Guild Wars 2

So I understand what people meant when they said you can’t be an active forum poster if you haven’t received an infraction. Took 2 days.

Anyways, wanted to summarize the more popular ideas floating around currently and list the counters arguments too them. All I see are the same posts going in circles at the moment.
Funny enough, Marmatt pulled all these ideas at the start of the report suggesting that no one can be original in this forum.

Floating population cap:
-Increases queue times across all servers, but severely punishes high population servers in matchups against lower population servers.

-Restricts playstyles and large fights/ makes it harder to play with friends and guild members on the same map.

-And although it wasn’t expanded on in this thread very much, the ability to abuse the player cap.

-Makes coordinated fights between guilds/ servers difficult do to lock-outs reducing ways WvW can be played.

Server Merging
-Against the will of server communities and removes server pride

-Removes the ability to solo-roam

-Doesn’t prevent ‘server stacking’

-Will cause higher queue times by over stacking of NA time zone.

Increasing rewards/ reward tracks

Done poorly, could lead to eotm type problems.

-Ideas to prevent that include increased/improved loot for killing players and rewards for defending/scouting.

I also think it should be noted that to try and implement either floating player caps or consolidated servers would be a very intensive overhaul and cost Anet a lot of money and resources to do. This means that it isn’t something they can practically do a trial run of.

It is also worth noting that due to the way server populations are currently set-up, all the servers still have high population counts with pve players being considered a server member. This means that large numbers of transfers are hard to accomplish with servers still being considered highly populated. Due to the cost of trying to implement either of these changes, I can not see Anet allowing free transfers as they will need to try and make some of their investment back. And until a fix is found for the way server populations are counted, the cost to transfer down tiers is the same as it is to transfer up tiers.

Dawdler.8521:

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.

If you move traders/crafters to EBG, you will get more people going to that map to create a queue, was pondering the same for the above, but realized it would probably have a negative impact for those that want to play the EBG wars.

Also so far I thought it made the most sense to keep the "red" BL, so the weaker server in a match-up gets a slight advantage. To encourage a bit more fair fights.

Good ideas though, I think that could be interesting. I think a lot of players would get bored of idling over objectives pretty fast though. And it still makes for a bunch of the issues I posted above in regards to more/less maps with PPT, Glicko, Uppgrades, kicking players etc.

Dawdler.8521:

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

Awww, I almost feel hurt by that

coglin.1867:

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?

First of all: yay! First time coglin is dissing on my posts, I finally feel like I’m one of the gang now! (Do I get to learn a secret hand shake or something ?)

* Because that thread is already getting plenty derailed.
* Because I wanted to discuss this idea in more detail
* without all the other things flying about in that thread (server merging for one).
* Because I think this idea could be used for more/different things than what lil talked about in that thread
* Now just imagine how messy it would be with me posting 3 posts in that thread, which is already a mess reading through ?

Now I apologize for my seemingly inability to force posts under 5000 or even 10000 words. I really wanted to, I really tried...

Xerox.6851:

So I understand what people meant when they said you can’t be an active forum poster if you haven’t received an infraction. Took 2 days.

Anyways, wanted to summarize the more popular ideas floating around currently and list the counters arguments too them. All I see are the same posts going in circles at the moment.
Funny enough, Marmatt pulled all these ideas at the start of the report suggesting that no one can be original in this forum.

Floating population cap:
-Increases queue times across all servers, but severely punishes high population servers in matchups against lower population servers.

-Restricts playstyles and large fights/ makes it harder to play with friends and guild members on the same map.

-And although it wasn’t expanded on in this thread very much, the ability to abuse the player cap.

-Makes coordinated fights between guilds/ servers difficult do to lock-outs reducing ways WvW can be played.

Server Merging
-Against the will of server communities and removes server pride

-Removes the ability to solo-roam

-Doesn’t prevent ‘server stacking’

-Will cause higher queue times by over stacking of NA time zone.

Increasing rewards/ reward tracks

Done poorly, could lead to eotm type problems.

-Ideas to prevent that include increased/improved loot for killing players and rewards for defending/scouting.

Should also add:

-Solutions to reducing ques on merged servers are having stable maps and timed event maps that appear when all servers hit a specified number in que, that way it accommodates both peak times and slow times.

-Add alert to which severs needs the most players to the map selection panel and allow for free transfer to those servers to help counter server stacking. SO when they select a map to play on and are waiting in que, they will see which server they can go to so they will have no que.

ALSO: OP quoted minority arguments in post, but not majority arguments. Focusing on the arguments against server merging and not showing the solutions for those issues is one sided, not showing pros cons and solutions to both. It should show both pros and cons and suggested solutions to issues for all arguments.

lil devils x.6071:

Xerox.6851:

So I understand what people meant when they said you can’t be an active forum poster if you haven’t received an infraction. Took 2 days.

Anyways, wanted to summarize the more popular ideas floating around currently and list the counters arguments too them. All I see are the same posts going in circles at the moment.
Funny enough, Marmatt pulled all these ideas at the start of the report suggesting that no one can be original in this forum.

Floating population cap:
-Increases queue times across all servers, but severely punishes high population servers in matchups against lower population servers.

-Restricts playstyles and large fights/ makes it harder to play with friends and guild members on the same map.

-And although it wasn’t expanded on in this thread very much, the ability to abuse the player cap.

-Makes coordinated fights between guilds/ servers difficult do to lock-outs reducing ways WvW can be played.

Server Merging
-Against the will of server communities and removes server pride

-Removes the ability to solo-roam

-Doesn’t prevent ‘server stacking’

-Will cause higher queue times by over stacking of NA time zone.

