Guild Wars 2

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Xerox.6851:

What you are suggesting is a selfish call for what YOU think WvW should be without excepting that not everyone plays the same style as you. It is for that reason that Anet has such a hard problem. There are many sub-groups of WvW players with many different styles of play. If Anet only focuses on one (Eotm) the general community isn’t happy about it.

What I’m suggesting is a solution to the problem being discussed.

No, it cuts ones nose off, to spite their face.

I think you miss the point. I believe the idea is to find a solution that doesn’t destroy the game mode more then the problem. Your suggestions may be a means to an end result, but it is a bad one. I agree with the other poster, that it is a selfish idea. It solves a smaller problem, while created a tremendous one.

Jim Hunter.6821:

A floating cap wouldn’t prevent large groups like T1 and T2 from having large scale fights. It would however make T3 much more enjoyable. I’ve been on both sides of lopsided matches, it’s terrible for everyone involved.

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

You are making the assumption that people would rather not play the game. For your scenario to happen players from all 3 servers would have to DC at the same time and then choose to not log back in.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m willing to bet there are far more people that would log back in because they enjoy the game than there are people that try to manipulate the system by not playing.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

Jim Hunter.6821:

It’s even more likely that more players would start logging on during off hours since they wouldn’t be hopelessly outnumbered.

That doesn’t make any sense as I see it. As far as I know, players do not log in on off hours because they are sleeping, working, tending to kids, families, and school. If players were free to log in at off hours, then everyone would do so.

Chairface.9036:

The idea they are tossing around is making WvW reward tracks the end game of GW2.

As of now the only attraction to WvW is when the K-Train is running full steam ahead. Most people haven’t learned the fun of fights and how to create fights with PPT.

Karma is the only attraction? That doesn’t make sense. WvW was known as the weakest way to earn karma for most of the games duration, and developed a healthy community. That in itself disproves that odd claim.

Who are these “most people” ? In my experience, it appears more people know how to have a great fight over a garri rush, or a long battle over bay, hills, or another keep then there are of players who do not.

coglin.1867:

Chairface.9036:

The idea they are tossing around is making WvW reward tracks the end game of GW2.

As of now the only attraction to WvW is when the K-Train is running full steam ahead. Most people haven’t learned the fun of fights and how to create fights with PPT.

Karma is the only attraction? That doesn’t make sense. WvW was known as the weakest way to earn karma for most of the games duration, and developed a healthy community. That in itself disproves that odd claim.

Who are these “most people” ? In my experience, it appears more people know how to have a great fight over a garri rush, or a long battle over bay, hills, or another keep then there are of players who do not.

Comon coglin you know full well the term K-Train means flipping empty maps. Which means karma(ok sure why not), Champ Bags(lets hop on the train), gold(yes please), XP, random NPC loot drops, farming the few people defending… the list goes on…..

Ever heard the term fairweather? Or how about “K-Train Thursdays”? They don’t trade keep flips on Thursday for the Karma it’s for the loots, xp for uplevels, wxp for the newbies..

That’s why people are asking for WvW track rewards for playstyles other than “bag’s per hour”. Things like defending, winning, scouting and the like.

coglin.1867:

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

You prefer a horribly unbalanced match-up? I’d rather sit in queue for an hour than have 600 PPT all week with no one to fight because the other servers don’t stand a chance.

Some players may choose to move to have shorter queues which would actually end up being healthy for the game. Buying guilds and stacking 1 server would no longer be a guaranteed win.

coglin.1867:

That doesn’t make any sense as I see it. As far as I know, players do not log in on off hours because they are sleeping, working, tending to kids, families, and school. If players were free to log in at off hours, then everyone would do so.

That’s absolutely untrue. Every server has fair weather players that log off when things are too challenging. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen players log in, ask if there is a zerg running and then log off when they don’t see a tag. Even players that constantly tag up and lead the push to regain keeps and towers can get burnt out on trying to gain ground against a group 3 times their size.

I’ll admit that there are times when I’ve pulled up the live map and saw that our PPT was in the teens and said screw it, I’ve got errands to run, let someone else cap everything back today. If I knew for a fact that the other servers could only field a roughly equal sized group instead of calling in the blob I would be a lot more likely to hop on and play.

coglin.1867:

sminkiottone.6972:

coglin.1867:

Tom Gore.4035:

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives.

perhaps you are new to WvW, but killing enemy player is not, nor has every been, the actual object of the game mode.

WvW is PvP, if you like WvE you can go EoTM.

Capturing objective should be the least rewarded thing in WvW, defending and killing other players should be far more rewarding.

Remind us again, How do you win a match up?

By having the most stacked server, everyone knows that, play a few MU and you will realise that.

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

You prefer a horribly unbalanced match-up? I’d rather sit in queue for an hour than have 600 PPT all week with no one to fight because the other servers don’t stand a chance.

Some players may choose to move to have shorter queues which would actually end up being healthy for the game. Buying guilds and stacking 1 server would no longer be a guaranteed win.

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Redesigning the game to force higher populated servers’ players to move to lower populated servers? All that argument does, is open the flood gates for the argument that those with complaints about population now, be forced to move. How greedy do you have to be to demand the higher populations be forced to move, instead of forcing the lower populations? In what world does the ultra minority win over the majority?

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

That doesn’t make any sense as I see it. As far as I know, players do not log in on off hours because they are sleeping, working, tending to kids, families, and school. If players were free to log in at off hours, then everyone would do so.

That’s absolutely untrue. Every server has fair weather players that log off when things are too challenging. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen players log in, ask if there is a zerg running and then log off when they don’t see a tag. Even players that constantly tag up and lead the push to regain keeps and towers can get burnt out on trying to gain ground against a group 3 times their size.

I’ll admit that there are times when I’ve pulled up the live map and saw that our PPT was in the teens and said screw it, I’ve got errands to run, let someone else cap everything back today. If I knew for a fact that the other servers could only field a roughly equal sized group instead of calling in the blob I would be a lot more likely to hop on and play.

Which post that you have made, in which you down play anyone concerned about PPT, mock them, or speak negatively of anyone concerned about PPT, would you like me to link here? You are very clear that PPT is irrelevant to you.

Addressing the issue of population imbalance in isolation isn’t going to work, due to the large number of other factors at work.

First you need to address what attracts players to wvw, what keeps them there, why do they play it and what do they expect from it?

Secondly, you then need to examine how to retain and expand that population over the longer term.

Most of the current problems stem from the game mode being totally stale, inadequate rewards for playing, no new maps, no dev input, no clear Anet wvw lead, very little action taken against hackers, cheats, and precious little changes, totally ignoring the playerbase (or just mass deletion of threads), having CDI’s but then nothing happens, having employees play wvw then nothing, no change to the totally broken achievements for wvw leading to stagnation and a mass exodus from the game mode. Add in that there is no feeling of gaining something for the server by completing in wvw- there supposedly is a difference gained according to the wvw pages but ask any pve player if they know they gain boosts as a result of wvw scores and 99% will neither know nor care.

