Guild Wars 2

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

Its easy with Discord.

Jayne.9251:

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

And create a greater gulf/insulation between guilds and the rest of the population.

Next up: You can’t play with us unless you have <insert FOTM here>

Most guilds are playing in their own channels or on a separate server already; the difference is academic. The guilds that want to integrate with their server do. The ones that don’t want to, don’t.

Xenesis, sorry something did not go right with this post so this is a answer from a post i made a while back

So i been playing many games with this idea of alliances (or add your own word) and none of them have ever worked as intended. Reason have already shown in wvw after linking started. It is in the nature of gamers (or i should say some gamer) wanting to be on the server that runs the others over. A lot of gamers love to join the rolling group so they can run over a lesser group to boost their ego. This is why linking only worked with the first server linking, then players started to do their own thing and bandwagoned linked server to be sure they would be on the rolling server.

This is nothing new in the genre, it happens in every game that have this sort of pvp. The only game were it did not happen was in GW2 and this because of servers and server pride. It meant something. Linking is about to destroy this and few servers are held together, because unfortunate many want to be on the choo choo train.

More unfortune is that the players do not realize that they are actually ruin the game mode by doing so.
Because this is what happen in other games with similair idea of game mode. It starts with a vision from the game devs. Alliances. 3 of them mostly, and players can mostly choose first. First week all goes as the vision is thought. Then players starts to draw their own conclusions and realize that if they stack one team they will win over the other teams. This will boost their ego so players start to move.
Some of this games you have to sit and hammer on the keyboard for 5 min to manage to get in to the stacked alliance. Noone cares anymore about the game mode, only about the stacking. After a while the two other teams get tired of loosing, and people start to drop off from the game mode. Some try to stack the winning team but in the end there can only be so many on one team, so those that never get in stop playing the game mode too.
Now the stacked team have nothing to kill, and they start to tell the world the game mode is dying and blame the devs and they stop joining the game mode because there is no choo choo anymore and moving to the loosing alliances are not an option. And yes in the end the game mode will die or a lot less players will be left and try to make something out of it. That is what happen to those games in the past.

This is were WvW will go as well and especially if we stop using servers. Then it will go even faster. Because as fun as it will be for the bandwagon during the short time they do it, they will kill it slowly until no one is left to kill then they move on because hey, the game mode is dying and no one is to blame, or is it?

So i stand by my words. It been done in so many other games with no long period of success. I can actually not think of any other game with somewhat same game mode who lasted this long. And the only difference is the servers.

Friends! Hear me. I have an idea. Just combine the names of the server.

Example: Henge of Ehmry Eredon Terrace Bay of Denravi
Server will be called : HoEETBoD for short

Anet implement this or i will go Scarlet on LA again.

Sorry just lightening up the mood here. I’ll let myself out now.

Leaa.2943:

Xenesis, sorry something did not go right with this post so this is a answer from a post i made a while back

It didn’t exactly work well for gw2 either. From day one certain servers were stacked with coverage, most notable was Henge of Denravi with the titan alliance. Also during this time transfers were still free and continued to be for many months after many guilds and players moved around to be “on the best” server. I remember being part of the first mass exodus from dragonbrand to sea of sorrows at the same time one of the big guilds from the titan alliance moved to SoS when they decided they had “beat” the game, barely a month into the game.

The games server system was already destroyed a couple months into the game when players were already moving frequently for free, we all just didn’t pay attention, or didn’t really care as much as we do today as it had less of an impact. Over time we got to know guilds and players and we started to keep track of their movements.

Every system has it’s problems, but the biggest problem that exist for any is controlling the population of servers or alliances, unfortunately that is something that will never be 100% fixed and will always exist in some degree with some loopholes around. There’s always a group of players who will go to the side that is winning because it’s easier and more rewarding for their time.

Many have tried to control it by implementing server population caps, limiting one side per server or account, not allowing transfers, or paying for transfers for single characters at a time, implementing bonuses to lower sides. Problem with GW2 is they’ve allowed free transfers too many times, when you move your account you move every character, plus free to play accounts. You can’t exactly stop people from getting multiple accounts for multiple sides or servers, paid or free.

