Guild Wars 2

lil devils x.6071:

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 There are plenty of PC’s that are unable to play GW2 as it is, they do not make game designs around outdated computers.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.

[/quote]

You answered one of my questions.

1. I’m not talking about the ones who currently can’t play GW2. I’m talking about the ones who can but crash in large Serbs. They chose a lower tier, lower pop server so that the could play WvW. What do you tell them when your change means that they can no longer play WvW?

2. Fair enough.

3. That’s not my question. What do you them when they have to wait hours just to find out the poi or Vista is not on their side? And what do you tell them about the harassing they’d possibly get to get off or join the zerg so that they have enough coverage?

4. & 5. MegaserverS do nothing to WvW. WvW guilds would get split up. Meaning they could not play WvW together. Same with alliances. Same with groups of friends and family. Server still matters for WvW.

coglin.1867:

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.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

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.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

I never remotely suggested that was “fair”. I simply suggested your suggestion was worse.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

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.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

I never remotely suggested that was “fair”. I simply suggested your suggestion was worse.

Which is your opinion based on zero evidence. Not saying you are wrong but we won’t know if we don’t give it a try. I thought I would absolutely hate the removal of white swords but I ended up loving it. A floating cap is something they could easily implement with no permanent consequences, unlike destroying servers, turning WvW into a megaserver, etc.

Jim Hunter.6821:

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.

Reducing the map cap would be a better idea than a dynamic cap for destacking and evening out server WvW populations. Otherwise, two servers with different prime times will result in both servers being frustrated. Make it sixty or forty, or whatever seems good based on the data that I assume ANet has, and people that still want to play and don’t want the queues will transfer.

And to the person/people who so rabidly wants to condense people to six maps (not surprising this comes from a T1 NA server, btw) and then add maps… that’s what EotM is. How have you enjoyed that particular solution to queues so far?

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

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.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

I never remotely suggested that was “fair”. I simply suggested your suggestion was worse.

Which is your opinion based on zero evidence. Not saying you are wrong but we won’t know if we don’t give it a try. I thought I would absolutely hate the removal of white swords but I ended up loving it. A floating cap is something they could easily implement with no permanent consequences, unlike destroying servers, turning WvW into a megaserver, etc.

I will tell you right now, I have absolutely nothing against weekly trials in which they try something every week or every other week.

For the sake of testing alone, I am with ya. I would be more then happy to try it for a week. I may feel it will be detrimental, but I agree that it wouldn’t do any damage to try it, or a good deal of other ideas for that matter.

lil devils x.6071:

( I used to write articles for a gaming magazine, and multiple gaming sites)

Who didn’t?

This isn’t a bunch of gaming neophytes you’re talking to in this forum, you know. And quite a lot of us can do the math and test the models. Your idea and reasoning doesn’t hold up at all.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Oh so I’m childish for calling you selfish for wanting to maintain a broken system that favors the minority?

You consider full servers with queues, in comparison to empty servers that folks are complaining about being empty? What logic path are you using to develop that conclusion?

You understand that full servers with queues means that there are people who want to play WvW but can’t, right? That’s definitely the opposite of healthy.

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

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.

No that is the situation right now when a server that massively outnumbers the other 2 servers gets thrown in a match with them. This makes the match boring for all 3 servers. Not sure why you think that is more “fair”.

I never remotely suggested that was “fair”. I simply suggested your suggestion was worse.

Which is your opinion based on zero evidence. Not saying you are wrong but we won’t know if we don’t give it a try. I thought I would absolutely hate the removal of white swords but I ended up loving it. A floating cap is something they could easily implement with no permanent consequences, unlike destroying servers, turning WvW into a megaserver, etc.

I will tell you right now, I have absolutely nothing against weekly trials in which they try something every week or every other week.

For the sake of testing alone, I am with ya. I would be more then happy to try it for a week. I may feel it will be detrimental, but I agree that it wouldn’t do any damage to try it, or a good deal of other ideas for that matter.

I think the events need to go for more than a week. I wasn’t a fan of no white swords for the first week but I loved it by the end. Any change needs at least a few weeks for people to learn to adapt. But yeah I would love for them to try other ideas as well as long as they are ideas that don’t permanently destroy any servers.

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

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.

Reducing the map cap would be a better idea than a dynamic cap for destacking and evening out server WvW populations. Otherwise, two servers with different prime times will result in both servers being frustrated. Make it sixty or forty, or whatever seems good based on the data that I assume ANet has, and people that still want to play and don’t want the queues will transfer.

And to the person/people who so rabidly wants to condense people to six maps (not surprising this comes from a T1 NA server, btw) and then add maps… that’s what EotM is. How have you enjoyed that particular solution to queues so far?

I used to think that would be the better option but there are people that enjoy running in groups larger than that. A soft cap wouldn’t stop them.

As far as your other point, I believe over time the servers with vastly different prime time numbers would even out on there own. That’s why I suggested they open up free transfers at least in the beginning.

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.

No no, obviously if it comes to that point lil devils wants the number of servers to be reduced even further, with the ultimate logical conclusion that everybody will eventually stack on to a single server, always get to play in large groups, and win every single week.

The idea that reducing the number of servers is much like the idea that many people have that they (and their government) should reduce spending during a recession, when what you’re supposed to do is increase spending – it’s literally the textbook answer to getting out of one. While ‘common sense’ would tell you “If money is tight, then reduce your expenditures”, that only makes the overall problem worse.

Reducing the number of servers is a bad idea. Players on stacked servers will often think it’s a good idea as it means they will get an influx of players, but their perspective is that of people riding high on the benefits of living in post-WW2 United States. You can’t pay for your prosperity on credit forever, but nobody wants to be the one to put the brakes on it.

If people want to keep on playing WvW in a close approximation of what they currently enjoy about it, then they have to stop living in an endless now and consider the future, and that doesn’t mean lil devils future of ‘prop up my stacked server by stacking it higher so I can keep having what I want and kitten the consequences’.

Lower the map caps, let the populations spread out, see what happens.

But this may all be moot depending on when the expansion comes out, and if ANet decides to use that as a time to reboot and reinvigorate WvW. Certainly if the expansion is coming out within the year there should be no major changes made to WvW before that except as a test, as no white swords and PPK was.

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.

Apparently he feels that this is preferable to spreading out that queued population to servers where they can play.

lil devils x.6071:

Seera.5916:

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.

That will only happen if the three servers in a given matchup have fairly equal populations on at the same time. That’s a pretty narrow niche to try to shoehorn your idea into.

Seera.5916:

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.
/quote]

The obvious solution here would always be for ANet to be mindful of the minimum system specs for GW2. As long as anything they implement doesn’t exclude players running what is allowable for the game, they’ll be in good shape.

That definitely argues for keeping all the servers open, doesn’kitten

Jim Hunter.6821:

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

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.