Increasing rewards/ reward tracks

Done poorly, could lead to eotm type problems.

-Ideas to prevent that include increased/improved loot for killing players and rewards for defending/scouting.

Should also add:

-Solutions to reducing ques on merged servers are having stable maps and timed event maps that appear when all servers hit a specified number in que, that way it accommodates both peak times and slow times.

-Add alert to which severs needs the most players to the map selection panel and allow for free transfer to those servers to help counter server stacking. SO when they select a map to play on and are waiting in que, they will see which server they can go to so they will have no que.

ALSO: OP quoted minority arguments in post, but not majority arguments. Focusing on the arguments against server merging and not showing the solutions for those issues is one sided, not showing pros cons and solutions to both. It should show both pros and cons and suggested solutions to issues for all arguments.

But if all servers don’t hit queue, then it’s not a solution. Because the chances of all 3 servers hitting queue at all times is way lower than just one or two servers hitting queue.

Come back when you have a solution that doesn’t increase queue times for all players. Just so you can make everyone play your play style. Some people quite enjoy playing WvW on the lower tier, lower pop servers. Where a server merge to the degree you’re suggestion would utterly destroy their play style.

And how do you combat the perception problem your solution would create?

I’ve never heard of any game where server merger yields: that game’s thriving. It’s always, that game’s dying/dead. How do you combat that with your solution? How do you prove to players of the game and to possible future players that the game’s not dead?

this can be really epic. But there is always problems with loading and lag though.

Stupid broken forum pagination.

Will you all stop talking about server merges. They’re not going to do it. So no use getting upset over it.

Marmatt one thing you can do is get Anet to say if they are definitively not going to do server mergers so people can stop talking about it.

Stupid broken Forum pagination.

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?

The one that allegedly fixes population imbalance or gives me a good reason to go back into WvW…. so far every time we’ve tried to take the big dog on their response is to wipe us and then retake everything we own. Sadly it’s easier to poke at the other server as they are struggling almost as much as we are. They at least don’t show up with 3 to 5 times our numbers, wipe us out, and then spam /laugh

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

I dont understand why we dont introduce handicap scoring based on server performance.

Surely the best solution is a simple one?

Give a weaker server a headstart in PPT (the handicap) and see how the scoring unfolds. Should make things a bit closer even with population imbalances and would encourage players to login and contribute.

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

Xerox.6851:

So I understand what people meant when they said you can’t be an active forum poster if you haven’t received an infraction. Took 2 days.

Anyways, wanted to summarize the more popular ideas floating around currently and list the counters arguments too them. All I see are the same posts going in circles at the moment.
Funny enough, Marmatt pulled all these ideas at the start of the report suggesting that no one can be original in this forum.

Floating population cap:
-Increases queue times across all servers, but severely punishes high population servers in matchups against lower population servers.

-Restricts playstyles and large fights/ makes it harder to play with friends and guild members on the same map.

-And although it wasn’t expanded on in this thread very much, the ability to abuse the player cap.

-Makes coordinated fights between guilds/ servers difficult do to lock-outs reducing ways WvW can be played.

Server Merging
-Against the will of server communities and removes server pride

-Removes the ability to solo-roam

-Doesn’t prevent ‘server stacking’

-Will cause higher queue times by over stacking of NA time zone.

Increasing rewards/ reward tracks

Done poorly, could lead to eotm type problems.

-Ideas to prevent that include increased/improved loot for killing players and rewards for defending/scouting.

Should also add:

-Solutions to reducing ques on merged servers are having stable maps and timed event maps that appear when all servers hit a specified number in que, that way it accommodates both peak times and slow times.

-Add alert to which severs needs the most players to the map selection panel and allow for free transfer to those servers to help counter server stacking. SO when they select a map to play on and are waiting in que, they will see which server they can go to so they will have no que.

ALSO: OP quoted minority arguments in post, but not majority arguments. Focusing on the arguments against server merging and not showing the solutions for those issues is one sided, not showing pros cons and solutions to both. It should show both pros and cons and suggested solutions to issues for all arguments.

But if all servers don’t hit queue, then it’s not a solution. Because the chances of all 3 servers hitting queue at all times is way lower than just one or two servers hitting queue.

Come back when you have a solution that doesn’t increase queue times for all players. Just so you can make everyone play your play style. Some people quite enjoy playing WvW on the lower tier, lower pop servers. Where a server merge to the degree you’re suggestion would utterly destroy their play style.

And how do you combat the perception problem your solution would create?

I’ve never heard of any game where server merger yields: that game’s thriving. It’s always, that game’s dying/dead. How do you combat that with your solution? How do you prove to players of the game and to possible future players that the game’s not dead?

Of course all servers would have the population to que at same time if there are only 3 – 6 servers. Having ques simultaneously would be guaranteed at that point, however, there would be no wait, because they would add more maps to accommodate the number of players. This would have less players in que than are currently in que since more maps would be generated determined by the number of players playing.

I disagree that destroys playstyle, unless that playstyle is to blob and outnumber and roll over your enemies, as you can solo and roam on T1 currently even with map ques on all servers. The primary playstyle being reduced here is the outnumber and crush enemies so they do not have a chance to fight back.

What was the perception created by the mega server already? This is not anything new created by this, just a continuation of an idea they already implemented in the game currently.
TBH I love the server I am on, and really do not wish to have many of the toxic people from other servers come here, but I also understand after being on multiple servers, that there are many servers that are currently dysfunctional in the current system and that should be resolved to allow everyone the opportunity to play good wvw matches as well.