Fix those problems and you will fix a lot of the population imbalance, then address any remaining imbalances by a couple of merges or incentives for people to join the low population server.

Don’t get why people are saying reward tracks are a bad thing. The rewards may be what attracts pvers to eotm but it isn’t what keeps wvwers out, it’s the fact that there is too many mobs and AI controlled objects to make it fun.

Try solo roaming in eotm and you’ll see the biggest problem is that you’re constantly enclosed in a small section of the map because the npcs in some areas can actually kill you or that every time you find a fight you get perma knocked down by automated cannons.

If a pve blob for some reason rushed into wvw in force right now they would get steam rolled by guild groups and picked off relentlessly by roamers.

Nothing wrong with better rewards, just saying that it isn’t the reason for the unbalanced match-ups or the population problems. Better rewards is a Quality of Life upgrade. The top post listed it as one thing to use for attracting new players to fix the population/unbalanced match-ups.

joneirikb.7506:

Nothing wrong with better rewards, just saying that it isn’t the reason for the unbalanced match-ups or the population problems. Better rewards is a Quality of Life upgrade. The top post listed it as one thing to use for attracting new players to fix the population/unbalanced match-ups.

The thing is WvW already rewards you for stacking and running in map queue blobs.

If you haven’t been on a stacked server steamrolling and K-Training then you wouldn’t know the amount of loot you get compared to roaming/scouting/small man on a smaller server.

HoT definitely going in the right direction by focusing on defense and strategy, and not just overwhelming multiple maps and targets.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

A floating cap locks players out artificially. A floating cap lowers when players log off. A few people DC. Now the cap lowers, forcing them out of the game.

No assumptions made. Does your suggestion not limit player caps based on the population of the weakest link? The lowest population server in the match up? If artificial caps are put on the more populated servers, it will not be a matter of people not wanting to play the game, the artificial cap your idea creates, literally disallows them to get into the game forcing unnecessary queues on them.

If your idea is something different, please, by all means, clarify.

That was not my point. My point was the forced queues your suggestion imposes on larger population servers, in an artificial manner, when they are matched up to lower population servers.

You prefer a horribly unbalanced match-up? I’d rather sit in queue for an hour than have 600 PPT all week with no one to fight because the other servers don’t stand a chance.

Some players may choose to move to have shorter queues which would actually end up being healthy for the game. Buying guilds and stacking 1 server would no longer be a guaranteed win.

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Redesigning the game to force higher populated servers’ players to move to lower populated servers? All that argument does, is open the flood gates for the argument that those with complaints about population now, be forced to move. How greedy do you have to be to demand the higher populations be forced to move, instead of forcing the lower populations? In what world does the ultra minority win over the majority?

I’m looking for a game where the player skill is more important than being able to call in a larger blob. My suggestion wouldn’t force anyone to move. The majority of the tiers have roughly equal numbers. Right now the only tiers that would be heavily affected would be tier 3 and 6 and I’m pretty sure the majority of the people in those match-ups would be having a lot more fun if things were more competitive.

Notice: Wall of text incoming.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m looking for a game where the player skill is more important than being able to call in a larger blob.

I had said before that you were being selfish. And yes, I don’t disagree that player skill should be a major factor in the game but that doesn’t give you the right to dictate how others should play. If you want more skilled combat then look into GvGs or fights guilds. Obviously the players that run around in those large blobs enjoy doing so.

Jim Hunter.6821:

My suggestion wouldn’t force anyone to move. The majority of the tiers have roughly equal numbers. Right now the only tiers that would be heavily affected would be tier 3 and 6 and I’m pretty sure the majority of the people in those match-ups would be having a lot more fun if things were more competitive.

Your suggesting is to put artificial floating player caps on all the servers as a way to keep player populations the same on all servers. This is why I said it only sounds good.

You can’t say that this idea wouldn’t force anyone to move. You will be increasing que times to some servers that already have ques on borderlands. Some people aren’t as forgiving as you and don’t want to wait that long. The server I am on had a minimum 20 man que this reset night. I didn’t even bother trying to get in and neither did some of the others in my guild.

That said, my server (dragonbrand) actually has a weaker NA then the other T2 servers we are with. So during the week when my guild raids the other T2 servers out number us by a little. This idea would restrict the other servers in our tier to match mine. I don’t want that.

It would make our server more competitive during NA (of which we do just fine) but it would restrict our off-hour coverage. Now, once again, that sounds fine until you consider how many people you have barred from entering WvW: A large number of YB and FA players, because they were forced to maintain our levels during NA, and a large number of DB players during our strong off-hour coverage. Those are players you have turned away from WvW. Either they transfer or they leave WvW all together because the coverage gaps between servers haven’t changed. Your argument is based around the idea that all the servers have roughly equal numbers, but they don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this debate and the title wouldn’t be unbalanced match-ups.

And yes, this would have a major impact on T3. Not just in favor of the T3 servers, but also against the T2 server that moves down to T3. SoS can already make ques on every map. If say, HoD and NSP can only field 60 a map on reset then you are leaving out another 60 players per map. Those numbers are too drastic. And during the week when numbers go down, yes the match-up will be competitive. But you are ignoring the overall server strength to try and possibly highlight skill difference. All the numbers that are ignored though, are players that are frustrated and potentially leave GW2 entirely.

The solution that is required isn’t something as simple as just setting player caps. You need to understand why people are playing the game. What they are looking for. And after defining those things, try to increase the overall number of players that take part.

Realistically, the only way the servers will all be balanced will be if more people are playing WvW so solutions that potentially lead to players leaving will only make the problem worse.

please recommend that anet permanently institute ppk in every single report you send to them, or at least that i, for one, think they should~

it was well received by the community and helped to stabilize matches away from being coverage wars (which is a subtopic of match imbalance).

If I may be so bold. I don’t understand the route that you are taking with highlighting issues. WvW is a far broader spectrum than most people understand, we all like to jump into our own little niches but essentially you have, single player roamers, small group roamers (2-5) medium roam groups (5-15) organised guild groups (15-30) and formations of those. These groups can focus on anything from trying to engage similar sized groups to larger groups. Then you have the PPT players, karma trainers and the relative new players (which is happening more infrequently).

Undoubtedly the unbalanced matchups are a huge issue for the game, if anyone thinks or suggests otherwise they are clearly burying their head in the sand.

My point is you posted next weeks topic as “siege trolling” – where does the list of topics come from? Are you yourself making this list or is it a predefined list given by Arenanet?

If its one by you I would suggest another thread facilitating your acceptance here where people can bring up the issues they feel close to. Allow them to express what area of gameplay in WvW they attend mostly that way you can get some general metrics that you can wade into and expand upon, otherwise this simply is like kittening in to the wind and expecting not to get wet.

If this initiative really holds ground and is something Arenanet wish to promote then the route you seem to be taken seems a bit slap dash, formulate an approach that involves more aspects of WvW, cast a wider net and it will show far more than I expect you will see currently.

