World Linking Error 21 December 2018

[blackgamma.1809]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

 

> Unfortunately, due to technological limitations, we cannot amend this error until the next scheduled reset, which will take place on 28 December 2018. Again, we apologize for this issue and intend to take steps to prevent this sort of problem from happening in the future.

 

that statement is a straight up untrue and contradicts what anet devs have done in the past. in the past Anet devs had a 4 day match that ended early because of an technical issue. so its technologically possible to just reset it. yes there was a week with 2 resets that resulted in 2 different sets of wvw match ups

 

so if there is somehow a technological limitation, what is the technological limitations that didnt exist back then, that does now?

[Diku.2546]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> You know it's funny no matter how much people blow wind on the forums guilds continue to transfer whenever they want. It's almost like guilds are their own entity

 

---

 

I agree with your comment, but I Hate to break it to you...

 

Future - ANet will HEAVILY depend on using Alliance Linking of guilds to manipulate Team Creation to "In-directly" Create Fair & Balanced Match-Ups.

 

Currently - ANet uses World Linking of guilds to manipulate Team Creation to "In-directly" Create Fair & Balanced Match-Ups.

 

---

 

Trying to Fix our lopsided Match-Ups by "In-Directly" manipulating Team Creation is just like trying to

on an open prarie.

 

Forcing specific teams to play together in certain Match-Ups is not a good idea, nor is it a good idea to force or punish 10,000 cats (in groups of 20) into swimming across a river while herding them...simply because our Match-Up model requires it.

 

---

 

Do we really want this same solution again...just renamed & repackaged?

 

Stop beating around the bush & get to the point.

 

We need a better Long Term Solution that's more effective in Creating Fair & Balanced Match-Ups that will Competitively engage players to return to WvW to play over & over again.....imho

 

We should "Directly" change or replace our current

Match-Up model instead of trying to fix things "In-directly".

 

Hoping there's a change of heart & the powers that are in charge...can be convinced to change or replace our Match-Up model...instead of giving us another Team Creation Upgrade...that will always have steep challenges in herding "cats" through deep rivers...because it's common knowledge on cat behavior...that cats only listen when the want to & they typically hate getting into water that's over their head.

 

Yours truly,

Diku

 

p.s.

See some of my past posts for solutions.

[Farout.8207]

> @"blackgamma.1809" said:

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

>

> > Unfortunately, due to technological limitations, we cannot amend this error until the next scheduled reset, which will take place on 28 December 2018. Again, we apologize for this issue and intend to take steps to prevent this sort of problem from happening in the future.

>

> so if there is somehow a technological limitation, what is the technological limitations that didnt exist back then, that does now?

 

It is Christmas

[Jeknar.6184]

> @"Mil.3562" said:

> This re-linking error not only affects CD and GoM, for some strange reasons and i believe it's no error, they gave BG a link, making BG once again King of T1 for the next two months. BG by itself is already consistantly moving in and out of T1 and yet ANet feel the need to give them a link?

>

> Now BG is so fat that they have won every skirmish since re-link and have been camping enemies Garri Keep for more than 10 hour now. And this is happening on a week long holiday break for most players. Well done ANet!

>

> I guess what many players are saying is true that ANet doesn't care much about WvW, and instead of actually being there to observe what is really happening, ANet chose to rely on the forum cry wolves to make their decisions on linking.

 

 

Everytime there is a link where BG isn't king of T1 the following link end up being no servers that can actually compete with BG... This time is no different.

I don't think even the YB quadlink can win against BG but we'll never know because it will cease to exist in 3 days and go rot in T4 along with CD and GoM.

 

Just watch. We'll have 2 months of people tanking to dodge T1 matches.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > This re-linking error not only affects CD and GoM, for some strange reasons and i believe it's no error, they gave BG a link, making BG once again King of T1 for the next two months. BG by itself is already consistantly moving in and out of T1 and yet ANet feel the need to give them a link?

> >

> >

>

> Everytime there is a link where BG isn't king of T1 the following link end up being no servers that can actually compete with BG... This time is no different.

>

>

 

Factually incorrect. Check the last 4 linkings.

 

Bandwagons happen. The servers that sat in T1 were linked, and received multiple transfers into their links, to the point where in several cases, new hosts were created from the ashes.

 

The only difference this time is BG got a link. Only the second time since linkings started. And to the same server.

[Mil.3562]

The question still remains; why BG needs a link? Like I mentioned in previous post, BG is consistently moving in and out of T1 by itself without a link, and for some unknown reasons ANet feel the need to give them one while those servers remaining in T3 and T4 for many weeks continued to struggle up the tier level?