What you stated was false, this would reduce the number of players in que currently due to event maps and help balance out the number of players per server with alerts and opportunity to go to the underdog team instead.

Videles.6759:

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

Agreed. The core issue with WvW is an unequal, and growing increasingly unequal, distribution of power within the servers. And as the server’s power is a direct reflection of the active player population, those servers with more players are naturally more powerful to the detriment of all other servers. Anet can say the matchups are designed to give an equal or “best” chance at victory, but there is no excuse other than very poor game design when in a couple of hours of reset one server can have 3 times PPT than the next highest server is said tier. Equalize the base power curves of the servers dynamically and it should solve most of the WvW problems. GW2 already dynamically adjusts the events in PvE and standardizes the player’s base stats in PvP…so I truly don’t understand the hesitation on the part of Anet to do the same in WvW.

lil devils x.6071:

TBH I love the server I am on, and really do not wish to have many of the toxic people from other servers come here, but I also understand after being on multiple servers, that there are many servers that are currently dysfunctional in the current system and that should be resolved to allow everyone the opportunity to play good wvw matches as well.

This is amazingly condescending to so many people.

lil devils x.6071:

Of course all servers would have the population to que at same time if there are only 3 – 6 servers. Having ques simultaneously would be guaranteed at that point, however, there would be no wait, because they would add more maps to accommodate the number of players. This would have less players in que than are currently in que since more maps would be generated determined by the number of players playing.

I disagree that destroys playstyle, unless that playstyle is to blob and outnumber and roll over your enemies, as you can solo and roam on T1 currently even with map ques on all servers. The primary playstyle being reduced here is the outnumber and crush enemies so they do not have a chance to fight back.

What was the perception created by the mega server already? This is not anything new created by this, just a continuation of an idea they already implemented in the game currently.
TBH I love the server I am on, and really do not wish to have many of the toxic people from other servers come here, but I also understand after being on multiple servers, that there are many servers that are currently dysfunctional in the current system and that should be resolved to allow everyone the opportunity to play good wvw matches as well.

You’re also destroying the play style of the person who likes small group play. The ones on the lowest tiers. The ones who are quite happy with the WvW situation on their server. The maps where it is very rare at all to hit queue, even during tournaments.

So your solution means that there will always be a good chance that a guild can’t play together at the same time because half got onto the real map and half didn’t.

Your solution also increases the chances of toxicity toward players in WvW who are there for map completion. Their keeping true WvW players out. And the map completing PvE’ers may be more inclined to remain in WvW for longer to get more stuff rather than hop off if they notice people talking about not being able to get someone on.

Right now, if I was getting map completion and heard map chat suddenly talk about there being a queue, I’d happily hop off and come back later. But under your solution, if I spent 2 hours in a queue (I wouldn’t want to play the event map, I’m wanting to get into the map to get POI’s, Vistas, and skill points), then there would be no way I’m getting off for at least an hour, hour and a half. Even if I hear map chat complaining that they can’t get So and So on and So and So happens to be the server’s best commander. Someone else can give up their spot. Not to mention I would be really mad if I spent 2 hours in a queue just to find the POI I want is not under our control.

I don’t think megaserver was the way to go. WvW players can’t go into Lion’s Arch and call for help. It destroyed the choice between going to a populated map or to a lower populated map.

With the whole traits thing and the rewards for doing certain things that relate to collections, megaservers hurt that. You could reliably shard hop to find one that better suited your current needs.

ANet doesn’t need to do anything else to suggest that the game is dying. When it isn’t.

Johje Holan.4607:

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.

Agree with these.

An actual reward or reason to attack the leading server. More rewards (karma, gold, xp, wxp, ppt points, dunno), or other bonuses for fighting against them. Say that bloodlust and other stack mechanics only worked against the top server, that could get weird.

Just beware that making an object be worth more with more upgrades can further help the dominant server. But if an object does not give more points for upgrading and gives more points for taking, people are going to stop upgrading. Very tricky.

Disabling one of Rez/Rally/Downed could be very interesting and greatly change how the game is played. This is probably my favourite suggestion for Sneak Attack (suggesting remove Rally).

Videles.6759:

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

They will never add mechanics that changes the playing field of a 1on1 much. If they did that, it would create some really crazy situations in the game, and probably drive away large parts of the people interested in actually fights in WvW. Just imagine how this would affect single roamers taking camps in enemy borderland, if the home server got 20 people in citadel, and 20 out patrolling and guarding etc. That single roamer is strong as 40 man ?

Do like the idea of outnumbered affecting supplies though, increasing the supply limit for outnumbered means that less people can still use siege (both for roaming, and defending etc).

Johje Holan.4607:

Will you all stop talking about server merges. They’re not going to do it. So no use getting upset over it.

Marmatt one thing you can do is get Anet to say if they are definitively not going to do server mergers so people can stop talking about it.

Stupid broken Forum pagination.

They will not say that though since that is one of the few options they have actually been testing already. EoTM is the test zone for what they were planning on implementing in WvW. The problem with the way they currently tested server merges is it is different teams you are merged with, not of your choosing, completely removing the ability to plan and coordinate as you would normally do in battle with your own team. You do not mesh teams together randomly, that part doesn’t work well. but reducing the number of servers and allowing players to create their own teams works much better however.

Rimmy.9217:

lil devils x.6071:

TBH I love the server I am on, and really do not wish to have many of the toxic people from other servers come here, but I also understand after being on multiple servers, that there are many servers that are currently dysfunctional in the current system and that should be resolved to allow everyone the opportunity to play good wvw matches as well.

This is amazingly condescending to so many people.

