Guild Wars 2

Considering this has been an ongoing issue for a while now and nothing has changed I figure that either Anet lacks the desire to change it, or they lack the ability to change it. Bottom line is it hasn’t been changed and there’s been no indication from them that they are doing anything about it. But who knows. Maybe they’ll slip something in and surprise us all.

They didn’t give a hoot when CD, NSP and IOJ were pounded relentlessly, they won’t care now that SBI, Darkhaven and HOD have joined the mix.

Welcome to our life on ET. Been playing almost every day for the better part of a year and we’ve ALWAYS been grossly outnumbered. The difference I see between then and now is that we could actually do something in WvW as a server even as of 3 months ago. Now we can’t even hold our own objectives long enough to successfully upgrade them, let alone take another borderland’s objectives. And don’t get me started on the state of our borderland after the endless blob of uplevels K-training their characters finish with us.

It’s a morale killer and players on my server are just choosing to stop playing altogether as a protest against such unfair matchups rather than fork over gems for a transfer. And these are players who haven’t been shy about breaking out the credit card before for other in game purchases.

Edit: I finally got to load and watch the video. That’s pretty much what every hour of every day of playing on my server looks like when I play. And it’s been that way for months now.

Anet can’t fix it, so get over it.

Vermillion.4061:

Anet can’t fix it, so get over it.

I think people are over it. That’s why my other half is not playing WvW and I only hop on when I have to at this point.

I gotta admit, the lopsidedness of that is hilarious..from a distance. Brings back memories of being on BP and fighting DB’s never ending PvDoor crew. The mode is failing to keep the fights people and the command and conquer crowd and without core changes, HoT will just be a band-aid on a seeping wound.

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

i hope arena net can help

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

What exactly do you want Anet to do?

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

What exactly do you want Anet to do?

Force transfer all players on SoS to random servers. Give guilds a chance to transfer first so they can stay together. Cap the amount of transfers to a specific server so they don’t all just pile on to the same server.

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

What exactly do you want Anet to do?

As it currently stands (and the cause for all the mess) is the aggregation of people into a handful of servers so that they stand the best chance of not getting rolled. If the incentive to pile into the “safest” servers were removed, I think people would spread themselves out based on the communities they want to be a part of rather than join servers out of convenience. Make it so that no matter what server your on with no matter what amount of people you’re playing with, you can be just as effective as the other two servers. Then you can really start to randomize matchups.

Idk if it can be changed at this point. There’s no server loyalty, and that’s Anet’s fault. They should have never allowed server transfers (or make it extremely difficult) in a game that pits server’s against each other, but that ship has sailed. People just look for the easy win instead of digging in and building a community on their server. They could limit transfers now by making them more expensive or once every 3 months etc., but that will just kitten people off and cause them to lose more players.

I can’t give a perfect way to fix WvW. For this match up if they had removed one BL and joined SBI and NSP to one team faceing SOS and done the same to EB, esentually creating a 2vs1 than the match up would be on closer terms and we could compete. So basicly you would have only 2 BL’s and Eb would only have 2 keeps. The down side to this would be long ques because if SoS can already que 3 bls than they have 1 BL worth of people trying to que for another map.

But again I’m asking the professionals to look into fixing this not someone like me that works a job totally unrelated to programing and game creation. I’m the user asking for a broken product to be fixed.

bump, I think our wvw forum expert is on the missing list…

Vermillion.4061:

Anet can’t fix it, so get over it.

Yes they can.

Offer free transfer to any server ranked 8 to 24 in GW2 for a period of 1/or 2 week

2v1 is the new meta guys. just sayin…

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

I can’t give a perfect way to fix WvW. For this match up if they had removed one BL and joined SBI and NSP to one team faceing SOS and done the same to EB, esentually creating a 2vs1 than the match up would be on closer terms and we could compete. So basicly you would have only 2 BL’s and Eb would only have 2 keeps. The down side to this would be long ques because if SoS can already que 3 bls than they have 1 BL worth of people trying to que for another map.