WvW has people who want to siege, WvW has people who want to solo and WvW has people who want to do organised 10v10, 15v15, 20v20 and so on and all these aspects need to be looked at and sitting and looking at the uneven matchups scratching heads isnt going to fix much, if it was that easy I would conclude that Anet would have fixed it by now.

Note: If the list is given to you by Arenanet I would suggest you ask them for more freedom in this area.

It seems like instead of balanced matches people would rather have unequaled gank fests.
How can someone complain about unbalanced matches turn around and champion the idea of being able to stack on a few select servers, then justify it by saying it creates a more competitive or exciting venture? SHHHH….they just want easy mode.

It’s gotten so easy that now people are staying away from wvw and you see people baiting others out with an alt on one server just so they can have someone to attack with their main on the opposing server. If you think about it that is pretty sad and pathetic.

Maybe if everyone would stay put and stop jumping ship for the next flavor of the month server things could stabilize.

Most games are engineered pretty well, it’s just that once developers start catering to whiney players things go down hill real quick.

Widebody.5071:

It seems like instead of balanced matches people would rather have unequaled gank fests.
How can someone complain about unbalanced matches turn around and champion the idea of being able to stack on a few select servers, then justify it by saying it creates a more competitive or exciting venture? SHHHH….they just want easy mode.

It’s gotten so easy that now people are staying away from wvw and you see people baiting others out with an alt on one server just so they can have someone to attack with their main on the opposing server. If you think about it that is pretty sad and pathetic.

Maybe if everyone would stay put and stop jumping ship for the next flavor of the month server things could stabilize.

Most games are engineered pretty well, it’s just that once developers start catering to whiney players things go down hill real quick.

Expecting players to be able to manage themselves effectively is like letting the banks regulate themselves

There are some good guild leaders out there who understand the dynamics behind the bandwagoning.

An idea I recall from many moons ago involved, in part, a ranking system for guilds that would add to the WvW score, this in itself could be developed as a mechanic that would deter many of the more organised guilds from stacking on a single set of servers but I fear Anet doesnt place much merit in developing something as involved as this for the WvW game mode. There are a plethora of other incentives or ways within which this could be achieved also, adding a set amount of time a player must have been on a server before they gain karma/xp/etc… and the more hops they do the longer it takes, the problem with this is that it affects those who move around in order to get good fights also…

In regards to the population issue, I think the only permanent solution outside of removing servers all together is to reduce the number of servers to 3-6 servers, since they only have 24 hour coverage for 6 servers, then add more active maps to cover the increased population playing at the same time. They can have stable maps that are always active and " event maps" that appear only when all servers reach a specific number in ques for bonus ppt. This would allow for more players to be playing at once per server, not crash since they are on different maps, reduce server stacking as their will be ques if everyone is on one server since all maps would have to que before the bonus maps appear and allow for there to be enough maps reduced ques during peak hours and also not have too many maps to cover during non peak hours.
As follows:
1) Have stable maps that are up all the time.
2) Have bonus ppt event maps that become available when all servers reach a specific number in que for a specified amount of time.
3) Combine all servers into 3-6 servers since only 6 servers have the population for 24 hour coverage.

Problems solved:
1) no more ghost town servers, players will always be able to have people to play with when they are on.
2) balanced matchups.
3) less ques but also able to hold more population per server.
4)reduce server stacking
5) doesn’t crash maps since the map pop stays the same but allows for more players to play on one server at once
6)Allows for less targets to cover during slow times, more targets to cover during peak times
7)Allows for people in all time zones to be able to enjoy the game equally.

You are so right!!!
“Expecting players to be able to manage themselves effectively is like letting the banks regulate themselves”

Widebody.5071:

It seems like instead of balanced matches people would rather have unequaled gank fests.
How can someone complain about unbalanced matches turn around and champion the idea of being able to stack on a few select servers, then justify it by saying it creates a more competitive or exciting venture? SHHHH….they just want easy mode.

It’s gotten so easy that now people are staying away from wvw and you see people baiting others out with an alt on one server just so they can have someone to attack with their main on the opposing server. If you think about it that is pretty sad and pathetic.

Maybe if everyone would stay put and stop jumping ship for the next flavor of the month server things could stabilize.

Most games are engineered pretty well, it’s just that once developers start catering to whiney players things go down hill real quick.

It’s gotten so easy where? Come JQ and have the other 2 servers map blobs in your keep at the same time not attacking each other and tell me how easy it is. That isn’t easy mode..

If it is too easy where you are, you need to switch servers for a challenge currently. They need to resolve that issue so every server that is available will have challenging game play. The only way to do that is to either remove servers all together or reduce them to 3-6 so there is always a challenge.

Most games reduce servers when the population declines, that is the one thing Anet has not done for wvw is why that has not been resolved yet. They did this for pve, they just need to do this for wvw as well to resolve the problem.

lil devils x.6071:

Problems temporarily solved:

Fixed that for you.

As long as players can transfer servers, there will always be a population “imbalance”. Forced transfers only kitten off those who did not want to transfer, and ultimately solves nothing in the long run.

If there is to be a fix for this, it revolves around a deep rooted change behind the entire WvW point system. Not tinkering at the edges.

Xerox.6851:

Notice: Wall of text incoming.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m looking for a game where the player skill is more important than being able to call in a larger blob.

I had said before that you were being selfish. And yes, I don’t disagree that player skill should be a major factor in the game but that doesn’t give you the right to dictate how others should play. If you want more skilled combat then look into GvGs or fights guilds. Obviously the players that run around in those large blobs enjoy doing so.

Jim Hunter.6821:

My suggestion wouldn’t force anyone to move. The majority of the tiers have roughly equal numbers. Right now the only tiers that would be heavily affected would be tier 3 and 6 and I’m pretty sure the majority of the people in those match-ups would be having a lot more fun if things were more competitive.

Your suggesting is to put artificial floating player caps on all the servers as a way to keep player populations the same on all servers. This is why I said it only sounds good.

You can’t say that this idea wouldn’t force anyone to move. You will be increasing que times to some servers that already have ques on borderlands. Some people aren’t as forgiving as you and don’t want to wait that long. The server I am on had a minimum 20 man que this reset night. I didn’t even bother trying to get in and neither did some of the others in my guild.

That said, my server (dragonbrand) actually has a weaker NA then the other T2 servers we are with. So during the week when my guild raids the other T2 servers out number us by a little. This idea would restrict the other servers in our tier to match mine. I don’t want that.

It would make our server more competitive during NA (of which we do just fine) but it would restrict our off-hour coverage. Now, once again, that sounds fine until you consider how many people you have barred from entering WvW: A large number of YB and FA players, because they were forced to maintain our levels during NA, and a large number of DB players during our strong off-hour coverage. Those are players you have turned away from WvW. Either they transfer or they leave WvW all together because the coverage gaps between servers haven’t changed. Your argument is based around the idea that all the servers have roughly equal numbers, but they don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this debate and the title wouldn’t be unbalanced match-ups.

