwagoning was awful. Guilds would flood another server at once, emptying their old server and overrunning a new community.
  • Matchups were incredibly stale. Servers would fight each other week after week. Servers would regularly tank to avoid fighting a particularly stacked server.

Linking was IMO a half-measure to resolve the fact that so many servers were practically empty with no content, while partially addressing the above.

If world restructuring is given some continued priority and investment (rather than left in a half-finished state), then it should be a night and day improvement over mono-servers.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adammantium.8031 said:

If world restructuring is given some continued priority and investment (rather than left in a half-finished state), then it should be a night and day improvement over mono-servers.

Unfortunetly it is what is going to hurt it in the long run and we know Anet isnt exactly fast on turning it around unless it happen to be PvE expansion. Using guilds work eqvivalent in terms of how they join WvW but ingame you're not really seeing the "alliance" which will lead to community being unable to gather around them and misconceptions about stacking with how many they really are. I still believe that using [mandatory WvW guild][optional repped guild]<name> would have been a simple "workaround" for that but I digress.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:

Servers were locked for months on end, meaning you couldn't play with your friends. (I think Blackgate was locked for well over a year).

Playing with your friends was easier back then if you weren't too picky about your server. Now you log in, and might have to wait 3-4 weeks to play with them. There is nothing you can do to play with your friend in next 2½ weeks if he chooses to log in today after 3 months break.

2 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:

Bandwagoning was awful. Guilds would flood another server at once, emptying their old server and overrunning a new community.

Yes, servers at Tier 5 and below were very empty. But this was cause of having too many tiers. We couldn't maintain queues with 5 tiers in EU, so 9 was obviously too many. If you have 5 loppipops, you can't distribute them to 9 people. If tier 1 servers will be full and tier 4-5 servers 500 gems, there will be lot of groups transferring from up to down to keep that side fresh as well.

2 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:

Matchups were incredibly stale. Servers would fight each other week after week. Servers would regularly tank to avoid fighting a particularly stacked server.

When other choice is having dead and massively advantageous matchups, then stale matchups doesn't sound so bad. There were plenty of commanders on all sides, because people could build their timezones. Building a fun timezone does not only take stable teammates, but also stable enemies. Of course guild people were crying about wanting to fight certain guilds, but now EotM arena exists and they can.

After all it is better for everyone to choose the most fun server for them fighting similarly populated servers than having these lopsided matchups and enemy having dead timezones when you want to play

2 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:

If world restructuring is given some continued priority and investment (rather than left in a half-finished state), then it should be a night and day improvement over mono-servers.

What restructuring is offering everyone smashed potatoes and fried sausages every dinner. Which is okay sometimes, maybe you love eating the same meal everyday.. But it is better to have a buffet of different foods and desserts by allowing people to transfer to whatever they prefer themselves. There should be kinder servers, bigger servers, tryhard servers, degenerate servers, smaller servers, roaming servers, ranged servers, melee servers, drunk servers. so everyone can have a choice in the buffet. Attempting to make all servers sausages and smashed potatoes is never gonna be a great solution. You could just transfer to what you prefer... With your whole guild.. Even to enjoy some sausages and smashed potatoes. Why do you have to force everyone else to eat the same meal? They will just end up quitting the game.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

What restructuring is offering everyone smashed potatoes and fried sausages every dinner. Which is okay sometimes, maybe you love eating the same meal everyday.. But it is better to have a buffet of different foods and desserts by allowing people to transfer to whatever they prefer themselves. There should be kinder servers, bigger servers, tryhard servers, degenerate servers, smaller servers, roaming servers, ranged servers, melee servers, drunk servers. so everyone can have a choice in the buffet. Attempting to make all servers sausages and smashed potatoes is never gonna be a great solution. You could just transfer to what you prefer... With your whole guild.. Even to enjoy some sausages and smashed potatoes. Why do you have to force everyone else to eat the same meal? They will just end up quitting the game.

This reasoning actually follows a logical thread, which seems to me to be correct. If only we had a 'dynamic' working group that would love to try and experiment with these kinds of changes through a 1 or 2 week 'special event' just to see how things go and what feedback you get from the players. I'd say check it out right away. I'm not an expert in programming and coding, but every comma you move here, always seems extremely complicated

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you cry for change now when you don’t like it you cry to bring back the past. No one cares about the servers you chose a guild and you play with that group of ppl, but now i can see the problem you have with guilds Riba no one wants you in their guild.