 

I just logged out from the game and all the four maps in T1, ie the two Alpine Borderlands, Desert Borderland and EBG are totally capped by BG except for the Spawn Camps. And it has been like that for many hours. Yes, it couldn't be more balanced than this. BG says thank you Anet.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Mil.3562" said:

> The question still remains; why BG needs a link? Like I mentioned in previous post, BG is consistently moving in and out of T1 by itself without a link, and for some unknown reasons ANet feel the need to give them one while those servers remaining in T3 and T4 for many weeks continued to struggle up the tier level?

>

> I just logged out from the game and all the four maps in T1, ie the two Alpine Borderlands, Desert Borderland and EBG are totally capped by BG except for the Spawn Camps. And it has been like that for many hours. Yes, it couldn't be more balanced than this. BG says thank you Anet.

 

Again, the bigger question is who bandwagonned ET.

 

That’s what has changed.

 

When SoR became a host overnight and was paired with another host, did people complain this much?

 

When Kaineng became a host while linked to another host, did people complain?

 

There are at least 3 other examples.

 

Again, it’s BGs second link, ever.

 

One up, one down will adjust.

[blackgamma.1809]

> @"Farout.8207" said:

> > @"blackgamma.1809" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> >

> > > Unfortunately, due to technological limitations, we cannot amend this error until the next scheduled reset, which will take place on 28 December 2018. Again, we apologize for this issue and intend to take steps to prevent this sort of problem from happening in the future.

> >

> > so if there is somehow a technological limitation, what is the technological limitations that didnt exist back then, that does now?

>

> It is Christmas

 

im aware. but that doesn't make it a technological limitation.

unless they semantically mean they can't find a anet dev and a car to drive to work during this time of the year

[Djamonja.6453]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

 

>

> One up, one down will adjust.

 

Maybe -- not sure that any of the announced links can compete with BG+ET though, so it will just be servers rotating through and losing badly.

[Mil.3562]

> @"Djamonja.6453" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

>

> >

> > One up, one down will adjust.

>

> Maybe -- not sure that any of the announced links can compete with BG+ET though, so it will just be servers rotating through and losing badly.

 

Yes. Untouchable for two months. Now BG stands for Being God.

[Mil.3562]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > The question still remains; why BG needs a link? Like I mentioned in previous post, BG is consistently moving in and out of T1 by itself without a link, and for some unknown reasons ANet feel the need to give them one while those servers remaining in T3 and T4 for many weeks continued to struggle up the tier level?

> >

> > I just logged out from the game and all the four maps in T1, ie the two Alpine Borderlands, Desert Borderland and EBG are totally capped by BG except for the Spawn Camps. And it has been like that for many hours. Yes, it couldn't be more balanced than this. BG says thank you Anet.

>

> Again, the bigger question is who bandwagonned ET.

>

> That’s what has changed.

>

> When SoR became a host overnight and was paired with another host, did people complain this much?

>

> When Kaineng became a host while linked to another host, did people complain?

>

> There are at least 3 other examples.

>

> Again, it’s BGs second link, ever.

>

> One up, one down will adjust.

 

If BG is not given the link, will there be any bawagonning? That's my point.

 

I know it's those guilds or players who jumped into ET and caused this terrible imbalance.

 

Again, why give a link to a very strong T1 server, who has been doing very well on its own for many years, and then blame it on the bandwagoners?

 

It's like thowing feeds into the field and blame the rats or birds for eating them :D

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Mil.3562" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > The question still remains; why BG needs a link? Like I mentioned in previous post, BG is consistently moving in and out of T1 by itself without a link, and for some unknown reasons ANet feel the need to give them one while those servers remaining in T3 and T4 for many weeks continued to struggle up the tier level?

> > >

> > > I just logged out from the game and all the four maps in T1, ie the two Alpine Borderlands, Desert Borderland and EBG are totally capped by BG except for the Spawn Camps. And it has been like that for many hours. Yes, it couldn't be more balanced than this. BG says thank you Anet.

> >

> > Again, the bigger question is who bandwagonned ET.

> >

> > That’s what has changed.

> >

> > When SoR became a host overnight and was paired with another host, did people complain this much?

> >

> > When Kaineng became a host while linked to another host, did people complain?

> >

> > There are at least 3 other examples.

> >

> > Again, it’s BGs second link, ever.

> >

> > One up, one down will adjust.

>

> **If BG is not given the link, will there be any bawagonning?** That's my point.

>

> I know it's those guilds or players who jumped into ET and caused this terrible imbalance.