How is this condescending? When people are on here every week complaining about their current matchups and their tiers being broken because THEY ARE, ignoring that there is a problem isn’t going to help resolve it.

Toxic people? Yes, there are players on servers that do nothing but rant and insult other players in map chat, intentionally siege cap with useless siege , or stand there and do nothing to help their team win taking up map space that could be used by someone actually wanting to play with others. Yes, that is toxic, and many have requested being able to rid their servers of these people but are currently helpless to do so in the current system.

With the announcement of HoT many of our Tier 2 friends have returned to Maguuma and we are experiencing a WvW population resurgence that brings us close to what we had in Tier 2, we’ve been stuck in Tier 6 beating up on the same 3 servers for a month now, it’s not fun for them because they log on in the evening and own nothing and it’s not fun for us because no one will fight us. I Submit to you that your rating system needs some fine tuning, both with the PPT metric and the glicko sytem, a server that wins a metchup by over 150k points should be locked out of that tier for a period of time (this means you all better figure out what to do about there being four tier 2 NA servers) . So if you want to know what to do a trial run with first it’s adjustments to the PPT and Glicko, once a solution is found for that alot of these other issues will work themselves out.

lil devils x.6071:

How is this condescending? When people are on here every week complaining about their current matchups and their tiers being broken because THEY ARE, ignoring that there is a problem isn’t going to help resolve it.

Toxic people? Yes, there are players on servers that do nothing but rant and insult other players in map chat, intentionally siege cap with useless siege , or stand there and do nothing to help their team win taking up map space that could be used by someone actually wanting to play with others. Yes, that is toxic, and many have requested being able to rid their servers of these people but are currently helpless to do so in the current system.

Because your server isn’t the sterling example of what every other server should be, no matter how much you personally enjoy it.

The matchups are imbalanced partly because of what you’re advocating – mass transfers (often solicited, but not always) from other servers to stack the gold tiers. In a game that is heavily dependent on population, that act alone has put a much worse wobble in the balance of the overall game health of WvW. And you are, in fact, the one ignoring that. Reducing the number of servers makes that worse, and even you recognize that because you’re talking about putting on additional maps… you’re offering a solution for a problem you’d create just to have the solution!

THAT is ignoring the problem of population.

lil devils x.6071:

stand there and do nothing to help their team win taking up map space

You get that anybody not playing for PPT falls into this category, right? People using the crafting stations for a couple of minutes before they log out, people doing dailies, people just running around the map or dueling or any of a host of other things falls into that category.

You know who works harder than anybody to help their team win? The people on the servers that are being swamped by population imbalances. And you want to wipe out their teams by absorbing them into the gold tier blob. No.

joneirikb.7506:

They will never add mechanics that changes the playing field of a 1on1 much. If they did that, it would create some really crazy situations in the game, and probably drive away large parts of the people interested in actually fights in WvW. Just imagine how this would affect single roamers taking camps in enemy borderland, if the home server got 20 people in citadel, and 20 out patrolling and guarding etc. That single roamer is strong as 40 man ?

Do like the idea of outnumbered affecting supplies though, increasing the supply limit for outnumbered means that less people can still use siege (both for roaming, and defending etc).

If you want to play as a single roamer in WvW, I have three letters for you: PvP. But as an aside, that single roamer probably wouldn’t be able to hold down the entire map like the 40 you speak of either. But it would be functionally equivalent, which is what is entirely lacking in WvW right now. Otherwise, that single guy trying his darnedest wouldn’t be able to accomplish much against 40 men.

It would change the dynamic and as I’ve said before on other forums, Anet has been curiously comparing WvW to an RPG you are a part of. The most successful RPG of all time, the very same that added “zerg” to our everyday lexicon, gave us the RTS mechanic and play style that we’ve so readily accepted in RPG environments: few but powerful, moderate numbers and strength, and many but weak.

joneirikb.7506:

Videles.6759:

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

They will never add mechanics that changes the playing field of a 1on1 much. If they did that, it would create some really crazy situations in the game, and probably drive away large parts of the people interested in actually fights in WvW. Just imagine how this would affect single roamers taking camps in enemy borderland, if the home server got 20 people in citadel, and 20 out patrolling and guarding etc. That single roamer is strong as 40 man ?

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

@Coglin

To be fair, I assume he meant something more along the line of giving a % boost per enemy outnumbered (And % of that again etc), instead of just multiplying power etc with the number of players. Which would be much less drastic. But I agree it would still be a bad solution.

Just for the fun of numbers though, if I was that solo roamer, on my guardian with full cele, and say my power was 1500 blank for simplicity, if multiplied by 40, that is power 60 000. At that stage I think I could one-shot virtually any enemy with any power based attack. It would also be the day I stopped using rams, auto attack on staff would smash that door much faster.

Mostly curious how many Staff #1 hits I’d need to kill the castle lord with that...

joneirikb.7506:

@Coglin

To be fair, I assume he meant something more along the line of giving a % boost per enemy outnumbered (And % of that again etc), instead of just multiplying power etc with the number of players. Which would be much less drastic. But I agree it would still be a bad solution.

Just for the fun of numbers though, if I was that solo roamer, on my guardian with full cele, and say my power was 1500 blank for simplicity, if multiplied by 40, that is power 60 000. At that stage I think I could one-shot virtually any enemy with any power based attack. It would also be the day I stopped using rams, auto attack on staff would smash that door much faster.

Mostly curious how many Staff #1 hits I’d need to kill the castle lord with that…

/snicker

So I used to play WoW and in the new expansion they added a new sort of PVP zone, and they made these relic things. The relic makes you extremely powerful, so you have people with these relics that are just one-shotting everyone, and it’s a huge mess. Funny, but just a terrible idea. This made me think of that. XD I don’t know if they got nerfed or not, I no longer play.