Reducing the map cap would be a better idea than a dynamic cap for destacking and evening out server WvW populations. Otherwise, two servers with different prime times will result in both servers being frustrated. Make it sixty or forty, or whatever seems good based on the data that I assume ANet has, and people that still want to play and don’t want the queues will transfer.

And to the person/people who so rabidly wants to condense people to six maps (not surprising this comes from a T1 NA server, btw) and then add maps… that’s what EotM is. How have you enjoyed that particular solution to queues so far?

I used to think that would be the better option but there are people that enjoy running in groups larger than that. A soft cap wouldn’t stop them.

As far as your other point, I believe over time the servers with vastly different prime time numbers would even out on there own. That’s why I suggested they open up free transfers at least in the beginning.

I’m sure there are people that enjoy siege trolling and spawn camping, but it doesn’t mean they should be catered to.

If you have a dynamic cap, then it means that large guilds and even server communities as a whole can’t plan how they’re going to play, since it will depend on the turnout of the least-populated server at any given time. Putting a firm map cap on (like sixty) will let them say “Okay, this is where the game is at now” and decide if they need to leave their server or not.

coglin.1867:

Rimmy.9217:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Oh so I’m childish for calling you selfish for wanting to maintain a broken system that favors the minority?

You consider full servers with queues, in comparison to empty servers that folks are complaining about being empty? What logic path are you using to develop that conclusion?

You understand that full servers with queues means that there are people who want to play WvW but can’t, right? That’s definitely the opposite of healthy.

What are you talking about? I was referring to artificial queues by lowering the player cap, from what it normally is, in order to only allow the more populated server to have similar population in the world based on the opposing servers in the match. my point was that I feel it is a bad idea to to artificially create unnaturally high queues in such a punishing manner.

I wasn’t replying to you in that one, but I agree. I don’t care for the idea of dynamic caps, as stated in my post just above this one.

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Rimmy.9217:

Jim Hunter.6821:

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.

Reducing the map cap would be a better idea than a dynamic cap for destacking and evening out server WvW populations. Otherwise, two servers with different prime times will result in both servers being frustrated. Make it sixty or forty, or whatever seems good based on the data that I assume ANet has, and people that still want to play and don’t want the queues will transfer.

And to the person/people who so rabidly wants to condense people to six maps (not surprising this comes from a T1 NA server, btw) and then add maps… that’s what EotM is. How have you enjoyed that particular solution to queues so far?

I used to think that would be the better option but there are people that enjoy running in groups larger than that. A soft cap wouldn’t stop them.

As far as your other point, I believe over time the servers with vastly different prime time numbers would even out on there own. That’s why I suggested they open up free transfers at least in the beginning.

I’m sure there are people that enjoy siege trolling and spawn camping, but it doesn’t mean they should be catered to.

If you have a dynamic cap, then it means that large guilds and even server communities as a whole can’t plan how they’re going to play, since it will depend on the turnout of the least-populated server at any given time. Putting a firm map cap on (like sixty) will let them say “Okay, this is where the game is at now” and decide if they need to leave their server or not.

I’d be all for testing out both ideas.

Rimmy.9217:

coglin.1867:

Rimmy.9217:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Oh so I’m childish for calling you selfish for wanting to maintain a broken system that favors the minority?

You consider full servers with queues, in comparison to empty servers that folks are complaining about being empty? What logic path are you using to develop that conclusion?

You understand that full servers with queues means that there are people who want to play WvW but can’t, right? That’s definitely the opposite of healthy.

What are you talking about? I was referring to artificial queues by lowering the player cap, from what it normally is, in order to only allow the more populated server to have similar population in the world based on the opposing servers in the match. my point was that I feel it is a bad idea to to artificially create unnaturally high queues in such a punishing manner.

I wasn’t replying to you in that one, but I agree. I don’t care for the idea of dynamic caps, as stated in my post just above this one.

Bah, I mistook your post when I read it. Sorry bout that.

Not going to quote everything that was said.

Re: “event” maps to supplement forced server merges

From what I gather from this suggestion:
- players will be forcibly transferred to one of three servers (face it, you merge once, it sets a precedent where people whine for more merges until you have just three left)
- for the purpose of discussing the suggestion of event overflow maps, let’s ignore the inevitable major problem of players continuing to stack on the “winning” server, and imbalance will occur regardless.
- this overflow/event map will be generated only when all three servers are queued for WvW, meaning if only one or two out of the three servers is queued, then players on those one/two servers will still be forced to queue.
- the overflow map will only allow equal numbers of players from each server on it. The person who suggested this idea says that the map remains open for a set period of time, this implies that if someone leaves the overflow map, it causes an imbalance in numbers on the overflow map, and that anyone not included in the overflow map will be forced to queue anyway.

From what I’ve read, this idea is still riddled with issues with no solution. The most likely outcome is that people will be forced to queue, and those of us who enjoyed our small-scale battles will just quit WvW altogether.

Going back to the “stacking” issue. How do you determine when transfers to a server should stop? There is no reliable way of measuring how many people on a server play WvW. I tend to play a bit of PvE and WvW, depending on my mood, whereas my brother primarily PvEs, but will jump into WvW when his guild does. And both us us have had times where we took several weeks off to play other games. This is why server merge or forced transfers will only be a temporary solution.

Re: the notion that we must merge because “ghost town” servers give players a bad impression.

Firstly, lower servers are not “ghost towns”. I play during oceanic/non-primetime hours, and while there are no large 30+man zergs, there are always people running around doing stuff on my server (which in the past has been ranked anywhere between 9 and 24). And if someone tags up, it’s not hard to get a group of 15-20 going. No tag does not equal ghost town. And as others have said, during NA primetime, even the lowest ranked server occasionally get queued.

Second, people who choose to play MMORPGs tend to know how things normally work, and will usually do their research first before jumping into the game, especially if it is a game you pay for. For example, I follow the Guild Wars 2 thread on a popular Australian technology forum, and we often get people joining the thread to ask how the game is, and what server they should join, being an Australian forum, Sea of Sorrows, Blackgate and Jade Quarry are often given as suggested servers to join. So the risk of someone blindly jumping into GW2 then quitting because they think it’s “dead” is very unlikely.

lil devils x.6071:

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.

Just about all games advertise “minimum system requirements”. My PC exceeds the minimum requirements for GW2, but when everything in WvW slows down, I know I am near a large zerg (in which case I move to a borderlands map and leave EBG defence to those who have better performing PCs). No, we don’t expect GW2 to run smoothly on an ancient PC running Windows 95, but anyone who has paid to play GW2 should expect a good experience if they meet the minimum system requirements.

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, I’m challenging your idea of who “more people” are. In a 3 way match where one server far outnumbers the other two, “more people” are playing on the server that is dominating. How are they benefiting from your solution?