But again I’m asking the professionals to look into fixing this not someone like me that works a job totally unrelated to programing and game creation. I’m the user asking for a broken product to be fixed.

The 1 vs 1 vs 1 structure was supposed to allow for the two weaker servers to team up but this is not the case with GW2. It might have worked in DAoC but not with GW2.

To begin with there’s no easy way to communicate between servers and the intensives for attacking and karma training the weakest server is way too great.

grifflyman.8102:

The 1 vs 1 vs 1 structure was supposed to allow for the two weaker servers to team up but this is not the case with GW2. It might have worked in DAoC but not with GW2.

To begin with there’s no easy way to communicate between servers and the intensives for attacking and karma training the weakest server is way too great.

Pugmanders whispering each other is pretty easy communication.

Or say when a angry pugmander leaves SoS for FA and does nothing but instigate 2v1’s because mad.

Lets all eat nacho’s and enjoy the 2v1 meta.

I’m seeing a lot of people asking for free transfers to lower tiers. What I’m not sure anyone is understanding is that would do nothing. A lot of people moved to higher tiers because of the lack of numbers in smaller tiers.
People want fights, big fights, small fights tactical fights, and they want people to share those fights with. I don’t think the problem is same sized servers fighting each other. Its when you take one of the server that is much larger and face it off against a much smaller server. There has to be some kind of compensation to allow the other server to compete in a situation like that. Maybe lower the limit of players on each BL to 30 while increasing the limit in EB.
Also yes we can try double teaming as we are now but it really wouldn’t be easy or fun. your talking about need really good commanders that are cross talking with another server, Pugs needing to know we are on the same side, The ability to stop all the pugs during the week that are not on TS from crash into and dmg the other server in fights. Maybe we could do that for a week but after that the server Commanders would be burned out.

Curo.2483:

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

What exactly do you want Anet to do?

Force transfer all players on SoS to random servers. Give guilds a chance to transfer first so they can stay together. Cap the amount of transfers to a specific server so they don’t all just pile on to the same server.

/fist bump with OP

Unfortunately I know for a fact a lot of NSP have bandwagoned to SoS or maintain dual accounts with that particular server.

Working as intended eh ANet?

although this is off topic, using the buttons to switch attunements is much more faster than clicking them. Just gotta start reacting faster

Curo.2483:

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

What exactly do you want Anet to do?

Force transfer all players on SoS to random servers. Give guilds a chance to transfer first so they can stay together. Cap the amount of transfers to a specific server so they don’t all just pile on to the same server.

You mean force others out of their community and change their experience for your personal convenience? Why don’t you just change servers yourself?

coglin.1867:

You mean force others out of their community and change their experience for your personal convenience? Why don’t you just change servers yourself?

Listen, it’s okay if it’s forced in my favor and to my liking! They should’ve learned to play the game as I dictate it!

^ Sarcasm for the record. It’s a shame people are okay ruining other players fun for the sake of their own. We just need better matching or for rankings to increase or drain faster so the band wagons shoot up the ranking and things can balance out again.

I’m confused. I thought there were supposed to be weekly reports made by Marmatt?

It’s been a month and this is the only one posted for all of us to see.

I was just looking through his post, and I do not see any mention of “weekly”. I do not see any specific time frames mentions. It appears he said “periodically”.

Tom Gore.4035:

I agree that doing something to increase total WvW population across the servers would be a good first step towards revivifying the best game mode in any MMO, anywhere.

Increasing rewards, as stated, carries with it a risk that it will draw a large population of players who are not interested in PvP and will do anything they can to avoid it, just to get the maximum return of rewards?

The solution? Simple.

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives. There should never be a situation in WvW where two large groups of enemy players will deliberately avoid engagement in PvP because they don’t want to disrupt their “karma train”.