And yes, this would have a major impact on T3. Not just in favor of the T3 servers, but also against the T2 server that moves down to T3. SoS can already make ques on every map. If say, HoD and NSP can only field 60 a map on reset then you are leaving out another 60 players per map. Those numbers are too drastic. And during the week when numbers go down, yes the match-up will be competitive. But you are ignoring the overall server strength to try and possibly highlight skill difference. All the numbers that are ignored though, are players that are frustrated and potentially leave GW2 entirely.

You and the people that overstacked a select few servers to cause such unbalanced match-ups are the ones being selfish. Your argument sounds like, “If I’m forced into a fair fight I will quit the game.”

If Anet decides to test out a soft cap for a month or 2, they should re-open free transfers and then later set cost on the server based on it’s WvW population. Last time free transfers were terrible because people could stack on 1 server to steamroll everyone, but with a cap people will be encouraged to more evenly spread out.

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

Problems temporarily solved:

Fixed that for you.

As long as players can transfer servers, there will always be a population “imbalance”. Forced transfers only kitten off those who did not want to transfer, and ultimately solves nothing in the long run.

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

lil devils x.6071:

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

Problems temporarily solved:

Fixed that for you.

As long as players can transfer servers, there will always be a population “imbalance”. Forced transfers only kitten off those who did not want to transfer, and ultimately solves nothing in the long run.

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Experience says your incorrect. MAG only had 3 factions, never balanced population wise. ESO, 3 factions, not even close to a population balance.

coglin.1867:

lil devils x.6071:

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

Problems temporarily solved:

Fixed that for you.

As long as players can transfer servers, there will always be a population “imbalance”. Forced transfers only kitten off those who did not want to transfer, and ultimately solves nothing in the long run.

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Experience says your incorrect. MAG only had 3 factions, never balanced population wise. ESO, 3 factions, not even close to a population balance.

Neither had this system either. You are comparing apples to oranges. You have enough stable maps to support all sides, and with the event maps only appearing when all sides have ques, it would be physically impossible to have more on one side than you have on another. Both of the games you listed did not have that extra system in place to guard population balance.
If the game physically prevents more players from populating one side over another, the imbalance would only be in the skill of the players, not in the numbers, as it should be.

Your right, they didn’t have this system. They had the one your suggesting Anet adds. I am guessing you don’r even know what MAG is, so how do you know how its system compairs?

coglin.1867:

Your right, they didn’t have this system. They had the one your suggesting Anet adds. I am guessing you don’r even know what MAG is, so how do you know how its system compairs?

They do not have the system I am suggesting, you are incorrect. Please show me where they have event maps that only appear when all sides have same number in que.
I am suggesting they implement a system that prevents more from entering a side than another, and the event maps are timed, so if one side logs out, while the other is still logged on map, it will disappear when it’s time is up, keeping it balanced.

YES, I DO know what MAG is, I have it for PS3. My house is practically a gaming museum and my friends think I should charge admission. I even have a turbo grapfx 16 for crying out loud..
( I used to write articles for a gaming magazine, and multiple gaming sites)

Well we’ve been matched up against Mag 4 weeks in a row and always come in second. When i say come in second, i mean they basically crushed us so we compete for second. I don’t get why they are still in our tier when they easily outnumber us 3 to 1. anet is so busy shoving new content down our throats that they ignore ongoing matchup problems. Great job anet.

lil devils x.6071:

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Do you not see the problem with this? I’ve been on the same server since day one so I don’t know how things are on other servers (although my brother plays on Blackgate, usually no queue when he wants to WvW, but then again we play during oceanic hours), but there was a time when these forums were filled with people whining about queues. Some might say EotM was the answer, it was supposed to be a de-facto overflow map, but based on the various threads whining about EotM, this is not an acceptable “solution”.

Even with all the complaining about queues, people still “stacked” on certain servers. Who’s to say that this will not happen, even if you drop the number of servers to 3?

So what happens when all servers are full? Make a new server? Or another EotM? Then what happens when players quit, reducing the population on some servers? Force transfer again? This is why server merge is not a permanent solution. Population goes up and down for various reasons, making any forced transfer a temporary band-aid solution at best.

I still do not get why ppl think world merges is a real fix at best its just a way to make NA Q even bigger and dose nothing to fix the off times being the main problem behind rvr games that run 24hr a day.

Lowering the pop. would only work if you could make ppl who play during NA now play during off times beyond that you will just make it so most ppl cant play wvw at all.

More rewards are good but you run the risk of making Wvw into more of an pve map much like EotM. It will still not get ppl to play more during the off times.

No though on battle groups chose.

I still think the only true way to fix WvW is to make prime times more point rich and off times less point rich. This can be done with ppk AND lowering ppt. So killing 30 ppl should be more points then holding a keep for a tick maybe for 2 ticks. Making keeps and tower more staging points for attks and less of points to bunker in.

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Do you not see the problem with this? I’ve been on the same server since day one so I don’t know how things are on other servers (although my brother plays on Blackgate, usually no queue when he wants to WvW, but then again we play during oceanic hours), but there was a time when these forums were filled with people whining about queues. Some might say EotM was the answer, it was supposed to be a de-facto overflow map, but based on the various threads whining about EotM, this is not an acceptable “solution”.

Even with all the complaining about queues, people still “stacked” on certain servers. Who’s to say that this will not happen, even if you drop the number of servers to 3?

So what happens when all servers are full? Make a new server? Or another EotM? Then what happens when players quit, reducing the population on some servers? Force transfer again? This is why server merge is not a permanent solution. Population goes up and down for various reasons, making any forced transfer a temporary band-aid solution at best.

When all servers are full, you open more active maps, that is why you would have timed “event maps” that allow for bonus ppt while they are open to accommodate population influx and decline. I already addressed that issue in my OP on this thread. This solution is a permanent solution, not a temporary one because it allows for population increase and decline, prevents one side from allowing more people on map than others, and prevents too many maps open at once than all sides can cover.

The way it works is:
1) you have stable maps that are always open
2) you have event maps that are open for a set time when ques from all servers reach a specific number allowing for bonus ppt.
3) those event maps do not show up unless all servers have ques, allowing for extra maps to play on for wvw ( not EoTM ideally a map like EBG since that is currently the most popular map for all servers) during high pop times and allowing for less maps during low pop times. Reducing the number of servers to 3- 6 solves the problem of population decline already, as there will never be ghost town servers.

When all servers are full you open more maps for them to play on. When one server is full you open none, thus countering server stacking. It physically will not allow more players on one side than another.