>

> Again, why give a link to a very strong T1 server, who has been doing very well on its own for many years, and then blame it on the bandwagoners?

>

> It's like thowing feeds into the field and blame the rats or birds for eating them :D

 

Have you played the mode the last 8 months?

 

People have been bandwaggoning constantly. They would have gone elsewhere. It just happened to be ET this time.

[Mil.3562]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > > > The question still remains; why BG needs a link? Like I mentioned in previous post, BG is consistently moving in and out of T1 by itself without a link, and for some unknown reasons ANet feel the need to give them one while those servers remaining in T3 and T4 for many weeks continued to struggle up the tier level?

> > > >

> > > > I just logged out from the game and all the four maps in T1, ie the two Alpine Borderlands, Desert Borderland and EBG are totally capped by BG except for the Spawn Camps. And it has been like that for many hours. Yes, it couldn't be more balanced than this. BG says thank you Anet.

> > >

> > > Again, the bigger question is who bandwagonned ET.

> > >

> > > That’s what has changed.

> > >

> > > When SoR became a host overnight and was paired with another host, did people complain this much?

> > >

> > > When Kaineng became a host while linked to another host, did people complain?

> > >

> > > There are at least 3 other examples.

> > >

> > > Again, it’s BGs second link, ever.

> > >

> > > One up, one down will adjust.

> >

> > **If BG is not given the link, will there be any bawagonning?** That's my point.

> >

> > I know it's those guilds or players who jumped into ET and caused this terrible imbalance.

> >

> > Again, why give a link to a very strong T1 server, who has been doing very well on its own for many years, and then blame it on the bandwagoners?

> >

> > It's like thowing feeds into the field and blame the rats or birds for eating them :D

>

> Have you played the mode the last 8 months?

>

> People have been bandwaggoning constantly. They would have gone elsewhere. It just happened to be ET this time.

 

I see we are on a different page here, probably different book even ^^

Ok, I need to go to work now, my mum is waiting.

[Farout.8207]

> @"blackgamma.1809" said:

> > @"Farout.8207" said:

> > > @"blackgamma.1809" said:

> > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > >

> > > > Unfortunately, due to technological limitations, we cannot amend this error until the next scheduled reset, which will take place on 28 December 2018. Again, we apologize for this issue and intend to take steps to prevent this sort of problem from happening in the future.

> > >

> > > so if there is somehow a technological limitation, what is the technological limitations that didnt exist back then, that does now?

> >

> > It is Christmas

>

> im aware. but that doesn't make it a technological limitation.

> unless they semantically mean they can't find a anet dev and a car to drive to work during this time of the year

 

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. It has nothing to do with technological limitations, they let everyone go home too soon. They totally dropped the ball on this one.

[JoEWas.1409]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> People have been bandwaggoning constantly. They would have gone elsewhere. It just happened to be ET this time.

 

Except certain individuals to BG have been putting out the all call to people to stack the server through the link while all the fair-weather stackers just want to be on BG because their fanboy status is higher than weebs.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Mil.3562" said:

> > The question still remains; why BG needs a link? Like I mentioned in previous post, BG is consistently moving in and out of T1 by itself without a link, and for some unknown reasons ANet feel the need to give them one while those servers remaining in T3 and T4 for many weeks continued to struggle up the tier level?

> >

> > I just logged out from the game and all the four maps in T1, ie the two Alpine Borderlands, Desert Borderland and EBG are totally capped by BG except for the Spawn Camps. And it has been like that for many hours. Yes, it couldn't be more balanced than this. BG says thank you Anet.

>

> Again, the bigger question is who bandwagonned ET.

>

> That’s what has changed.

>

> When SoR became a host overnight and was paired with another host, did people complain this much?

>

> When Kaineng became a host while linked to another host, did people complain?

>

> There are at least 3 other examples.

>

> Again, it’s BGs second link, ever.

>

> One up, one down will adjust.

 

Nobody bandwagoned to ET from the looks of it; the population still shows Medium. It will remain to be seen in a week or so if it still sitting at medium. Who on earth would transfer to ET only to log on to have nothing to do, it makes no sense. The reason BG is sitting where they are is because they have a huge pug population that logs on when the going gets easy. It's evident their population still vastly outnumbers others. This is why they can't use play hours as a means of creating a host, a link, or making servers open or closed.

 

Now if per chance it is true that those groups of guilds whom are notorious for jumping ship and bandwagoning to a new server ended up going to ET, then ET will end up becoming it's own host at next re-link. If those guilds did that, Anet should just permanently lock them down on ET until alliances hit, and let them forever sit in T3/T4.