There were also NPC giants that were more less required to take the other side and their pathing would constantly bug out and they’d run away so you’d fail you attempt to capture the other side. Not sure if they fix that either. It was like, how not to design a PVP zone… And population balance issues. Sigh.

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

Rimmy.9217:

lil devils x.6071:

How is this condescending? When people are on here every week complaining about their current matchups and their tiers being broken because THEY ARE, ignoring that there is a problem isn’t going to help resolve it.

Toxic people? Yes, there are players on servers that do nothing but rant and insult other players in map chat, intentionally siege cap with useless siege , or stand there and do nothing to help their team win taking up map space that could be used by someone actually wanting to play with others. Yes, that is toxic, and many have requested being able to rid their servers of these people but are currently helpless to do so in the current system.

Because your server isn’t the sterling example of what every other server should be, no matter how much you personally enjoy it.

The matchups are imbalanced partly because of what you’re advocating – mass transfers (often solicited, but not always) from other servers to stack the gold tiers. In a game that is heavily dependent on population, that act alone has put a much worse wobble in the balance of the overall game health of WvW. And you are, in fact, the one ignoring that. Reducing the number of servers makes that worse, and even you recognize that because you’re talking about putting on additional maps… you’re offering a solution for a problem you’d create just to have the solution!

THAT is ignoring the problem of population.

lil devils x.6071:

stand there and do nothing to help their team win taking up map space

You get that anybody not playing for PPT falls into this category, right? People using the crafting stations for a couple of minutes before they log out, people doing dailies, people just running around the map or dueling or any of a host of other things falls into that category.

You know who works harder than anybody to help their team win? The people on the servers that are being swamped by population imbalances. And you want to wipe out their teams by absorbing them into the gold tier blob. No.

I have already been on multiple servers and finally found one that had less issues than the others. There is a reason they do very well in wvw, and much of that is not having as many toxic players as I have found on other servers and instead having players working together on team speak and having your havoc, roamers, zerg, gankers , defenders and scouts all working together as one team filling their position on the team instead of not cooperating . I have been on servers being swamped by population imbalances, of which IOJ has had it the roughest as far as I have seen. I have been on servers where I was the only single person on a map at times(* cough* DR) This wasn’t the first server I have been on, I have already made my rounds to see what the others have to offer to compare them. Unless you have done the same, you have no idea how the gameplay is on other servers. It isn’t that you cannot solo , havoc, roam or zerg on T1, it is that all of these exist and do so very well because they work together and coordinate targets, they work as one team. I have been on the worst, the in between and the best thus far and honestly, it is easier roaming on T1 than it was in T3. LOL

I would not have an issue with trade stations and such if they didn’t have a map cap, but since you can craft in many places in the game, and wvw is extremely limited in the number of players that can participate in the match itself, it is like setting up a knitting club in the middle of a basketball court during a game, it doesn’t belong there and is not fair to those trying to actually play wvw. It allows for one side to get ques due to crafters while the other team face rolls them. This would be different if this were just a free for all pvp area without score, but it is not. As long as there is a score, consideration should be taken for those trying to score.

Non wvw activities should be removed from wvw due to the population caps, including things like fireworks events, otherwise you create even more imbalanced matchups by having servers swamped with crafters when the rest are trying to play the actual game in progress.

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

What did those 5 players do wrong? They deserve to be innately punished simply for logging in? You have evidence those specific 5 players did something personally to cause a population imbalance? if not, I find it odd that you support creating an artificial imbalance against them.

coglin.1867:

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

What did those 5 players do wrong? They deserve to be innately punished simply for logging in? You have evidence those specific 5 players did something personally to cause a population imbalance? if not, I find it odd that you support creating an artificial imbalance against them.

They should not be punished, they should be matched up with teams that have the same numbers they do, not just face rolling a ghost town. Just with any sport, they do not put more players on one team than they put on another. WvW should be treated like any sports match with even numbers.
Sports teams being balanced isn’t " artificial" it is how you play the game. As long as you keep score in wvw it should be treated the same as any sport.

lil devils x.6071:

coglin.1867:

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

What did those 5 players do wrong? They deserve to be innately punished simply for logging in? You have evidence those specific 5 players did something personally to cause a population imbalance? if not, I find it odd that you support creating an artificial imbalance against them.

They should not be punished, they should be matched up with teams that have the same numbers they do, not just face rolling a ghost town. Just with any sport, they do not put more players on one team than they put on another. WvW should be treated like any sports match with even numbers.
Sports teams being balanced isn’t " artificial" it is how you play the game. As long as you keep score in wvw it should be treated the same as any sport.

So if a havoc squad runs into a scout/roamer, they’re supposed to leave them be because they outnumber them?

coglin.1867:

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

What did those 5 players do wrong? They deserve to be innately punished simply for logging in? You have evidence those specific 5 players did something personally to cause a population imbalance? if not, I find it odd that you support creating an artificial imbalance against them.

Those 5 players didn’t do anything wrong, just as the one guy didn’t do anything wrong either. Its just not an even fight. From the sound of it, there will never be a numbers balance in WvW. So if you 1) can’t force people to move, 2) can’t move people by force or against their will to another server, 3) or merge servers…what other option do you have but balance the power levels between servers?

Seera.5916:

lil devils x.6071:

coglin.1867:

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

What did those 5 players do wrong? They deserve to be innately punished simply for logging in? You have evidence those specific 5 players did something personally to cause a population imbalance? if not, I find it odd that you support creating an artificial imbalance against them.

