Guild Wars 2

Simple lower the max map population. This will also help with the lag issues we´ve bin having lately.
Another idea is to have the outmaned buff be a buff, not to player stats but gate wall hp and siege dmg.

The goal should not be to get evenly populated servers, players have a preference how stacked they want their server to be and esoteric things like camaraderie, but efforts should be made to balance population score-wise. If a server can be successful despite population imbalanes they should be rewarded for it. To combat the effect of stacking, population imbalances and nightcapping, these would be my suggestions:

Primetime scoring
For each region a primtime of 16 hours should be determined, or have it based per server, or when servers are matched an averaged primetime is determined. During those 16 hours scoring is doubled or similarly modified. This should mitigate the effect of night-capping.

Population score modifier
There should be more granularity in the outmanned buff with several different tiers, outmanned I, outmanned II, … outmanned V etc. Having one of these buffs should give a modifier to score for the map that the outmanned buff is present, e.g. a 1.6x mod for outmanned III, so instead of getting 5 for a camp, the server gets 8. Outmanned buff at present is the time that most players log off, it is such a great way to get players to stop playing for the night.

Bloodlust as a comeback mechanic
It should benefit a server that is in second or third place more than first place. Third place should get +50 to stats per buff held, second place should get +30 per buff, and first place should get +10. Even if 1st decides it is not much of benefit stat-wise, it may be still worth it to keep the buff away from 3rd and also the +1 point per stomp per buff.

Remove Glicko/matchmaking and make leagues permanent
I don’t get this obsession with Glicko/matchmaking, it does no good for a small number of widely disparate teams, instead a permanent league system should be adopted and a new one starting up every 7 weeks. The scoring at the moment is meaningless, and having to loosen the matchmaking system and then ending up with stupid match-ups, make it pointless. A league system with relegation/promotion (e.g bottom two go down a league, top two go up a league) would be more interesting, even for the bottom teams fighting to avoid relegation. Tieing the score to the magnitude of the win is pointless too, a simple scoring of 2 for win, 1 for 2nd, 0 for 3rd, is much easier to understand, and allows for closer fought contests even with server disparity. (A scoreboard in-game is a must, there is no way to know how well your server is doing)

The ‘population’ reason for a permanent league system is that it allows paid transfer to be based on whichever league a server is in e.g. 0 to bronze league, 800 to silver league, 1800 to a gold league. With a relegation/promotion system, it could be that to transfer to the top two servers of bronze league costs 800 gems (same as silver, they should be promoted at the end of the league anyways), to transfer to bottom two of silver league costs 0 gems (they will be relegated). Hopefully this causes players to spread out among leagues, but not to choose only the two best from a league or those about to be promoted.

another suggestion is to put in pvp sized teams..Like 2v2-3v3-5v5 and a ladder for it..it will be imba

Too many Worlds, not enough people. That is the underlining issue to balance. We’re being spread out too thin to play a 24/7 game. If WvW balance was truly desired, the easiest way to create it would be to consolidate worlds and not divide us further.

Though, why should there even be a balanced population? As we can read on the forums many times over, people find joy and a sense of pride from different things. Some love the community aspects and working as large scale teams. Some place the most importance on their Guilds activity. Some don’t even play for the score and care only about killing. Meanwhile, others prefer solitude and individual accomplishments. You can’t satisfy all personality types by having them occupy the same balanced space. Thus, the population is required to be imbalanced to suit player preference.

Logistically, 24 hour balance isn’t really feasible. Real life population densities and socio-economic features around the globe clump players by time. They’ll always be a cycle of high’s and low’s each day in map population. The T1’s are the closest thing to balancing this since they’re constantly filling and optimizing their population by time.

I say this is not an issue for the developers to deal with, it’s one for the players to work around. The developer’s should NOT add incentives to bring in new part time players in bulk. This tactic should be avoided at all cost. Since it destroys the delicate balance the players have been work diligently to create.

I would like to know why our maps have a queue but are so empty? There must be a bug or something – maybe related to people logging out of the game before leaving WvW?

Yak’s Bend borderland has a long queue to get in even though we have half the numbers of Fort Aspenwood who are on our map. This has been happening since reset.

Let me repost a suggestion I made a while back…

I think that NPCs could be used to bolster numbers on a map. Just dynamically spawn NPC fighters of various professions based on the delta between the server with the highest current map population and the server in question. In other words, use NPCs to fill out each server on the map so that all three have roughly the same total numbers.

Make these NPCs fairly powerful, so that they can compete on a reasonable level with actual players, and allow them to carry out basic functions directed by players (guard, attack X objective, etc). Then just have them spawn/despawn dynamically based on their current activity (busy, idle, etc) and the numbers of actual players.

I’m pretty sure a system something like this was available in GW1, where people could use NPCs to fill out their groups? Maybe it could work for WvW, too.

I have 3 solutions. But the best solution is probably a combination of all 3:

• Opening and closing borders *
  -EB is open all the time 24/7
  - When EB has for all 3 servers queues of more then 20 players, 1 border zone is opened.
  - The server border with the least points will open up first. The border of the server with most points will open up last.
  - Each time a border has more then 20 people in queue for all 3 servers the next border will open.
  - When a server has on 1 of the border less then 10 people this border will close
  - When a border get closed means all people still in this border will get teleported out of the border.
  - Who own what objectives will be saved.. and when opened again restored.
  - Point ticks will stop working for closed borders.
  (can even expend to more then 3 borders when all servers has queues on all borders)

• Point tick system and rewarding *
  - Change the point reward for each tick according to enemies online. For example : if in a zone are only people of server X .. the objectives server X hold tick only for 20%. If a zone has for all 3 servers the same amount of players the objectives all tick for 100%. If server A has 0 players in a zone. Server B has 40 and server C has 80. Objectives of server A will tick for 100% . Objectives of server B tick for 60% . Objectives for server C 30%
  - Same counts for rewards for taking objectives(or killing) and defending. If you take objectives when there are no enemies in the zone.. you only get like 10% of normal wxp, karma, exp etc.. And you will only get blue items (mf decreased with -1000)
  When you take objectives while both enemy servers has a lot more players in the border you will get for example 200% of normal wxp, karma etc.. and your mf is increased.

