What happened with 1u1d in T2?

[Fridgemomo.3750]

I think YB and SBI should tie again this week for science. For people that didn't know this could happen that is your own fault for not reading the rules when the system came out, it was clearly stated.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Fridgemomo.3750" said:

> I think YB and SBI should tie again this week for science. For people that didn't know this could happen that is your own fault for not reading the rules when the system came out, it was clearly stated.

 

I kind of want to see them tie again as well. It is for science, after all.

[Shadowcat.2680]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > > Yet a T3 server did not swap with a T2 server. It absolutely does not matter who won in T3 last week and who came in second. Efforts to win the match were voided and not by anything that happened in the actual tier.

> > >

> > > Look at it this way, SBI and YB tied for second place. It would not have been fair for one of them to move down just because a server won T3 last week.

> >

> > Flipping a coin (or any other tiebreaker) would've been fairer to both tiers.

>

> How is randomization supposed to be fair? That would actually make players even more upset than the winner of T3 staying in place because 1u1d is predictable system. YB pushed for a tie to stay in T2. Why even do that if the results would be randomized? Let me repeat: YB pushed to stay in T2. You seem to want to deny them that "win" just because two servers are the same as last match in T3.

>

> T3 match isn't stagnant because the winner of T4 last match moved up. Yes, two servers in T3 are the same as last match, just like two servers in T2 are the same as last match. These are not stagnant matches. Stagnant is when all three servers are in the same match for weeks at a time, even whole years at a time back with the old Glicko system.

 

A 50/50 chance for either SBI or YB to have placed second makes more sense than their tie invalidating the win in another tier. 50/50 is not random; it's even odds.

 

A coin flip is just an example of a possible tiebreaker. Any tiebreaker would be preferable to the results of any tier's matchup being disregarded because of a tie in another tier.

 

Comparing to Glicko to say that this result while stagnant is still less stagnant than matches under the previous system is like saying your current ISP is slow but at least the days of dialup are gone. That matches used to be still worse off is not a selling point for ties functioning in this manner in 1u1d.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Ubi.4136" said:

> I'm on TC, and regularly check the other matchups to see who we will face the following week. I actually called the tie taking place Friday morning based on what I saw. I don't get why people are that worried about it. Mag is T3 cause they avoid all fights that aren't 50-70 vs half that number. Sure, you may see a 10-20 man group running around occasionally, but they are also looking for fights vs roamers or half their number. If you hit them with even numbers and don't die in 1 push, their 50 man blob instantly appears so their kdr doesn't drop or they get out of combat and port. They aren't interested in being in higher tiers because, as has been said before, they are just looking for easy loot. It's the reason that every stacked server that isn't BG doesn't want to be in higher tiers...easy loot.

 

So you state that they avoid fights until they get 50-70 blob to take on your zerg. (Ok I guess at prime time NA it's that high.. when every other server has a queue there as well. Also don't mistaken finding a better location to fight as a sign to avoid a fight, every good commander on every server will do this especially under siege.)

Then they run 10-20 sometimes but to take on roamers. (They mostly park themselves in two areas with those numbers, avoid those areas?)

Then you say in even fights they don't get one pushed. (Thanks.)

But then their 50 man blobs magically appears after. (Orange swords, does it every time.)

 

Meanwhile the numbers in ebg are outrageous compared to even t1 which has the biggest population and t2.

 


 

That isn't roamers dying in ebg that's zergs, roamers are dying on the bls most of the day, it's full on zergs dying to create those high numbers.

I know people hate to fight mag and are mad about them camping ebg, but maybe people need to take a moment and get mad about their commanders for putting them in difficult situations to overcome. You can't just blindly run into every fight without considering all the other details to set up a fight.

 

P.S They should have a tie breaker mechanic in the game, whomever has the most 1st or 2nd place in skirmishes wins, if that's equal that go ahead with the tie. But I think as it is now it voided an entire week for t3. This could be a new form to manipulate matches as well.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> A 50/50 chance for either SBI or YB to have placed second makes more sense than their tie invalidating the win in another tier. 50/50 is not random; it's even odds.

 

So it is ok to invalidate the effort YB put into creating the tie in their last skirmish so they could stay in T2. Got it.

 

Matchmaking starts at the top and trickles down. YB is the higher seeded team than the winner of T3.