Alliances can work if they’re implemented properly. Server pride can be moved to alliance pride instead, again if implemented properly. To this day there are players in WoW who will not roll a character of the second side, like I have a friend who only likes alliance and made multiple attempts to roll horde but it never sticks, me on the other hand don’t care and can play on either. Wouldn’t be any different than some players will refuse to move to Maguuma because of their reputation and players, some others don’t care and enjoy that “type” of fun.

About the only thing they can do to help lessen the effect of population sways is drawing active players out of a bigger pool of players, rather than the limited amount provided by a single server. Which is kind of what they are trying to do with the links, providing sides with a bigger pool of active players. But as we know with this game, coverage is still what wins you the week.

WvW is a dying game mode, whether it sits as it is to it’s end or changes are made, I doubt we’ll ever be able to bring back the amount of players we had at release, much less what we even had before HoT landed. Most of the those other games didn’t die because of one side being too stacked, they died because they got old, otherwise we might as well be blaming BG for wvw’s downfall. XD

@Leaa

That’s an argument for taking team formation out of player hands.

As has been pointed out elsewhere please merge servers and stop linking.

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Leaa.2943:

Xenesis, sorry something did not go right with this post so this is a answer from a post i made a while back

So i been playing many games with this idea of alliances (or add your own word) and none of them have ever worked as intended. Reason have already shown in wvw after linking started. It is in the nature of gamers (or i should say some gamer) wanting to be on the server that runs the others over. A lot of gamers love to join the rolling group so they can run over a lesser group to boost their ego. This is why linking only worked with the first server linking, then players started to do their own thing and bandwagoned linked server to be sure they would be on the rolling server.

This is nothing new in the genre, it happens in every game that have this sort of pvp. The only game were it did not happen was in GW2 and this because of servers and server pride. It meant something. Linking is about to destroy this and few servers are held together, because unfortunate many want to be on the choo choo train.

More unfortune is that the players do not realize that they are actually ruin the game mode by doing so.
Because this is what happen in other games with similair idea of game mode. It starts with a vision from the game devs. Alliances. 3 of them mostly, and players can mostly choose first. First week all goes as the vision is thought. Then players starts to draw their own conclusions and realize that if they stack one team they will win over the other teams. This will boost their ego so players start to move.
Some of this games you have to sit and hammer on the keyboard for 5 min to manage to get in to the stacked alliance. Noone cares anymore about the game mode, only about the stacking. After a while the two other teams get tired of loosing, and people start to drop off from the game mode. Some try to stack the winning team but in the end there can only be so many on one team, so those that never get in stop playing the game mode too.
Now the stacked team have nothing to kill, and they start to tell the world the game mode is dying and blame the devs and they stop joining the game mode because there is no choo choo anymore and moving to the loosing alliances are not an option. And yes in the end the game mode will die or a lot less players will be left and try to make something out of it. That is what happen to those games in the past.

This is were WvW will go as well and especially if we stop using servers. Then it will go even faster. Because as fun as it will be for the bandwagon during the short time they do it, they will kill it slowly until no one is left to kill then they move on because hey, the game mode is dying and no one is to blame, or is it?

So i stand by my words. It been done in so many other games with no long period of success. I can actually not think of any other game with somewhat same game mode who lasted this long. And the only difference is the servers.

What you describe here is already the scenario in GW2, with the already existing server/guild structure. The same power plays are present. The only difference between alliances and our current system is that alliance would have a well defined cap on it where as servers do not and can not. So in fact having alliances would give ArenaNet a mechanic to hinder what you’re talking about in a mass scale and better analyze balance based off it.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Hibernation was the concern I had.

I suppose battle groups ( not in the way previously discussed) could work. Straight out replacement to current servers. – Essentially servers, by another name, and smaller population caps.
Plug those straight into the “server-linking” process in place of servers..

Something like seasonal sign up may be worth mixing into the idea.
RIP transfer gem revenue though. Which will impact design decisions somewhere along the way.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Hibernation was the concern I had.

I suppose battle groups ( not in the way previously discussed) could work. Straight out replacement to current servers. – Essentially servers, by another name, and smaller population caps.
Plug those straight into the “server-linking” process in place of servers..