• Make WvW not server based *
  - each player gets a WvW score. This score is an average wxp points earned a week.
  - each guild or player who wants to play wvw need to sign up. A server will then determine for what WvW server you or your guild will play.
  - the server will use the players WvW scores to balance all the servers.
  - after each week the balance server will recheck all players WvW scores and if needed remove players with lowest WvW scores from a WvW servers or add players to WvW server

• Transfers should be based on WvW Tier

• WvW would be a GREAT place to utilize Heroes/Henchmen a la GW1 to help level the playing field. Weaker than real people, but still useful (veteran level would be adequate). A 3 minute recharge upon their death would be good as well. Base their availability on opposing server population on the map.

• I like the idea of having the outmanned buff increase tower defense and NPC power of the outmanned side.

• Alliances should definitely be a part of the solution. commanders on the two lowest scoring sides should be able to form an alliance when one side has 50% or more of all maps.

Roman Barracks Idea
When the empire spread too much, it collapsed.

The basic premise is diminishing returns. The more you have, the harder it is to hold.

Set a total number of guards that any one server can have. This number is then allocated to all the objectives owned by that world.

That’s all.

This system means that when you have few objectives, you have more guards at each. When you have more objectives, you have fewer guards at each. Making it easier for the losing teams (usually outnumbered teams) to ninja things quickly.

This could be tied into other mechanics:

1. make hit points on objectives vary depending on how many objectives they own. The more objectives, the fewer hit point.
2. the more objectives you own, the fewer supply you get to them, or the more rare supply caravans are. -note- It is important that this varies depending on the dominant force, rather than making dolyaks easier to kill – it is often the case that one side hasn’t got enough people to deploy dolyak squads because they get killed by larger patrols from the dominant side.

I don’t think transfer costs will change people from high tier to move to lower tiers.
Even if you make it free , the people who transfer to the winning servers will stay on them as long they think they are the winning servers.(not that I do agree that prices shouldn’t be based on PVE coverage)

And I don’t think adding NPC’s to the outnumbered servers will help either.
Especially since most servers run in a zone blobs, having a few more guards inside a keep wont change things. DAOC had sometimes very, very strong NPCs in high upgraded keeps.. but this only mend the keep couldn’t be stolen by a small group. The normal zerg wont have any problems with NPCs. Especially since all AI’s has weaknesses you can find and exploit.

Vol.5241:

How about we implement a system that reduces the amount of points gained by each server in WvW in proportion to the current WvW population on the map?

For example, during low population levels, points are worth less and during high population levels, points are worth more.

This would also encourage people stay on during times their servers are outnumbered as you’d still feel like you’re able to achieve something, not as much as if numbers were even, but something at least. The said numbers would also encourage people to jump onto WvW with the thought of balancing and a possible turn about. This could work with the WvW guesting within season teams proposal.

The problem with this is that it is not always purely numbers which determine whether your server wins or loses. Organisation and tactics can play a big role. So what you’d need to do is moderate spm records at given times against the opposing servers. That way superior WvW servers can be matched with inferior WvW servers and there will still be a competition. Moderate to create handicaps. This would work with random match making.

On another note, a couple of additions to commanders would be nice such as;
~ being able to see commander icons in regions that you are not in
– easier to join up with larger groups; zerg, boss or other
~ having region bound, commander controlled chat groups
– general public cannot talk in this group
– allows easier commands as sometimes team chat gets filled with rubbish
– easier to coordinate different commanders
~ commander icon colours while there are multiple commanders withing your region
~ /squadinvite command for commanders that invites all teammates in a given radius to the squad

Dutchares.6084:

I don’t think transfer costs will change people from high tier to move to lower tiers.
Even if you make it free , the people who transfer to the winning servers will stay on them as long they think they are the winning servers.(not that I do agree that prices shouldn’t be based on PVE coverage)

It doesn’t change people’s minds.
We have no people who have way too many people and those with almost no real WvW base. Just lime my server. Servers now are very badly unbalanced now. It wasn’t this bad for a long time.

I just asked on my WvW. So it happened that most of our active guilds left for Gunnars Hold.

It’s hard not to think that structure of Season 1 is to blame when FEW guild leaves your server for another one that just happens to have bigger chance to be high in its own league.

I try not to be emotional in here, but seriously ANets encouragement to change servers before Season 1 and Season 1 itself just ruined my experience to WvW. This is the fact that I don’t want to accept. You started even bigger unbalance, fix it now.
Imagined rewards for Season 1 (that will be better for people on servers that are higher league) made people move from medium servers to those with high population. So do something with the rewards or even entire season so people in servers like mine don’t feel so cheated and left out.

You really have to work it out or more people will feel the way I do now, and you can believe me – please come and see, ask on our lovely Underwold Server how people feel.

1) A week before the next season, make it extremely pricy to go to heavy WvW servers (price based on hidden rating/ranking). Make it free to go to the really bad WvW servers.

2) Score is halved at the PTT if you outman both enemy servers.

These are simple ideas but it would already be enough to balance it out a bit more imo.

World population? Really, guys? Really?
I do not know how about america. But on eu servers there are lags for 3-15 seconds in most of the fights on all servers. Lags even in the empty open fields. Guilds falling apart because they can not play. People are leaving the game, because they do not see the point of SUCH wvw. Neither one tactic works in such lags, but only huge “1-spamming” zerg. Therefore, all the glory hunters flock to the top servers where are bigger zergs. That is why people stop going on WvW on some servers. And you discuss population… wonderfull!

Reward players in WvW for playing as an outnumbered force. Small servers have 0 motivation to play:
1- They always are the weaker server, and the high pop server overpowers them solely by numbers.
2- They usually don’t blob, while the high pop server blobs all the way and get rewarded for it (since when 60 people kill 20 and they tag them all, they get 20 lootbags… hooray?)