It matters not that one side is full of ques, since those in que are not actually in the wvw match, because it will not allow more to enter for one team if the other teams do not have the same amount in que.
If one servers population logs out while an event map is open, a new event map will not open when that map’s time is up, to keep it balanced.

lil devils x.6071:

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Do you not see the problem with this? I’ve been on the same server since day one so I don’t know how things are on other servers (although my brother plays on Blackgate, usually no queue when he wants to WvW, but then again we play during oceanic hours), but there was a time when these forums were filled with people whining about queues. Some might say EotM was the answer, it was supposed to be a de-facto overflow map, but based on the various threads whining about EotM, this is not an acceptable “solution”.

Even with all the complaining about queues, people still “stacked” on certain servers. Who’s to say that this will not happen, even if you drop the number of servers to 3?

So what happens when all servers are full? Make a new server? Or another EotM? Then what happens when players quit, reducing the population on some servers? Force transfer again? This is why server merge is not a permanent solution. Population goes up and down for various reasons, making any forced transfer a temporary band-aid solution at best.

When all servers are full, you open more active maps, that is why you would have timed “event maps” that allow for bonus ppt while they are open to accommodate population influx and decline. I already addressed that issue in my OP on this thread. This solution is a permanent solution, not a temporary one because it allows for population increase and decline, prevents one side from allowing more people on map than others, and prevents too many maps open at once than all sides can cover.

The way it works is:
1) you have stable maps that are always open
2) you have event maps that are open for a set time when ques from all servers reach a specific number allowing for bonus ppt.
3) those event maps do not show up unless all servers have ques, allowing for extra maps to play on for wvw ( not EoTM ideally a map like EBG since that is currently the most popular map for all servers) during high pop times and allowing for less maps during low pop times. Reducing the number of servers to 3- 6 solves the problem of population decline already, as there will never be ghost town servers.

When all servers are full you open more maps for them to play on. When one server is full you open none, thus countering server stacking. It physically will not allow more players on one side than another.

It matters not that one side is full of ques, since those in que are not actually in the wvw match, because it will not allow more to enter for one team if the other teams do not have the same amount in que.
If one servers population logs out while an event map is open, a new event map will not open when that map’s time is up, to keep it balanced.

So if Server A has twice as many WvW players than either Server B or Server C does.

Server A knows there’s a bonus map that pops up if they just have everyone try to play on the same map. Presto, big huge zerg in the event map is open giving Server A tons of bonus PPT. PPT that the other two servers have no access to because they can’t realistically keep higher numbers than the other server.

And there could be a population decrease:

Players who decide to stop playing WvW because their sense of server pride, what little of it remains, just got shattered. Or they much preferred the smaller zergs as their computers crash if there’s a big zerg.

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

No, it solves it permanently snipped for length

Do you not see the problem with this? I’ve been on the same server since day one so I don’t know how things are on other servers (although my brother plays on Blackgate, usually no queue when he wants to WvW, but then again we play during oceanic hours), but there was a time when these forums were filled with people whining about queues. Some might say EotM was the answer, it was supposed to be a de-facto overflow map, but based on the various threads whining about EotM, this is not an acceptable “solution”.

Even with all the complaining about queues, people still “stacked” on certain servers. Who’s to say that this will not happen, even if you drop the number of servers to 3?

So what happens when all servers are full? Make a new server? Or another EotM? Then what happens when players quit, reducing the population on some servers? Force transfer again? This is why server merge is not a permanent solution. Population goes up and down for various reasons, making any forced transfer a temporary band-aid solution at best.

When all servers are full, you open more active maps, that is why you would have timed “event maps” that allow for bonus ppt while they are open to accommodate population influx and decline. I already addressed that issue in my OP on this thread. This solution is a permanent solution, not a temporary one because it allows for population increase and decline, prevents one side from allowing more people on map than others, and prevents too many maps open at once than all sides can cover.

The way it works is:
1) you have stable maps that are always open
2) you have event maps that are open for a set time when ques from all servers reach a specific number allowing for bonus ppt.
3) those event maps do not show up unless all servers have ques, allowing for extra maps to play on for wvw ( not EoTM ideally a map like EBG since that is currently the most popular map for all servers) during high pop times and allowing for less maps during low pop times. Reducing the number of servers to 3- 6 solves the problem of population decline already, as there will never be ghost town servers.

When all servers are full you open more maps for them to play on. When one server is full you open none, thus countering server stacking. It physically will not allow more players on one side than another.

It matters not that one side is full of ques, since those in que are not actually in the wvw match, because it will not allow more to enter for one team if the other teams do not have the same amount in que.
If one servers population logs out while an event map is open, a new event map will not open when that map’s time is up, to keep it balanced.

So if Server A has twice as many WvW players than either Server B or Server C does.

Server A knows there’s a bonus map that pops up if they just have everyone try to play on the same map. Presto, big huge zerg in the event map is open giving Server A tons of bonus PPT. PPT that the other two servers have no access to because they can’t realistically keep higher numbers than the other server.

And there could be a population decrease:

Players who decide to stop playing WvW because their sense of server pride, what little of it remains, just got shattered. Or they much preferred the smaller zergs as their computers crash if there’s a big zerg.

If server A has more population than server B or C, they do not get a bonus map until server B and C hits the same number in que. The que is based on the numbers on all maps, not just one. Total population of all maps , people stacking to go in one map has no effect on bonus maps appearing.

When the population decreases, less maps will be in active play, as the bonus maps will not pop unless you have enough in que for all servers. When the time expires for the bonus map, it will not pop again until all servers have enough population to support it. That way there is not more targets available than people to cover them.

It is more detrimental to the longevity of the game to keep open dead servers due to the impact it has on new players entering the game coming in, seeing a dead server and thinking they missed the boat and the game itself is dead and leave. You want to show new players the best your game has to offer in order to keep them, not ghost towns in order to keep a healthy influx of new players to the game. Bringing in new players for many years to come is more important to the games health than " server pride".

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Do you not see the problem with this? I’ve been on the same server since day one so I don’t know how things are on other servers (although my brother plays on Blackgate, usually no queue when he wants to WvW, but then again we play during oceanic hours), but there was a time when these forums were filled with people whining about queues. Some might say EotM was the answer, it was supposed to be a de-facto overflow map, but based on the various threads whining about EotM, this is not an acceptable “solution”.

Even with all the complaining about queues, people still “stacked” on certain servers. Who’s to say that this will not happen, even if you drop the number of servers to 3?

So what happens when all servers are full? Make a new server? Or another EotM? Then what happens when players quit, reducing the population on some servers? Force transfer again? This is why server merge is not a permanent solution. Population goes up and down for various reasons, making any forced transfer a temporary band-aid solution at best.

When all servers are full, you open more active maps, that is why you would have timed “event maps” that allow for bonus ppt while they are open to accommodate population influx and decline. I already addressed that issue in my OP on this thread. This solution is a permanent solution, not a temporary one because it allows for population increase and decline, prevents one side from allowing more people on map than others, and prevents too many maps open at once than all sides can cover.

