Guild Wars 2

Part 1

So, having collected some data, analyzed a number of matches and put in a good amount of thought into things, I’ve come to the conclusion that ANet’s system is not bad afterall…in fact, various elements of their system currently in place which appear to be problems, may in fact be solutions. They are just a tiny bit off in terms of their manifestation…but to give you an example, I think making transferring easier, not harder, would improve things….

Crazy right?

First, lets get some facts out of the way. WvW has some real issues…no-one who has played it extensively can deny that. However, it is also true that even with these issues, extremely, insanely, absolutely epic fights can be had…whole awesome rounds can be had, and in a few – very few cases – have been had. This is fact.

The question then becomes…what aspects of the good matches, and the bad matches, are there, and can they be addressed simply within the current system. It seems that the single determining factor in match quality – not winning or losing, but the quality of the experience, which score aside, is the only thing that really matters – the real deciding factor above all else, is population.

Population manifests negatively in two ways…servers can become stacked with transfers, or are just high population, and queues become intolerable. Some people simply cannot play WvW at all on their server – period. At the other end of the scale, you have servers which have no queues and/or very low population for their WvW maps…this being either the cause, or the effect, of their being beaten badly in their match.

It seems to me, that these primary problems we all have in WvW, are such that they could cancel eachother out, using existing mechanics – with some minor modification.

Here are some more facts:

-It is already possible to transfer from one server to another
-Guilds can already exist and do exist in reality on multiple servers
-Players can play with people on other servers without transferring, excluding WvW
-Server matchups are tracked in real time
-Allowing or disallowing transfers to a server can be done based on a dynamic variable

Many people, myself including, have expressed the opinion that free transfers have impacted the game, specifically WvW, negatively…to put it mildly. It seems to me however, that MORE transfers may in fact be the solution to the above-expressed problems. Making minor modifications to the transfer system could, I think, turn what is in the opinion of many a huge blunder by ANet, into a stunning, complete and instant win.

Part 2

I should point out that even if through some mechanism all WvW team populations were kept within a very narrow range of eachother, this does not alone mean that said teams will have equal chance of winning. It should however, ensure a minimum quality of experience which I feel is the most important factor, for 90% of the player base. As some have recently stated, they would rather be in 3rd place in a good, competitive match-up, than 1st place in a blow-out.

So, the restrictions would be as follows:

-Free transfers from any server to any other server, ‘downstream’ only, outside of your current match-up or tier only, and only once per round. Resets at round end – call it ‘Timed WvW Guesting.’
-Paid transfers possible at any time, upstream/downstream, any tier and permanent – call it Changing Home Servers

‘Downstream’ means moving only to tiers or match-ups below you, and only to the team in 3rd place in said tier.

Now, some people will say, why would anyone want to transfer to a losing server? Well from what I’ve uncovered, it’s not as unlikely as it sounds:

-Ability to WvW SOMEWHERE, bypassing a prohibitively long queue
-Higher Karma/Experience gains due to Undermanned Buff (rename it to Underdog)
-Ability to fight AGAINST your own guildmates (provided the match-ups across rounds swap as would be required)
-Generate Influence on multiple servers, for future possible use in a permanent move
-Allow WvW map completion for people incapable of getting access to certain assets

I am 100% confident that, given WvW is the only thing people who transfer servers cannot do with their guildmates – you can chat, PvE etc regardless of what server you are on – people who cannot WvW with their guildmates anyway, would choose to transfer temporarily to a ‘losing’ server, so they can WvW and by doing so with others who choose similarly, in fact play a real role in that server competing again in that round. This is undeniable.

I am also fairly sure that many of the people who currently are clogging queues on winning servers are doing so largely for the perceived greater chances at Karma, XP and so on. Using the Undermanned/Underdog buff to draw these people to low population servers instead, would help the clogged queues as well as the empty servers. It may need to be tweaked a bit higher, but as it is a percentage, it should be fine to do so. Restricting it to the 3rd team as regards population, NOT score, should be done as well. Indeed, it could be an additional round-long personal buff after executing a ‘Timed WvW Guesting’, and not a server team buff per se at all.

Without having to make drastic changes to the existing system, using only these ‘minor’ modifications and restrictions, I think the quality of experience for WvW players will go up across the board. It would also help address the night-capping issue.

I would encourage ANet to seriously consider such a system…people for the most part love the WvW mechanic. When the fights are good, they are some of the best large-scale PvP battles seen in any MMO, ever. This system would simply help ensure that the fights are good on more servers than is currently the case.