Im in gates of madness as of this moment, and it really sucks because we are just getting karma trained all day/week. We are losing all morale and have lost all our guilds recently. Just really tired of guilds moving and making servers overpowered and over populated.

Ryu.3972:

Im in gates of madness as of this moment, and it really sucks because we are just getting karma trained all day/week. We are losing all morale and have lost all our guilds recently. Just really tired of guilds moving and making servers overpowered and over populated.

You should stop picking on Ehmry Bay and start trying to doubleteam the server in first place.

/unbiasedopinion

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ve been taking notes based on everyone’s perspectives on this particular subject, and will be releasing a revised version of the report.
I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

Whatever happens DO NOT turn regular WvW into EotM. EotM exists to level new characters, and for WvWers to make money. It is in no way, shape, or form REAL WvW.

Addendum:

Was reading a thread in which some players from lower tier servers advocated a reduction in # of BLs in those lower tiers. Instead of having 3 BLs, EBG, and now a new map with HoT perhaps making it more condensed by removing red, blue, and green altogether. Would that be a solution to the “dead server” problem?

Marmatt.8590:

I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

To many to mention, and I have to admit half of them just out of pure sadistic glee. I’ll let others fill them out, just take them with a grain of salt. A lot of us makes personal wishes and some times wishes that would right out harm other servers but not ones own etc. Rule of thumb: if multiple people mentions same idea, it is worth pondering.

joneirikb.7506:

Marmatt.8590:

I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

To many to mention, and I have to admit half of them just out of pure sadistic glee. I’ll let others fill them out, just take them with a grain of salt. A lot of us makes personal wishes and some times wishes that would right out harm other servers but not ones own etc. Rule of thumb: if multiple people mentions same idea, it is worth pondering.

Please just keep in mind many players that play WvW have never even read this forum.

Marmatt.8590:

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ve been taking notes based on everyone’s perspectives on this particular subject, and will be releasing a revised version of the report.
I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

I think that is a great idea, the first one I would like implemented of course would be give the defenders a chest of loot equal to if not greater than capping rewards! .. they are so overworked, unappreciated and underpaid! XD

That would help slow down the K train to get people who actually want to defend in there.

2) I would like to see active maps added and deducted according to population shifts, “event bonus maps” to help alleviate ques during peak hours. Then they could work on server balance issues later. For me personally, I love how there are always plenty of people to play with on all sides no matter what time I log into JQ.

I have played on multiple servers, and this by far is the best wvw has to offer in regards to community, strategy, teamwork, and people really pulling together to play as a server. This is how wvw was meant to be played, and I think everyone should have at least an opportunity to see how it can be played, rather than some of the lack of balance, coordination and teamwork that is frequently experienced at the lower tiers.

I think everyone should have a chance to experience the best wvw has to offer as well, even if they just walked in the door, and still need to learn the ropes.

AS for population cap reductions, Strongly opposed, currently, we have 500 person guilds, yet you do not even have a battlefield in game for an entire guild to play together at once. Reducing this further only ensures more people who wish to play together will not be able to do so.

It should be noted that more people are in favor of server merges than population reductions, even in the statistics listed above. Wvw was meant to be large scale pvp, we already have small scale pvp, and this would be removing the only platform large scale pvp has available. Instead of reducing population, you add more active maps to increase it, just keep it balanced on all sides instead of reduce the actual population cap.

If they were to even consider lowering the population cap, even for a trial, they really should put a poll when you log in, as this alone could cause some of the largest guilds in the game to rage on not being able to play at all, as I do feel strongly this is a minority opinion. To even implement this for a trial period would mean many players not being able to play the game at all during the trial period, and possibly leave all together over it. I do not think that option was thought through very well at all.

IF guilds cannot even play together during the times they play, why would they play this instead of another game that will allow them to play together? Many guilds play many games together, not just one. This isn;t meant to be a single player RPG, people play this to play together, lowering population caps will make that even more difficult for them to do.

Pleas tell ANet to not merge servers.

It would create a perception problem. Both for current players and for possible players. The perception that ANet feels that it can’t fix WvW. Can’t bring more players to WvW.And it would likely be worse for possible players. They likely won’t be aware of the fact that server only matters for WvW and may think that that means the entire game is dead or dying and not buy the game.

And massive server merges would lead to lower populations being able to play at once.

The servers can only keep track of so many players on one map at any time regardless of what server you belong to.

Let’s say each map can hold no more than 1500 players no matter what server they are from. Let’s say there are 24 servers. That’s 96 maps (EB and 3 BL). And 144,000 players. Let’s say 100,000 players play. That leaves room for some increases in WvW players due to map completion or Living World or tournaments.

ANet drops number of servers down to 12. That’s 48 maps. And 72,000 players. The servers can’t suddenly hold more players. That’s 28,000 players who now have to queue more often than before. This could mean guilds may not be able to get all of their players on at the same time.

But players like lil devils x are talking more than just halving the number of servers, lil devils x is talking about taking it down to like 3 or 6.

6 servers brings our above example down to 24 maps. Or 36,000 players. Now 64,000 players have to queue more often than they had to before. More than half of the players of WvW who want to play are forced to queue more often than before. Can you imagine the rage of a WvW person who finds out from a friend on a map that one person on the map is a known person trying to get 100% map completion but is not wanting to actually play WvW?

Or the group that needs to get a commander into the map because that commander’s got great skills but there’s a map completion person in the map getting stuff who doesn’t care one bit about WvW and just wants to get WvW done with after having sat in a queue for hours?

lil devils x.6071:

give the defenders a chest of loot equal to if not greater than capping rewards!

That would help slow down the K train to get people who actually want to defend in there.

Better still would be upping the loot for player kills, and make WvW about as lucrative as EotM is now, while reducing the loot in EotM. It’s such a pity that a competitive game mode got reduced to a farm run.

lil devils x.6071:

2) I would like to see active maps added and deducted according to population shifts, “event bonus maps”

Absolutely not. All adding additional maps would do is encourage further server stacking which is a terrible idea. We have to reverse that trend, not increase it. Definite no to this. And “work on server balance issues later”? Server balance is far more important than rewarding stackers.

lil devils x.6071:

This is how wvw was meant to be played,

This is your opinion, not a fact. Anecdotal experience doesn’t illuminate anything.

lil devils x.6071:

I think everyone should have a chance to experience the best wvw has to offer as well, even if they just walked in the door, and still need to learn the ropes.

And artificially overstacked servers aren’t that. Out of control growth is cancer – that isn’t what people should think is normal. Sorry.

lil devils x.6071:

AS for population cap reductions, Strongly opposed, currently, we have 500 person guilds, yet you do not even have a battlefield in game for an entire guild to play together at once. Reducing this further only ensures more people who wish to play together will not be able to do so.