They should not be punished, they should be matched up with teams that have the same numbers they do, not just face rolling a ghost town. Just with any sport, they do not put more players on one team than they put on another. WvW should be treated like any sports match with even numbers.
Sports teams being balanced isn’t " artificial" it is how you play the game. As long as you keep score in wvw it should be treated the same as any sport.

So if a havoc squad runs into a scout/roamer, they’re supposed to leave them be because they outnumber them?

Of course not, that is just what happens when you play wvw, however, when one team has a 80 man zerg and there are 3 people on the server they are playing, and this happens repeatedly day in day out week after week, there is something very wrong with the system.
IF you are roaming and you encounter 5 opponents, you are supposed to call for help to take them out, and there should be help available on your server to do so. That is what you have a team for.

lil devils x.6071:

Of course not, that is just what happens when you play wvw, however, when one team has a 80 man zerg and there are 3 people on the server they are playing, and this happens repeatedly day in day out week after week, there is something very wrong with the system.

IF you are roaming and you encounter 5 opponents, you are supposed to call for help to take them out, and there should be help available on your server to do so. That is what you have a team for.

Agreed. Those 3 people should have a way of being effective and productive against the 80 man zerg they keep getting pitted against. Its one thing if all servers have an equal presence on a given map and there’s a scout who comes across a 5 man havoc squad vs. a 5-man squad representing an entire server’s presence on a given map against an 80 man zerg.

lil devils x.6071:

and wvw is extremely limited in the number of players that can participate in the match itself, it is like setting up a knitting club in the middle of a basketball court during a game, it doesn’t belong there and is not fair to those trying to actually play wvw. It allows for one side to get ques due to crafters while the other team face rolls them. This would be different if this were just a free for all pvp area without score, but it is not. As long as there is a score, consideration should be taken for those trying to score.

Non wvw activities should be removed from wvw due to the population caps, including things like fireworks events, otherwise you create even more imbalanced matchups by having servers swamped with crafters when the rest are trying to play the actual game in progress.

Replace “crafters” with “GvGers” and see that what you wrote still holds up.

Rimmy.9217:

lil devils x.6071:

and wvw is extremely limited in the number of players that can participate in the match itself, it is like setting up a knitting club in the middle of a basketball court during a game, it doesn’t belong there and is not fair to those trying to actually play wvw. It allows for one side to get ques due to crafters while the other team face rolls them. This would be different if this were just a free for all pvp area without score, but it is not. As long as there is a score, consideration should be taken for those trying to score.

Non wvw activities should be removed from wvw due to the population caps, including things like fireworks events, otherwise you create even more imbalanced matchups by having servers swamped with crafters when the rest are trying to play the actual game in progress.

Replace “crafters” with “GvGers” and see that what you wrote still holds up.

That is why they need private GvG arenas as well, so you do not have people playing two different games on the same field. That is like trying to have a baseball game on the same field with a football game going on.. it doesn’t work very well. Of course it still holds up as it still applies. The difference is with GvG though at least they are killing players which has something to do with wvw when crafting really doesn’t. When OS is full, or being used by others, they have no choice but to GvG on maps where wvw is going on.

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Alteros.3019:

coglin.1867:

Yes, because Videles for example, doesn’t realize this is not how math works.

If there is one player against 5. And you make said player 5 times as strong as each of the others, then by focusing them one at a time, the 5 would be destroyed every time. The over all damage output may be similar. The problem is, that defensive effects/stats will be spread out over 5 players compared to that of 5X the offensive output per the one player.

It is the equivalent mentality of illogically believing that it is an even fight if it is 5 people versus 1 and you give the 1 an uzi and body armor. That doesn’t make it into an equivalent battle.

As opposed to how it currently is when 1 player (or entire server) is outnumbered 5:1 and is insta-melted through raw damage and stun-locks?

What did those 5 players do wrong? They deserve to be innately punished simply for logging in? You have evidence those specific 5 players did something personally to cause a population imbalance? if not, I find it odd that you support creating an artificial imbalance against them.

Those 5 players didn’t do anything wrong, just as the one guy didn’t do anything wrong either. Its just not an even fight. From the sound of it, there will never be a numbers balance in WvW. So if you 1) can’t force people to move, 2) can’t move people by force or against their will to another server, 3) or merge servers…what other option do you have but balance the power levels between servers?

Well recruit for one. As we have a sub forums for that, and I look and see almost no one here who is complaining, making recruitment threads, I have no sympathy for their low numbers.

coglin.1867:

Well recruit for one. As we have a sub forums for that, and I look and see almost no one here who is complaining, making recruitment threads, I have no sympathy for their low numbers.

Tried that. Very few if any are dumb enough to leave behind at best a decent experience in WvW for an utterly horrific one. In the past 3 months we got 2 active WvW guilds to join us and now they’re gone. One of them is a really good one. But, being constantly outnumbered at least 5:1 at any given time any day of the week you play gets old real quick. No amount of gear or skill as it stands can overcome that. And no, we’re not going to go broke either in real life or in game currency to bribe people to stay either.

Videles.6759:

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

Okay, I think we all know this can’t work – it would encourage people to tell allies to log off in order to “fudge” the population stats, discouraging the less-able members of your team and making the whole scene elitist (which, for the record, it isn’t now).