A more flexible concept of guild and team identity, a more sensitive mechanic of transfers, and a smarter way of load-sharing could I think not only improve the quality of the player’s experience dramatically, but improve the game itself. WvW when fun, is amazingly fun. It just needs to be potentially fun for more people.

Thanks to all who made it down this far!

I like it, this is a solution for serious consideration.

Well ANet announced recently that they had a feature in the works that would “greatly enhance the number of players able to partake in WvW”.

Maybe a feature similar to yours is already wip.

And while I think it goes a bit against the idea of building server communities and server pride etc. I think the upsides outweigh the downsides by a lot.

It was something I considered, but I think over the longterm that the impact on server communities would be minimal – I forsee over time that the overall playerbase might average out over the servers, and gel that way. I also think that in practice, people might tend to transfer to a specific server repeatedly, kind of a sister-server in a way, and at most either stay there, or bounce back and forth between that and their server of origin etc

One of the things I like about this concept is that in addition to improving the experience for players across the board, it may also strengthen the overall community as well. Right now, as servers are interacting with others in a competitive way, they are also in some cases gaining a healthy respect or even fondness for some of their opponents. Not being able to identify the individuals by name in game has been discussed a lot as a negative in respect to the overall community…this would have as an additional benefit a level of interaction that would feed back into when the players found themselves on opposing sides again. Something which I think can only make for healthier, better gameplay in the long run.

Anthrage.2519:

-Free transfers from any server to any other server, ‘downstream’ only, outside of your current match-up or tier only, and only once per round. Resets at round end – call it ‘Timed WvW Guesting.’
-Paid transfers possible at any time, upstream/downstream, any tier and permanent – call it Changing Home Servers

‘Downstream’ means moving only to tiers or match-ups below you, and only to the team in 3rd place in said tier.

Now, some people will say, why would anyone want to transfer to a losing server? Well from what I’ve uncovered, it’s not as unlikely as it sounds:

-Ability to WvW SOMEWHERE, bypassing a prohibitively long queue
-Higher Karma/Experience gains due to Undermanned Buff (rename it to Underdog)
-Ability to fight AGAINST your own guildmates (provided the match-ups across rounds swap as would be required)
-Generate Influence on multiple servers, for future possible use in a permanent move
-Allow WvW map completion for people incapable of getting access to certain assets

While your desire to see the glass as half-full and improve the existing system is commendable, there are some fundamental flaws I need to point out in the logistics here:

-In close matchups where the leading server is winning on merit alone, a flood of transfers that are forced into the “current” 3rd place server could ruin their hard work and discourage them from continuing that weeks matchup, leading to a new dictator based not on merit, but on mechanics.
-The outmanned buff (underdog) buff will go away as soon as a significant number of tranfsers forced all onto the same 3rd place server specifically to gain said buff for the incentives you just listed, contradicting its entire purpose.
-“Free” downstream and “Paid” upstream leads to a “Pay to Win” system which will alienate a majority demographic which chose this game because it has no required fee, and they expect it to be fair for those who do not spend additional money to enjoy it fully. The incentive to purchase gems with real money is one where the player feels no pressure to do so, but rewarded for their generosity if they do.
-Allowing instant WvW participation after an instant transfer still leaves a major bulk of issues in place: Spies, Supply draining, Bandwagonning, Fair-weather freeloaders, Realm Bonus leeches, Queue-cloggers, etc.
-You can’t PvE across servers. Not until “Guesting” is actually implemented.

The real simple fix-all solution is to treat the current free transfer on 24 hour cooldown system as if it were the “Guesting” system it has been hotfixed to replace until its implementation. This means:

-No WvW participation period for new transfers for 7 days. You have to prove your citizenship before you can represent that server, seems legit.
-No Realm Bonuses period for new transfers for 7 days. You have to be able to contribute to reap the rewards, seems legit.
-A host of issues will be cleared up with this one simple Arena Net designed limitation that has yet to be enforced, including:

• Spying
• Supply draining
• Bandwagonning / Fair-weather freeloading / Queue-clogging / Realm Bonus Leaching
• Volatile population shifting / Server imbalancing
• Match integrity disruption
• Community degradation

A simple limitation, already intended by Arena Net to have in place along with Guesting, but the oversight of not having implemented it along with their substitute free transfer system but by all indications intended to be put in place when “Guesting” does arrive anyways.

Fix it. Please. Thank you.

+1 for your support.