Something like seasonal sign up may be worth mixing into the idea.
RIP transfer gem revenue though. Which will impact design decisions somewhere along the way.

I voted for server-links thinking they were going to add battlegroups on top of server-links in a well defined system. I assumed the information I received on battlegroups were not finished and server links were simply going to end with them merging server and preparation for battlegroups. I thought with this in mind the game state was looking to be going in the right direction. That is until Tyler said Server links were to replace any other system they had in mind.

The gem thing from all this madness is swaying me to believe ArenaNet is doing this for the money. This is coming from someone really likes the company. I hope I’m wrong.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Hibernation was the concern I had.

I suppose battle groups ( not in the way previously discussed) could work. Straight out replacement to current servers. – Essentially servers, by another name, and smaller population caps.
Plug those straight into the “server-linking” process in place of servers..

Something like seasonal sign up may be worth mixing into the idea.
RIP transfer gem revenue though. Which will impact design decisions somewhere along the way.

I voted for server-links thinking they were going to add battlegroups on top of server-links in a well defined system. I assumed the information I received on battlegroups were not finished and server links were simply going to end with them merging server and preparation for battlegroups. I thought with this in mind the game state was looking to be going in the right direction. That is until Tyler said Server links were to replace any other system they had in mind.

The gem thing from all this madness is swaying me to believe ArenaNet is doing this for the money. This is coming from someone really likes the company. I hope I’m wrong.

The mode still has dev attention, so lets not rule out further iterations yet.

But yeah, currently it does look like a cash cow.

Jayne.9251:

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

And create a greater gulf/insulation between guilds and the rest of the population.

Next up: You can’t play with us unless you have <insert FOTM here>

Next up?

It’s already like this if you want to play with the “best” guilds. WSR has a free open welcoming TS for all those playing with us whether it be PvE, PvP or WvW. One commonality is that whenever a guild goes try hard they stop using our TS and start being super selective of who they will accept.

Also stop lerking around your north towers and come to the south of the maps!

Xenesis.6389:

About the only thing they can do to help lessen the effect of population sways is drawing active players out of a bigger pool of players, rather than the limited amount provided by a single server. Which is kind of what they are trying to do with the links, providing sides with a bigger pool of active players. But as we know with this game, coverage is still what wins you the week.

There’s something else that can be done…imho

I agree with what you explained…we can’t prevent people from stacking servers & coverage typically wins the war.

So…Let them stack.

However, the current Tier based design structure should be removed to use these stacked servers in a positive way.

The game mode should be re-designed with a Long Term focus that makes Any Higher Ranked Server be the target of Any Lower Ranked Server…imho

Removing the Tier structure also allows all players to attack any Server.

Diku.2546:

Xenesis.6389:

About the only thing they can do to help lessen the effect of population sways is drawing active players out of a bigger pool of players, rather than the limited amount provided by a single server. Which is kind of what they are trying to do with the links, providing sides with a bigger pool of active players. But as we know with this game, coverage is still what wins you the week.

There’s something else that can be done…imho

I agree with what you explained…we can’t prevent people from stacking servers & coverage typically wins the war.

So…Let them stack.

However, the current Tier based design structure should be removed to use these stacked servers in a positive way.

The game mode should be re-designed with a Long Term focus that makes Any Higher Ranked Server be the target of Any Lower Ranked Server…imho

Removing the Tier structure also allows all players to attack any Server.

so every map has like.. 12/15 spawns?

You can only attack players/objectives of servers higher than you?
So the top server would be able to attack.. nothing & no one..

That would kill wvw within a day of it being patched in.
As in even the necromancers wouldn’t be able to reanimate it. Not even dhuum could reanimate that.

Is this game called Server Wars or Guild Wars 2?

Just wondering because, well, I get server linking and WvW (world = server somewhat I guess even though we are merging some). But all of this fuss, wasted energy, manual adjustments to scores, just to try and shuffle a server around.

Remove the server already and focus on Guilds and Alliances. What the people are actually a part of. You won’t be able to fix the population and especially once you opened the doors to transfers. Now add merging of servers, well, it is a train wreck and almost dead format. Personally I’d just remove it and focus my R & D dollar on a larger map and client technology to support Guilds and Alliances.

apharma.3741:

Jayne.9251:

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

And create a greater gulf/insulation between guilds and the rest of the population.

