Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Low populated servers vs fulll populated servers in wvw


abelsgmx.7530
 Share

Recommended Posts

@abelsgmx.7530 said:Anet why do you keep facing up low populated servers against full populated servers in WVW? This is just funny for full populated servers, change your rotation in groups in accordance with server populations and you will prevent a lot of rage quits

They are overhauling the entire system to do just that, because it takes an overhaul of the system to find matchups that are more consistently even for more than a few hours a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whether servers are low pop are high pop, the ppl showing up are the die hard wvw players. some are fairweathers (drives me crazy i tell you).

as long as the server has consistent pug coms, it is active because public coms drive the zerg and provide the organization. (my observation from 1st to last tier)

a server without one normally ends up dying.

so the better question i think is, which time does the public coms show up? and from which server? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was us, the players, who wanted this.

The matchups use 1-up-1-down system. The winner of a matchup moves up a tier and the loser moves down.

Players wanted this system for guaranteed weekly variation in matchups. The old system used Glicko rating to measure worlds' strength and matched up worlds of equal strength with touch of randomness.

Since the world strengths are far apart, the 1u2d system results in terrible matchups every two weeks. For example when the 3rd strength world falls down to tier 2, and at same time the 7th strength world raises up to tier 2.

It is also easier to tank down under this system. That is to ask players of your world not to play on some weeks to guarantee falling down to easier tiers. The Glicko rating decays much slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i prefer the 1up 1 down over glicko. no system exists that stops tanking. except manual adjustment. but it only reflects the wvw attitude of certain players who only want easy bags and dont want to compete.

this is a prob partly because wvw has no purpose except for us old vets who do it out of habit and new players who enjoy the community we provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Low population servers are usually at the bottom... if your server manages to win and more up a tier then they had better population than the other two servers you beat... if you're currently not winning against the 2 other server above you, then you don't belong in that tier, suck it up for a week, you're not going to win every week unless you're BG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has also always been a problem with low population servers who happen to have strong nightcrew. So they rack up tons of points at night and morning when enemy has no players, but at prime time when enemies log in again, they struggle. Quite small dedicated nighcrew can push low population server up to the tier they should not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very complicated issue. Initially, the up and down is good but the continously stacking and destacking make the up and down becoming more and more unbalance.

To put it plain simple, the players destroyed what was good for their own desire of easy wins. Now, we really need servers blow up to put things back in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Korgov.7645 said:It was us, the players, who wanted this.

The matchups use 1-up-1-down system. The winner of a matchup moves up a tier and the loser moves down.

Players wanted this system for guaranteed weekly variation in matchups. The old system used Glicko rating to measure worlds' strength and matched up worlds of equal strength with touch of randomness.

Since the world strengths are far apart, the 1u2d system results in terrible matchups every two weeks. For example when the 3rd strength world falls down to tier 2, and at same time the 7th strength world raises up to tier 2.

It is also easier to tank down under this system. That is to ask players of your world not to play on some weeks to guarantee falling down to easier tiers. The Glicko rating decays much slower.

True, I can even recall a 12 week long match up in the first year of the game, that was tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are pros and cons for both systems.In glicko you could be stuck in a bad matchup for months at a time, in which a lot of your server would just give up and not bother playing to tank the glicko, you would have people in here complaining about getting the same matchup week after week. Glicko eventually had it's walls, in which the 4 link server tortured tier 4 for like 8 weeks, but on a plus side the super stacked servers had their own tier to play in week after week after week after 2 years, and we didn't have a 3rd server that didn't tank properly tier 2 winning the unlucky lotto to go to tier 1 every week.

In 1u1d you get one bad matchup and then next week you drop into a more appropriate tier. Hell a server like TC that is supposedly tier 4 material has a chance to hit tier 1 next week, they get to test their ppting against the best ppting servers around. There's multiple servers that have been bouncing from t1-t3 in the last 6 months, MAG, JQ, YB, FA, SBI, DB. That shows half the servers are closer in balance with each other, 2 are stuck on top, and the other 4 are bouncing t3-t4.

The 1u1d system should work out better under the alliance system when populations are move evened out every 8 weeks, unlike links which has limitations on trying to achieve that balance. Glicko which reacted too slowly to population shifts would also work under the new system, but then you'd come back to the age old complaint, why the same match week after week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T2 is terrible atm ... TC is winning despite being constantly steamrolled to the point that commanders wont even run on EBG. Hopefully the matchmaking for alliances takes player skill into account in addition to population so we don't have matchups that just turn into a siege bunk fest because no one wants to fight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"salogel.1869" said:Hopefully the matchmaking for alliances takes player skill into account in addition to population so we don't have matchups that just turn into a siege bunk fest because no one wants to fight

"Skill" is not something that can be measured and compared. You would first need to define what exactly is the "skill". Then you would have to eliminate other factors like time of day, other friendly players, number of enemies, ownership of objectives etcetc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@salogel.1869 said:T2 is terrible atm ... TC is winning despite being constantly steamrolled to the point that commanders wont even run on EBG. Hopefully the matchmaking for alliances takes player skill into account in addition to population so we don't have matchups that just turn into a siege bunk fest because no one wants to fight

If ppt is that important to TC then they kinda deserve to go to t1 to compete with the other two major ppting servers, honestly you all play exactly like BG and SoS.

I don't get the complaints of tc players, you all sound like you want to ppt hard but stay low in tiers? do you want servers to run your side over and stuff you in lower tiers? you're winning isn't that what you want? you can't have it both ways. PPT is the way to win matchups, if you don't want that then relax on the ppting and try to enjoy the other activities of wvw, like fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately in WvW a single player cannot force the server to change playstyle and making suggestions about how people can play better just gets you blocked. Personally I don't really care about the score (both PPT and PPK) because it is mostly meaningless in the current state of WvW. It's just that getting run over again and again and not being able to do anything about it gets really frustrating.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...