500 person guilds has nothing to do with having that many people on in the same place at the same time in WvW. Population caps will spread out the population of people who want to play, and that is a healthy reversal of what’s happened far too often.

lil devils x.6071:

It should be noted that more people are in favor of server merges than population reductions, even in the statistics listed above. Wvw was meant to be large scale pvp, we already have small scale pvp, and this would be removing the only platform large scale pvp has available. Instead of reducing population, you add more active maps to increase it, just keep it balanced on all sides instead of reduce the actual population cap.

You think the number of posts on the forum equal the number of people who actually want those ideas? You think that majority should rule? Would you want China to set policy for the world because it has the single highest country population?

Of course not. We have no idea what most people want, because only a percentage of the playerbase is represented on the forums. Remember that while you personally may like the idea of the destruction of servers outside of the gold tiers, there are significant arguments for the idea that the gold tier servers should be disbanded and their populations scattered around the other eighteen servers.

And if you find that unpalatable, then maybe stop with the “merge everybody who doesn’t play like I do” talk.

lil devils x.6071:

If they were to even consider lowering the population cap, even for a trial, they really should put a poll when you log in, as this alone could cause some of the largest guilds in the game to rage on not being able to play at all, as I do feel strongly this is a minority opinion. To even implement this for a trial period would mean many players not being able to play the game at all during the trial period, and possibly leave all together over it. I do not think that option was thought through very well at all.

A poll doesn’t indicate what people actually do. And the largest guilds can still play – that they “can’t play at all” because map population caps change is a ridiculous notion. You may as well say that they rage if fifteen or twenty randoms show up on the map that they want to play on, thus preventing the largest guild from fielding as many people as it wants to. It’s literally the same thing.

lil devils x.6071:

IF guilds cannot even play together during the times they play, why would they play this instead of another game that will allow them to play together? Many guilds play many games together, not just one. This isn;t meant to be a single player RPG, people play this to play together, lowering population caps will make that even more difficult for them to do.

Not really. By this logic you’re saying that max guild population should be eighty, or whatever a WvW map population caps out at, and that they’d be raging then if they couldn’t all play simultaneously. Seems like a non-problem, really.

Seera.5916:

Pleas tell ANet to not merge servers.

It would create a perception problem. Both for current players and for possible players. The perception that ANet feels that it can’t fix WvW. Can’t bring more players to WvW.And it would likely be worse for possible players. They likely won’t be aware of the fact that server only matters for WvW and may think that that means the entire game is dead or dying and not buy the game.

And massive server merges would lead to lower populations being able to play at once.

The servers can only keep track of so many players on one map at any time regardless of what server you belong to.

Let’s say each map can hold no more than 1500 players no matter what server they are from. Let’s say there are 24 servers. That’s 96 maps (EB and 3 BL). And 144,000 players. Let’s say 100,000 players play. That leaves room for some increases in WvW players due to map completion or Living World or tournaments.

ANet drops number of servers down to 12. That’s 48 maps. And 72,000 players. The servers can’t suddenly hold more players. That’s 28,000 players who now have to queue more often than before. This could mean guilds may not be able to get all of their players on at the same time.

But players like lil devils x are talking more than just halving the number of servers, lil devils x is talking about taking it down to like 3 or 6.

6 servers brings our above example down to 24 maps. Or 36,000 players. Now 64,000 players have to queue more often than they had to before. More than half of the players of WvW who want to play are forced to queue more often than before. Can you imagine the rage of a WvW person who finds out from a friend on a map that one person on the map is a known person trying to get 100% map completion but is not wanting to actually play WvW?

Or the group that needs to get a commander into the map because that commander’s got great skills but there’s a map completion person in the map getting stuff who doesn’t care one bit about WvW and just wants to get WvW done with after having sat in a queue for hours?

WvW maps crash with 500 people( all servers combined on map), so you would not worry about having more people on one map. They could accommodate more players per match by having more maps, but not more players on one map. More players in a matchup at once would not mean more on any given map, it would not be stable.

As it is in PVE they shut down low pop servers and kick people to a populated server, as this is normal on most games. That is what is considered part of maintaining a game to ensure there are not empty worlds.

If there are more maps available less people will be in que than currently are, so that would not be a problem.

Rimmy.9217:

Better still would be upping the loot for player kills, and make WvW about as lucrative as EotM is now, while reducing the loot in EotM. It’s such a pity that a competitive game mode got reduced to a farm run.

I do not know anyone who wants wvw to be like EoTM, nor do we want it filled with people trying to level their characters, that would be a mess. Currently 2 areas of wvw play are highly populated 1) kTrain capping 2)open field combat/ PK farming. The area that needs personal loot the most is defending, as that is where it is lacking the most in both players and rewards. I would still kill players with or without the loot, because lets be honest here. That is way more fun than anything else. LOL

(cont due to length restrictions.. see what caps do!)

Absolutely not. All adding additional maps would do is encourage further server stacking which is a terrible idea. We have to reverse that trend, not increase it. Definite no to this. And “work on server balance issues later”? Server balance is far more important than rewarding stackers.

Further server stacking? When you eliminate most of the servers, ALL servers will be stacked. That is what you call a populated server, not " stacked" . Who wants to own or even hang out at the empty club down the street? They want to go where the action is, and the action is at the packed house.

This is your opinion, not a fact. Anecdotal experience doesn’t illuminate anything.

Do you not remember the pre-release hype for wvw? Yes it was how it was intended to be played. I remember when we filled out the surveys used to create gw2 , and how the overwhelming response was to be able to have massive battles… well they tried their best to give us that, please dont ask them to take that away now.

And artificially overstacked servers aren’t that. Out of control growth is cancer – that isn’t what people should think is normal. Sorry.

There is nothing artificial or cancerous about populated servers, especially when you ensure every server is populated. Please do explain what makes having all the players on fewer servers " artificial" in any way? You see, if they had just started out with fewer servers to begin with, no one would have problem with it, since all servers would be populated. Massively multiplayer is what people play MMORPGS for. They made this an mmorpg instead of a corpg like gw1 for a reason. The packed club is much more fun than the creepy ghost town, there is a reason everyone is hanging out there and that club is making all the money…

500 person guilds has nothing to do with having that many people on in the same place at the same time in WvW. Population caps will spread out the population of people who want to play, and that is a healthy reversal of what’s happened far too often.

Why would it not? I was one of the leaders of a 600 op guild on another game, and yes we all were able to fight in the battle at once, guilds coming from other games would expect that to be the case here as well. This isn’t the first game with guilds, and guilds play many games together, not just one.

You think the number of posts on the forum equal the number of people who actually want those ideas? You think that majority should rule? Would you want China to set policy for the world because it has the single highest country population?

Yes, I think the majority should rule, as a game with just the minority left would be oh yea.. another dead server. That sounds like a sound investment. I am sure the people who have invested in this game and it’s parent company would be thrilled about that. Who doesn’t want to own empty servers?

