Guild Wars 2

I really hope the new “ranking” system fixes population balance issues. This is not fun:

http://i.imgur.com/w7fPv64.jpg

-grumpy

Am I just looking at Kaineng’s asian population?

I don’t know.. both Kaineng and Maguuma have great population numbers, big props to them.

Anet.. again I hope you fully understand this is not fun for those of us that do not. We are closing in on one year.. it’s time to get this right.

-grumpy

u cant balance population, especialy on NA servers. . where for example one server is strictly NA and other strictly SEA ;p

You can’t.. it is not technically possible to limit one side to no more than 5-10 more players than the other side? This couldn’t be done?

-grump

the new ranking system will NOT correct or even address population imbalances in any way shape or form, it may even excacerbate the differences in population causing you to see situations like the one you linked more frequently. That said, what it will do is spice up the ranking a bit so that servers that are completely outmatched coverage wise will not have to wait as long for a fix. During the next matchup you may see your server face other servers that far exceed the coverage, population and size of your own server, but on the other hand, you will likely not see that server for another few weeks if you fare poorly against them.

Nobody can really predict how the new ranking system will affect the atmosphere and environment of WvW, but it is a major change, and hopefully one that will turn out to be for the better.

Polismassa, I really really hope you are wrong. If they did something to the rankings and population wasn’t a major factor in who you are matched up against.. I will have never been at more odds with a game company than I will be with anet.

-grumpy

Theres not much anet can do. unless i guess you would like to be told what server you can play on and at what times you are / are not allow to play. This new system involving RNG will be nice though we wont be locked in battles with the same 2 servers for a month.

Pain.3756:

You can’t.. it is not technically possible to limit one side to no more than 5-10 more players than the other side? This couldn’t be done?

in general, no.

sure, you could set things up so that you can’t zone into an enemy server’s borderland if you already outnumber them there, but what happens if all your enemies log off because they’re in an earlier timezone, but your server already has a lot of people in their borderland? would you forcibly eject them from the map to keep things even?

if you don’t eject them they’ll go ahead and capture everything, no different than before.

and if you do, then it might be abused, for example as a good way to defend garrison — everybody log off and kick the enemies out of the zone! then we’ll log back on and portal into garrison to build siege while the enemies are all running back from their spawn.

the other problem is Eternal Battlegrounds. what happens when you outnumber one server but not the other? should you be able to zone in, or not? should some objectives be off limits? what if those objectives are strategically necessary in order to fight the other strong opponent?

there’s no general way that this can work out, although there are specific situations where it’s easy to suppose that an easy fix exists.

-ken

Pain.3756:

I really hope the new “ranking” system fixes population balance issues. This is not fun:

http://i.imgur.com/w7fPv64.jpg

-grumpy

Yes you are do not be fearful of changes.
Even with the system we have now Population balance is still an issue some worlds simply have more ppl the others at a given time. There not realty a way to fix that. They could lower the number of ppl that can be put into WvW but by how much and is it ok to keep out high numbers of ppl from wvwing?

echo.2053:

Theres not much anet can do. unless i guess you would like to be told what server you can play on and at what times you are / are not allow to play. This new system involving RNG will be nice though we wont be locked in battles with the same 2 servers for a month.

Anet need to look at what is causing the imbalances in the first place.. sure there will always be some servers that are less WvWvW focused than others but the current issues go way beyond this.. matchup boredom is one such problem, which the update might address but there is surely other aspects of the game that ANET need to address in order to make it more appealing and entice players back.. class balance, the pathetic outmanned buff, better rewards, hacking and better control of server map numbers when there is an obvious imbalance.
As it stands at the moment its just pure boredom for me on UW server.. there is no skill or tactic that can fix the complete failure to address the imbalance in pop numbers made worse by continual weekly match ups against the same higher pop servers.. its become nothing more than yawn wars imo

Jski.6180:

Pain.3756:

I really hope the new “ranking” system fixes population balance issues. This is not fun:

http://i.imgur.com/w7fPv64.jpg

-grumpy

Yes you are do not be fearful of changes.
Even with the system we have now Population balance is still an issue some worlds simply have more ppl the others at a given time. There not realty a way to fix that. They could lower the number of ppl that can be put into WvW but by how much and is it ok to keep out high numbers of ppl from wvwing?