[Shadowcat.2680]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> Matchmaking starts at the top and trickles down. YB is the higher seeded team than the winner of T3.

 

You're wrong. A tie in T3 could just as easily invalidate the results of T2. It goes both ways.

[Strider Pj.2193]

*YAWN*

 

It's ONE week.... is it really worth this thread?

 

Newsflash: people manipulated matches when it was glicko. People were told it would be easier to manipulate with 1 up 1 down. Get over it.

 

Will likely happen more as worlds realize they can stay where they are by doing it.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > Matchmaking starts at the top and trickles down. YB is the higher seeded team than the winner of T3.

>

> You're wrong. A tie in T3 could just as easily invalidate the results of T2. It goes both ways.

 

Only a tie for first place would cause the third place server in a tier above to not drop down, but that is as it should be since there was no clear winner to replace the higher seeded server.

[dawsm.5398]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > > Yet a T3 server did not swap with a T2 server. It absolutely does not matter who won in T3 last week and who came in second. Efforts to win the match were voided and not by anything that happened in the actual tier.

> > >

> > > Look at it this way, SBI and YB tied for second place. It would not have been fair for one of them to move down just because a server won T3 last week.

> >

> > Flipping a coin (or any other tiebreaker) would've been fairer to both tiers.

>

> How is randomization supposed to be fair? That would actually make players even more upset than the winner of T3 staying in place because 1u1d is predictable system. YB pushed for a tie to stay in T2. Why even do that if the results would be randomized? Let me repeat: YB pushed to stay in T2. You seem to want to deny them that "win" just because two servers are the same as last match in T3.

>

> T3 match isn't stagnant because the winner of T4 last match moved up. Yes, two servers in T3 are the same as last match, just like two servers in T2 are the same as last match. These are not stagnant matches. Stagnant is when all three servers are in the same match for weeks at a time, even whole years at a time back with the old Glicko system.

 

That first paragraph features lopsided logic that can easily be flipped on you. The people on Maguuma that pushed to actually win T3 _were_ denied the prize for _their_ efforts. How is that fair to _them_? I don't think everyone on Maguuma is the devil, and TC was getting close to them at the end of that match. Someone in Mag's link had to make an effort to stay in first. Why should people make the effort to actually come in first, when it can all be negated by servers not even in their tier?

You don't seem to care that they were denied their _factual_ win, just because you're okay with two T2 servers tying and remaining the same.

 

See what I did there?

 

1 u 1 d isn't perfectly predictable, as there's still that random chance of servers tallying up identical scores. Now, I will grant you that ANet did put plans into place in case that happened. That is, after all, what this thread seems to be about. But, I'm not really sure those plans are ultimately more _fair_ than the alternatives others have suggested.

 

Perhaps it's just best for everyone to agree that the current system obviously has issues, and any improvements that come along in the future will be welcome.

[LetoII.3782]

I don't see a problem with the current setup as-is, the players have control. With just a modest consensus among themselves as to their goal Mag offers it's players just about as much match variety as can be attained.

Wanna fight that guild in another tier? Wait a week

Don't like that server? No problem, wait a week

It's brilliant and I wish glicko had been done away with long ago.. Being able to _status quo_ with a tie is a new hidden feature imo.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > > > Yet a T3 server did not swap with a T2 server. It absolutely does not matter who won in T3 last week and who came in second. Efforts to win the match were voided and not by anything that happened in the actual tier.

> > > >

> > > > Look at it this way, SBI and YB tied for second place. It would not have been fair for one of them to move down just because a server won T3 last week.

> > >

> > > Flipping a coin (or any other tiebreaker) would've been fairer to both tiers.

> >

> > How is randomization supposed to be fair? That would actually make players even more upset than the winner of T3 staying in place because 1u1d is predictable system. YB pushed for a tie to stay in T2. Why even do that if the results would be randomized? Let me repeat: YB pushed to stay in T2. You seem to want to deny them that "win" just because two servers are the same as last match in T3.

> >

> > T3 match isn't stagnant because the winner of T4 last match moved up. Yes, two servers in T3 are the same as last match, just like two servers in T2 are the same as last match. These are not stagnant matches. Stagnant is when all three servers are in the same match for weeks at a time, even whole years at a time back with the old Glicko system.

