Problems with 1 up 1 down match manipulation

[Chaba.5410]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @Chaba.5410 said:

> > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > people were more content to remain in a tier

> >

> > Quite the rose-tinted glasses you got there. Try to have a larger perspective than T1 only. The glicko cliffs between the tiers in NA were disastrous. One server would get stacked in a tier and make the matches painful for the other two servers in the tier yet that stacked server could not move up into a T2 or T1 match. The other two servers would lose guilds and players as a result of being unable to drop down a tier and struggled to build their communities because they kept facing a stacked server practically every single match. No one wanted to xfer to those "loser" servers. People were NOT content to remain in a "broken" tier.

> >

> > You forgetting the so-called Alliance had to super-stack a server by mass-transferring in to break the T1 glicko cliff? It essentially drained the populations from the other two servers as guilds and players fled to lower tier servers. None of that would have ever happened if there had been 1u1d back then.

> >

>

> LoL, thats not why the "alliance" moved. I seem to recall your server FA was pretty happy being in t2 all that time wasn't it?

 

So you choose to deflect instead of address the problem with glicko matchmaking that 1u1d solved? Why the "alliance" mass-transferred is meaningless. Before that, it was FA getting bandwagoned but unable to push into T1, making life miserable for the other two servers. Before that it was SoS. Should I keep going? Remember what happened to the T3 servers when YB, FA, DB, and SoS were all stacked? We called it a meat-grinder. One-up-one-down would have smoothed out the stacking and prevented the slow death of T1 when TC and JQ couldn't get transfers in anymore due to the population algorithm change. TC would not have been stuck losing population and in a terrible match.

 

Both FA and SoS lost about half their populations when the "alliance" moved in. How do you claim that is "pretty happy"?

[Artaz.3819]

1u1d is better than glicko and arbitrary manual ANet adjustments to glicko. The issue is T1 has 2 spots to stay in tier and bottom tier has 2 spots to stay at the bottom. That creates odd weeks when you have competing tanking servers.

 

Server linking is a whole separate issue which player-driven server-wide tanking and how it's tied to world links but that's what needs to be adjusted. Links should be better weighted on active accounts on the entire 2-month linked activity based on home server. If someone is inactive in WvW for 2+ months, unlink them from that home server.

[X T D.6458]

> @Chaba.5410 said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @Chaba.5410 said:

> > > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > people were more content to remain in a tier

> > >

> > > Quite the rose-tinted glasses you got there. Try to have a larger perspective than T1 only. The glicko cliffs between the tiers in NA were disastrous. One server would get stacked in a tier and make the matches painful for the other two servers in the tier yet that stacked server could not move up into a T2 or T1 match. The other two servers would lose guilds and players as a result of being unable to drop down a tier and struggled to build their communities because they kept facing a stacked server practically every single match. No one wanted to xfer to those "loser" servers. People were NOT content to remain in a "broken" tier.

> > >

> > > You forgetting the so-called Alliance had to super-stack a server by mass-transferring in to break the T1 glicko cliff? It essentially drained the populations from the other two servers as guilds and players fled to lower tier servers. None of that would have ever happened if there had been 1u1d back then.

> > >

> >

> > LoL, thats not why the "alliance" moved. I seem to recall your server FA was pretty happy being in t2 all that time wasn't it?

>

> So you choose to deflect instead of address the problem with glicko matchmaking that 1u1d solved? Why the "alliance" mass-transferred is meaningless. Before that, it was FA getting bandwagoned but unable to push into T1, making life miserable for the other two servers. Before that it was SoS. Should I keep going? Remember what happened to the T3 servers when YB, FA, DB, and SoS were all stacked? We called it a meat-grinder. One-up-one-down would have smoothed out the stacking and prevented the slow death of T1 when TC and JQ couldn't get transfers in anymore due to the population algorithm change. TC would not have been stuck losing population and in a terrible match.

>

> Both FA and SoS lost about half their populations when the "alliance" moved in. How do you claim that is "pretty happy"?

 

I am not saying which system is better. I said both have advantages and disadvantages. And like I said, 1u1d would have worked better if it had been implemented earlier, I did not say it is a good or bad system.

 

Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier. Bad for servers who went through a mass exodus

 

1u1d=good for servers who want to change matchups faster. Makes activity easier to manipulate.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> The alternative, Glicko which was used for matchmaking in the past would result in a much slower process. This would basically lock servers into matchups, sometimes for over a year with the same servers. Each system has flaws and advantages. You can't force people to play. I think it's incredibly stupid to "tank" on purpose, and a lot of people just use it as a crutch because they cant handle losing, but whatever...to each his own.