[Shining One.1635]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> This is why they can't use play hours as a means of creating a host, a link, or making servers open or closed.

What would you suggest they use instead of play hours?

[Calli.6309]

Has Anet made an announcement whether the matchups will be reverted back to how it is rn, or according to how this week will turn up?

[Djamonja.6453]

> @"Calli.6309" said:

> Has Anet made an announcement whether the matchups will be reverted back to how it is rn, or according to how this week will turn up?

 

The links will be the ones that they posted here in the forums (according to Anet). The matchups we don't know -- it could be glicko * RNG like regular relink-resets are, so the matchup could be different. I don't think it's going to be 1 up/1 down.

[juno.1840]

> @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > @"Mr Pin.6728" Some of those have some very obvious answers...

> >What steps are you taking to prevent this in the future and why did it happen in the first place?

>

> Problably none, this was simply human mistake...

 

Unacceptable answer -- any software developer with more than 12 months of experience will tell you that the entire software development process is centered around catching mistakes as early as possible. There are many steps in this process that could have caught this mistake, but a simple peer review is one of the easiest.

 

It's a serious problem when a software company continues to pass defects onto the end-user. It suggests a lack of process, a lack of control, a lack of resources, etc. -- none of which bode well for the company or the customers.

 

Brushing it off as a "simple human mistake" is itself a mistake.

[Jeknar.6184]

> @"juno.1840" said:

> > @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > > @"Mr Pin.6728" Some of those have some very obvious answers...

> > >What steps are you taking to prevent this in the future and why did it happen in the first place?

> >

> > Problably none, this was simply human mistake...

>

> Unacceptable answer -- any software developer with more than 12 months of experience will tell you that the entire software development process is centered around catching mistakes as early as possible. There are many steps in this process that could have caught this mistake, but a simple peer review is one of the easiest.

>

> It's a serious problem when a software company continues to pass defects onto the end-user. It suggests a lack of process, a lack of control, a lack of resources, etc. -- none of which bode well for the company or the customers.

>

> Brushing it off as a "simple human mistake" is itself a mistake.

 

idk man... This game have some bugs that are 6 years old. I guess I'm just too used to software mistakes...

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > @"juno.1840" said:

> > > @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> > > > @"Mr Pin.6728" Some of those have some very obvious answers...

> > > >What steps are you taking to prevent this in the future and why did it happen in the first place?

> > >

> > > Problably none, this was simply human mistake...

> >

> > Unacceptable answer -- any software developer with more than 12 months of experience will tell you that the entire software development process is centered around catching mistakes as early as possible. There are many steps in this process that could have caught this mistake, but a simple peer review is one of the easiest.

> >

> > It's a serious problem when a software company continues to pass defects onto the end-user. It suggests a lack of process, a lack of control, a lack of resources, etc. -- none of which bode well for the company or the customers.

> >

> > Brushing it off as a "simple human mistake" is itself a mistake.

>

> idk man... This game have some bugs that are 6 years old. I guess I'm just too used to software mistakes...

 

And yet, when the game is closed down during reset for ANY reason, patch or otherwise (and I do get the frustration that it is normally for a PvE patch) the WvW community goes into an even worse meltdown mode.

[Heibi.4251]

> @"Djamonja.6453" said:

> > @"Calli.6309" said:

> > Has Anet made an announcement whether the matchups will be reverted back to how it is rn, or according to how this week will turn up?

>

> The links will be the ones that they posted here in the forums (according to Anet). The matchups we don't know -- it could be glicko * RNG like regular relink-resets are, so the matchup could be different. I don't think it's going to be 1 up/1 down.

 

Yeah, would be totally unfair to the affected servers to count this week's score. Just fix the links and do the week over with the same match ups.

[Shazmataz.1423]

> @"Heibi.4251" said:

> > @"Djamonja.6453" said:

> > > @"Calli.6309" said:

> > > Has Anet made an announcement whether the matchups will be reverted back to how it is rn, or according to how this week will turn up?

> >

> > The links will be the ones that they posted here in the forums (according to Anet). The matchups we don't know -- it could be glicko * RNG like regular relink-resets are, so the matchup could be different. I don't think it's going to be 1 up/1 down.

>

> Yeah, would be totally unfair to the affected servers to count this week's score. Just fix the links and do the week over with the same match ups.

 

Score doesn't mean much anyway but there has been enough player movement between servers that it should be a complete relink or we will suffer the consequences for next 2 months. The meant links will be flawed which will result in 2 months of crap matches.

[neven.3785]

They need more than a week to work out the population metrics on their slide rule