Next up: You can’t play with us unless you have <insert FOTM here>

Next up?

It’s already like this if you want to play with the “best” guilds. WSR has a free open welcoming TS for all those playing with us whether it be PvE, PvP or WvW. One commonality is that whenever a guild goes try hard they stop using our TS and start being super selective of who they will accept.

Also stop lerking around your north towers and come to the south of the maps!

Lol I’ve been doing freelance work on top of full time job. No tower hugging for me We do need to connect again, I need to brush the rust off.

As for guilds, really? It’s like that on WSR? That’s a bit silly. Mind you, I don’t blob, so I suppose I never noticed. When I do join in, folks are fine with it.

Crapgame.6519:

Is this game called Server Wars or Guild Wars 2?

Just wondering because, well, I get server linking and WvW (world = server somewhat I guess even though we are merging some). But all of this fuss, wasted energy, manual adjustments to scores, just to try and shuffle a server around.

Remove the server already and focus on Guilds and Alliances. What the people are actually a part of. You won’t be able to fix the population and especially once you opened the doors to transfers. Now add merging of servers, well, it is a train wreck and almost dead format. Personally I’d just remove it and focus my R & D dollar on a larger map and client technology to support Guilds and Alliances.

Id like to know the actual percent of people in organized guilds in wvw. I’d peg it about 35%. It could be less.

Why focus on the minority?

Jayne.9251:

Crapgame.6519:

Is this game called Server Wars or Guild Wars 2?

Just wondering because, well, I get server linking and WvW (world = server somewhat I guess even though we are merging some). But all of this fuss, wasted energy, manual adjustments to scores, just to try and shuffle a server around.

Remove the server already and focus on Guilds and Alliances. What the people are actually a part of. You won’t be able to fix the population and especially once you opened the doors to transfers. Now add merging of servers, well, it is a train wreck and almost dead format. Personally I’d just remove it and focus my R & D dollar on a larger map and client technology to support Guilds and Alliances.

Id like to know the actual percent of people in organized guilds in wvw. I’d peg it about 35%. It could be less.

Why focus on the minority?

Actually, very good point and I agree. Look at the whole obsidian sanctum mess, right?

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we need to remove the server which removes the population imbalance and wall clock issues. This isn’t unique to GW2, we saw similar issues back in the DaOC days. WoW got around it be not implementing this format of play and used the confined spaces/maps of BG’s and gates/limits of wintergrasp.

Allowing larger maps, more players, client/server technology, player portals focusing on stats, guilds, and alliances you remove the server name from the equation. People working together, or part of a guild, team, or alliance, and effort matter and visible by all.

Leaving match-ups for a month on end when they are lopsided isn’t helping any. and no matter how you carve or slice it, the issue will still be present. Some grouping of servers will raise to the top, the cream, and some grouping of servers will sink to the bottom. It doesn’t mean they are not good players, or the cream, but rather victims of a bad design or series of events (transfer or clock).

I want to make Arena Net and everyone aware of the fact that Server communities organize to purchase guilds directly from their competitors. The relationship between server and guild is quite a interesting one. Servers want to stay competitive in a very stale game mode. They look out for their own server. These Servers have central organizations.

http://tarnished-coast.com/forum/
http://gw2blackgate.com/forum/
https://maguuma.org/
http://www.fort-aspenwood.com/
http://jadequarry.com/page/index.html
http://yaks-bend.enjin.com/

Are some examples. They are Communities with their own governments and leaderships. * They have admins and moderators and community leaders. They also plot against each other* because each community is a direct competitor in this system. They interchange guilds and players at an alarming rate simply because they all trying to fill their respective coverage gap they think they have.

The only problem is their opinion on what a coverage gap is. It contradicts not only what balance means in a three way but their direct health as well. This is simply because their actions and perceptions tend to have a negative effect on the competing servers. This is because of the nature of the Server | Tier system in an competitive environment that’s 24/7.