Solution:
1- Scores are calculated by number of players in the map at any given time.
2- Scores are calculated by the ability of lower populations to defend objectives.

OR we could go the drastic way:

• Delete Server vs. Server vs. Server and merge all the servers of EU and NA for WvW.
• Create factions that allow battlegrounds with up to 100 people (also choice for <20, <40, <60, <80 on smaller maps).
• Battlegrounds will never open up as long as there aren’t 100 people per faction ready.
• Guilds can decide to join a faction. Everyone in the guild will be member of that faction.
• Factions get scores dependant on these battles.
• Factions will automatically balance out because there always be fights for underpopulated factions, while there won’t be fights for higher populations.

MeGaZlo.9516:

World population? Really, guys? Really?
I do not know how about america. But on eu servers there are lags for 3-15 seconds in most of the fights on all servers. Lags even in the empty open fields. Guilds falling apart because they can not play. People are leaving the game, because they do not see the point of SUCH wvw. Neither one tactic works in such lags, but only huge “1-spamming” zerg. Therefore, all the glory hunters flock to the top servers where are bigger zergs. That is why people stop going on WvW on some servers. And you discuss population… wonderfull!

Except at night time, where some servers have their overseas population, others have not and will lose the matchup during that period, no matter how hard they have fought during primetime. Yes, it is an issue.

RageBear.8957:

Vol.5241:

How about we implement a system that reduces the amount of points gained by each server in WvW in proportion to the current WvW population on the map?

For example, during low population levels, points are worth less and during high population levels, points are worth more.

This would also encourage people stay on during times their servers are outnumbered as you’d still feel like you’re able to achieve something, not as much as if numbers were even, but something at least. The said numbers would also encourage people to jump onto WvW with the thought of balancing and a possible turn about. This could work with the WvW guesting within season teams proposal.

The problem with this is that it is not always purely numbers which determine whether your server wins or loses. Organisation and tactics can play a big role. So what you’d need to do is moderate spm records at given times against the opposing servers. That way superior WvW servers can be matched with inferior WvW servers and there will still be a competition. Moderate to create handicaps. This would work with random match making.

On another note, a couple of additions to commanders would be nice such as;
~ being able to see commander icons in regions that you are not in
– easier to join up with larger groups; zerg, boss or other
~ having region bound, commander controlled chat groups
– general public cannot talk in this group
– allows easier commands as sometimes team chat gets filled with rubbish
– easier to coordinate different commanders
~ commander icon colours while there are multiple commanders withing your region
~ /squadinvite command for commanders that invites all teammates in a given radius to the squad

I don’t have a problem with loosing against a server with better organization and tactics. As long that tactic isn’t having bigger numbers.

Wondering if you don’t want to make WvW about who has better organization and tactics, what factor are you planning to determine the winner?

My humble thoughts on the issue of WvW world population.

Components of the issue:

1 – Total Server population
2 – Server population by time zone
3 – Server ratio of WvW players to non-WvW players (PvE’ers)

Now for the sake of discussion let us assume that the total server populations are equal. The real problem then becomes when one server out populates another during off-hours. An example that I am sure everyone is aware of is when three servers with equal populations are up against one another but one of those servers has a large night crew. The server with the night crew will have a significant advantage and thus have a massive PPT (points per turn) boost during those hours.

The third component listed is when one server has a higher percentage of WvW players then their opponent. Any given server’s make-up is something that happens over time and slowly becomes engrained in the fabric of a server as players transfer to and from. For example, the server I play on has gotten a reputation as a ‘PvE’ server. By all accounts this was not a deliberate move on our part, it just happened. I do not see this as something that can be fixed, but it should be accounted for when match-ups are decided for the week.

With those three components in mind I do not believe there are any big picture solutions that ArenaNet can implement to address these issues. ArenaNet is not going to create an Oceanic server to lessen the impact of night crews on US servers and even if they did it would not completely eliminate that problem. I also do not believe the make-up of a server in terms of its WvW player ratio can be addressed any better than it currently is. The current Glicko ranking system is not perfect and could use some adjustments but to a certain extent, it does work. Servers with similar ratios of WvW players are getting matched together.

-

With that being said, I do think there are solutions that ArenaNet can implement that would soften the impact of a population advantage.

A few proposed solutions:

1 – Make Keeps/Towers/Castle harder to capture. Simply put – it is too easy to capture objectives right now. The prevailing strategy in WvW these days (at least in my tier) seems to be to flip everything on a map then move on to another map. This does not seem to be the intended game mode of WvW. This change alone would not fix the population issue but it would make a population advantage less powerful.

2 – New Buff ‘Persistent Defender’. Add a new buff that stacks over time to players who defend an objective (camp/tower/keep/castle). The idea behind this buff is that when a server is at a disadvantage because of population that server can hide inside its towers and defend them with fewer people.

An example of this buff’s implementation would go as follows: every 15 minutes a player remains within range of the defending objective 1 stack of Persistent Defender is applied (max 10 stacks). The buff would give something like +1% siege damage dealt, -1% siege damage received, and +50 vitality per stack.

3 – Hire NPC Champion Defender. Thinking along the same lines as the above-mentioned buff a champion NPC that could be hired at any objective to help defend that objective. The NPC would cost a significant amount of gold, karma, and badges and would only be available for a limited amount of time before vanishing then going on cooldown. The idea behind this NPC is not to stop an attacking zerg from capturing an objective but rather to slow them down and assist any defenders until more help arrives.

4 – Reduce the effectiveness of large zergs. Although this is somewhat of an ambiguous suggestion the idea behind it is that large-scale zerging in WvW is too easy to achieve. In my opinion the real challenge of WvW and the real test of a server should be how well does that server organize itself and how well do they work together to win. Zerg size and server population currently have a direct correlation such that a server with overflowing numbers will use massive zergs to steamroll the enemy. This is only accomplished because zerging is so easy. Essentially anyone with 100g can create an iWin button for WvW. What I would propose is that the tool that allows easymode zerging to happen be removed and that a new system take its place.