The way it works is:
1) you have stable maps that are always open
2) you have event maps that are open for a set time when ques from all servers reach a specific number allowing for bonus ppt.
3) those event maps do not show up unless all servers have ques, allowing for extra maps to play on for wvw ( not EoTM ideally a map like EBG since that is currently the most popular map for all servers) during high pop times and allowing for less maps during low pop times. Reducing the number of servers to 3- 6 solves the problem of population decline already, as there will never be ghost town servers.

When all servers are full you open more maps for them to play on. When one server is full you open none, thus countering server stacking. It physically will not allow more players on one side than another.

It matters not that one side is full of ques, since those in que are not actually in the wvw match, because it will not allow more to enter for one team if the other teams do not have the same amount in que.
If one servers population logs out while an event map is open, a new event map will not open when that map’s time is up, to keep it balanced.

So if Server A has twice as many WvW players than either Server B or Server C does.

Server A knows there’s a bonus map that pops up if they just have everyone try to play on the same map. Presto, big huge zerg in the event map is open giving Server A tons of bonus PPT. PPT that the other two servers have no access to because they can’t realistically keep higher numbers than the other server.

And there could be a population decrease:

Players who decide to stop playing WvW because their sense of server pride, what little of it remains, just got shattered. Or they much preferred the smaller zergs as their computers crash if there’s a big zerg.

If server A has more population than server B or C, they do not get a bonus map until server B and C hits the same number in que. The que is based on the numbers on all maps, not just one. Total population of all maps , people stacking to go in one map has no effect on bonus maps.

So tons of players are forced to sit in a queue? That’s so much fun.

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

roxybudgy.8205:

lil devils x.6071:

No, it solves it permanently since there are not as many servers to transfer to, allowing for all servers to be equally populated. If one server is stacked they will be the only server with massive ques in this system, thus if they want to play the game they will move to another server to balance out the ques. You cannot stack one server in this plan due to event maps only appearing when all servers in the matchup being qued. ALL servers will be populated, and with bonus maps appearing on an" as needed" basis, you will never have too many on one server and not enough on another, otherwise the server with the stacked population will not be able to get their guilds on the map to play.

Do you not see the problem with this? I’ve been on the same server since day one so I don’t know how things are on other servers (although my brother plays on Blackgate, usually no queue when he wants to WvW, but then again we play during oceanic hours), but there was a time when these forums were filled with people whining about queues. Some might say EotM was the answer, it was supposed to be a de-facto overflow map, but based on the various threads whining about EotM, this is not an acceptable “solution”.

Even with all the complaining about queues, people still “stacked” on certain servers. Who’s to say that this will not happen, even if you drop the number of servers to 3?

So what happens when all servers are full? Make a new server? Or another EotM? Then what happens when players quit, reducing the population on some servers? Force transfer again? This is why server merge is not a permanent solution. Population goes up and down for various reasons, making any forced transfer a temporary band-aid solution at best.

When all servers are full, you open more active maps, that is why you would have timed “event maps” that allow for bonus ppt while they are open to accommodate population influx and decline. I already addressed that issue in my OP on this thread. This solution is a permanent solution, not a temporary one because it allows for population increase and decline, prevents one side from allowing more people on map than others, and prevents too many maps open at once than all sides can cover.

The way it works is:
1) you have stable maps that are always open
2) you have event maps that are open for a set time when ques from all servers reach a specific number allowing for bonus ppt.
3) those event maps do not show up unless all servers have ques, allowing for extra maps to play on for wvw ( not EoTM ideally a map like EBG since that is currently the most popular map for all servers) during high pop times and allowing for less maps during low pop times. Reducing the number of servers to 3- 6 solves the problem of population decline already, as there will never be ghost town servers.

When all servers are full you open more maps for them to play on. When one server is full you open none, thus countering server stacking. It physically will not allow more players on one side than another.

It matters not that one side is full of ques, since those in que are not actually in the wvw match, because it will not allow more to enter for one team if the other teams do not have the same amount in que.
If one servers population logs out while an event map is open, a new event map will not open when that map’s time is up, to keep it balanced.

So if Server A has twice as many WvW players than either Server B or Server C does.

Server A knows there’s a bonus map that pops up if they just have everyone try to play on the same map. Presto, big huge zerg in the event map is open giving Server A tons of bonus PPT. PPT that the other two servers have no access to because they can’t realistically keep higher numbers than the other server.

And there could be a population decrease:

Players who decide to stop playing WvW because their sense of server pride, what little of it remains, just got shattered. Or they much preferred the smaller zergs as their computers crash if there’s a big zerg.

If server A has more population than server B or C, they do not get a bonus map until server B and C hits the same number in que. The que is based on the numbers on all maps, not just one. Total population of all maps , people stacking to go in one map has no effect on bonus maps.

So tons of players are forced to sit in a queue? That’s so much fun.

There would be less GW players in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

To open an event map ALL 3 need to have population to cover it, considering there is only 3-6 severs total, you will have much more population on all servers than present, allowing for both 1) more stable maps and 2) plenty of bonus maps for all sides.

ALSO They should allow free transfer to the server that has the lowest population, and have an alert to allow players to be aware, so if you do not want to sit in que, you can transfer to the server that needs you most for free.

Server pride was wiped with the mega server.. all we have left now is the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave. Them refusing to acknowledge the problem doesn’t make Kolmanskop any more desirable to new residents.

Reducing it to 3- 6 servers it would solve it so they would not need to do so again, rather than kick the can down the road again.

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

To open an event map ALL 3 need to have population to cover it, considering there is only 3-6 severs total, you will have much more population on all servers than present, allowing for both 1) more stable maps and 2) plenty of bonus maps for all sides.

ALSO They should allow free transfer to the server that has the lowest population, and have an alert to allow players to be aware, so if you do not want to sit in que, you can transfer to the server that needs you most for free.

Server pride was wiped with the mega server.. all we have left now is the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave.

So what do you tell the player who chose a low tier server due to computer issues who now can’t play WvW at all because his computer crashes?

When if the servers weren’t merged and populations just increased some to allow for actual competitive matches he still would have been able to play just fine.

What do you tell the players who hate the event maps who have to wait hours to get into the maps because they can’t increase the population per shard without overloading their servers.

What do you tell the players who want to get into WvW maps simply for map exploration to get their Gifts of Exploration or 100% map completion for the sake of it? Who have to sit in queue for hours just to be yelled at to get off the map when they do get in so that they can bring in the actual players?

What do you tell the WvW guild alliances that get split up? What do you tell the WvW guilds that get split up?

What do you tell the group of casuals who aren’t in a WvW guild (or at least not a guild that’s primarily on one server) together but are friends who primarily play PvE but occasionally dip into WvW for some fun times, but not enough to warrant being in a WvW guild who get split up and can no longer play together?

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

To open an event map ALL 3 need to have population to cover it, considering there is only 3-6 severs total, you will have much more population on all servers than present, allowing for both 1) more stable maps and 2) plenty of bonus maps for all sides.

ALSO They should allow free transfer to the server that has the lowest population, and have an alert to allow players to be aware, so if you do not want to sit in que, you can transfer to the server that needs you most for free.