>

> That first paragraph features lopsided logic that can easily be flipped on you. The people on Maguuma that pushed to actually win T3 _were_ denied the prize for _their_ efforts. How is that fair to _them_? I don't think everyone on Maguuma is the devil, and TC was getting close to them at the end of that match. Someone in Mag's link had to make an effort to stay in first. Why should people make the effort to actually come in first, when it can all be negated by servers not even in their tier?

> You don't seem to care that they were denied their _factual_ win, just because you're okay with two T2 servers tying and remaining the same.

>

> See what I did there?

>

> 1 u 1 d isn't perfectly predictable, as there's still that random chance of servers tallying up identical scores. Now, I will grant you that ANet did put plans into place in case that happened. That is, after all, what this thread seems to be about. But, I'm not really sure those plans are ultimately more _fair_ than the alternatives others have suggested.

>

> Perhaps it's just best for everyone to agree that the current system obviously has issues, and any improvements that come along in the future will be welcome.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. Flipping Shadowcat's logic to show how absurd it is. There's no compelling argument to say Mag should have moved up because of their effort when one denies the effort YB put in. Thanks for the response.

 

The tie was predictable. People were saying on various discords that they may tie hours beforehand. A random tie-breaker is not.

 

The fact remains that YB was the higher seeded team than Mag.

[XenesisII.1540]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> The fact remains that YB was the higher seeded team than Mag.

 

For the glicko system maybe, not for a system that's suppose to have a clear winner move up and loser move down.

In most other competitive games such as sports have tie breakers whether playing overtime, or play an extra game, or use a stat to break the tie, obviously for wvw a decision needs to be made as soon as the match is complete, the only real condition to use here is using stats to decide a tie break, not hand out two 2nd place finishes.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > The fact remains that YB was the higher seeded team than Mag.

>

> For the glicko system maybe, not for a system that's suppose to have a clear winner move up and loser move down.

 

Servers are still ranked. Has nothing to do with glicko. Glicko was the ranking system originally. Now it is by position/color in the tiers.

 

[Djamonja.6453]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > SBI has the blue map this week and YB the red because SBI won the final skirmish in which they tied with YB overall.

> >

> SBI did not win the last skirmish. YB took the last skirmish by about 300 points above SBI. I know, I was pushing ppt to force the tie for science.

>

> As to why SBI is blue and YB is red, it could be many factors. I think possibly because SBI had a higher warscore than YB.

>

>

>

 

It was because SBI was green the week before (since we dropped down from tier 1), then we dropped to blue when FA came down and became green. YB dropped from blue to red.

[dawsm.5398]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > > @"Shadowcat.2680" said:

> > > > > > Yet a T3 server did not swap with a T2 server. It absolutely does not matter who won in T3 last week and who came in second. Efforts to win the match were voided and not by anything that happened in the actual tier.

> > > > >

> > > > > Look at it this way, SBI and YB tied for second place. It would not have been fair for one of them to move down just because a server won T3 last week.

> > > >

> > > > Flipping a coin (or any other tiebreaker) would've been fairer to both tiers.

> > >

> > > How is randomization supposed to be fair? That would actually make players even more upset than the winner of T3 staying in place because 1u1d is predictable system. YB pushed for a tie to stay in T2. Why even do that if the results would be randomized? Let me repeat: YB pushed to stay in T2. You seem to want to deny them that "win" just because two servers are the same as last match in T3.

> > >

> > > T3 match isn't stagnant because the winner of T4 last match moved up. Yes, two servers in T3 are the same as last match, just like two servers in T2 are the same as last match. These are not stagnant matches. Stagnant is when all three servers are in the same match for weeks at a time, even whole years at a time back with the old Glicko system.

> >

> > That first paragraph features lopsided logic that can easily be flipped on you. The people on Maguuma that pushed to actually win T3 _were_ denied the prize for _their_ efforts. How is that fair to _them_? I don't think everyone on Maguuma is the devil, and TC was getting close to them at the end of that match. Someone in Mag's link had to make an effort to stay in first. Why should people make the effort to actually come in first, when it can all be negated by servers not even in their tier?

> > You don't seem to care that they were denied their _factual_ win, just because you're okay with two T2 servers tying and remaining the same.