I think these solutions if implemented would not only reduce the frustration created by population imbalance but would also make for a more fun WvW experience.

This thread reminded me of running with my guild a few nights ago and something that was said. Basically the sentiment was, “I don’t care who we attack, I’m just out for blood.” You hit an objective for the points, take out enemies, get rewards. It doesn’t matter who it is, because as long as you’re doing something productive against them, you’re contributing.
What if it mattered much more who you attacked?
Give the two losing servers the incentive to fight the winning server rather than each other. When a losing server attacks the winning server, they get an extra bonus to their score immediately.
The current 2nd place would get 1x or 1.5x, and the 3rd would get 2x or 3×.
3rd place captures an objective from 1st that is worth 15 points. They get an extra 30 or 45 points immediately added to the score.
What’s important here is not the number multiplier (which can be adjusted), but the incentive it puts in. Attack the first place, and get a large reward, or fight each other and get small ones.
And it also gives a nice punch to coverage issues. If the top server is holding a large portion of the maps during off-hours, they have to defend them during the rest of the time, or risk a chunk of points going to the losing servers.
Our borderlands is completely overrun at night, but we do fine there during the day? That’s not that big of a problem anymore, because taking it back the next day gives us a big chunk of points to catch up with.
Similarly, this can be applied to WxP and other rewards, to give further incentives to fight the winning server (for those who are only in it for the karma train).

lordkrall.7241:

So if lets say my guild wanted to do an WvW event together one evening, and we managed to get more than 60 people online, we should not be able to do the event together?

That is bull kitten. You can’t possible know more than 60 different people. Monster guilds can’t be called guilds, since they don’t have any feeling of family.

Tekyn.5376:

4 – Reduce the effectiveness of large zergs. Although this is somewhat of an ambiguous suggestion the idea behind it is that large-scale zerging in WvW is too easy to achieve. In my opinion the real challenge of WvW and the real test of a server should be how well does that server organize itself and how well do they work together to win. Zerg size and server population currently have a direct correlation such that a server with overflowing numbers will use massive zergs to steamroll the enemy. This is only accomplished because zerging is so easy. Essentially anyone with 100g can create an iWin button for WvW. What I would propose is that the tool that allows easymode zerging to happen be removed and that a new system take its place.

I am not sure how much ANet is willing to acknowledge such, but there is NO fix or solution to zerging, period. Tier 1 servers typically run 35-70+ zerg balls while Tier 3 servers run 20-40+ man zergs. Despite your attempt to call them easymode, zerging is not a problem because their are in-game strategies the can and do minimize the impact of “easymode” zergs or zerg. All-in-all, zergs are here to stay, in one form or another and there is no fix for such without negatively impacting WvW as a whole, be assured of this.

Sirendor.1394:

That is bull kitten. You can’t possible know more than 60 different people. Monster guilds can’t be called guilds, since they don’t have any feeling of family.

I would and will argue otherwise. When I was on a NA Tier 1 server, I was a couple hardcore WvW guilds that had over 150+ active WvW players (the total guild being about 350+ on guild roster) and we were about as tight as “family” could get. Obviously, the definition and meaning of “feeling of family” is based upon perception given each and everyone will perceive such differently.

Dutchares.6084:

And I don’t think adding NPC’s to the outnumbered servers will help either.
Especially since most servers run in a zone blobs, having a few more guards inside a keep wont change things. DAOC had sometimes very, very strong NPCs in high upgraded keeps.. but this only mend the keep couldn’t be stolen by a small group. The normal zerg wont have any problems with NPCs. Especially since all AI’s has weaknesses you can find and exploit.

Please be advised that my suggestion can be adjusted and the HPs on doors can be raised, guards increased in power and respawn rate to a degree where it IS difficult to take an objective even if it is completely undefended and zerged.

Put it this way: it can be made nigh-Tequatl hard.

The system will work because it will be easy to cap stuff back and once you have it back, it’s very hard to recapture.

Logically we have to define the problems first

1. too many people on some servers cause long queues
2. too few people on other servers cause imbalance in potential power
3. play times cause imbalance in power at certain times

Unfortunately we don’t really have anything but anecdotal information to show proof of these problems. But, the solution is whatever accomplishes moving people from high population servers to low population servers.

The first solution has been suggested by others. Separate pve from wvw, merge low pop servers, give us accurate stats on population, and then let people transfer for free to lower pop servers. This allows players to solve the problem themselves.

On the subject of coverage and recovery from a point deficit, rather than purely scaling rewards based on population ratios (which is fiddly and could lead to players from the same server resenting each other for reducing their score multiplier), you could buff the PPT value of an objective based on the length of time it has been owned by an enemy server.

For example, you could allocate points into that objective’s “bonus pool” after, say, two hours of ownership by another server. The pool continues to accumulate whilst owned by that enemy, up to a cap (8 hours? 12?). If you then take that objective, the bonus points are given to your server over several ticks. The bonus points should never outweigh the PPT total you’d get from holding the objective normally, but provide a way to partially recover from coverage gaps and could encourage risky sorties deep into enemy territory to take infrequently flipped towers etc.

If you feel like it, you could scale rewards (WXP/karma) for defending objectives with such bonus pools too.

I guess the dominant server could abuse this by deliberately losing then re-flipping front-line objectives, but at least that means the underdogs are getting a chance to take things – maybe some of the other ideas to buff defensive capabilities would help there, giving the servers a better chance of keeping that toehold.

+1 for all ideas to show approximate queue length/position for all WvW maps before joining, and providing information as you sit in queue. Making sensible decisions about allocating play time is important to me, and I’m sure many others.

The topic of World Population is synonymous with ‘non-competitive match-ups.’ Everyone has more fun when they can regularly accomplish objectives with the enemy still being a legitimate threat. In matches where this is sorely missing, the cause is World Population imbalance.