That is why I suggested a poll when you log in, and get everyones opinion on this.

A poll doesn’t indicate what people actually do. And the largest guilds can still play – that they “can’t play at all” because map population caps change is a ridiculous notion. You may as well say that they rage if fifteen or twenty randoms show up on the map that they want to play on, thus preventing the largest guild from fielding as many people as it wants to. It’s literally the same thing.

If they cannot get their people onto a map, they will go to a game that allows them to play together with friends. If I cannot play with my family and friends, I too will not be playing this as well. Why would we want to play without those we enjoy playing with? That is like saying oh yea.. I can get into the club, but my date and everyone I came with.. you get to wait outside…

Not really. By this logic you’re saying that max guild population should be eighty, or whatever a WvW map population caps out at, and that they’d be raging then if they couldn’t all play simultaneously. Seems like a non-problem, really.

You should consider one guild is not all that is on a map, the lower the population, the more competition between other guilds, roamers, and randoms there are for every space on the map. It is already very difficult to get enough players from one guild on a map for a guild run as it is. They frequently hop maps until they finally find one they can get enough people on as it is.

what is this imaginary troll bait? people enjoy reading other people’s argument and not having a useful comeback?

Noone, absolutely noone, has yet to give a good explanation why a server merge is any better than what already happens now.

Unlike the removal of white swords, a server merge is an irreversible change which only temporarily boosts the number of people you are playing with. It is human nature for players to gravitate towards easy rewards.

But there are many players who play WvW for fun, not for profit or rewards. There are many players who enjoy the challenge of being pitted against servers of varying population and dynamics.

I repeat: all server merge does is unncessarily take away our choice to play in that style, and forces us to a static play style, or quit. I for one will quit WvW if I am forced to transfer against my will.

As for this majority vs minority nonsense. I would estimate that only a small fraction of players actually read the forums, and an even smaller fraction of that participates/posts. And majority is meaningless. If given the choice, I’m sure the majority of citizens would vote to reduce income tax to near zero, which is great for the selfish individuals, temporarily. But in the long run you have destroyed the government’s ability to function and render essential services.

We all paid for the game. We all have the choice to stay or leave our server of choice. There is no good reason why that choice should be taken away from us.

lil devils x.6071:

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.

You misunderstand my friend… I’m right there with you experiencing the double teaming from two servers that outnumber us that also block for each other.

That’s the easy part I’m talking about and those are usually the people championing more fights, hating on defenders, bad talking PVEers and talking about how broken Pvp arenas are. They don’t want a balanced game or even matches, they want a gank fest and that my friend is not cool.

roxybudgy.8205:

Noone, absolutely noone, has yet to give a good explanation why a server merge is any better than what already happens now.

Unlike the removal of white swords, a server merge is an irreversible change which only temporarily boosts the number of people you are playing with. It is human nature for players to gravitate towards easy rewards.

But there are many players who play WvW for fun, not for profit or rewards. There are many players who enjoy the challenge of being pitted against servers of varying population and dynamics.

I repeat: all server merge does is unncessarily take away our choice to play in that style, and forces us to a static play style, or quit. I for one will quit WvW if I am forced to transfer against my will.

As for this majority vs minority nonsense. I would estimate that only a small fraction of players actually read the forums, and an even smaller fraction of that participates/posts. And majority is meaningless. If given the choice, I’m sure the majority of citizens would vote to reduce income tax to near zero, which is great for the selfish individuals, temporarily. But in the long run you have destroyed the government’s ability to function and render essential services.

We all paid for the game. We all have the choice to stay or leave our server of choice. There is no good reason why that choice should be taken away from us.

Being the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave doesn’t make Kolmanskop any more desirable. Currently, they resolved the issues with low population servers in pve by kicking people off their servers and forcing them to play with others. You get a timer and if you fail to switch before times up they switch you. People enjoyed this change because it wasn’t fun playing on empty maps. They didn’t give PvE a choice.

Reducing the number of servers means no more empty maps, no more ghost towns no matter what time you log in, it matters not if you play at 4 am or 3pm, everyone will have plenty of people to play with. How that is a bad thing, I don;t know. I thought everyone played Massively multiplayer games to play with massive amounts of people. It isn’t like they can afford to just up and give every single person on the game their own wvw map, we have to share those maps with others too.

Widebody.5071:

lil devils x.6071:

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.

You misunderstand my friend… I’m right there with you experiencing the double teaming from two servers that outnumber us that also block for each other.

That’s the easy part I’m talking about and those are usually the people championing more fights, hating on defenders, bad talking PVEers and talking about how broken Pvp arenas are. They don’t want a balanced game or even matches, they want a gank fest and that my friend is not cool.

You solve the problem of a gank fest by making sure all the servers are populated and balanced so it is much more difficult for one to stack on the others. Now of course then it comes down to a matter of player skill, and that is not as easily balanced, as even with even numbers, you will always have players at different skill levels. The cool thing about wvw though, is you can have players of different skill levels all helping one another, since there are always different jobs that need to be done.

Reduce the map cap and the new map should be the 5th map!

I picked up this post from the other thread (the: WvW report on Unbalanced Match-ups) and like the base idea, but wanted to discuss this further so I decided to make a own thread about it, as to avoid cluttering up the existing thread further.

lil devils x.6071”

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.

What I really like in your post, is the idea to adjust the number of maps to the amount of players. I’ve been pondering a similar idea just the other way around, to reduce the amount of maps for lower tier match-ups. But reading your version of this, I find no reasons why it could not be combined into one system. Monster, I name thee MegaMap! (Or MegaZord: If anyone spawn the 5th map, all maps combine into MegaZord and kills all players).

So combining a bit of ideas from both of us, here is a base idea of how it could work:

• Note1: I’m using the idea I posted before to remove the “home-map” idea from the game, so a Borderland is a 3 way map just like EBG, to make the adding and removing plausible.
• Note2: I’ve added numbers to be used as examples, so don’t keelhaul me just because you don’t like them :p

Population:

• Base number X: 60 (This is the number used in average over all maps to open a new map.)
• Base number Y: 40 (This is the number used in average over all maps to close an existing map.)
• Adding and removing maps are based on the server with the lowest population

Maps:

• All match-ups start with a Base-Map: EBG
• As the Population increases, add more “overflow” maps, example order: BL, Ziggurat, EotM, EBG2…
• As the Population decreases, remove “overflow” maps, either in backward order, or the one with the least pop.
• Game makes an announcement before and when a new map opens or is removed. (example the yellow text in Silver Wastes)

Issues:

• How would PPT work with multiple maps ?
• How would the PPT from multiple maps work with Glicko rating ?
• How to handle kicking players from collapsing maps ?
• How to handle PPT and upgrades from collapsing maps ?
• This would greatly reduce the amount of maps to defend and attack during off hours, but not remove the 24/7 problem.
• This would greatly expand the amount of maps for active servers in prime time, but not reduce Queues unless both server are identical in size. (Normal EotM still an option here)
• This can still limit play styles depending on situations. (to few to spawn a BL, or so many that you run into large groups everywhere)

Advantages:

• A dynamic MegaMap! system will be a good step toward handling shifting populations, almost regardless of the server size.
• It will hopefully adjust maps so a certain mass of players is to be found at any given time. Thus encouraging player interaction and fights.
• While hopefully at the same time encourage as many different play styles as possible for as many players as possible.
• A MegaMap! system would also make it easier for ANet to work on new maps for WvW, and not be constrained by the existing rigid setup of maps. This could let them focus on new and different types of maps (to encourage more play styles, see examples in one of my other big rant threads).