Imo yes it is ok.. or better still if the situation arise that numbers begin to become out of balance you offer players seeking to zone in the opportunity to transfer to another server map until capacity allows you to be ported back.. just like overflows do at the moment.

Problem was that they allowed free transfers for the first few months. Its just human nature to pick the easiest path. servers become so locked that the only way to move is to rig games.

Theres going to be hundreds of transfers when some servers dont meet the ideas of its population.

If Anet is going to take it on themselves to balance WvWvW populations then many people would probably end up giving up something called “server pride”, which is funny and sad at the same time because this is exactly what server vs server fosters especially since the servers don’t get bo diddly for their efforts anyway. There are some shockingly short sighted design choices at the core of WvWvW. I would have preferred to see guild or alliance battles with say…20 or 50 man teams in a three way fight from a pool of all servers, instead they went ape kitten with this whole “persistent world” bit.

Edit: When I say 20 or 50 man teams, I was talking about instanced battles not placing a cap on a "persistent"map at 50 people per team. That way, if you lose it’s because you were outplayed and or unprepared and not because you’re constantly outnumbered. They had a good thing going in GW1, I don’t know why they strayed so far away.

There is a very easy way to take population out of the equation. I doubt they’d ever do it though.

The issue of imbalance has more to do with the very structure of the Maps.

When they were designed, Anet had to assume that populations/participation would be statistically equitable over time. As we all know, this is not the case. The World with the greater participation will eventually win by the weeks end. Every time. Period.

At this point, the only way a World can move up in ranking is by hoping for a influx of transfers. No amount of team work or skill will make the slightest bit of difference, statistically, over time.

We need new Maps that acknowledge population imbalances.

You can’t make your population pvp.

That is often the root of the problem.

When they get overrun and feel overwhelmed many players retreat to the pve areas or just log out.

Putting a cap on number of players has consequences.

If it is your peak time and you can’t get in the map for hours because your enemy does not have a large enough force, what will you do?

Transfer?
Rage on the forums?
Quit the game?

The only way to balance this system would be to re-work the scoring system entirely.

I don’t know exactly how to do that as I am not a math genius. I would suggest something akin to a division system based on the average scores of a server.

A, B, and perhaps C divisions. The divisions play off with an eventual winner and or loser of each and they move up or down based on that scenario.

It worked for my Dart league quite well.

You still get some strong teams/servers to contend with however.

That is just life.

Get a helmet.

Pain.3756:

You can’t.. it is not technically possible to limit one side to no more than 5-10 more players than the other side? This couldn’t be done?

-grump

Just think it through. What are you going to do when the population shifts significantly? Kick some players off the map because a group from the other server decided to call it a night?? And it only makes sense to track players by map, so what are you going to do when a zerg from one server decides to jump from EB back to their own BL?

The only way to control player populations is via the queue, and if you limit the entry to the level of the lowest population server you effectively prevent LOTS of players from even playing WvW in the first place. <—- stupid idea

As long as ANet persists in making matchups server vs server vs server this will continue to be a huge issue. To fix it I see no other way than to convert to some sort of non-server-based factions.

gennyt.3428:

If Anet is going to take it on themselves to balance WvWvW populations then many people would probably end up giving up something called “server pride”, which is funny and sad at the same time because this is exactly what server vs server fosters especially since the servers don’t get bo diddly for their efforts anyway. There are some shockingly short sighted design choices at the core of WvWvW. I would have preferred to see guild or alliance battles with say…20 or 50 man teams in a three way fight from a pool of all servers, instead they went ape kitten with this whole “persistent world” bit.

^this^

From what i see on this page https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/big-changes-coming-to-wvw-matchups/
The change will only make things worse if you look at the potential matchup listing they gave in that article.

JQ would steamroll its opposition during asian/oceanic time while fairing well against DB’s NA and good luck to FA in that matchup.