You are on Blackgate, of _course_ you don't see the problem (because you _are_ the problem)

[keelhaul.8039]

The tanking is STUPID at the moment. All 3 servers in T2 have tanked all week because no one wants tier 1. I cant see the mentality changing anytime soon and it will probably just get worse now that the tank meta is "catching on" so t2 will just become a tier where no one plays at all (that's already what happened this week). Servers in t1 will tank to get to t2, t2 servers wont play because no one wants t1, and t3 servers will tank to avoid t2. Pretty soon no one will be playing anywhere.

[Sovereign.1093]

A good casual yet competitive game has a clear objective or goal for players to strive. Like in pvp, recognition and rewards.

 

In our case, we have side quests like dailies. Indirect objectives by armor weapon and trinkets for gearing which are alternatives to pve, fractals and raid. But we have no end objective, just take and hold stuff, fight but no direction.

 

Hire me as your consultant. Hehe, been a gamer for 20 years. And this wvw needs an overhaul.

 

In the least, pls listen to your player base.

 

Tweak wvw once more.

[X T D.6458]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > The alternative, Glicko which was used for matchmaking in the past would result in a much slower process. This would basically lock servers into matchups, sometimes for over a year with the same servers. Each system has flaws and advantages. You can't force people to play. I think it's incredibly stupid to "tank" on purpose, and a lot of people just use it as a crutch because they cant handle losing, but whatever...to each his own.

> You are on Blackgate, of _course_ you don't see the problem (because you _are_ the problem)

 

We are not the problem, we can not force you to play or not play. I find it incredibly hypocritical when people are constantly saying how dead and pointless WvW is, and at the same time bashing BG for being "too" active. Like how dare we actually play...I also find it idiotic that people who like to say that winning is meaningless, don't care about score, and sit out matchups, then go ahead and complain about not being able to win and lacking coverage.

 

Man up and get over yourselves. its your decisions that put you where you are.

 

Enlighten yourselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

[aandiarie.7195]

Glicko was a nightmare of epic proportions. 1 up 1 down is way better. Something was severely off with that glicko formula. O_O 1 up 1 down just works better and keeps crazy stuff from happening.

[GottFaust.5297]

> @keelhaul.8039 said:

> The tanking is STUPID at the moment. All 3 servers in T2 have tanked all week because no one wants tier 1. I cant see the mentality changing anytime soon and it will probably just get worse now that the tank meta is "catching on" so t2 will just become a tier where no one plays at all (that's already what happened this week). Servers in t1 will tank to get to t2, t2 servers wont play because no one wants t1, and t3 servers will tank to avoid t2. Pretty soon no one will be playing anywhere.

 

As someone on one of those servers: at least there have been a lot of open land fights. I honestly prefer that to PPT anyway.

Looks like my server is going back up to T1 again next matchup. I guess it's better than T3 where no one logs on after sunday and if they do: they just run away 24/7 unless they outnumber you 3-to-1.

[hunkamania.7561]

tanking happened with glicko as well. wvw needs a major overhaul and it probably isn't gonna get anything but a yearly update if we're lucky. this game should probably be more about guilds and be less casual but i wouldn't hold my breath.

[Shazmataz.1423]

> @keelhaul.8039 said:

> The tanking is STUPID at the moment. All 3 servers in T2 have tanked all week because no one wants tier 1. I cant see the mentality changing anytime soon and it will probably just get worse now that the tank meta is "catching on" so t2 will just become a tier where no one plays at all (that's already what happened this week). Servers in t1 will tank to get to t2, t2 servers wont play because no one wants t1, and t3 servers will tank to avoid t2. Pretty soon no one will be playing anywhere.

 

Tanking is a real issue....being in T1 for past few weeks I wasn't aware of what has been happening in tiers 2 & 3. Why the fuck don't people just play!! Tanking is so stupid and boring.

[X T D.6458]

> @Shazmataz.1423 said:

> > @keelhaul.8039 said:

> > The tanking is STUPID at the moment. All 3 servers in T2 have tanked all week because no one wants tier 1. I cant see the mentality changing anytime soon and it will probably just get worse now that the tank meta is "catching on" so t2 will just become a tier where no one plays at all (that's already what happened this week). Servers in t1 will tank to get to t2, t2 servers wont play because no one wants t1, and t3 servers will tank to avoid t2. Pretty soon no one will be playing anywhere.

>

> Tanking is a real issue....being in T1 for past few weeks I wasn't aware of what has been happening in tiers 2 & 3. Why the kitten don't people just play!! Tanking is so stupid and boring.

 

Because some people are full of themselves and can't handle losing. They make every excuse they can and blame everyone and everything else.