These server communities listed don’t represent even 50% of the total server population 9 times out of 10. These communities not only wage war in WvW against each other, but they wage a war of guilds and they pay for it through gems. Greater than 50% of a server population has no clue about the type of organization and funding it takes to move a single guild and even less has an idea on the impact or domino effect it could have on the surrounding servers. So not only are guilds moving by themselves, but they are being coordinated to move large scale.

But wait it gets more interesting. Because the communities then starts to understand the system and they start to use it for their own benefit. They split off or coordinate a plan that is in fact something that’s going to alter the tier.* The communities call it manipulation and we are all responsible. Each server and sub culture of a server is responsible and has engaged or invoked it.* Every single community organization and myself and all leaders who ever wagered on trying to balance their server or sustain an environment in their respective tier has caused shifts in balance. Some greater than others.

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

In fact you can say these very same communities that I describe are indeed battlegroups. They don’t even make up for 50% of an entire server. They have rules and if you break them, they will indeed remove you from their communities assets. They all aim to recruit the best fit for their community and they all want the best fights. They all eat each other, and they all have a sense of control that they bestow through ranks and leadership beyond that of a guild.

What defines the difference between battlegroups and our current system?

Our current system has no consistent means to measure. Our measurement is on a server level yet servers expand, thus allows near limitless bounds to our server communities and enables everything we do and will do for the foreseeable future that disturbs balance.

Doesn’t matter what time period you examine WvW. Server communities look to gain without any means to measure.

If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. Instead of, matchmaking Glicko placements and Server pairings based off activity and PPT when servers fluctuates by design, it would go a long way to solving the communities balancing issues and ArenaNets struggle to maintain it. Furthermore, it would give ArenaNet a tool to analyze and properly query to determine what communities want.

It would allow the communities to know a limit and balance based off that limit and not the perception of one. Once all is said and done, you will find Tournaments easier and just as the system explained in it’s form, Tournament could be utilized to determine lock periods and competitive tournaments.

The Blackgate War Counil, The Jade Quarry Council, The Tarnished Coast Roundtable, and all server organizations alike are already battlegroups without limits.

We don’t have these issues in EU. Well maybe one or two, but those servers have dropped.

NA is the new Cold War. Always has been. And it’s only hurting those who play there.

Frankly, put EU back the way it was and let the NA kids escalate the “grand detente”.

Jayne.9251:

We don’t have these issues in EU. Well maybe one or two, but those servers have dropped.

NA is the new Cold War. Always has been. And it’s only hurting those who play there.

Frankly, put EU back the way it was and let the NA kids escalate the “grand detente”.

Yes, please – GH is stuck on last place with no chance against the enemy servers and stuck with DBL which the majority of players hate – not that much fun.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Are some examples. They are Communities with their own governments and leaderships. * They have admins and moderators and community leaders. They also plot against each other* because each community is a direct competitor in this system. They interchange guilds and players at an alarming rate simply because they all trying to fill their respective coverage gap they think they have.

Snip***

This is not Eve nor will ever be and any form of government or leaders would pale in comparison. Having said that there are some things which you note are true although on a smaller scale. People to pay to have people transfer if they fit their play style and good.

But again this is only compounding the issue. There can only be one number one, and the rest fall below. It cascades like they say…kitten rolls downhill. Just do the math, ok. Same servers or pairing are up top, same are on the bottom. Bottom servers work their way up until they hit the wall clock or population wall then stay until they fall back down. Add A.Net adjust the scores is just a Band-Aid.

Until something major happens the community will continue to see the lower populated server players leave. Just how many that are I don’t know but at this stage anyone leaving does have an impact.

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

How are you gonna measure that kind of ad-hoc participation to the point that is relatively equal size?

How can they not? The game generates massive amounts of data. I realize this gets speculative here now since we don’t have view into the actual code, but consider that reward tracks are literally based on measuring individual participation as is shard population status. Why would an individual’s average weekly participation amount not be known?

Do you remember TylerB posting here asking what players thought about if Anet were to open smaller shards so that they had smaller chunks sets of players to do world-linking with? Basically the idea was that smaller shards are far easier to link into teams of relatively equal size than the large blocks we have currently. I can only surmise that’s the Battlegroup idea filtering through.

Nope, those are different in concept though it might be similar to you, but it is different in reality.

Players don’t adhere to a fixed weekly participation, it is not something that you can analyze by simply looking at play hours.