The subtopics that need addressed are:

1. Transfer incentives and costs. The costs are not aligned with World rating and there is currently no incentive to transfer to a server in need.

2. From Season 1 to Season 2. The league concept has given Anet huge leverage in being able to encourage or even force players to transfer servers. How can this best be leveraged to encourage a utilitarian result?

3. Disparity between WvW population and World population. We can’t completely ignore non-WvW players in the data as some would suggest we do, because part of our focus should be continuing to attract and retain more players into WvW. We also can’t ignore the fact that some servers have a much higher participation rate. We must discuss this issue from a very speculative viewpoint, using our collective foresight and anticipation to find the best solution.

4. The scoring and reward systems. Does this need to be re-looked at? Did a lack of defensive rewards create the karma-train and encourage abandoning those servers without the populations to play much more than defense? Does the scoring system need to take more into account than objectives held and player/dolyak kills?

I’ll give my thoughts and suggestions to these in a reply but I strongly feel this is where we need to be looking.

Rigel.3092:

Tekyn.5376:

4 – Reduce the effectiveness of large zergs. Although this is somewhat of an ambiguous suggestion the idea behind it is that large-scale zerging in WvW is too easy to achieve. In my opinion the real challenge of WvW and the real test of a server should be how well does that server organize itself and how well do they work together to win. Zerg size and server population currently have a direct correlation such that a server with overflowing numbers will use massive zergs to steamroll the enemy. This is only accomplished because zerging is so easy. Essentially anyone with 100g can create an iWin button for WvW. What I would propose is that the tool that allows easymode zerging to happen be removed and that a new system take its place.

I am not sure how much ANet is willing to acknowledge such, but there is NO fix or solution to zerging, period. Tier 1 servers typically run 35-70+ zerg balls while Tier 3 servers run 20-40+ man zergs. Despite your attempt to call them easymode, zerging is not a problem because their are in-game strategies the can and do minimize the impact of “easymode” zergs or zerg. All-in-all, zergs are here to stay, in one form or another and there is no fix for such without negatively impacting WvW as a whole, be assured of this.

I don’t agree with you that zerging cant be fixed: It can be easily be fixed by rewarding only x number of players for each objective.
But I agree with you that running in one zerg ball can be countered.
So I don’t think fixing the zerg will solve the issue of server population.

During prime time servers with good organization and tactics (so don’t runing one zone blob) are already winning. Problem starts in the off hours. Even if server X dominates during the reset. As soon prime time is over and server Y start pvdooring and take all keeps and towers back.. manage to upgrade atleast 1 keep on each zone to tier 3… And during prime time they all sit behind ACs in the tier 3 keep. Even if they loose everything else… just waiting till everyone logs and PVDoor again. Server Y will win point wise. Still having bad organistation and tactics.

So PvDooring in off hours is rewarded most and best tactic for server points.
That’s the problem.
Server population balance isn’t a problem during prime time (think more then 50% of all servers have queues in all borders during prime time .. so even numbers)
Its the 24/7 imbalance that makes the current system fail.

Well i have an idea for the queues and at least be all more balanced when all maps have queues…

Priority queues, i won’t say that guilds have priority or priority on your world rank.

But i have to say, that we need a priority on queues for the people who enter with lvl 80. Or do WvW just for lvl 80 people, the queues will stay there and the issues of population, but at least will be all more balanced..

Warthog.6870:

*Base transfer prices on average queue length
*Add queue length on your current server and on 5 different servers to the queue popup:

“You queue will pop in 5 minutes
Queues on other servers:
JQ 4hrs
SBI 2hrs
[…]
Vabbi 0min”
You could even add a direct transfer option

BRILLIANT is all I can say, I play on a very high pop server but most our players are PvE and we still lose to lower populated servers. So the server population does not really make you a stronger server in WvW.

This probably turn into a wall of text but considering i am a harcore wvwer might have a few good ideas on how to manage populations.

First of all one of the issues with larger pop servers is the floating.
It would be really nice if there was a restriction on that.
My ideal example would be to restrict access to servers on joining EB if they dont own all structures in theyr BL.
Also remove access to attack borderlands to servers that do not own stonemist castle.
This in my own humble opinion will force a unified front on each server instead of the usual scattering.
Also since this also bumps into the cap,will force larger servers to destack,unless they want to face 12hour queues.
If they dont want to transfer ,thats fine since new wvw map will provide the entertainement they need.
From my point of view this changes i am proposing while they will force down the stacked server by 3/4ths they will give the lesser servers a chance to be able to push back.
Also stonemist will become a more strategic point to hold than the usual flip fodder it is now.
I am sure il get a lot of negative feedback from stacked server players,but this is the only solution i can think of aside introducing udjustable caps per lower server population.

Edit: Another solution would be a mercenary system,hiring people for coin.
It would be perhaps a great idea if it was a separate branch of wvw with different rewards and it would cater to the people looking to face the bigger challenges while reducing the burden on servers that have lower populations.

Solstice.1097:

The topic of World Population is synonymous with ‘non-competitive match-ups.’ Everyone has more fun when they can regularly accomplish objectives with the enemy still being a legitimate threat. In matches where this is sorely missing, the cause is World Population imbalance.

The subtopics that need addressed are:

1. Transfer incentives and costs. The costs are not aligned with World rating and there is currently no incentive to transfer to a server in need.

2. From Season 1 to Season 2. The league concept has given Anet huge leverage in being able to encourage or even force players to transfer servers. How can this best be leveraged to encourage a utilitarian result?

3. Disparity between WvW population and World population. We can’t completely ignore non-WvW players in the data as some would suggest we do, because part of our focus should be continuing to attract and retain more players into WvW. We also can’t ignore the fact that some servers have a much higher participation rate. We must discuss this issue from a very speculative viewpoint, using our collective foresight and anticipation to find the best solution.