 

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Excuse me sirs. Only ANET is allowed to match manipulate via links. Good day to you.

 

Lastly.

 

> @Shazmataz.1423 said:

> The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.

> Match making needs a rework imo.

 

People leave due to bad game play (balance) first, then followed by lag and finally queues (bigger issue at launch). Tanking is questionable for motivations that a massive amount of players would "quit." You could transfer to a server not tanking to remedy this...oh wait they're full (but not really full).

[zinkz.7045]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier.

 

That makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

[Turk.5460]

I like the 1-up 1-down method *far* better than being faced with the same 2 servers for half a year at a time, only to have it switch up for one week, then go back to the same 2 servers...

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @zinkz.7045 said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier.

>

> That makes no sense.

>

>

>

>

>

 

It did. Servers that weren't interested in PPT were able to camp in a Tier for extended periods in order to have the same fights oriented matchups.

 

T-1 for a period of time rotated winning weeks to allow the top three to stay in T1. Glicko took a long time to adjust.

 

Before links, T2 and 3 were happy (as a whole) staying out of T-1.

 

Of course that 'Tier lock' that existed made for 'stale matchups' so there were actions taken by a few to shake this up.

 

I'll stop there as the rest, is, shall we say, a matter of opinion.

 

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @zinkz.7045 said:

> > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier.

> >

> > That makes no sense.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> It did. Servers that weren't interested in PPT were able to camp in a Tier for extended periods in order to have the same fights oriented matchups.

>

> T-1 for a period of time rotated winning weeks to allow the top three to stay in T1. Glicko took a long time to adjust.

>

> Before links, T2 and 3 were happy (as a whole) staying out of T-1.

>

> Of course that 'Tier lock' that existed made for 'stale matchups' so there were actions taken by a few to shake this up.

>

> I'll stop there as the rest, is, shall we say, a matter of opinion.

>

 

Then I guess that is an NA thing (though it seems funny talking about fights and NA when the kill stats are generally so low, clearly many PvE heroes, who like to sit in towers, especially T1), because on EU matchups were pretty volatile when you had Glicko, so servers have been deliberately moving up or down tiers for a long time in order to get to fight the servers they want, or to the extreme where many of the fight guilds moved to silver league back when we had tournies so they could have "good" fights and avoid the PPT monkeys in T1/T2.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @zinkz.7045 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @zinkz.7045 said:

> > > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier.

> > >

> > > That makes no sense.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It did. Servers that weren't interested in PPT were able to camp in a Tier for extended periods in order to have the same fights oriented matchups.

> >

> > T-1 for a period of time rotated winning weeks to allow the top three to stay in T1. Glicko took a long time to adjust.

> >

> > Before links, T2 and 3 were happy (as a whole) staying out of T-1.

> >

> > Of course that 'Tier lock' that existed made for 'stale matchups' so there were actions taken by a few to shake this up.

> >

> > I'll stop there as the rest, is, shall we say, a matter of opinion.

> >

>

> Then I guess that is an NA thing (though it seems funny talking about fights and NA when the kill stats are generally so low, clearly many PvE heroes, who like to sit in towers, especially T1), because on EU matchups were pretty volatile when you had Glicko, so servers have been deliberately moving up or down tiers for a long time in order to get to fight the servers they want, or to the extreme where many of the fight guilds moved to silver league back when we had tournies so they could have "good" fights and avoid the PPT monkeys in T1/T2.

 

> @zinkz.7045 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @zinkz.7045 said:

> > > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier.

> > >

> > > That makes no sense.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > It did. Servers that weren't interested in PPT were able to camp in a Tier for extended periods in order to have the same fights oriented matchups.

> >

> > T-1 for a period of time rotated winning weeks to allow the top three to stay in T1. Glicko took a long time to adjust.

> >

> > Before links, T2 and 3 were happy (as a whole) staying out of T-1.

> >

> > Of course that 'Tier lock' that existed made for 'stale matchups' so there were actions taken by a few to shake this up.

> >

> > I'll stop there as the rest, is, shall we say, a matter of opinion.

> >

>

> Then I guess that is an NA thing (though it seems funny talking about fights and NA when the kill stats are generally so low, clearly many PvE heroes, who like to sit in towers, especially T1), because on EU matchups were pretty volatile when you had Glicko, so servers have been deliberately moving up or down tiers for a long time in order to get to fight the servers they want, or to the extreme where many of the fight guilds moved to silver league back when we had tournies so they could have "good" fights and avoid the PPT monkeys in T1/T2.

 

What those who would tell you that are in 'fights oriented servers' is that they are not playing to ensure they drop down.