> >

> > See what I did there?

> >

> > 1 u 1 d isn't perfectly predictable, as there's still that random chance of servers tallying up identical scores. Now, I will grant you that ANet did put plans into place in case that happened. That is, after all, what this thread seems to be about. But, I'm not really sure those plans are ultimately more _fair_ than the alternatives others have suggested.

> >

> > Perhaps it's just best for everyone to agree that the current system obviously has issues, and any improvements that come along in the future will be welcome.

>

> Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. Flipping Shadowcat's logic to show how absurd it is. There's no compelling argument to say Mag should have moved up because of their effort when one denies the effort YB put in. Thanks for the response.

>

> The tie was predictable. People were saying on various discords that they may tie hours beforehand. A random tie-breaker is not.

>

> The fact remains that YB was the higher seeded team than Mag.

 

Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

 

Several posters, yourself included, seem to have a biased opinion on how things should've gone. Or, at the very least, that is the way this thread reads: Shadowcat thinks Maguuma should've moved up, it's their opinion and it's fine for them to have it; you think YB should've stayed where it was, that's your opinion and it's fine for you to have it. However, the funny thing about opinions is that while it's fine for folks to have them, they're often self-serving. I imagine that Maguuma not moving up impacted Shadowcat, and the match they're playing, somehow. From your knowledge of what was being said in "various discords", it seems that YB's results were something you were somehow invested in. You're both essentially talking about the same thing, just disagreeing as to who things were actually unfair for.

 

However, no one's logic here is "absurd", especially when it's the same logic being used by both sides. Or, perhaps it is absurd and both sides are being facetious. I responded to you specifically because the way you worded things denoted heavy bias in YBs favor and implied that nothing unfair had happened. However, there -was- unfairness, YB just got to benefit from it this time. Unfortunately, this sorta thing is always going to be unfair to _someone_ , but it isn't wrong that the people it's unfair for take issue with it.

 

Saying an outcome is predictable once the window for change has nearly closed doesn't eliminate the randomness that was inherently present at the beginning. Saying the tie was predictable doesn't negate the unfairness that landed on one party involved, and not on another. As I said before, perhaps it's best if everyone agrees the system has issues. It's a flawed system, but perfect ones are hard to come by, and this time YB benefited from the flaw.

 

But, I agree with some other posters talking about how it's just one week and soon enough it won't be talked about anymore. Oh well.

 

Good luck in your respective matches, everyone.

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"dawsm.5398" said:

> Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

 

Seems like you didn't really read the thread and what I was responding to, just came late to the discussion. :p

 

 

[Kovu.7560]

Thought I was done with this discussion as I made my points clear, but there are a whole lot of words being thrown in people's mouths. Nobody is _twisting_ logic as far as I can tell, we're just looking at two sides of the same coin.

That being said, the argument I made is that the rules are being followed as they are and have been known, thus the decision to keep the two servers in T2 this previous reset is entirely fair. I am not saying those rules are inherently perfect, I did find it odd that there's no tiebreaker mechanic.

 

> @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> In most other competitive games such as sports have tie breakers whether playing overtime, or play an extra game, or use a stat to break the tie, obviously for wvw a decision needs to be made as soon as the match is complete, the only real condition to use here is using stats to decide a tie break, not hand out two 2nd place finishes.

 

I appreciate the analogy, but its not perfect. In this situation there _is no tiebreaker mechanic_. It is _known_ that there is no tiebreaker mechanic. That's the rule. I can't speak to other sports leagues but the NHL used to have games end in a tie. I think soccer still does. Is it fair? We all have our opinions on that, but what _is_ fair is the fact that we _knew_ this sort of thing could happen.

 

Want to push for a change to the rule? Feel free, I honestly have no strong opinion either way.

 

~ Kovu

[XenesisII.1540]

Meh just another way for a higher tier to poop on a lower tier, if you all agree with the mechanic there isn't much else to do or say.

[Shadowcat.2680]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

>

> Seems like you didn't really read the thread and what I was responding to, just came late to the discussion. :p

>

>

 

Pretty illogical to assume someone wrote a long, well-thought out post without reading the thread in which they were posting.