4. The scoring and reward systems. Does this need to be re-looked at? Did a lack of defensive rewards create the karma-train and encourage abandoning those servers without the populations to play much more than defense? Does the scoring system need to take more into account than objectives held and player/dolyak kills?

I’ll give my thoughts and suggestions to these in a reply but I strongly feel this is where we need to be looking.

My suggestions on these are:

1. Charge 25 silver for guesting to servers for PvE. For 25 silver you can guest on the server of your choice for 24 hours. Next tie server transfer costs to WvW rating and include a prize/reward based on your choice. The lower the server rank the better the reward. This could be a player’s choice of a gem store item up to X value where X increases the lower down the ladder you go.

2. Let’s not make a drastic change to this as it will play out much differently. #1 above coupled with the system used for season 1 may yield good results. We should, however, communicate it differently to the player base.

3. no thoughts at the moment

4. Many suggestions have been posted by forum users and a lot of them are terrible but some are good and a few are even great. Let’s weed through them.

How to make zergs more difficult

It feels like the main problem is caused by the abilities a zerg gets with its numbers (fast objectives cap) and that it is the best way to get rewards (loot). Staying within a tower to defend it and build it up gives you low to nothing as a reward. Also the problem is, that the scoring only relies on how many objectives you have claimed at a given time, which also includes that servers with a decent night/morning coverage will gain massive point-advantages, even when they lose to their skill at day.

To adress this i have thought of a game design change: Make defending more rewarding and change the scoring system.

- You get the points for a tick only if you have manned an objective. -> Here is also an option to balace out population-issues: You have to have 5% (random chosen) within a keep to get their points in a tick. The number needed is calculated every other tick, so ppl know how many ppl have to be in.
- Encourage ppl to defend. -> Make it more rewarding staying in a claimed object: Some little events like “Encourage the workers, by bringing them food/beer”, “Examine the Condition of the Wall” – Maybe with a follow up event now and then that requires you to repair the wall with ressources. Each event gives you a little loot bag. Nothing special, but better than just waisting your time as a scout with nothing to do.
-> This binds natually a given number of players in objects and reduces the maximal Zerg size. It also thins out score gains during the night, when you implement an absolute minimum of players to get the score-points. (Like at least 5ppl for a keep; or 5% of WvW pop else). To gain all Points on a map you need 100%/80% of you own pop to tick. -> So there is none or low population to zerg around then and it gets difficult to hold the whole map and get an insane amount of points at any time.

PS.: The values are not meant to be absolute, just a placeholder so you get the idea. This also is balancing, which requires deeper knowledge of actual server populations, which the community can only guess

I also like the idea posted somewhere above (page 2 it was i think), that if you keep the league system you might want to make a season registering phase, where you registering for a server you fight for (extra wvw servers) and maybe control the population flow by making them to be evenly populated or by a registration fee (golsink/gemsink for gods (uhm financial managers) sake) I dont think it is a big problem, when you make a little fee like 1-5g for 8 weeks WvW, spreaded by registration amount on a specific of those servers… This gives guilds the possibility to get to the same server. Maybe do language specific servers in the EU. This might get a problem else

Many think the answer is equal population control where if one server puts 50 people on a map, then the other two servers can only put 50 as well. This doesn’t really work because it limits how many people can play wvw at one time.

However, maybe if we had two (2) Outmanned buffs that were different.

Outmanned 1 would be on the server with the least population on the map
Outmanned 2 would be on the server with the second least population on the map

The outmanned buffs would be different with the outmanned 1 buff having the stronger buffs.

Ideas for outmanned buff:

-camp supply
-tower/keep upgrade speed or supply costs
-dolyak speed or amount of supply they carry
-bloodlust or a form of it
-siege dmg?
-magic find, gold find, badges, wxp, xp

While i applaud the ArenaNet Development team for taking this approach towards development, i want to raise questions regarding their methods and or intentions.

First of all, while most of us have good ideas, and several ideas listed in this thread may or may not be viable. We, the players, got no clue about the limitations, restrictions and or stability of the current system. We can suggest anything between the earth and the heavens above, but in the end, without proper data regarding server limitations, and or restrictions pertaining to the game engine itself, this ends up being a big pot of “lets just restrict things further” in one way or the other.

For all we know, the servers may be able to handle a great deal more traffic, but the current system may be horribly inefficient at processing the data. Or the servers may be close to a critical unstable state. We do not know, and while it is at ArenaNet’s discretion whether to share such information or not, we, the players, are literally wasting our time, and the time of the developers while we chase ideas that nobody are willing to say “will not work”.
When dealing with “problem solving” such as this, some data must be available to determine the “limitations” of a solution.
Until such data is given, this is a waste of time, and a very inefficient and unproductive way to gain any real answer.
Many players here are professional or amateur computer programmers, they know how to solve things like this, but they cannot give you a good, and optimal solution, when they cannot pinpoint a potential chokepoint/flaw in the current system.

majos.8503:

Well i have an idea for the queues and at least be all more balanced when all maps have queues…

Priority queues, i won’t say that guilds have priority or priority on your world rank.

But i have to say, that we need a priority on queues for the people who enter with lvl 80. Or do WvW just for lvl 80 people, the queues will stay there and the issues of population, but at least will be all more balanced..

So basically punish new players?

*Modify PPT of objectives based on the score of the ‘natural’ owner, with SMC exempt *

The modifier only applies to objectives you hold that naturally do not belong to your world, meaning in another borderland or another world’s side of EB.

PPT modifier = ‘natural’ owner’s % of total score divided by 33%

Example server A has 200k points and servers B and C have 100k.

Server A has 50% of total score divided by 33% = 151.5% modifier
Servers B and C have 25% of total score divided by 33% = 75.8% modifier

So taking a tower from server A is worth 15.2 PPT, but taking one from B or C is worth 7.6 PPT. Server A keep is worth 37.9 PPT vs server B or C worth 18.96 PPT.

This does not DIRECTLY affect world population, but it does help solve the problem that population imbalance creates.

The Free transfers to lower populated servers is a start towards helping the population inequalities.