The 2nd matchup, SoR BG & Kaining, i think would end up in a 1 on 1 between SoR and BG with Kaining getting the short end of the stick. Kaining would get wiped off maps the moment they show an outmanned buff and have a hard time ticking above 200 ppt even during their primetime. SoR has the strongest NA and a large one at that while BG has good numbers around the clock.

I know with the old tier system they had an issue making it impossible to change tiers as weeks went by, but at least matchups were pretty even or at least servers were matched up with those that fit their ability best. I feel this new change is horrible, all they needed to do was to tweak their current rating system to actually make it possible for a server to go up or drop down from a tier…

Polismassa.6740:

the new ranking system will NOT correct or even address population imbalances in any way shape or form, it may even excacerbate the differences in population causing you to see situations like the one you linked more frequently. That said, what it will do is spice up the ranking a bit so that servers that are completely outmatched coverage wise will not have to wait as long for a fix. During the next matchup you may see your server face other servers that far exceed the coverage, population and size of your own server, but on the other hand, you will likely not see that server for another few weeks if you fare poorly against them.

Nobody can really predict how the new ranking system will affect the atmosphere and environment of WvW, but it is a major change, and hopefully one that will turn out to be for the better.

Pain.3756:

I really hope the new “ranking” system fixes population balance issues.-grumpy

just leave Vabbi/FoW
500 gems isnt so much

shrugs gotta accept that at some times you are out numbered and its just a target rich environment… if they try to control how many people can play at a time I would quit the game that day.

There’s a lot of things needed to be fixed in WvW. Can ArenaNet beat ESO or Camelot Unchained launches where if those systems work better, we’ll be drained of even more players? Or will they still be rolling out ‘fixes’ to major issues in another 9 months and we’ll be looking to merge down to 9 servers total NA?

irishhaf.1692:

shrugs gotta accept that at some times you are out numbered and its just a target rich environment… if they try to control how many people can play at a time I would quit the game that day.

They already do that now..

I haven’t seen a que on Devonas Rest in… well months… so Doesn’t seem that way to me…

I am talking about saying no more than 50 on 50 or some other absurdly low number.

irishhaf.1692:

I haven’t seen a que on Devonas Rest in… well months… so Doesn’t seem that way to me…

I am talking about saying no more than 50 on 50 or some other absurdly low number.

How many 50v50 fights do you get in your tier?

NA prime time… every night at least a couple times a night.

also its not fair top punish high population servers because of the server they rolled on.

If you can’t use your abilities because there’s too many people in an area you’re not really fighting at all. The caps need to be lowered no matter what, the game can’t support large fights right now.

Maladon.5760:

If you can’t use your abilities because there’s too many people in an area you’re not really fighting at all. The caps need to be lowered no matter what, the game can’t support large fights right now.

Skill lag has not been as bad lately, its been getting much better, and capping maps at 50 players would really suck. It would prevent so many players from getting in on top servers that do have a decent wvw population…

Last time I brought up ways to address population imbalance on the forums, someone pointed out that WvW was never meant to be completely balanced. WvW was always supposed to be massive casual clusterkittens of randomness. That’s why there’ sPvP and tPvP, so that if you really wanted to test out your skill in a fair and balanced encounter you have that. For WvW, the chaos and lopsided battles are part of the draw.

International servers would have been the downright best option to solve any issues.
Or a IP block, to avoid ppl form foreign regions unbalancing matches.

EU/US split but w/o IP blocks…. well, this was just bound to happen.

sdsakuragi.8170:

Last time I brought up ways to address population imbalance on the forums, someone pointed out that WvW was never meant to be completely balanced.

And the unbalanced side is not having fun. If you are stuck in 3rd place (population wise) of a tier for months on end.. this is not fun.

what other video games that are “mass battle” allow for such unbalanced numbers on each side and have been successful (fun)?

-grumpy

Pain.3756:

I really hope the new “ranking” system fixes population balance issues. This is not fun:

http://i.imgur.com/w7fPv64.jpg

-grumpy

Hmm. What was so bad about that map image?