I still believe

• the spreading of a resource (it could be guards, supply, or something else) to be a good, solid concept. The more you own, the more difficult it would be to maintain it all. There is a danger this could lead to a similar effect as the above, where players tell others NOT to capture objectives. That said, I think it’s a more elegant solution to the change of circumstances based on active players at any one time.
• a much more powerful and interesting metric could be used to great effect in bringing the scores closer together. The metric would be “Who is leading at any one time”. By measuring this, Arenanet are able to implement systems to effectively slow down that team’s scoring (this would mean closer, more exciting matches come Friday), as you can no doubt imagine.

I will let you stew over these two wonderful ideas what fell out of the brains of the community and were swept under the sofa because they aren’t as simple as server merges.

These ideas don’t solve the population problem, they disguise and mitigate it. It’s still an issue, but might not mean that matches are already decided by any given Monday.

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.

‘make everyone play bunker guardian’? If you do the last three suggestions, wvw fights would become even more GWEN than they are now.

coglin.1867:

sminkiottone.6972:

coglin.1867:

Tom Gore.4035:

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like you’re trying to prove my point, but I’m sure you were trying to discredit it.

Or are you really saying that PvD off-hours is “the way it’s meant to be played”?

I might be “new” to WvW with only a few hundred hours, but you sound like a night capper.

EDIT: Never mind. Read some more of your replies and whaddya know? You are a night capper. Well I can certainly understand your point of view now, but you’re still wrong about how WvW should be played out.

Alteros.3019:

joneirikb.7506:

They will never add mechanics that changes the playing field of a 1on1 much. If they did that, it would create some really crazy situations in the game, and probably drive away large parts of the people interested in actually fights in WvW. Just imagine how this would affect single roamers taking camps in enemy borderland, if the home server got 20 people in citadel, and 20 out patrolling and guarding etc. That single roamer is strong as 40 man ?

Do like the idea of outnumbered affecting supplies though, increasing the supply limit for outnumbered means that less people can still use siege (both for roaming, and defending etc).

If you want to play as a single roamer in WvW, I have three letters for you: PvP. But as an aside, that single roamer probably wouldn’t be able to hold down the entire map like the 40 you speak of either. But it would be functionally equivalent, which is what is entirely lacking in WvW right now. Otherwise, that single guy trying his darnedest wouldn’t be able to accomplish much against 40 men.

It would change the dynamic and as I’ve said before on other forums, Anet has been curiously comparing WvW to an RPG you are a part of. The most successful RPG of all time, the very same that added “zerg” to our everyday lexicon, gave us the RTS mechanic and play style that we’ve so readily accepted in RPG environments: few but powerful, moderate numbers and strength, and many but weak.

I thought doing the math for this would be fun. I play a full zerk necro. Using your example of 1 vs 40. I would have 101120 power. 805280 health. 75720 Armor. And roughly 660k death shroud. My piercing life blast, that would still be a full crit on all targets, would hit for over 120k damage on everyone that it passes through.

If this were to be implemented: Necro god mode anyone?

Victory.2879:

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.

‘make everyone play bunker guardian’? If you do the last three suggestions, wvw fights would become even more GWEN than they are now.

I seriously doubt that would happen. But that’s exactly what the tests are for. To actually determine what will happen instead of us speculating about it.

Also good for tests would be Svaarty’s ideas above as well as TyPin’s thread about the more assets a server holds the more supply it takes. And that assets decay over time the more you own.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-balance-limited-resources/first#post4788669

I am a fairly well rounded wvwer. I belong to a fight guild, but still spend the majority of my time in game roaming and small man ppting since I know that it is necessary to retain a competitive environment.

My server history is maguuma, with a two week stint in tier 7, back to maguuma, just before implosion I went to tc since maguuma was having coverage issues in its current tier and people were burning out. Tc was not the answer for us, so I went to the t3 on ioj. After beating out heads against the wall to both greater coverage and very lopsided populations from the top seed of the tier, I went back to maguuma to rejoin my old guild that started back up.

What this has showed me is that tier 1 I’d the place to be for very large fights that the server itself can’t even handle. When this doesn’t happen, its a massive zerg plowing over objectives. The sheer number of unorganized players impede the organized groups from properly defending objectives. Coverage off hours was indeed nice though.

Tier 2 compared to what it was before mag dropped to now is very different, it is too similar to tier 1 except the unorganized pugs have a higher ratio of skilled players. Tier 3 has major coverage issues. Tier 7 well it sucked to put it lightly, there was little to do in an for a competitive player, and too much opportunity to ktrain, bit I was there before eotm, so I can imagine the ghost town it is off hours now.

For tier 4-6 it’s looking to get fairly competitive, I think the glicko placement is pretty accurate, but some people on servers like anvil rock are suffering due to a server revival. They want matchup change now, but fail to see that when anet allowed for more fluid variations, it made people even more angry, so they just need to be patient as the glicko moves mag up to where it settles.

Now for changes, Im pleased to hear a about a reward track, since consumables for roaming and various gear sets is very costly, you rarely make any gold doing the grunt work of wvw.

I think any does need to either drop the bottom tier, Or the top tier, with lowered pop caps during the redistribution process. Leave it up to the players where to go,just have off hoht coverage pop caps lower. The lower tiers do queue a msp or two only on reset so they can handle the influx of na players, without forcing blobs IMO.

I think soft caps in n a are a stupid idea for many reasons already listed, but perhaps could be a solution to off hour coverage. Forcing only 6 servers is also not wise. I think removing tier 1 may be the best solution personally since it will impact the least communities compared to if getting g rid of the bottom 3 was not enough

Svarty.8019:

Videles.6759:

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

Okay, I think we all know this can’t work – it would encourage people to tell allies to log off in order to “fudge” the population stats, discouraging the less-able members of your team and making the whole scene elitist (which, for the record, it isn’t now).