Disadvantages:

* Well, I would sure hate trying to roam at night time with this. My server would own entire EBG, and I’d have no BL map to go to instead.
* In certain configurations of populations, this could create some silly queues.
* Several low tier servers might feel constricted by being stuck only EBG (Optional solution to this)
* The Overflow maps might not get very popular to upgrade on, as most would expect them to disappear at night.
* Writing all this is making me very tired, and I’m probably forgetting a few, please fill them in for me.

---

To detail some more upon some of the issues:

* How would PPT work with multiple maps ?

Considering all 3 servers have the same amount of maps, I don’t see a problem with this, just add all together. This means that different tier matches will get wastly different points over the week, though I see no clear problem with that.

One interesting consequence of this would be that in general less maps during off time would generate less PPT all over, compared to the Prime time with perhaps 4-5 maps generating PPT. This would make Prime time more valuable. This has its good and bad sides. One one hand it actually makes Prime time more relevant, and at the same time does not actually cheapen the off hours PPT by making PPT reductions or other "nerfs" posted before. Would really appreciate some discussion on this one.

---

* How would the PPT from multiple maps work with Glicko rating ?

I’m not entirely up to date on how the PPT transfers into Glicko, but I assume that it takes the percentile difference between the servers and uses for Glicko ratings. If so, it should work the same.

---

* How to handle kicking players from collapsing maps ?

This one can get a bit more tricky, players tend to get rather irate when they see the auto-kicker even on build updates. My suggestion is to have a global text warning on the screen, say 15, 10, 5, 1 minute before, and then forcefully exit the players, either to another map or to LA. Close entry so no new players can enter this map. This should give people enough time to know when to stop at the nearest tick for PPT etc, and know when it won’t be of any use any-longer.

---

* How to handle PPT and upgrades from collapsing maps ?

This one is even more tricky. Obviously a server can get mighty annoyed if the map they are controlling is removed, while the enemy keeps a map that they have a huge lead in. Same with upgrades, if your server have upgraded entire EBG, and my server has upgraded entire BL, then BL gets removed your server will obviously sit in a good position. Both in PPT and in having a good defensive position. I don’t think there really is a perfect solution to this, so it is a case of chose your poison I guess.

---

* This would greatly reduce the amount of maps to defend and attack during off hours, but not remove the 24/7 problem.

This would typically reduce most servers down to a single EBG during most off hours. Now this have its good and bad sides. A server with a strong night force will still dominate that EBG, while the other servers will be left with skeleton crew. Sure there is less points total to lose this way, but there is also less places to run away to and try to grab camps etc when you’re sick of fighting against 40 enemies.

Also the PPT amounts of Prime vs Off that I mentioned in the first issue.

---

* This would greatly expand the amount of maps for active servers in prime time, but not reduce Queues unless both server are identical in size. (Normal EotM still an option here)

If you get a poor match-up, or servers with wildly disappropriate coverage, you can actually end up making more queues this way (A prime example of this would be our match-up this week, which is just silly: Kain/FC/SoR, and absolutely not a good example for anything in this game. Love them guys though). Say for example that one of the servers in your match-up had a "kitten " day, and less than 60 players actually showed up in Prime time, all 3 servers would get locked into a single EBG.

This limitation could potentially be gamed, though it would be harder than most give it credits for. How many servers have control over their pugs ? And it would still allow a full 80 on EBG no matter what.

Another option would be to base it off the middle server, if basing it on the smallest server would be to limiting. Or an average calculation of all 3 servers. There are multiple options here.

* This can still limit play styles depending on situations. (to few to spawn a BL, or so many that you run into large groups everywhere)

Yes, obviously if the server doesn’t have enough numbers to even spawn a second map, or during night time the population is to small to even have a zerg of 20+, those that want to play in zergs or other big groups will be disappointed. Similarly, If we got 50 players on my server, and 60+ on the two other servers, we will still be stuck in only EBG, and I can’t go anywhere else, nor really small party roaming. It isn’t perfect, and it can still limit some options and play styles at times.

---

Optionals:

* Add a single BL to the Base EBG, to retain play-styles and map-selection, this would help a lot for low tier servers not getting stuck on EBG. Might rotate this map ?

---

I’ve struggled for hours to force this into *only* 2 posts, in the end I realized I’m getting so tired, that I just gave up. Sorry for having to let you suffer through 3 pages of my kitten.

---

TLDR: Words are OP, nerf words before they kill my brain.

Note1: Just to be get this out of the way, as you know, I’m still against server merging.
Note2: I’m trying to be less verbose by putting things into bullet points, it doesn’t work.

-Elrik, the overly verbose.

lil devils x.6071:

Being the last people in Kolmanskop refusing to leave doesn’t make Kolmanskop any more desirable. Currently, they resolved the issues with low population servers in pve by kicking people off their servers and forcing them to play with others. You get a timer and if you fail to switch before times up they switch you. People enjoyed this change because it wasn’t fun playing on empty maps. They didn’t give PvE a choice.

I agree, megaservers was great for PvE because it suits that game mode very well. Prior to mega-servers, I sometimes guested to Jade Quarry (because my name translates to Jade, so it’s sort of my second home) to make the most of some of the Living Story events. If things get undesirable in PvE (too laggy, too many mobs, too much player drama), then there are a myriad of maps/locations that I can teleport to to enjoy myself the way I want. But for WvW, server merging makes it all into one homogeneous game mode where if you don’t like it, your only option is to quit. The way things are now, we are free to choose a server that suits our tastes.

With PvE, everyone is on the same “team” so it doesn’t matter what world you represent. But WvW is exactly that, world vs world. It is not just a large scale fight, it is a fight between worlds. If you just want to fight a lot of people with little regard to your world, then perhaps PvP is more your style.

Which reminds me of Cabal Online which has two factions. They had a game mode for a WvW style of battle where at scheduled times of the day, players could join a server instance that served as a waiting room for a large scale battle. Each faction had its own “waiting room”. After a certain period of time, equal numbers from each faction would be teleported to the battleground. If one faction had 20 people waiting, and the other had 10, then 10 from each faction would be teleported to the battle, with higher level players getting priority. Those who missed out would just have to wait for the next scheduled battle.