Some weeks I might play 40 hours of WvW other weeks I play like 0. I’m not alone in this regard and would make balancing a nightmare.

Also just because I play a 4 hour stretch of WvW (due to the commander giving me fights) on Shard A doesn’t mean I’ll play 4 hours if the next link gives me a PPT Mander who I have 0 interest in following on Shard B.

Jayne.9251:

apharma.3741:

Next up?

It’s already like this if you want to play with the “best” guilds. WSR has a free open welcoming TS for all those playing with us whether it be PvE, PvP or WvW. One commonality is that whenever a guild goes try hard they stop using our TS and start being super selective of who they will accept.

Also stop lerking around your north towers and come to the south of the maps!

Lol I’ve been doing freelance work on top of full time job. No tower hugging for me We do need to connect again, I need to brush the rust off.

As for guilds, really? It’s like that on WSR? That’s a bit silly. Mind you, I don’t blob, so I suppose I never noticed. When I do join in, folks are fine with it.

Yeah, anything that’s happened at the top servers does filter down. We have had many transfers of guilds wanting to poach our players, they join, recruit players, start doing this and then leave the server with a lot less people.

When you clean the rust off send me a message and I’ll be happy to teach you the error of your condi mesmer ways, might even throw you off a cliff this time!

fishball.7204:

Players don’t adhere to a fixed weekly participation, it is not something that you can analyze by simply looking at play hours.

Some weeks I might play 40 hours of WvW other weeks I play like 0. I’m not alone in this regard and would make balancing a nightmare.

Also just because I play a 4 hour stretch of WvW (due to the commander giving me fights) on Shard A doesn’t mean I’ll play 4 hours if the next link gives me a PPT Mander who I have 0 interest in following on Shard B.

That’s what an average is for.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

so every map has like.. 12/15 spawns?

Will only say that at Minimum…each World owns 1 EBG Map with 3 Spawn Points.

1 spawn point For Home Team & 2 spawn points for Enemy Guests to Enter from.

Don’t discuss this idea in this thread…just see below for details if you’re curious.

It was perfect as it was before:
- There was balance without the merge, we had different Tiers
- In each Tier there were nearly the same populated/skilled servers
- Servers had the chance to rise or drop, resulting in the chance to farm a lower server or struggle against a higher server
- If you wanted GvGs and no constant monoblobs with lag like hell, you could transfer to a middle Tier (ofc you should know where the GvGs are)
- If you wanted blobfights, you could just transfer to a almost filled server in top Tier (like I did since I got no time in the evening to be 100% focussed for GvGs)

Now:
You are either on a filled blobserver who is fighting a medium Tier server linked with 2 other servers, while one of those 3 servers got an imense rate of people transfering to it. Or you are on one of those 3 servers which have constant queues 60+ on each border. Are you from a lower Tier and liked the non exsistant queues and small scaled fights? Well to bad, come back in 2 hours and be sure not to miss your queue. And if youre on a medium sized server, you might just get 2 lower tier servers to steamroll everything.

It wasnt balanced before if you look at the whole thing. But inside the tiers you almost had balance. The linking caused just chaos.

Aury.1367:

Now:
You are either on a filled blobserver who is fighting a medium Tier server linked with 2 other servers, while one of those 3 servers got an imense rate of people transfering to it. Or you are on one of those 3 servers which have constant queues 60+ on each border. Are you from a lower Tier and liked the non exsistant queues and small scaled fights? Well to bad, come back in 2 hours and be sure not to miss your queue. And if youre on a medium sized server, you might just get 2 lower tier servers to steamroll everything.

It wasnt balanced before if you look at the whole thing. But inside the tiers you almost had balance. The linking caused just chaos.

There are two factors in my mind that contributed to the creation of what we have now.

1) The current bunker meta from HoT stats and gear
2) The former “tier culture” you talk about, or rather certain WvW playstyles that existed by tier, was essentially destroyed by certain bandwagonning moments that happened a year or so ago. Players had to adapt to what essentially was originally a T1 massive blob PPT heavy playstyle. They adapted by either fairweathering or leaving a server gutted.