The other thing that should be explored is giving the smaller group a fighting chance. It is well known and evident that WvW has become a zerg centric game. From people not defending to circle capping to a small group having no chance to fend off a larger zerg with more supply/firepower.

How do we do this? Well my opinion is that it should start with defense. We need to offer more incentive to defending. Making it more rewarding to defend is going to ultimately slow down zergs. But that isn’t enough. I’ve been on a side where 5-10 people tried to defend against 30+. Well it’s no contest, and it shouldn’t be, but we should be able to slow them down.

For one: damage should not go through the gate! If someone is swinging his sword, it should not hit the person behind repairing it. This may be a hard fix, so I propose that we just make the ability to repair the gate a little wider in range. That way you don’t have to re-work the entire game and you help the small group delay the zerg while defending waiting for reinforcements.

Siege on the walls should only be damageable by siege and direct aoe. Something needs to be done with 2 flame ele’s showing up and just using meteor shower and suddenly you have no ac to defend your tower. That’s way too much waste of supply and plans to be countered so easily. Either reduce the damage of meteor shower or make it unable to hit all the way at the back end of a wall!

Would 16 hour WvW windows be a solution? i.e. close WvW in off-peak periods?

This shouldn’t cause a problem for night workers, as they can still join a server in another time zone.

Terrible idea.

I think one thing that is easy and would help without much on your end would just be to revist transfer costs. As several have stated make it something like free to transfer to tier 8 200 gems to tier 7 etc… rank servers. Then people upset with queues on stacked servers would transfer. I know from experience this works. Our guild left blackgate cus we could never get our entire guild on at the same time. This was back when server transfers were free. We just picked a low tier server and went with it. Right now its 800 gems to transfer to our tier 8 server and nobody is transferring.

It probably would have been better doing this discussion in it’s own forum, instead of a thread.

Mercenaries

Mercenaries open up when a specific server is extremely outgunned. What mercenaries does is allow guilds from other servers to temporarily join the outmanned server to help balance the odds. Only guilds from servers that are winning their matchup may become mercenaries. Mercenaries get a bonus in wxp and money, however are unable to interact with supply in towers and keeps to avoid griefing.

As a stretch goal, mercenaries is a permanent flag and the guild becomes “serverless” in wvw. Losing servers are able to offer up some method of payment to entice good mercenary groups to help their server.

No matter what you do, some people (probably many) just have absolutely no interest in PvP or WvW. No incentive will ever get them to transfer over. Given this, there isn’t much that can be done to even out the population in it’s current state, outside of Anet just forcefully spreading people across servers.

I’ve suggested this before and I think it would work, but it’d require a complete re-structure on how WvW operates. In effect in wouldn’t be called WvW anymore.. more like FvF (Faction vs Faction). We have 3 borderlands and 3 factions in the game currently (how convenient).

Basically, when a player wants to join a WvW like battle, they pick a faction they’d like to fight for at that particular time. They choose what map they want to fight on. Have several instances of each map open at once. Each map would show the current amount of players fighting for each side. This way players know if they are either getting into an uneven or a fair fight.

Give each faction a whole new set of achievements, siege, and rewards.

Yes this would require probably quite a bit of restructuring, but at least this should eliminate the ques, as well as, even out the fights considerably more.

Jharkin.9357:

It probably would have been better doing this discussion in it’s own forum, instead of a thread.

Mercenaries

Mercenaries open up when a specific server is extremely outgunned. What mercenaries does is allow guilds from other servers to temporarily join the outmanned server to help balance the odds. Only guilds from servers that are winning their matchup may become mercenaries. Mercenaries get a bonus in wxp and money, however are unable to interact with supply in towers and keeps to avoid griefing.

As a stretch goal, mercenaries is a permanent flag and the guild becomes “serverless” in wvw. Losing servers are able to offer up some method of payment to entice good mercenary groups to help their server.

Yeah posted same thing above,it would be nice if they had a separate wvw rewards tree to pick from.
And yes they shouldnt have access to supply and siege building.
Also a forced eject vote function incase trolls decide to abuse it.

Server costs to transfer its the same amount to transfer to NSP as it is to transfer the JQ should be free to transfer to lower populated servers or just merge the lower ones with mid populated. And vice versa 2x the cost to transfer from NSP to JQ.

Que time should be averaged out and posted in world selection screen and a timer made to show how long you have to get in wvw. Also Full server should be full and have a week or 2 shut down on transfers.

I like the idea of being able to transfer worlds of same color Green to Green Red To Red.

Do some Stats on population for a couple of weeks best to do it during the leagues, Average players logging in and out to BL, Que time for each BL, Average players in each map doing this will get you the exact population for a world. Getting exact population s is a standing point in evening out the population and really needs to be done for anything to be put forward. Yes its going to take a while but it needs to be done Rome wasn’t built in a day and stacked servers didn’t either.

Diminishing return on PPT or get rid of PPT all together and create something more then a watch grass grow to see if you need to get more lawnmowers in your lawn cause your ppt is not going up as fast as you want it too.

Ability for guilds to transfer there levels points everything. Why are you going to recreate a huge guild somewhere else? yeah its to much work.

Less rewards for Big Giant Zergs (AKA Blobs) 80 man zergs are given same rewards for taking a paper tower as 10 ppl, Diminishing rewards on this as well where as a 10 man team will get 2x more 4 silver and a Blob of 80 will get 50 copper.

My Thoughts on World Population:

Let’s just face it World population as of right not is based on WvW; I know this thread is suppose to be about the World/Server not WvW but that is the main reason y most worlds have crazy high populations. So to control High population’s you should disable transfer’s to high population server’s and offer free transfer’s off.

What I would like to see

1. Fix the Queuing in WvW

2. A better AFK check system in WvW

3. Locked High population server’s with high Queue’s to stop transfer’s

4. Accounts Can not have toon’s on contesting WvW server’s in the same league
ex. ( BG, SOR, TC)..no account can have a toon on SOR & BG.