Capturing objectives should still be the primary team objective, and it should give a decent reward to everyone on the winning realm (and diminishingly towards the 2nd and 3rd server) after the scores are tallied for the week. This weekly “WvW reward chest” could even be applied a coefficient depending the player’s personal contribution to WvW and track for example the number of captures, NPC kills, enemy player kills, etc.

So in summary.

• Reduce immediate personal rewards for capturing an objective (or killing enemy NPCs).
• Increase immediate personal rewards for killing an enemy player.
• Introduce a weekly WvW reward chest, the contents of which will depend on both your realm’s and your personal performance in the past week’s WvW matchup.

just like population reduction isnt going to fix the problems, expand the population will not either. Servers like JQ and BG will get even more people to play and transfer over, while other servers will continue to suffer.

Why am I getting a 2008 market crash vibe from this thread, specifically “the banks are too big to fail” and we need to break up the banks or allow the smaller ones to go bust… #occupythemysts

When is the new format going to be done so we can see all the new info you’ve collected?

coglin.1867:

I was just looking through his post, and I do not see any mention of “weekly”. I do not see any specific time frames mentions. It appears he said “periodically”.

I came back to WvW about a month ago after a several month break, so I can’t report on further back than four weeks, but I’m on NSP and we’ve drawn SoS at least 2, maybe 3 weeks now. We’re sharing the suffering with SBI this week.

Regardless, it is extremely demoralizing and the server community for WvW is in tatters compared to when I left.

coglin.1867:

I was just looking through his post, and I do not see any mention of “weekly”. I do not see any specific time frames mentions. It appears he said “periodically”.

Next Weeks Topic: Siege Trolling
Please feel free to give feedback on this report, and ideas for next weeks topic.

Right under the first paragraph….

coglin.1867:

I was just looking through his post, and I do not see any mention of “weekly”. I do not see any specific time frames mentions. It appears he said “periodically”.

That’s because it’s not part of his post, it’s part of the forum specialist’s tasks:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Guild-Wars-2-Forum-Specialists-Program

In addition, all Guild Wars 2 Forum Specialists

• must sign the Guild Wars 2 Forum Specialist Terms and Conditions
• must live in the USA and be age 18 or older, for legal reasons
• can be removed from the program at any time, for any reason
• must abide by the Guild Wars 2 Forum Code of Conduct
• are requested to provide a weekly feedback report on behalf of the community to the ArenaNet Forum Communications Team

So I’m confused as how can someone report weekly when they havent communicated with the community on the forums about anything new???
Or have we just stuck with server matchups for the last 4 weeks?

There’s also the first part of the first post

Marmatt.8590:

Next Weeks Topic: Siege Trolling
Please feel free to give feedback on this report, and ideas for next weeks topic.

Again been 4 weeks and no thread has been started my Marmatt about Siege Trolling…..

DevilishLyx.2340:

coglin.1867:

I was just looking through his post, and I do not see any mention of “weekly”. I do not see any specific time frames mentions. It appears he said “periodically”.

That’s because it’s not part of his post, it’s part of the forum specialist’s tasks:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Guild-Wars-2-Forum-Specialists-Program

In addition, all Guild Wars 2 Forum Specialists

• must sign the Guild Wars 2 Forum Specialist Terms and Conditions
• must live in the USA and be age 18 or older, for legal reasons
• can be removed from the program at any time, for any reason
• must abide by the Guild Wars 2 Forum Code of Conduct
• are requested to provide a weekly feedback report on behalf of the community to the ArenaNet Forum Communications Team

So I’m confused as how can someone report weekly when they havent communicated with the community on the forums about anything new???
Or have we just stuck with server matchups for the last 4 weeks?

There’s also the first part of the first post

Marmatt.8590:

Next Weeks Topic: Siege Trolling
Please feel free to give feedback on this report, and ideas for next weeks topic.

Again been 4 weeks and no thread has been started my Marmatt about Siege Trolling…..

Marmatt has stated that before he publishes his next thread, he is awaiting feedback from Arenanet regarding the format they want future reports in.