Alternatively, players in WvW queues have the option to jump into an “Overflow” WvW, which is actually one of the “underdog” servers you describe, selected randomly. Players in WvW as “overflow” would gain WvW and Guild points for the server they’re guesting on, but not benefit from WvW or Guild bonuses from their home server.

Part 1

Actually, most of your points are not valid in my opinion:

Quoting:

:-In close matchups where the leading server is winning on merit alone, a flood of transfers that are forced into the “current” 3rd place server could ruin their hard work and discourage them from continuing that weeks matchup, leading to a new dictator based not on merit, but on mechanics.

This is extremely unlikely. Regardless of relative population, the server in 1st place always has an advantage…through orb ownership in most cases, through asset ownership and related advantages, upgrades….even if we assume equal skill level (which is most likely not the case) and equal population level, at the point where populations become equal and the 3rd server no longer is open to such transfers, the 1st server will still be in a position of advantage. You may see this as quitting as occurring on paper, but I believe it to be extremely unlikely in practice.

In fact, the only reason I have seen a first place server give up, is when they are so far ahead, that there is nothing left for them to do. This solution addresses that issue as well.

-The outmanned buff (underdog) buff will go away as soon as a significant number of tranfsers forced all onto the same 3rd place server specifically to gain said buff for the incentives you just listed, contradicting its entire purpose.

Even if that were true, it will still serve as a motivating factor, and still benefit those who transfer until such time as the population balances – it does not, at all, contradict it’s entire purpose, that purpose being motivation, not reward, which are in reality two different things. In addition as I mentioned, the buff could be manifest as a personal and not team-based round long buff, in which case it would be on for the duration of said round.

The point is to bring about even populations so as to ensure quality of experience for all three teams in a match-up, including the first place team. If you have ever been in first place by 400k+ points, I can assure you it is no more fun than being in last place by 400k+ points…and such a first place team would not are in the slightest if the others received a karma or experience bonus, as long as they had someone to play against.

-“Free” downstream and “Paid” upstream leads to a “Pay to Win” system which will alienate a majority demographic which chose this game because it has no required fee, and they expect it to be fair for those who do not spend additional money to enjoy it fully. The incentive to purchase gems with real money is one where the player feels no pressure to do so, but rewarded for their generosity if they do.

Paid Transfers are part of the existing system, my suggestion is no different than what is currently planned in this respect. It is in fact is more fair, as it gives those people who do not or cannot pay, a way to transfer servers…

If someone wants to move to a different server based on that server’s position in the tiers – to pay to win as you say – they can do it in the system ANet has currently planned. I also do not see this as the definition of ‘pay to win’ that is commonly considered as the issue, that being, paying to gain an advantage in an individual fight, an advantage over someone else. Not the same thing, at all.

Part 2

-Allowing instant WvW participation after an instant transfer still leaves a major bulk of issues in place: Spies, Supply draining, Bandwagonning, Fair-weather freeloaders, Realm Bonus leeches, Queue-cloggers, etc.

Again, the current system is no different in this respect. In the system I am proposing, you can transfer ONLY to a server that is outside your tier, downstream. I do not forsee many people spying or sabotaging a match that is not their own, and has no bearing on their outcome. Is it possible that the 3rd place team, if they won, would alter the composition of future tiers, and that this could be a basis for transferring to said server, so as to change what teams you will face in your next match-up? Yes, this is the one thing people could do…but to do so, THEY HAVE TO HELP THAT TEAM WIN. Mission accomplished.

For paid transfers, I would not suggest they be instant – again, as the existing system is planned to function. So no issues with Bandwagonning, Fair-weather players etc.

-You can’t PvE across servers. Not until “Guesting” is actually implemented.

Yes, you can actually, right now. It’s clunky as all hell, but it is do-able. Ask someone who has done it and they will both confirm this fact and explain it to you.

Again, your objections look legitimate on paper, but in practice, I do not see them as real issues. Could I come up with a system which avoided all possible risk of all issues? Certainly. The idea here is to design something which addresses the ‘quality of experience due to population imbalance’ issue, AND is likely to be done, and it is more likely to be done if it is a slight modification to the existing system, rather than something entirely different and thus involving great dev resources.

Your suggestion’s goal is entirely different from mine – yours would not impact imbalanced population rounds at all due to the 7-day wait period. It may be a fine idea in it’s own right, but it has no utility whatsoever in addressing the very real problem the system I describe is intended to address.

So +1 for effort, but -2 for results. P