I still believe

• the spreading of a resource (it could be guards, supply, or something else) to be a good, solid concept. The more you own, the more difficult it would be to maintain it all. There is a danger this could lead to a similar effect as the above, where players tell others NOT to capture objectives. That said, I think it’s a more elegant solution to the change of circumstances based on active players at any one time.
• a much more powerful and interesting metric could be used to great effect in bringing the scores closer together. The metric would be “Who is leading at any one time”. By measuring this, Arenanet are able to implement systems to effectively slow down that team’s scoring (this would mean closer, more exciting matches come Friday), as you can no doubt imagine.

I will let you stew over these two wonderful ideas what fell out of the brains of the community and were swept under the sofa because they aren’t as simple as server merges.

These ideas don’t solve the population problem, they disguise and mitigate it. It’s still an issue, but might not mean that matches are already decided by any given Monday.

Like this post.

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.

I really like all of these ideas, however some of them will probably require more coding than others, and for temporary things we should probably prioritize based on dev time to impliment. That said, I REALLY REALLY LIKE turn off rally. This would probably be very easy to code, and while it wouldn’t do much for population, it WOULD change the gameplay in WvW significantly, no matter what it would freshen up WvW for a couple weeks with something really interesting. Second for me would be turning off the downed state, also very interesting. This is a very controversial topic, PERFECT for a couple weeks of experimentation!!

Thx for volunteering!

Perhaps there’s some way to test scaling as a helpful tool.

Can either scale rewards or scale scoring or both.

Probably try something simple to start like just use ratio of enemies to allies on the map at the moment points or a reward are given.

I really feel servers need something to play for when they are losing so badly. The Seigerazor events are a good start to prevent spawn camping and help a server making some ground back.

If a server every gets 50,000 points ahead there should be some type of event that helps a server make a come back, currently there are too many players who quit mid week and get discouraged to participate when you’re very far behind on the score.

Svarty.8019:

Videles.6759:

Make the outnumbered buff dynamically. Are you outnumbered 3 to 1 then every character should be as strong as three players. Als reduce the amount of supplies needed by the outnumbered team dynamically. This at least in some way equalizes it is a bit

Okay, I think we all know this can’t work – it would encourage people to tell allies to log off in order to “fudge” the population stats, discouraging the less-able members of your team and making the whole scene elitist (which, for the record, it isn’t now).

I don’t know about you, but I will play WvW whenever I feel like it. If someone tells me I should go do something else so they can be buffed up, I’ll tell them to go do exceptionally unpleasant things to themselves…to put it mildly. The purpose of balancing the server power curves is so that participating players at anytime logging on to WvW can be just as effective as everyone else whose on an opposing server. As more people log on or off, the power levels should be dynamically adjusted just as they are in PvE and already base adjusted in PvP. Once people no longer have to huddle together in crowded servers as a way of protecting themselves from the dreaded Blob, server populations should begin to equalize out rendering this dynamic adjustment quite irrelevant…which is the ultimate endpoint by the way.

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 trail runs would be great! I like that they also give a small bonus in return since we are also benefiting Arenanet by giving feedback on the changes. I think even a permanent WvW test map would be great, something that wouldnt affect the scores but still be a place for people to go and test new changes and tweaks.

I think the first change that would be nice, would be a kind of reward track like the PvP reward tracks. I think it would help somewhat with the population issue if people felt more rewarded doing WvW and felt like they had a goal. It might get more people engaged and in WvW, but at the same time also reward people for actively participating in their servers WvW. Maybe some of the reward track bonuses could be like an Omega Siege Golem blueprint in the champion boxes or something like that, and/or maybe like some of the WvW weapons could be earned through those reward tracks.

MuscleBobBuffPants.1406:

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 trail runs would be great! I like that they also give a small bonus in return since we are also benefiting Arenanet by giving feedback on the changes. I think even a permanent WvW test map would be great, something that wouldnt affect the scores but still be a place for people to go and test new changes and tweaks.

I think the first change that would be nice, would be a kind of reward track like the PvP reward tracks. I think it would help somewhat with the population issue if people felt more rewarded doing WvW and felt like they had a goal. It might get more people engaged and in WvW, but at the same time also reward people for actively participating in their servers WvW. Maybe some of the reward track bonuses could be like an Omega Siege Golem blueprint in the champion boxes or something like that, and/or maybe like some of the WvW weapons could be earned through those reward tracks.

They have already been doing trial runs for what they plan on implementing in wvw, that is what EoTM is for. The forced server merge they were planning on implementing for wvw is what has been tested in EoTM, but it is the way they chose to do it is what needs to be redone. They would have to instead allow people to permanently merge by choice, and not randomly create temporary teams as it is currently done, since temporary teams do not strategically work together as permanent teams do .

EoTM IS where they currently do the trial runs, it is the testing ground.
The problem is if they made EoTM our wvw, many wvw players would leave the game all together since 1) most hate EoTM map landscape, and prefer a battlefield type map such as EBG 2)linear maps and chokepoints make roaming impossible, and 3)uncoordinated blob team mergers do not allow for strategy and cooperation. People randomly thrown onto a field with a random team just blob and do not really play effectively together. It dumbs down gameplay instead of enhances it.

The server merging they want for wvw was not implemented well in EoTM, randomly forcing teams to be together is not good for team building. What they planned on implementing and have tested thus far in their " trial runs" will cause more blob, less strategic gameplay.

Trials are not a new thing here, EoTM was created for this purpose as it is the testing grounds for wvw:

“Edge of the Mists serves as a testing ground for the new features that may be introduced to WvW”
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists

Forum pagination glitch