But I wouldn’t get my hopes up on ArenaNet making a new battle mode that suits the server merge advocates. All I hope is that they don’t make things worse for those of us who enjoy things the way they are.

lil devils x.6071:

Reducing the number of servers means no more empty maps, no more ghost towns no matter what time you log in, it matters not if you play at 4 am or 3pm, everyone will have plenty of people to play with. How that is a bad thing, I don;t know. I thought everyone played Massively multiplayer games to play with massive amounts of people. It isn’t like they can afford to just up and give every single person on the game their own wvw map, we have to share those maps with others too.

As stated before, “ghost towns” is a myth. I play oceanic hours, the time that is typically touted as “deserted”. But that has not been my experience. On the server I play on, there is always enough people around to keep things fun. I have never been on any other server besides the one I started on, so I obviously don’t speak for all servers, but there are plenty of people on these forums who would agree that their server is not deserted.

I remember one instance where I was roaming around home borderlands escorting dolyaks, starting upgrades and flipping camps. I had been roaming all over the map, and would estimate that there were at least 5-10 other defenders wandering around the map, and perhaps another 5 scouting. But then a sizable enemy group took our south west tower and began to treb bay keep from there. With the numbers we had, it was hopeless to try and storm the tower to destroy the treb, and our attempts to build a counter-treb failed. So we waited and watched. Meanwhile, some jerk was spamming map chat, urging us to storm the tower, he got quite aggressive and annoying, pretty much yelling at everyone to get out of the keep and attack the tower, but never made a move himself. He eventually ragequit, or at least that’s what he told everyone in map chat, I could see that he was still logged on and watching for a little while before actually leaving. I hope that guy has since transferred to another server as we don’t need his kind here. It would be a win-win situation, Mr Whinger gets to play the way he wants on a like-minded server, and we get to play the way we want without his whinging.

I don’t see the benefit in forcing those with a different preference in play style to transfer to another server because selfish players want more pawns for their zerg. Seriously, why can’t all the server merge advocates be given free transfers to the populated server of their choice, and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the dynamics of our “lower” servers.

Marmatt.8590:

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ve been taking notes based on everyone’s perspectives on this particular subject, and will be releasing a revised version of the report.
I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

Merging servers nor reducing pop map caps is not something that can be done temporarily. Really nothing that I can think of that would affect actual population can be attempted temporarily.

So these temp changes would need to be things that attempt to mitigate the imbalance. Or scoring type changes.

Some things I can think of:

• Give an incentive to attack the stronger/winning server. Could be more rewards or more score or a combination for taking the winning servers assets.

• Increase rewards/points for attacking the stronger/winning servers Home BL.

• Reduce the rewards/points for taking unupgraded structures. And/Or increase the rewards/points for taking upgraded structures.

• Give more rewards for player kills and less for taking a structure. (Could be combined with the previous suggestion).

• Turn off rezzing in combat.

• Turn off rally.

• Turn off downed state completely – oh yeah I said it.

Megamap, heh.

IMO they should just simplify the WvW maps:

- Keep EB mostly as is (a visual tune up wouldnt hurt) but move traders/crafters from borders there. EoTM supplies are given to EB rather than borders.
- Keep one border, which should be the border for the server that is currently ranked highest out of the 3. This is the server “defending” after all. Again, a visual tune up wouldnt hurt.
- Make the new WvW map into a dynamicly expanding map. Lets say 0-3 open, each much reach 80% population before another one open. If population remain under a very low percentage, it will close down and people shuffled previous map. In this map, holding objectives (as in actually standing on them) gets server WvW points, not just taking keeps and abandoning them. Basicly, they function like the bloodlust caps.

And there you have it. No wall of text :p

lil devils x.6071:

Widebody.5071:

lil devils x.6071:

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.

You misunderstand my friend… I’m right there with you experiencing the double teaming from two servers that outnumber us that also block for each other.

That’s the easy part I’m talking about and those are usually the people championing more fights, hating on defenders, bad talking PVEers and talking about how broken Pvp arenas are. They don’t want a balanced game or even matches, they want a gank fest and that my friend is not cool.

You solve the problem of a gank fest by making sure all the servers are populated and balanced so it is much more difficult for one to stack on the others. Now of course then it comes down to a matter of player skill, and that is not as easily balanced, as even with even numbers, you will always have players at different skill levels. The cool thing about wvw though, is you can have players of different skill levels all helping one another, since there are always different jobs that need to be done.

No, you do not even remotely solve that problem. You appear to have this diluted misconception that 80 vs 80 = Balance. Amount of each profession that is on, matters more. Amount of players in TS, matters more. Amount of organized commanders, matters more. Amount of players willing to volunteer to join the pool for a scouting rotation matters more.

Last year, my guild transferred from a T1 server to a T3 server. If we ran as a guild group, we destroyed any group our size, be that 5 to 55. The level of organized fighting was a night and day difference. The type of gear players were wearing were very different, changing the fighting dynamics. The way they used siege was completely different. Every thing they did, put them at a disadvantage to how we played. We were baffled at how easy the fights were. So you really need to put this diluted notion a side that creating artificial queues by any means is one of the worst ideas possible.

Your ideas also artificially handy cap players in off peak times. I work rotating swing shifts. During the weeks I am on a night schedule, I and many I know, play late at night and early morning. Folks like you, tend to make an attempt to call us “night capers” as if it is some negative connotation. In the past, you have made many suggestions to limit points we can add to the score simply because we play in off peak hours.

it is clear you are more then happy to diminish other players experiences, if they play differently then you, or on different schedules then you, for the pure benefit of yourself. This is further supported by your notion of creating maps based around the lowest populations, and crating artificially queues for the other servers, literally locking them out of the game for having more players logged on at the time.

Personally, I feel having this discussion before HoTs release is asinine. Gayle has already stated that it is a fact that there has been an injection of players coming back to the game since its announcement. With more coming in every day when they announce something new. It seems to me, that any changes would likely be harmful to the particularly large influx of players we will have during HoTs release.

So if you want to discuss the solution to that topic in which you quoted a post. why didn’t you do so there, instead of trashing up the front page of the sub forums with yet another thread on the same topic?

Particularly since the topic was created by the forums specialist?

Johje Holan.4607:

Marmatt.8590:

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ve been taking notes based on everyone’s perspectives on this particular subject, and will be releasing a revised version of the report.
I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

Merging servers nor reducing pop map caps is not something that can be done temporarily. Really nothing that I can think of that would affect actual population can be attempted temporarily.

So these temp changes would need to be things that attempt to mitigate the imbalance. Or scoring type changes.