I mean this is NOT a joke question.

Here at Desolation we were used for months to have enemy control 95%-100% of all Borderlands and Eternal Battlegrounds maps every single morning. Sometimes just one server (Visunah Square) took over all the maps. And this continued for weeks. We of course complained about this to Arenanet and suggested changes to the outmanned buff. We never got any reply from the developers.

Situation is even worse at EU tier 9. When I look at the live map, I can see Blacktide controlling roughly 95% of all maps.
http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/map/710

Pain.3756:

sdsakuragi.8170:

Last time I brought up ways to address population imbalance on the forums, someone pointed out that WvW was never meant to be completely balanced.

And the unbalanced side is not having fun. If you are stuck in 3rd place (population wise) of a tier for months on end.. this is not fun.

what other video games that are “mass battle” allow for such unbalanced numbers on each side and have been successful (fun)?

-grumpy

Ever play on a PvP server in WoW? Horde/Alliance population imbalance was rampant, and in that case you couldn’t even hope for a better match up next week. RvR in DAoC was also fairly imbalanced, and that’s still going strong.

I would just like them to make the cap per server per map… vs the current doesn’t matter if they have tons and you have 2 parties you’re getting a que system because it’s just number of players per map regardless of server side.

That does look very much like the Kain SeA group doing their thing. As a bender ( red )and oceanic player this is my prime time. Mags (green) may have a few more than us but not significant. I do not worry too much about it as there is little a small group of defenders can do except bunker down and hold what we can.

The population of the various tiers happened because of free transfers. Those that joined the trains to the top did so on the basis of wvw not pve and to wait until guesting was available was a great mistake. However what is done is done. No tweaking of a scoring system will change things very much. The servers with the biggest oceanic/SeA will do better. On top of this the wvw populations between the tiers is considerable to say the least. On reset this may not be so apparent but going into the week then 24 hour coverage matters. The only way to attempt to solve things at this point is to merge EU/NA. My guild plays both with no difference in game experience i.e. lag. The EU group that play on Yaks tell me it is just the same for them as Desolation. If this was done every server would have 24hour coverage and no more night/day capping

As we head towards the next reset what concerns me now is how long before reset will we know which maps we will be on or does it become a lottery whereby you click a map colour and see what you get. No planning or organization possible. For the most part I am a homeland defender will I know my map before the server resets.

gennyt.3428:

If Anet is going to take it on themselves to balance WvWvW populations then many people would probably end up giving up something called “server pride”, which is funny and sad at the same time because this is exactly what server vs server fosters especially since the servers don’t get bo diddly for their efforts anyway. There are some shockingly short sighted design choices at the core of WvWvW. I would have preferred to see guild or alliance battles with say…20 or 50 man teams in a three way fight from a pool of all servers, instead they went ape kitten with this whole “persistent world” bit.

Edit: When I say 20 or 50 man teams, I was talking about instanced battles not placing a cap on a "persistent"map at 50 people per team. That way, if you lose it’s because you were outplayed and or unprepared and not because you’re constantly outnumbered. They had a good thing going in GW1, I don’t know why they strayed so far away.

I’ve had this same thought for a long time now, but its such a huge change that I doubt they would be able to pull it off.

Anet don’t need to change the matchs.

I think encourage people to change server or make more people play WvW(with events or some cheese) is better than this.

40-60 man zerg vs 10 in daycapping just makes people not play WvW. That’s always the case. The system doesn’t make any sense at all. At least in WoW they gave you buffs when you were outmanned badly. You could take on 20 people because you’d have so much defense. Also, none of their games had situations where one team had an excess of 30.

Hey, lets recruit all the EU to one NA team in the bracket, and none to the other. Guess whose going to play during EU time? Congrats on PVD. It’s so stupid. And then the forums get spammed with screenshots of owning the map when there was no one on. Single-sided match.

Feed people badges, or go do pve junk/logout? Tough choice. Game owns.