 

[Kaiser.9873]

Match manipulation NA is to avoid T1. T1 is the plague tier. No one except BG enjoys that tier anymore. Most WvW guilds cannot muster a full squad anymore, so why play in a tier that you better have a full squad to be competitive.

[X T D.6458]

> @zinkz.7045 said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > Glicko=better for servers who were more fights focused, and wanted to stay in a tier.

>

> That makes no sense.

>

>

>

>

>

 

The slow nature of glicko allowed servers to ignore scores. A server could lose for weeks and still remain in a tier by winning a single matchup because it would gain back a bunch of Glicko points. If anything 1u1d actually encourages servers that want to stay in a tier to win or get second place on a much faster basis, glicko made it easier for servers to not have to care about winning. That of course is a generalized statement, the current state of WvW is a different story.

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Before links, T2 and 3 were happy (as a whole) staying out of T-1.

 

Since no lower server could push into T1, this is wishful thinking. Everything that happened in T2 and below occurred as a result of the match manipulation and mass-logouts to overstack in T1 since matchmaking starts at the top. So-called GvG guilds moved around the tiers regardless, they even got into T1 at one point with the old autoclicker trick.

[Shazmataz.1423]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @Shazmataz.1423 said:

> > > @keelhaul.8039 said:

> > > The tanking is STUPID at the moment. All 3 servers in T2 have tanked all week because no one wants tier 1. I cant see the mentality changing anytime soon and it will probably just get worse now that the tank meta is "catching on" so t2 will just become a tier where no one plays at all (that's already what happened this week). Servers in t1 will tank to get to t2, t2 servers wont play because no one wants t1, and t3 servers will tank to avoid t2. Pretty soon no one will be playing anywhere.

> >

> > Tanking is a real issue....being in T1 for past few weeks I wasn't aware of what has been happening in tiers 2 & 3. Why the kitten don't people just play!! Tanking is so stupid and boring.

>

> Because some people are full of themselves and can't handle losing. They make every excuse they can and blame everyone and everything else.

>

>

 

No I just want people to play the game so there is something to do. Win, lose idc as long as good fights were to be had through the week.

[X T D.6458]

> @Shazmataz.1423 said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @Shazmataz.1423 said:

> > > > @keelhaul.8039 said:

> > > > The tanking is STUPID at the moment. All 3 servers in T2 have tanked all week because no one wants tier 1. I cant see the mentality changing anytime soon and it will probably just get worse now that the tank meta is "catching on" so t2 will just become a tier where no one plays at all (that's already what happened this week). Servers in t1 will tank to get to t2, t2 servers wont play because no one wants t1, and t3 servers will tank to avoid t2. Pretty soon no one will be playing anywhere.

> > >

> > > Tanking is a real issue....being in T1 for past few weeks I wasn't aware of what has been happening in tiers 2 & 3. Why the kitten don't people just play!! Tanking is so stupid and boring.

> >

> > Because some people are full of themselves and can't handle losing. They make every excuse they can and blame everyone and everything else.

> >

> >

>

> No I just want people to play the game so there is something to do. Win, lose idc as long as good fights were to be had through the week.

 

Well yes we all do. Problem is when your server has an attitude that it prefers to play to lose, morale and activity will drop. Players have no incentive to participate, and it just further exacerbates the problems with population imbalances.

[Shazmataz.1423]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> Excuse me sirs. Only ANET is allowed to match manipulate via links. Good day to you.

>

> Lastly.

>

> > @Shazmataz.1423 said:

> > The tanking switches people off wvw and makes them quit playing so doesn't help population.

> > Match making needs a rework imo.

>

> People leave due to bad game play (balance) first, then followed by lag and finally queues (bigger issue at launch). Tanking is questionable for motivations that a massive amount of players would "quit." You could transfer to a server not tanking to remedy this...oh wait they're full (but not really full).

 

If you are on a server that is in a tanking match every week, people do quit and go play other games rather than paying for a transfer to another server that will likely end up the same way at the next relink. Moving servers gives a very short honeymoon but ultimately ends up with having to move again. I know I have moved abit....now stopped it's a waste of gold/$$.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @Chaba.5410 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > Before links, T2 and 3 were happy (as a whole) staying out of T-1.

>

> Since no lower server could push into T1, this is wishful thinking. Everything that happened in T2 and below occurred as a result of the match manipulation and mass-logouts to overstack in T1 since matchmaking starts at the top. So-called GvG guilds moved around the tiers regardless, they even got into T1 at one point with the old autoclicker trick.

 

I'll trust you on that. I was going on here say as I was not on those tiers.