5. Locked Siege to Server…So if you are on SOR and in a 3way war on one server u can’t just give another server such as TC siege believe it or not this happened on Sunday.

6. Grace period for disconnection (1 min timer to allow login in case of network interruption)

7. Outnumbered should upgrade all guards to Silver & Claimer to legendary so that it is a little harder to take objective’s ( or boosted stat’s on Claimer).

8. Guesting member’s should automatically be moved to overflow on a server, so that server’s own population have precedence on that server.

9. Please fix keeps and tower’s that if upgraded to tier 2 or 3 the keep give’s perma-stability so that you can’t be pulled off (chain pulled by mesmer’s) or feared. I think these keeps are some of the smallest in History. Two norns could climb on each others shoulders and go right over if they wanted and take the keep.

10. Make a map to where after you leave your invulnerable area your skills are locked until back in that area.

11. Stability should make you immune to immobilize.
These are just something’s that I think would be greatly appreciated

Deal with the issues created by population imbalance, namely Foregone Conclusions early on in the match, and people not having fun because either there is nothing left to do when you own everything, or there is nothing you can do because you’re getting dominated.

When a server is facing a massive score gap, new options like the ones suggested below could become temporarily available from the Traps and Tricks vendor to give them the option of continuing to fight.

Mercenary Trap: Trap that summons temporary Mercenary Allies
Purchaseable Merc Pet: Merc ally to follow you around
Demolition Kit: Deployable device that will do 5% damage to any wall or gate.
Purchaseable Stealth Buff: Chance to get to an objective to do something
Reinforcement Boost: Speed buff upon respawn

When one server has conquered the entire world, they should expect some insurrection/rebellion/sabotage. You shouldn’t expect the massively outnumbered group to fight fair.

Like i’ve previously stated in other player discussions threads.
I do not understand why the approach for population & map management was not similar to that of GW1.

By that I mean a total dissociation of PvE & WvW population & actually control server population solely based on WvW population. (This would also give you a better idea of how many realms need to exist for a lot more balanced matchup even against the top 3.

When it came down to the PvE side, I would’ve probably just done instances of the maps (like the overflows) and introduced a very simple dropdown (like in GW1) allowing players to choose the instance, making everyone’s experience better.
PS: PvE was mentionned because I think this solution would solve many of the population issues in all aspects of the game while also providing better metrics when it comes to WvW and ANET being able to adjust “WvW realm cap” (not maps).

Now when it comes to the suggestions of “Dynamic map cap” to attempt to manage that all sides are evenly numbered may sound very nice when it comes to theoretical balancing, but is a horrible suggestion that will kill the game. People want to play and if they cant, they will just leave the game. And the argument that it will make people transfer is false too. Would you transfer and not play with your friends?

WvWvW
Imo one bad thing in this mode is that if u want to play with ur guild -and for example u’ve got 15 willing players atm – then there’s no chance to met other similar group, and have a fun in balanced fight. E.g. We will get a keep, and then 50 of people is going to just smash us :P WvWvW is a really huge war and there’s two options: join zerg or create a mass WvWvW guild with a hundreds of players…

U could do it by creating much more, small borders with smaller amount of players, than less borders with full of zergs. We could have like a… 100 mini-borders, that one allows 20 vs 20, others 30v30 or 50v50 – depends on that for what these people are fighting towers, keeps, or castles) Even some borders would people to join puzzles Like… Puzzle-WvWvW, and disturb other servers in jumping etc :P
IMO it would be much better, than this big… something ‘.’

But ok, if u plan to have a huge, zerg mode like WvWvW, then we really need a mode, that allow our guilds to have a fun, and dont worry about that we’ve got 10 players, so we cant play, cause 30 will smash us, or we’ve got 20, and 80 will smash us :/
Something more balanced.
Maybe call it GvG, that so many players want?
And create a 10vs10, 15vs15, 20vs20 and even 50vs50 GvG fights? But there should be any rating, like in PvP, and leaderboards for GvG mby. System should select guilds that will fight each other.
Mode similar to WvWvW, but balanced. And then u can force people to group in smaller groups to win the battle

Also, I really like eternal’s puzzle- there’s no zergs, and also design of this puzzles is mastery. Traps are a good idea and it could be developed. U’ve got puzzle, but hey – its not that easy to complete it, cause other people can disturb u IMO you should go this way. The worst part is that people havent got any motivation to do this puzzles, and this map is empty so often :|
I would love to see a mode, that focus on WvWvW puzzles Just let people to join eternal puzzles easier (im sure so many people even dont know about them. Or just havent got any good motivation to back there :/), and would be nice to see much more puzzles, which let people fight there with other servers

We should all keep in mind transfers = revenue for Anet so any suggestion that blocks or denies transfers is off the table.

We should be finding a way to encourage transfers that help rather than compound the problem.

1. No forced transfers
2. No denied transfers
3. Create a system that rewards spreading out
4. Create systems that make fighting outnumbered more enjoyable

Jharkin.9357:

It probably would have been better doing this discussion in it’s own forum, instead of a thread.

Mercenaries

Mercenaries open up when a specific server is extremely outgunned. What mercenaries does is allow guilds from other servers to temporarily join the outmanned server to help balance the odds. Only guilds from servers that are winning their matchup may become mercenaries. Mercenaries get a bonus in wxp and money, however are unable to interact with supply in towers and keeps to avoid griefing.

As a stretch goal, mercenaries is a permanent flag and the guild becomes “serverless” in wvw. Losing servers are able to offer up some method of payment to entice good mercenary groups to help their server.

Like I said before, I don’t think NPC’s are the solutions.
Did you ever see a zerg avoid a supply camp because the NPC orges are in it?
Even a solo player can take a supply camp with the NPC’s in it, it just takes longer.
If you send lots of NPC’s to towers and keeps will only mean maybe a small delay for the zerg (probably not). I don’t think a zerg in a zone with only NPC enemies will every be stopped by the NPC’s