Some things I can think of:

• Give an incentive to attack the stronger/winning server. Could be more rewards or more score or a combination for taking the winning servers assets.

• Increase rewards/points for attacking the stronger/winning servers Home BL.

• Reduce the rewards/points for taking unupgraded structures. And/Or increase the rewards/points for taking upgraded structures.

• Give more rewards for player kills and less for taking a structure. (Could be combined with the previous suggestion).

• Turn off rezzing in combat.

• Turn off rally.

• Turn off downed state completely – oh yeah I said it.

Why not just balance the base power curves of each server no matter how few or many people are playing at any given time? It seems the biggest issue with WvW is that the power (which is a direct function of active WvW population) is being disproportionately concentrated in a few servers. Since this scenario is truly a zero sum game, the more you take from one server, the less another sever has. Just change the nature of the game itself. All servers are functionally equivalent no matter how many players are on at a given moment. Don’t want to wait up for 30 min in que just to have your 50 man zerg rolled by 5 guys who are functionally equivalent to you…move down a server. Eventually people will spread themselves out as there is no longer any benefit to hoarding players or stacking. And you can play with people you want to play instead of just having to tolerate each other’s presence out of convenience.

coglin.1867:

Last year, my guild transferred from a T1 server to a T3 server. If we ran as a guild group, we destroyed any group our size, be that 5 to 55. The level of organized fighting was a night and day difference. The type of gear players were wearing were very different, changing the fighting dynamics. The way they used siege was completely different. Every thing they did, put them at a disadvantage to how we played. We were baffled at how easy the fights were. So you really need to put this diluted notion a side that creating artificial queues by any means is one of the worst ideas possible.

Your ideas also artificially handy cap players in off peak times. I work rotating swing shifts. During the weeks I am on a night schedule, I and many I know, play late at night and early morning. Folks like you, tend to make an attempt to call us “night capers” as if it is some negative connotation. In the past, you have made many suggestions to limit points we can add to the score simply because we play in off peak hours.

i dont think an off-prime guild should have expected challenge when moving to a matchup where most of the bodies play at prime… you would have prolly needed to play during prime time to see anybody worth fighting. thats why big off-prime guilds dont exist outside of t1/t2 any more, and its a positive feedback loop. :/

insanemaniac.2456:

coglin.1867:

Last year, my guild transferred from a T1 server to a T3 server. If we ran as a guild group, we destroyed any group our size, be that 5 to 55. The level of organized fighting was a night and day difference. The type of gear players were wearing were very different, changing the fighting dynamics. The way they used siege was completely different. Every thing they did, put them at a disadvantage to how we played. We were baffled at how easy the fights were. So you really need to put this diluted notion a side that creating artificial queues by any means is one of the worst ideas possible.

Your ideas also artificially handy cap players in off peak times. I work rotating swing shifts. During the weeks I am on a night schedule, I and many I know, play late at night and early morning. Folks like you, tend to make an attempt to call us “night capers” as if it is some negative connotation. In the past, you have made many suggestions to limit points we can add to the score simply because we play in off peak hours.

i dont think an off-prime guild should have expected challenge when moving to a matchup where most of the bodies play at prime… you would have prolly needed to play during prime time to see anybody worth fighting. thats why big off-prime guilds dont exist outside of t1/t2 any more, and its a positive feedback loop. :/

We are not an off prime guild. I think your confusing me having discussed my guild, with that of me and my coworkers oft off time schedule. 50% of the time, the small group I was referring to are on nights. I was referring to the 20 of us that work together and play, not the entire 400 players of the guild. Do not blend my discussion points for my guild with that of me and my coworkers, separate experiences.

coglin.1867:

No, you do not even remotely solve that problem. You appear to have this diluted misconception that 80 vs 80 = Balance. Amount of each profession that is on, matters more. Amount of players in TS, matters more. Amount of organized commanders, matters more. Amount of players willing to volunteer to join the pool for a scouting rotation matters more.

Last year, my guild transferred from a T1 server to a T3 server. If we ran as a guild group, we destroyed any group our size, be that 5 to 55. The level of organized fighting was a night and day difference. The type of gear players were wearing were very different, changing the fighting dynamics. The way they used siege was completely different. Every thing they did, put them at a disadvantage to how we played. We were baffled at how easy the fights were. So you really need to put this diluted notion a side that creating artificial queues by any means is one of the worst ideas possible.

Your ideas also artificially handy cap players in off peak times. I work rotating swing shifts. During the weeks I am on a night schedule, I and many I know, play late at night and early morning. Folks like you, tend to make an attempt to call us “night capers” as if it is some negative connotation. In the past, you have made many suggestions to limit points we can add to the score simply because we play in off peak hours.

it is clear you are more then happy to diminish other players experiences, if they play differently then you, or on different schedules then you, for the pure benefit of yourself. This is further supported by your notion of creating maps based around the lowest populations, and crating artificially queues for the other servers, literally locking them out of the game for having more players logged on at the time.

Personally, I feel having this discussion before HoTs release is asinine. Gayle has already stated that it is a fact that there has been an injection of players coming back to the game since its announcement. With more coming in every day when they announce something new. It seems to me, that any changes would likely be harmful to the particularly large influx of players we will have during HoTs release.

This.

Server mergers are permanent. There’s no undoing them.

There are plenty of other things that can be done to try to the population to spread out to the other servers from the top tier servers. Or to get more pure PvE/PvP players to try and stay in WvW.

Map completion for the legendary gets PvE players into WvW. And sometimes they have to participate to get it (help taking a tower they need a POI and/or Vista in, etc). Some probably go: woah this is fun, too. And stay. At least for a while.

The problem is the problems with WvW are all connected to each other to some degree.

Population imbalance is the main problem. But it’s caused by a myriad of things. Server stacking. More players permanently quitting than permanently joining.

Tournaments draw people in. They don’t seem to work in getting large numbers of PvE players and PvP players to play WvW after they’ve finished getting the rewards. Rewards should be used as an incentive to play, not as a means to keep players playing. Tournaments also exacerbate the server stacking problem as people want to be on the winning server that gets the best rewards.

WvW has an issue with retaining players as well. This is due to stale content. The new BL map with HoT will likely help that, but how effective it is will depend on how accessible it is to WvW players without HoT.

It’s also related to hackers and cheaters. It’s disheartening to lose all of your hard work to a cheater or hacker. Even more so when the cheater or hacker goes unpunished. ANet needs to crack down on WvW cheaters and hackers.

ANet shouldn’t take the easy, permanent way out of population imbalance. Especially when it could cause an even worse problem for them. The perception by players that WvW is dead. And perception by possible future players that the game is dead (they won’t necessarily remember/know that servers only matter for WvW and that PvE itself is very much alive). Server mergers are typically viewed as a sign that a game is dying. Has low population. Why should we create that perception when we don’t want WvW or the game?