[dawsm.5398]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

>

> Seems like you didn't really read the thread and what I was responding to, just came late to the discussion. :p

>

>

 

Oh, I read the thread just fine. Seems like you just don't like people who point out obvious hypocrisy. I never said Shadowcat was right; but, you aren't either. :)

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > > Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

> >

> > Seems like you didn't really read the thread and what I was responding to, just came late to the discussion. :p

> >

> >

>

> Oh, I read the thread just fine. Seems like you just don't like people who point out obvious hypocrisy. I never said Shadowcat was right; but, you aren't either. :)

>

 

Nah, I just find it pretty silly that your only contribution to the thread is to argue about a rhetorical device used by another poster, as if you didn't understand what was going on in the thread.

 

I wrote nothing in this thread about YB's effort [until I, you know, flipped Shadowcat's logic about effort being voided](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/433202/#Comment_433202 "until I, you know, flipped Shadowcat's logic about effort being voided"). Why? To show that his logic didn't make a compelling argument. All you did was agree with me. I think you got too hung up on [this post](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/434329/#Comment_434329 "this post") where I attempted to reiterate it for him.

 

 

[dawsm.5398]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > > > Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

> > >

> > > Seems like you didn't really read the thread and what I was responding to, just came late to the discussion. :p

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Oh, I read the thread just fine. Seems like you just don't like people who point out obvious hypocrisy. I never said Shadowcat was right; but, you aren't either. :)

> >

>

> Nah, I just find it pretty silly that your only contribution to the thread is to argue about a rhetorical device used by another poster, as if you didn't understand what was going on in the thread.

>

> I wrote nothing in this thread about effort [until I, you know, flipped Shadowcat's logic about effort being voided](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/433202/#Comment_433202 "until I, you know, flipped Shadowcat's logic about effort being voided"). Why? To show that his logic didn't make a compelling argument. All you did was agree with me.

>

>

 

I find it silly that I have to spell this out, but here goes. Your "rhetorical device" carried the same theme that the rest of your responses did: that other posters were wrong to complain something was unfair, because the situation would have _then_ been unfair for someone else instead (namely YB, in the case of your posts); as if that somehow invalidated their point about things being unfair to begin with.

 

In your supposed attempt to "flip" Shadowcat's logic, you're using the self-same logic to defend your own position and acting as if you have a point and they don't. -That- is why I responded. That is why I actually am not agreeing with what you were trying to do. You don't get to claim your position is more founded than their own, when there is no more compelling argument for fairness from your stance than theirs. The _system_ is on YBs side, but that is a different matter. You could have just as easily said, "You know, you folks in the Mag link have a point, but this is the way the system is. It isn't fair, but it's what we have." However, instead you tried to invalidate their complaint using the same logic, which makes you come across as a bit disingenuous.

 

As I have said, more than once already, the system is -FLAWED-. It is always going to be unfair for someone when the whole "tie" situation arises, which it occasionally does. The people on the YB side of this _do_ have the actual system on their side. But, for goodness sake, go ahead and own _that_. It's just the system being setup in a way that actually benefited them this time since they wanted to stay in T2. However, that doesn't mean that it was necessarily _fair_ to the people in T3 that wanted to move up; it simply is what it is.

 

 

[Shadowcat.2680]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"dawsm.5398" said:

> > > > Ha! You're welcome for the response, but flipping logic is what _I_ did. :p

> > >

> > > Seems like you didn't really read the thread and what I was responding to, just came late to the discussion. :p

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Oh, I read the thread just fine. Seems like you just don't like people who point out obvious hypocrisy. I never said Shadowcat was right; but, you aren't either. :)

> >

>

> Nah, I just find it pretty silly that your only contribution to the thread is to argue about a rhetorical device used by another poster, as if you didn't understand what was going on in the thread.

>

> I wrote nothing in this thread about YB's effort [until I, you know, flipped Shadowcat's logic about effort being voided](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/433202/#Comment_433202 "until I, you know, flipped Shadowcat's logic about effort being voided"). Why? To show that his logic didn't make a compelling argument. All you did was agree with me. I think you got too hung up on [this post](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/434329/#Comment_434329 "this post") where I attempted to reiterate it for him.

>

>

 

FYI, my point has always been that a tiebreaker mechanic would be fairer to both tiers. So the effort in neither tier would be voided.

[Forum Moderator.5907]

We are closing this thread because Match Up threads are not allowed.