Marmatt has not stated whether he has been given a timescale on a response yet or not.

I think you guys are being a bit harsh on him here, do you see other forum specialists making reports in weekly basis? I haven’t spotted a single one yet.

DevilishLyx.2340:

That’s because it’s not part of his post, it’s part of the forum specialist’s tasks:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Guild-Wars-2-Forum-Specialists-Program

In addition, all Guild Wars 2 Forum Specialists

• must sign the Guild Wars 2 Forum Specialist Terms and Conditions
• must live in the USA and be age 18 or older, for legal reasons
• can be removed from the program at any time, for any reason
• must abide by the Guild Wars 2 Forum Code of Conduct
• are requested to provide a weekly feedback report on behalf of the community to the ArenaNet Forum Communications Team

So I’m confused as how can someone report weekly when they havent communicated with the community on the forums about anything new???

TO the ArenaNet Forum Communications Team. TO them. Not us. To THEM.

To take what’s said, slap it together into a reportable form, and present it TO an ANet team on our behalf.

Not to report to us.

He also said somewhere he is waiting to find out in what format they want the report, and exactly who he is supposed to send the report to.

All looks like smoke and mirrors so far, with the fall guy being Marmatt.

If it takes a month to even find out who to report to, what would be the likely timescale for any fixes? Are there any resources waiting for the reports so they can act on them and actually get something done?

Personally I don’t think this is going anywhere, like the CDI before it and the much hyped Anet employees playing last season (and getting an unrealistic view of what wvw is usually like).

I’d dearly love to be proved wrong.

More benefits to defending locations.

Making rewards superior or at least on par to attack will pull some people off the Blobs, slow down the trains, draw in those with different play styles (I love defending!), and lead to actually front lines and battles, not just rotating zergs.

coglin.1867:

Curo.2483:

One Prarie Outpost.4860:

Sind Bowdragon.8374:

To all those responding. Awesome, thank you. Please remember this isn’t a bashing post, just a cry for help.

What exactly do you want Anet to do?

Force transfer all players on SoS to random servers. Give guilds a chance to transfer first so they can stay together. Cap the amount of transfers to a specific server so they don’t all just pile on to the same server.

You mean force others out of their community and change their experience for your personal convenience? Why don’t you just change servers yourself?

Well that’s a lot of assumptions and words put into my mouth. Thanks for your in-depth analysis and thoughtful response! /sarcasm

I will humour you though – I’m a community lead on my server and have worked hard to build NSP up over the last year and a half, so I won’t be leaving. And I’m not sure where my “personal convenience” ties into fixing a broken system that hinders game enjoyment for every player on at least 7 servers. Also, I mentioned allowing guilds/groups of people to stay together, which should be enough to keep communities together.

Sometimes I think people argue just for the sake of argument and don’t even try to see others’ points of view.

Thothkepara.2539:

/fist bump with OP

Unfortunately I know for a fact a lot of NSP have bandwagoned to SoS or maintain dual accounts with that particular server.

Working as intended eh ANet?

Thanks for your support! Any NSP member that is actively involved in the community will know that SoS is the last server you’d want to transfer to. I’m not aware of any bandwagoning to any server at the moment. I do know several individuals have left NSP, which is natural, but the core of our server and our guilds stands strong. Please PM me any information you have that shows otherwise, as I’d love to be aware of such things.

And yes, I am aware of at least 5 prominent NSP players who maintain dual accounts for varying reasons.

I was thinking about NA servers populations, and how to improve them without having to merge servers and deleting a few tiers, or doing it how EoTM does it.

My Idea: – Reducing map capacity for higher tier servers.