Server links kind of replicate the effect of #2 because it mixes up players who formerly separated themselves by tier for playstyle on purpose, but I would also argue that #2 already started fostering a kind of WvW playstyle that was not distinguishable by tiers.

Another factor that I think plays into it is the declining number of players willing to lead: both for pugmanders and separate guilds. Or it is the increasing number of players unwilling to form small raiding parties on a consistent basis. You can see it whenever someone posts here about how they log into a map, see outnumbered buff and no tag, so they log out.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

Chaba.5410:

Aury.1367:

Now:
You are either on a filled blobserver who is fighting a medium Tier server linked with 2 other servers, while one of those 3 servers got an imense rate of people transfering to it. Or you are on one of those 3 servers which have constant queues 60+ on each border. Are you from a lower Tier and liked the non exsistant queues and small scaled fights? Well to bad, come back in 2 hours and be sure not to miss your queue. And if youre on a medium sized server, you might just get 2 lower tier servers to steamroll everything.

It wasnt balanced before if you look at the whole thing. But inside the tiers you almost had balance. The linking caused just chaos.

There are two factors in my mind that contributed to the creation of what we have now.

1) The current bunker meta from HoT stats and gear
2) The former “tier culture” you talk about, or rather certain WvW playstyles that existed by tier, was essentially destroyed by certain bandwagonning moments that happened a year or so ago. Players had to adapt to what essentially was originally a T1 massive blob PPT heavy playstyle. They adapted by either fairweathering or leaving a server gutted.

Server links kind of replicate the effect of #2 because it mixes up players who formerly separated themselves by tier for playstyle on purpose, but I would also argue that #2 already started fostering a kind of WvW playstyle that was not distinguishable by tiers.

Another factor that I think plays into it is the declining number of players willing to lead: both for pugmanders and separate guilds. Or it is the increasing number of players unwilling to form small raiding parties on a consistent basis. You can see it whenever someone posts here about how they log into a map, see outnumbered buff and no tag, so they log out.

Well, you will always have people joining another Server. sometimes a Server gains people, sometimes looses. Several times a year. It would help to put up the costs for transfers and/or put a times cooldown for transfers.

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.

And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.

So how do Battlegroups fit into Anet’s WvW structure?

Currently we have linking of all players on a server with all players on another server, or two or three, playing on one map. EotM has all servers linked by color. It’s still a server to server link.

So how would a Battlegroup, with players from possibly every NA server or EU server, get to play on the same map? Transfer to a virtual WvW server before the match? Fill up virtual Battlegroup server the week before a “season” starts?

How would you deal with casuals? Link them the second they join WvW? What if a casual wanted to join another Battlegroup that isn’t full. Are they stuck with the implied linking just by entering WvW for the entire season?

Could this fit into Anet’s WvW code easily without messing up PvE or sPvP?

What’s to prevent the Battlegroups of tomorrow from acquiring better players to fill a skill void, similar to what the servers of today do?

I agree the server linking has not “worked as intended” but its also the players that have made this an issue with server hopping. Players have screwed this up. Not developement. It was also an issue long before the super server was launched. So suck it up. “WE DID THIS!”

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

This! Thelgar nailed it.

Kamara.4187:

I agree the server linking has not “worked as intended” but its also the players that have made this an issue with server hopping. Players have screwed this up. Not developement. It was also an issue long before the super server was launched. So suck it up. “WE DID THIS!”

Maybe on NA, on EU anet screwed it up – and they had NA as an example what would happen.
And hey, no one complained about the first 2 linkings – everything was fine from the player’s point of view.

No, the first two linkings weren’t fine…

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.

And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.

No you are ignorant to the maximum level. But, I will let you be that way. You can believe what you want but my examples make it perfectly clear. You choose to be blind as you always are.

If there’s a volatile history, people will automatically brand the proposed changes with the individual, rather than the idea. Continuing to argue it will only cement that branding.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.

And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.

No you are ignorant to the maximum level. But, I will let you be that way. You can believe what you want but my examples make it perfectly clear. You choose to be blind as you always are.

Your examples make it perfectly clear you’re asking Anet to allow you and people like you greater ability to do the same type of damage you’ve been doing to the game mode and communities that you have been. I’m certainly not ignorant of those things, and I’ve been able to see them quite well. I’ve even been able to see to read you bragging about them at the time you did them.