Inb4umadbroyeahhemadlolhuehuehue

People suggesting to transfer to another NA team with greater EU population are going about it all wrong. Especially Maguuma, because most of the large NA guilds we have now have been day 1 Maguuma players. We’d all have to transfer. And most of us don’t want to transfer to play on the teams we’ve fought against. And we do not want to go up a tier because of the zergballs. And yes it is a skill issue, because you can’t even use your skills with the lag. It’s just lawnmower vs bigger lawnmower/arrow cart wins.

60 vs 60’s only purpose is to spam loot bags into your inventory. It isn’t pvp whatsoever. Even if it’s GvG, that’s just too many variables to make any discernible difference in who’s better. Hmm, lets turn the graphics down until the game is abysmal to look at in order to maximize performance. T3 is horrible at times because of this issue. I imagine top tier 1 players are throwing money into their computer (upgrades) to make the game enjoyable.

Pavel.5192:

Pain.3756:

I really hope the new “ranking” system fixes population balance issues.-grumpy

just leave Vabbi/FoW
500 gems isnt so much

500 gems?
I think it’s 1800 rightnow dude, go check.

Population balance isn’t the end all. Look at Dragonbrand, they have the most coverage at every primetime over any other server and they can’t even win T2 let alone T1. If we went off numbers alone Dragonbrand would slaughter T1 without much challenge.
It’s really just a matter of stale competition… yea you get your butt kicked oh well fight again next time right? Nope you are most likely gonna be in the same matchup for over a month.

The new system should solve this for a little while but it’s just a short term fix I believe.

Khailen.5031:

The new system should solve this for a little while but it’s just a short term fix I believe.

Actually the new system works only for mid and higher tier servers, the servers who are the bottom will only have a harder time due to getting slightly higher servers now as a possibility.

As someone who is on an almost dead server (next week we will be in the lowest brachet and i hardly -ever- see someone in pve and wvw other then in LA which is devoit of life mostly) i was hoping for a server transfer or merger to help the lowest brackets, but nope, just Anet catering to the top servers, forcing those on -dead- servers to shelve out cash or farm for weeks non-stop to be able to switch away from the dead server.

Deniara Devious.3948:

Hmm. What was so bad about that map image?

I mean this is NOT a joke question.

The map is really just a snap shot and doesn’t show the frustration felt by players facing those situations on a daily basis. Being outmanned and overwhelmed by zergs has been a pretty continuous affair for Oceanic players on Yak’s Bend.

The night in question we held at OL and destroyed their golems on inner but there were so many of them they just auto-attacked the door down. When they rushed in we downed many of them, but there were so many they were able to revive each other even when under multiple arrow cart fire, or, of course, rallied.

The point is, it’s a strange game mechanic that makes people not want to play the game because most of what they do results in frustration. At the moment, the only solution is to transfer servers, which is no solution at all. Why can’t they, for instance, buff outmanned players and siege who are inside structures or camps (the mechanic already exists for guild claiming); constant protection would be a good one.

I think it’s cute that you guys are saying this.

You should come on over to Eredon Terrace where large armies and commanders are a very rare sight, where morale is low and trolls are given free access to our chat all while ANet doesn’t care.

Solution for population inbalance:

Delete Euro WvW Servers.
Combine NA and Euro for WvW.
WvW Tiers 1-5 will be full and winners of WvW will be skill based.

Arganthium.5638:

ANet doesn’t care.

They do care, with their wallet, they aint going to do anything because they are hoping you will shelve out 30$ for a paid server transfer.

JoxerNL.3752:

Arganthium.5638:

ANet doesn’t care.

They do care, with their wallet, they aint going to do anything because they are hoping you will shelve out 30$ for a paid server transfer.

end WvW and make internal server Guild Wars taking the forts in tyria :P problem solved.

forgot that would reduce or end the server transfers as we have today :/

The population balance is biggest problem of all MMORPG. But unfortunately I’ve never seen developers who trying to fix this. And another thing, this process is like catalyst of server dying process.

Why would they try to fix it, when the players will just break their fix by moving servers, anyway? If a couple servers have a hard time, tough luck.