Server pride was wiped with the mega server.. all we have left now is the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave. Them refusing to acknowledge the problem doesn’t make Kolmanskop any more desirable to new residents.

Reducing it to 3- 6 servers it would solve it so they would not need to do so again, rather than kick the can down the road again.

Couple problems with this. How long are we supposed to wait for them to develop new event maps? The speed they are going you are looking at about a 6 year wait.

I currently play on a T6 server, what you consider a wasteland, we still occasionally see maps queue during prime in this tier. Which means that every server above us can still queue maps. You expect all of us to squeeze into 3 servers while we wait for anet to develop maps that might end up being terrible?

Server Merges hurt the server communities. It boils down to “Icky low population servers should play like I do! In big groups!”

Population Caps hurt the the groups who like massive battles. It boils down to “Icky high populations have no skill and need numbers, they should learn to play like me!”

Using a mega server type system for the maps would hurt server communities. It boils down to “Who are you people and how can I kitten you all off since I’ll get a new match up next week.”

Rewards would be nice. I don’t think they would help server balance, but getting cookies for defending or building siege. I suppose you could do something like give double rewards for picking on whoever is in the lead.

I can say I thought last weeks match up was bad. This week is shaping up to be more of the same. Really, just one week I would like to see WvW where other servers don’t have double our score. Just one week! I’m new, and I’ve never seen a balanced match up yet! Maybe in a few weeks my server will have tanked enough to get some interesting fights instead of “Yep they have 60 people, we have 10… looks like we are losing our keep again… oh well see you in a few hours when they bugger off”

Give me large scale sPVP please.

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

To open an event map ALL 3 need to have population to cover it, considering there is only 3-6 severs total, you will have much more population on all servers than present, allowing for both 1) more stable maps and 2) plenty of bonus maps for all sides.

ALSO They should allow free transfer to the server that has the lowest population, and have an alert to allow players to be aware, so if you do not want to sit in que, you can transfer to the server that needs you most for free.

Server pride was wiped with the mega server.. all we have left now is the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave.

So what do you tell the player who chose a low tier server due to computer issues who now can’t play WvW at all because his computer crashes?

When if the servers weren’t merged and populations just increased some to allow for actual competitive matches he still would have been able to play just fine.

What do you tell the players who hate the event maps who have to wait hours to get into the maps because they can’t increase the population per shard without overloading their servers.

What do you tell the players who want to get into WvW maps simply for map exploration to get their Gifts of Exploration or 100% map completion for the sake of it? Who have to sit in queue for hours just to be yelled at to get off the map when they do get in so that they can bring in the actual players?

What do you tell the WvW guild alliances that get split up? What do you tell the WvW guilds that get split up?

What do you tell the group of casuals who aren’t in a WvW guild (or at least not a guild that’s primarily on one server) together but are friends who primarily play PvE but occasionally dip into WvW for some fun times, but not enough to warrant being in a WvW guild who get split up and can no longer play together?

Why would you tell them anything different than you tell them now? There are plenty of PC’s that are unable to play GW2 as it is, they do not make game designs around outdated computers.

To make event maps easily, you could just duplicate EBG, since it is the most popular map as it is and runs the highest ques currently.

You tell them the same thing you do now, if you want the poi, you can either wait until you are that color, or take it from your enemies dead hands.

WvW alliances already split up with the mega server, PVE guilds split up with the mega server. There are mega server guilds now, this already happened, you tell them the same thing you tell them now.

Why would anyone not be able to play together? That makes no sense. Nothing changes in that regard unless they choose to change it themselves.

Jim Hunter.6821:

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

There would be less in que with event maps being available than are currently in que when you add up all servers. This actually solves more of the que issue than it would create. In this system, you get more actual wvw maps when all servers que, currently you only get to go EoTM.

But you said the event maps only generate when all three servers hit que. Which is it? Is it when one server hits limit or all three?

What if one server doesn’t have the population count to get remotely near que. You can’t guarantee that if you merge servers you won’t get a mass exodus from the game due to huge queue times (there will be players who hate the event maps) and server pride loss and people whose computers can’t handle huge zergs.

Then you get at least 1 server that gets to have its players wait in PvE for a spot. That’s oh so fun.

Better option is to do things to increase the population in WvW. That way there are likely to be different match ups from time to time. Not just the same few match ups. Because different servers are likely to use different tactics. More servers means the chances at more tactics which could lead to more varied match ups. Which would help the issue of WvW being stale.

Merging servers doesn’t raise the population. It tells the players and potential players that this part of the game is dead/dying and that they’ve given up in trying to pump new life into it.

To open an event map ALL 3 need to have population to cover it, considering there is only 3-6 severs total, you will have much more population on all servers than present, allowing for both 1) more stable maps and 2) plenty of bonus maps for all sides.

ALSO They should allow free transfer to the server that has the lowest population, and have an alert to allow players to be aware, so if you do not want to sit in que, you can transfer to the server that needs you most for free.

Server pride was wiped with the mega server.. all we have left now is the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave. Them refusing to acknowledge the problem doesn’t make Kolmanskop any more desirable to new residents.

Reducing it to 3- 6 servers it would solve it so they would not need to do so again, rather than kick the can down the road again.

Couple problems with this. How long are we supposed to wait for them to develop new event maps? The speed they are going you are looking at about a 6 year wait.

I currently play on a T6 server, what you consider a wasteland, we still occasionally see maps queue during prime in this tier. Which means that every server above us can still queue maps. You expect all of us to squeeze into 3 servers while we wait for anet to develop maps that might end up being terrible?

You could just copy the current wvw maps in use to save time for immediate implementation, and create new ones later. They do not have to make it take forever, they can, however, choose to make it take forever. LOL

If they wanted to they could just make more EBG’s to use for event maps for quick implementation if they wanted to solve this quickly, but that would be the easy fix.

Both lil and Jim are arguing for artificial caps that punish populated servers. The only solution they offer are for larger population servers players to suffer irrationally artificial queues or transfer. Why make a change to shift the suffering from the small populations to the larger populations articially? It would be simpler to have lower population deal with low populations or transfer rather then force larger population’s to deal with irrationally forced queues or transfer.

coglin.1867:

Both lil and Jim are arguing for artificial caps that punish populated servers. The only solution they offer are for larger population servers players to suffer irrationally artificial queues or transfer. Why make a change to shift the suffering from the small populations to the larger populations articially? It would be simpler to have lower population deal with low populations or transfer rather then force larger population’s to deal with irrationally forced queues or transfer.

No, I am not arguing for that at all. You cannot resolve the issue of population imbalance without addressing the issue of population. In the system I am discussing, you would have less GW players overall in que than are currently in que. This would be more beneficial to the majority of players, as there would be less players in que than currently are in que on the game. As for forced transfer, you can either 1) do away with servers, 2) have a meteorite hit all the servers and make fewer new ones or 3) have a meteorite hit the low population severs leaving only the few that are already stabilized.