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.

And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.

No you are ignorant to the maximum level. But, I will let you be that way. You can believe what you want but my examples make it perfectly clear. You choose to be blind as you always are.

Your examples make it perfectly clear you’re asking Anet to allow you and people like you greater ability to do the same type of damage you’ve been doing to the game mode and communities that you have been. I’m certainly not ignorant of those things, and I’ve been able to see them quite well. I’ve even been able to see to read you bragging about them at the time you did them.

Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?

Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.

That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.

Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?

Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.

That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.

Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?

This is what I keep trying to explain to him. The idea of battlegroups would hinder what he’s describing. It wouldn’t enable it. If anything is enabling the actions he describes its server-links.

At the end of every reevaluation, there is a literal wave of transfers and gems spent. Arena Net wants to reevaluate the community after 2 month iterations of WvW, but the community wants to reevaluate what server they play for after the reevaluation. Arena Net places systems in place to control the flow of the bandwagon. They lock specific servers and open others. However, doing so is upsetting the community and causing instabilities every time.

In general, the overall GW2 WvW community will do whatever it takes to play where they want. They would even organize to accomplish the goal. So this server-link system is literally creating bid wars in hopes to balance everyone every 2 months. It prays on the instability of servers and not the over abundant and it uses a servers link as a form of temporary coverage and that allows guilds and communities alike to take advantage.

@Thelgar.7214 Those very same things you claim I did that had a negative effect are the very same things you are ignorant of. But at the end of the day, I just did like everyone else. Those very same things that happened are being repeated none stop every 2 months as well.

Yet, those very same things make all this relevant and that’s specifically why I can speak on them. That’s also why I can identify a solution when it’s placed in front of me like the battlegroup leak I describe and it’s why I can identify the effects of server-links and the toll it takes on the community.

I think by now anyone reading what you write can identify your problem, Thelgar. Your problem is with me. It’s something I call blind hatred. You hate me for something you perceive I did for reasons you believe I did. You hate me enough to block out all reason and logic and go on an offensive. You’ve even assaulted someone who just simply agreed and associated him with me when I don’t even know him outside this forum.

Anything I say you degrade. Any idea I give, will be seen as a small part of a larger scheme in your head. Just keep in mind, that the system I describe wasn’t created or associated with me prior to me being leaked it. What I linked came from a Discussion. It’s Arena Nets words and it would hinder what you perceive I did.

Jayne.9251:

If there’s a volatile history, people will automatically brand the proposed changes with the individual, rather than the idea. Continuing to argue it will only cement that branding.

Yeah case made lol.

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

Jayne.9251:

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.

You’d think.

Until:

• each of those groups were manipulated to capacity,
• then internal group drama where someone gets kicked out, or another group wants to join,
• then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because
• we’ve seen, historically, that people want the easy face roll,
• then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups …

And then guess what? Stale matches, predictable week after week matches, personal pride battles that satisfy a small minority of those in control of the dominant groups and leave everyone else out, and we are back to where we are now. Only worse. People just give up because the community they once had no longer exists to keep them tied to the game.

People are not thinking this through.

This model highly favours GvG groups. A demographic assessment needs to be done to determine if these groups are stable enough to sustain the model. Because once you eliminate the casuals, they won’t come back.

Edited for formatting.

Jayne.9251:

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.

You’d think.

Until:

• each of those groups were manipulated to capacity,
• then internal group drama where someone gets kicked out, or another group wants to join,
• then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because
• we’ve seen, historically, that people want the easy face roll,
• then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups …

And then guess what? Stale matches, predictable week after week matches, personal pride battles that satisfy a small minority of those in control of the dominant groups and leave everyone else out, and we are back to where we are now. Only worse. People just give up because the community they once had no longer exists to keep them tied to the game.

People are not thinking this through.

This model highly favours GvG groups. A demographic assessment needs to be done to determine if these groups are stable enough to sustain the model. Because once you eliminate the casuals, they won’t come back.

Edited for formatting.

This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.

Internal Drama happens with Guilds and Servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.

“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.

A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. Server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on servers, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.

“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),

• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "

Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.