(Sugg.) Random Matchups

[Mysteriax.6049]

I saw this idea in a closed thread and wanted to create a new thread about it. Thanks to @"Coldtart.4785" for suggesting this. It's an interesting idea.

"I legitimately think that WvW would be better off with random matchups and periodic free transfer times." I'd like to focus on just the first part of the post.

Under this system, scoring and skirmish rewards would remain the same but matchups would be random every week and tiers essentially meaningless. It could prevent intentional tanking and other issues of the 1U1D system. What do you think?

[MadBomber.3719]

it wont change anything. You'll still get one sided matchups and people will still complain. a T4 server matched with BG or another T1 server isnt gonna make them magically have more people or play any more. In fact you actually have less incentive to try because ppt becomes obsolete

can people stop saying servers are tanking? what server is tanking? i assume most people are referring to mag? if people actually did some research, theyd know mag basically has nothing outside of NA. their 2 main NA guilds (PYRO and KEK) raid twice a week, they have no pugmanders and without a link they certainly dont have the coverage to be in T1. could mag try a bit harder on the ppt? sure, but not having coverage doesnt mean youre tanking. and for those saying mag tanks to get "easier fights" iirc last time they were in T1 they still had a KDR over 1; neck and neck with BG so... theyve had a higher kdr than any other server thats been in T1 in the last year outside of BG. T1 isnt exactly harder fights..

[Dawdler.8521]

This is exactly what the alliance system does. As Anet has described it, It has 7 weeks of "pre-transfers" (just set another guild as your WvW guild) and then 1 week locked, then you end up on the same world as the guild you joined. So there is your periodic free transfers.

Since worlds are recreated every 2 months, the matchups would be more random due to world shuffle. I am guessing this reset the rankings as well so they start from scratch - ie no need to intentionally tank anything. What's strong one season isnt necessarily strong the next, you wouldnt have anything to tank versus.

[XenesisII.1540]

Really not much point for them to make any drastic changes to matchups or servers until they have the alliance system in, because that's just taking work time away from it for a temporary fix. Maybe they can do away with glicko, do away with 1u1d, and just do random matches once the world population balance is done. I'm sure we'll get complaints from people that want a ranking system and their world to be #1, so could also run wvw like a sports season at that point, although those run on schedules not rng.

[X T D.6458]

I'm all for random matchups. Maybe with restructuring /shrug...

Although this would make winning and scores essentially meaningless without any rewards for it and this would deprive a lot of people of any incentive to play especially during low activity times.

[Kovu.7560]

The population difference between server #3 (red, T1) and server #10 (green, T4) generally isn't all that different. That's where most of the volatility is, in regards to different servers bouncing around between tiers. Just look at T2 & T3 this week -- the red servers are winning.With the exception of the two stacked servers in T1, the biggest reason some servers jump ahead any given week is that people on all of the servers are tired of the politics of the ppt game and would rather just look for fights, and those servers in the lead just happen to be the ones in the lead.

~ Kovu

[JDub.1530]

@"MadBomber.3719" said:can people stop saying servers are tanking? what server is tanking?

As part of a linked server, I've been linked with 3 or 4 different servers since I got back into WvW last year. One of those (I won't mention which) literally WAS tanking for at least one week. It was all over the server chat. They apparently had a meeting and "everyone" agreed to tank. It was a point of great contention. And there were even incidents of active tanking, such as large groups AFK at spawn to keep a map queued. Or burning an entire EBG keep supply to build a literal army of golems.

The punchline is they failed. lol

[DemonSeed.3528]

One of the server's I'm on is apparently doing that too - there was chat about it last week and a meeting supposedly as well. The thing is, I don't think it'd matter much if they were doing it on purpose or not, we are kinda getting rolled over this week lol.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"DemonSeed.3528" said:One of the server's I'm on is apparently doing that too - there was chat about it last week and a meeting supposedly as well. The thing is, I don't think it'd matter much if they were doing it on purpose or not, we are kinda getting rolled over this week lol.Kind of common you know.

"We're not loosing the matchup, we're tanking intentionally!""That other server are just PPTing, they dont want to fight us after they tried 10 times and lost every time!""We're the best fight server, we only play for fights!" (at 250+ PPT)"This server cant fight against the two enemy 70+ zergs, server is dead!" (1 open tag with 15 people because the border is queued with 3 closed guild raids that only want to fight the 1 enemy guild)Etc and so on.

[CrimsonNeon.6712]

You get 2 different servers every matchup, if you don't stay locked in T1 or T5 anyway and relinks every two months. For certain servers, it should stay that way.