How would this improve NA servers populations?
Lets say for example, Tier 1 map capacity drops from 80-100 like it is now, to 60-70 players per map for 4 maps. You end up with 20-40 players each map which then turns out to be 80-160 players for 4 maps. That ends up being a lot of people who then have to wait in a que, but if these 4 maps already have a que. The que jumps up to somewhere between 80-160 + whatever the usual que is for tier 1, which is around 15-50 on some maps. Now there is about 100-200 ish people in a que. These people start to get mad and leave tier 1 and move to tier 2, because of the que sizes. Tier 2 map capacity goes to the same as tier 1.Tier 2 starts getting filled pretty fast now too, so they start getting 50-150 man ques. People yet again start getting mad, because they are waiting in ques for hours. People then start moving to tier 3, and tier 3 starts getting populated. Tier 3 map capacity drops to 50-60 people per map.Tier 3 starts getting ques of about 20-50, and some people dont like it so they move down to tier 4. Finally in tier 4 it starts to even out, and ques start getting down to 1-15. Map capacity for tier 4-8 stay about 50-55 people per map.

Pro’s of this method:
- Tier 1 map blobs drop from 80-100 man blobs down to 60-70, and skill lag starts to not be near as much of a problem.
- Instead of being NA time stacked so high EU/SEA/OCX players are able to transfer in, and make playing in “off hours” more fun, because there is more people to play against.
- Less lag in general happens

Con’s of this method:
- There really isnt any con’s, because even during seasons PvE people still have EoTM to finish their achievements.

What other benefits does this method give us?
- Tier 3 becomes a new fights tier, and people start using OS there for GvGs.
- Tier 4 also could become a fight tier for GvGs.

If you would like to add Pro’s and Con’s I encourage you all to do so, but please be respectful. Remember this is just an idea I would like Anet to take a look at, and maybe give it some play testing like they did on the no white swords WvW test thing.

Good idea but the issue is QoL for those in Tier 1 NA.

Just go read the population imbalance CDI, there are at least 40 pages there explaining why this is a bad idea. Your math just happens to be worse than most of the similar suggestions in the CDI, since you seem to think that people will transfer Tier 1 to 2, then from 2 to 3, then from 3 to 4… that’s 5400 Gems already! If Anet announces that they’re going to punish high-population servers with lower map caps, it’s much more likely that people will simply quit the game.

And it’s been suggested previously with lots of good reasons to do it as well.

Not a new suggestion, but one that’s definitely been heard. But, have to give props for independent discoveries, so +1.

Short of a complete redesign I doubt anything would truly fix the problems.

What is really needed is A design based on an alliance of guilds with a strict cap on membership that is much lower then what an entire server could be.

One where said alliances are voluntary, in that you can leave your current one at any time but joining a new one would cost gems.

One that has 2 separate types of tier system, 1 being organized for those belonging to an alliance, 2 for people who do not belong to an alliance & are thus tossed in a randomly placed in groups against each other every week..

On top of this they should make it so the reward for WvW is tied to active participation in WvW so that people do not come to a specific alliance just to leech off of it’s bonus effect.

Also guilds should have the option to vote out people as well so as to remove dead weight, spies & people who otherwise troll causing enemies to gain an advantage.

coglin.1867:

I was just looking through his post, and I do not see any mention of “weekly”. I do not see any specific time frames mentions. It appears he said “periodically”.

Try reading the second paragraph:

Next Weeks Topic: Siege Trolling
Please feel free to give feedback on this report, and ideas for next weeks topic.

Rimmy.9217:

TO the ArenaNet Forum Communications Team. TO them. Not us. To THEM.

To take what’s said, slap it together into a reportable form, and present it TO an ANet team on our behalf.

Not to report to us.

lol, you do know that in order to make a report he has to communicate with the WvW community first to find out what people’s thoughts are.
So in order to report to “them”, he’ll first have to talk to us!
Or will he do it the anet way and ignore everyone on the forums and decide what he likes best?