You know how currently when you are in a low populated area and it gives you a time to be kicked as it is? They currently force people off the server they are on in PVE, the same could apply as maintaining low pop wvw servers is bad for the games longevity as it is offputting to new players coming in to be exposed to low populated wvw matches.

There is nothing artificial about keeping the sides balanced. It is just like a gate that only opens when 3 players stand on it from different servers to let them in.

Making the servers actually balanced in wvw is a much better solution than imposing penalties on servers for winning, as others have suggested. To the winner the spoils not the punishment of a fair and even match instead.

Jim Hunter.6821:

In my opinion this will benefit more people than it will harm, however the only way to be certain is to give it a trial run.

You keep suggesting that your idea is going to benefit more people than it harms yet 1) no one really has population statistics outside of Anet and 2) if the higher tier servers have enough population to spread out across all 24 servers and still be able to have large scale battles then that means most of the people are actually in the higher tiers. Like, there’s a reason why Anet divided Gold, Silver, and Bronze at 6, 9 and 9 servers rather than 9, 6, 9 or 9, 9, 6. That’s why what you’re saying makes little sense.

Marmatt I commend you in taking on this task. And I do agree that population/coverage imbalance is one of the main issues of WvW.

You may now see the difficulty in addressing this issue, just look at this thread. For every person A who suggests something; there is Group B who agrees and Group C who disagrees, sometimes vehomently. Much of page 2 is a few people discussing back and forth about a suggestion and disagreeing about it.

Let’s look at your initial thoughts about ideas for dealing with this issue.
_Popular ideas-

A) Population reductions
B) Server Merging
C) A reward system (similar to the PvP reward track) based on the duration of a player’s stay on a single server.
D) Battle Groups (mentioned in the first link)
E) Better rewards for doing WvW_

• A) and B) and D) Some people think yes lets do this. Others loathe the idea.
• C) I think most people would accept this idea but it depends on how it is implemenetd of course. If it draws in PvE achievemnt hunters that don’t actually do WvW except kill NPC’s and Karma train then people hate it.
• E) I think just about everyone agrees that it would be nice to have better WvW rewards. Again though, it can’t be rewards for capping a point or killing NPC’s like EToM or WvW may turn into one big Karma train where everyone avoids fights and I think just about everyone agrees that would be terrible.

I think this disagreement among players is the reason Anet has not done anything about the issue. No matter what they do, a permanent change to try to address this issue is going to upset people.

Notice the word “permanent” in my statement above. And I think this is an important point that needs to be brought to Anet. What if they made “non-permanent” changes for a period of time – like the PPK and no white swords sneak attack test?

Change something for a month. It would add variety to WvW. But even if you dislike the change, its only temporary. I think even the players who didn’t like the sound of PPK and no white swords weren’t up in arms about the temporary test. How would the players feel about that?

But it couldn’t be 6 months between the tests. Make it every month, or with a week or two in between of “regular” WvW.

I don’t know what changes are technically possible to do like this but I think anything they can do to spice up WvW and attempt to mitigate population imbalance would be good.

TLDR; I think temporary changes similar to the PPK and white sword sneak attack are the way to go. I would suggest a proposal to Anet to do frequent temporary changes to attempt to mitigate the population/coverage imbalance issue. Have tests that last a month and if it turns out to be a terrible idea then its gone in a month. But if it turns out to be great – it could be perhaps added permanently.

Nice report!

I might add if its ok something Ive felt and others have felt as well that adding more dynamic and NPC interactions in WvW might be helpful with WvW server population imbalance. Particularly those moments in the game where there are time zone differences and one server is either completely dominating or being completely dominated. Like for example if a server is dominating over 50% of eternal battlegrounds, maybe like a big dragon could come in and start attacking their keep. This would keep the dominating server engaged and on their toes, but also give the other servers a chance to take back their keeps (and maybe they could also be assisted with another kitten NPC). And/or keep a constant NPC threat on keeps/castles etc. to keep people engaged and defending. Maybe like guard patrols/npc brigades be sent out every 10-15 minutes from the homebase of a server that starts working down and attacking towers, camps and finally keeps.

Chaba.5410:

Jim Hunter.6821:

In my opinion this will benefit more people than it will harm, however the only way to be certain is to give it a trial run.

You keep suggesting that your idea is going to benefit more people than it harms yet 1) no one really has population statistics outside of Anet and 2) if the higher tier servers have enough population to spread out across all 24 servers and still be able to have large scale battles then that means most of the people are actually in the higher tiers. Like, there’s a reason why Anet divided Gold, Silver, and Bronze at 6, 9 and 9 servers rather than 9, 6, 9 or 9, 9, 6. That’s why what you’re saying makes little sense.

You act like this idea is an attack on higher tier servers. It’s not. This won’t suddenly triple the queue time in T1 because those servers are roughly equal in size.

If they implemented the idea this week the only servers that would take a hard hit would be SoS and Mag because they are in the wrong tiers and the population difference is so ridiculously large. However the servers that they are paired up against would actually have a fighting chance leading to a much more enjoyable match once you were in game. Over the long run the population size of each server would be more of a steady slope upwards instead of drastic jumps. This would lead to more variety in the match-ups and a healthier game.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Chaba.5410:

Jim Hunter.6821:

In my opinion this will benefit more people than it will harm, however the only way to be certain is to give it a trial run.

You keep suggesting that your idea is going to benefit more people than it harms yet 1) no one really has population statistics outside of Anet and 2) if the higher tier servers have enough population to spread out across all 24 servers and still be able to have large scale battles then that means most of the people are actually in the higher tiers. Like, there’s a reason why Anet divided Gold, Silver, and Bronze at 6, 9 and 9 servers rather than 9, 6, 9 or 9, 9, 6. That’s why what you’re saying makes little sense.

You act like this idea is an attack on higher tier servers. It’s not. This won’t suddenly triple the queue time in T1 because those servers are roughly equal in size.

If they implemented the idea this week the only servers that would take a hard hit would be SoS and Mag because they are in the wrong tiers and the population difference is so ridiculously large. However the servers that they are paired up against would actually have a fighting chance leading to a much more enjoyable match once you were in game. Over the long run the population size of each server would be more of a steady slope upwards instead of drastic jumps. This would lead to more variety in the match-ups and a healthier game.

No, but it would hit T2 hard. Dragonbrand has low NA presence, but high SEA. Fort Aspenwood and Maguuma have high NA presence, but low SEA. The net result if your “solution” were to be implemented? T2 would become low population all the time with massive ques for one or more servers.

Currently, this is considered a pretty even matchup, so why try to punish it?

You also haven’t addressed how it would work for the borderlands. Those maps are usually dominated population-wise by their home server, but your idea for a floating cap means they would have much of their population locked out simply because the other two servers don’t have as large of a presence there.

So you hose 2 servers for the sake of 1. Again you create sever negative effect for 2 servers for the sake of 1. Yet you call it a “fair” solution.