The system is kitten for sure but what you want is not better, at least now you can pick a group of ppl that you can enjoy playing with that are in the same time zone as you and not be in an empty server during the day and with 100 ppl online during the night fighting HUGE groups of 3-4 players. If you wanna give feedback to this new system you are free to do so but give a suggestion about how to improve it instead of telling the devs press Ctrl+Z but live the things i like in. 

  • Confused 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/10/2024 at 11:49 PM, Zevelon.6512 said:

First you cry for change now when you don’t like it you cry to bring back the past. No one cares about the servers you chose a guild and you play with that group of ppl, but now i can see the problem you have with guilds Riba no one wants you in their guild.

I have always been consistant at saying that Linking system was a mistake. Same applies to restructuring. While I did want things to change during linking system, it was towards stability, choice and better matchmaking, not towards worse. If someone wants house to be remodeled, it doesn't mean you burn it down.

On 7/10/2024 at 11:49 PM, Zevelon.6512 said:

 

The system is kitten for sure but what you want is not better, at least now you can pick a group of ppl that you can enjoy playing with that are in the same time zone as you and not be in an empty server during the day and with

You could always do this by transferring with whole guild to highly populated server with opponents. Issue with linkings however was same as with restructure: Highly populated servers were not necessarily at high tier and lowpopulated at low tier because the initial matchmaking failed. And will always fail. "Give it 3 weeks to settle to decent matchups" is not a good thing if populations shuffle completely anew every 4 weeks.

Actually for guilds monoservers as a system was much more beneficial, because you could control your servers tier as could other guilds, so they could guarantee more fights and good scene while training pugs, or at least telling them, to not be leeches. With current system, you have no control over your own tier, other guilds tier or serverwide conduct.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2024 at 11:04 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Playing with your friends was easier back then if you weren't too picky about your server. Now you log in, and might have to wait 3-4 weeks to play with them. There is nothing you can do to play with your friend in next 2½ weeks if he chooses to log in today after 3 months break.

Inactive players can choose a world upon return.

On 7/9/2024 at 11:04 AM, Riba.3271 said:

Yes, servers at Tier 5 and below were very empty. But this was cause of having too many tiers. We couldn't maintain queues with 5 tiers in EU, so 9 was obviously too many. If you have 5 loppipops, you can't distribute them to 9 people.

Lower tiers were dead, because players quit or transferred to "better" severs after getting steamrolled week after week. And that's not something that is fixed by deleting tiers, because eventually there's nothing left to delete.

On 7/9/2024 at 11:04 AM, Riba.3271 said:

If tier 1 servers will be full and tier 4-5 servers 500 gems, there will be lot of groups transferring from up to down to keep that side fresh as well.

Right, because that worked so well in the past ...

On 7/9/2024 at 11:04 AM, Riba.3271 said:

When other choice is having dead and massively advantageous matchups, then stale matchups doesn't sound so bad.

It does sound bad when you have stale and dead and massively imbalanced matches tho - and that's exactly what happened in the old mono server system.

Edited by Zyreva.1078
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:
On 7/9/2024 at 12:04 PM, Riba.3271 said:

 

It does sound bad when you have stale and dead and massively imbalanced matches tho - and that's exactly what happened in the old mono server system.

Dead: Of course since potential WvW playerbase was split between 9 tiers

Stale: Yes, balanced. Servers enjoyed competition and knowing enemy strong timezones immensely so they logged in to face them at that time.

Imbalanced: Faults of the Glicko at the time, Only servers facing best server at the time should be rank 2, rank 3 and rank 4... Which is what 1-up-1-down does.

22 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Lower tiers were dead, because players quit or transferred to "better" severs after getting steamrolled week after week

Actually lower tiers were dead because there were no commanders left so no1 could play. If commander distribution is 25%/20%/15%/15%/10% in first 5 tiers, then remaining 4 tiers have only 15% commanders split between all servers there. Low tier players started playing as soon as linking system came out and they could finally play in a group.

Edited by Riba.3271
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...