Still a bad start to this if these guys are still waiting on how anet want the reports written up, surely that should have been done before assigning the specialists.

party buddy.4956:

Why am I getting a 2008 market crash vibe from this thread, specifically “the banks are too big to fail” and we need to break up the banks or allow the smaller ones to go bust… #occupythemysts

I’m glad I wasn’t taking a drink of anything when I read that! I would have spit it out laughing. /bow
#occupythemysts !!!111

DevilishLyx.2340:

Rimmy.9217:

TO the ArenaNet Forum Communications Team. TO them. Not us. To THEM.

To take what’s said, slap it together into a reportable form, and present it TO an ANet team on our behalf.

Not to report to us.

lol, you do know that in order to make a report he has to communicate with the WvW community first to find out what people’s thoughts are.
So in order to report to “them”, he’ll first have to talk to us!
Or will he do it the anet way and ignore everyone on the forums and decide what he likes best?

Still a bad start to this if these guys are still waiting on how anet want the reports written up, surely that should have been done before assigning the specialists.

You do know that in order to make a report he started a topic and people that had thoughts and wanted to contribute posted, which he can mine for his report?

It doesn’t require a two-way conversation after the start.

Manpower and manpower distribution over time are the most decisive factor for scoring and for having fun in a match. A large manpower imbalance is boring for the superior side and hopeless for the inferior side.

Still ANet seems to be unable for now nearly 3 years to integrate any balancing mechanics into the game. And I’ve really a problem to understand why, they are destroying a lot of fun potential with that.

So here is another balance proposal:

For every server the systems records the number of player in the match (and in queue) for every hour. This is maxed for the 7 days of a match, giving an resulting in an max amount of players for every hour of every server.

When a new match is made on Friday these numbers known for each server from the last match. The minimum at every hour over the three server in the match determine the maximal amount of players that are allowed in the match for every side at every hour. Everyone above this limit sits in queue.

In a balanced match this has nearly no effect, in an imbalanced match however the server with superior manpower only has more people in queue (giving them an incentive to move to servers without queue).

This is immune to manipulation, as you don’t know whom you will have to fight at the moment the numbers are determined.

It not only balances total manpower, but also coverage imbalances.

The idea behind the proposal is nice. But unless server transfers are free (for a limited time for instance) not so many people might transfer to not stacked servers.

Also, some people simply wanna stay with their server, as it may have become some kind of identity in GW2.

If now for some reason (cuz scores could be all much closer then) a top server is matched with a low ranking server, it could mean that sometimes the maps are almost empty, while hundreds of players are stuck in queue.

TyPin.9860:

The idea behind the proposal is nice. But unless server transfers are free (for a limited time for instance) not so many people might transfer to not stacked servers.

Instead of a general free transfer, you can also say: whoever is currently in that queue can freely transfer to the servers that have the lowest capacity for that period (immediately increasing it by one for such a transfer)

TyPin.9860:

If now for some reason (cuz scores could be all much closer then) a top server is matched with a low ranking server, it could mean that sometimes the maps are almost empty, while hundreds of players are stuck in queue.

If all the scores come closer the natural answer is to reduce the random-variation of match-making, as e.g. done after season 1.

But lets assume such a match happen (e.g. NA-T3 since a while) and at some hours the manpower is 100:10.
Today we have 110 unhappy people, 100 that are bored to spawncamp, 10 totally frustated. In my proposal we have 20 happy people in a balanced fight (10 from each side) and only 90 unhappy people that sit in queue, but that can easily resolve their unhappyness by transferring for free to a world where they are needed or by playing EotM (Yes, EotM is mostly only Karma-train and no real fight, but 100:10 isn’t a fight as well, and no one can force you to karma train in eotm, but you can enforce anyone to fight in EotM if you want fights.)

How long is this ‘week’ he speaks of?

I’m pretty sure he took the job thinking that he could work through a topic a week and that Anet would be willing and able to act on those reports, having already set up a structure to accept them, process and start work on some changes.

Sadly, looks like he’s not even been told who to report to, so this topic looks about as useful as last year’s CDi (yes, the great comm badge fiasco).

Sorry, but I can’t be more positive than that.