Guild Wars 2

SkyShroud.2865:

No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.

If you don’t believe those kinds of discussions happen in a serious manner, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are confusing the setting of server-wide goals with their ability to execute their plans.

morrolan.9608:

Thelgar.7214:

Yes. Your behaviour painted you as the bad guy. You aren’t seeking to solve issues. You’re pushing for changes that would put more control in the hands of the people that caused the issues in the current system such as yourself.

There would be more control in the hands of ALL guilds/players not just him and his alliance, and an alliance system is a way of solving current issues. Anet themselves clearly went quite far along in the design of the system as a solution and quite a few other players have raised a similar system as a solution. I dislike his actions in the past but they are irrelevant in this discussion.

No, they aren’t irrelevant. All guilds/players had the same amount of control before and some players abused it. Putting more control into players hands will increase the amount of damage those players and guilds prone to abuse it will cause. The examples of those actions, and some players propensity to commit them is directly relevant to a discussion of giving players more control. And a link between those players with a propensity to commit such actions favoring a system that would allow them more ability to do so is also relevant.

An alliance system isnt a way of solving the current issues. It is all of the worst of the issues made central to the game mode.

There are people that support exclusionary systems, systems they can abuse for advantage and systems that make themselves more important. There are people that oppose the polling system, which is an inclusive system and allows a wide range of players to have input and want only their opinions heard. And there are people who just support bad ideas. So some people supporting the system or it having been considered by ANet with the beta group feedback doesn’t make it any better of an idea.

Just limit transfers to once per 3 month and make them more expensive to balance things out. And finally rework the outnumbered buff to be useful

…or get rid of the server rankings: At the moment there is no point in obtaining these rankings at all, as A-Net determines the ranks in advance by setting up so ridiculous linkings.

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.

If you don’t believe those kinds of discussions happen in a serious manner, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are confusing the setting of server-wide goals with their ability to execute their plans.

You believe that people have that ability to control pugs and guilds to the extend to tank. Not only that, to tank for entire month.

Thelgar.7214:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

Anet needs to consider for NA to provide a server link to T1 servers again. The reason I say this is due to the fact that when players know ahead of time that servers ranked 1-3 do not get server links, those players attempt to game the system by tanking to rank 4 so that they get a link and then do well in T1. There’s already been a pattern established by players watching how both YB and then DB lost their server links in T1 and dropped down to T4. And tanking for a link is talked about in the darker corners of the internet.

No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.

What anet need to do is not to provide any links to servers that has “Very High” and above populations. Of course, some “Very High” server might just cross that “High” benchmark and not really that “Very High” server. What I am saying is, arrange the server such that all the links are comparable to a “Very High” server. This effectively make players think twice on moving to “Guest” server and upset the balancing. Using tiers as benchmark is silly to begin with.

It’s funny, but that bolded section is the kind of stuff that was said in response to descriptions of the shady practices committed by server leadership, war councils and guild leaders listed in this thread (and elsewhere) at the time they were committed. It was all true.

As Chaba said, tanking has been talked about in the “darker corners of the Internet.” A description which I find both apt and sad.

I’m not sure I understand your idea on the “Very High” server thing. Could you explain it a bit more?

It is the population status of the server. Currently, anet does not link T1 because T1 supposedly is the top 3 biggest servers. However, some people are taking advantage of the guest server to transfer to the biggest server possible and thus upsetting possible balancing. Furthermore, anet admit they link it not to balance multiple servers but to balance tier itself. If that is the case, anet should reconsider the way the7 do the linking, for example stop linking any servers that belong to the “Very High” status or balance by tier, but to link all other servers in a way they are comparable in numbers against “Very High” servers.

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.

If you don’t believe those kinds of discussions happen in a serious manner, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are confusing the setting of server-wide goals with their ability to execute their plans.

You believe that people have that ability to control pugs and guilds to the extend to tank. Not only that, to tank for entire month.

Easier than you think.

Popular commander doesn’t log in. Pugs log off.

While as a pug myself, I don’t need a commander to play wvw — a lot do. Or won’t play unless they see the blue tag.

Jayne.9251:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.

If you don’t believe those kinds of discussions happen in a serious manner, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are confusing the setting of server-wide goals with their ability to execute their plans.

You believe that people have that ability to control pugs and guilds to the extend to tank. Not only that, to tank for entire month.

Easier than you think.

Popular commander doesn’t log in. Pugs log off.

While as a pug myself, I don’t need a commander to play wvw — a lot do. Or won’t play unless they see the blue tag.

On a highly populated server, there will be plenty of commanders, popular or not, good or bad, whatever. Even the good ones don’t tag, the pugs themselves will tag even if it wiped numerous times. And what about guilds? Will all guilds really agree to the tanking? It isn’t just about NA, is about NA + EU + OCX + SEA. Different timezones, different groups of pugs, different guilds, a range of pugmanders. You really think that server is capable of the so-called tanking? Well, it is possible if your server is small but big ones, nah. Even if you get one or two timezones to do it, other timezones will be upset and then a possible implosion.

I think people often use the word tanking to describe a natural phenomena of servers’ up and down, not to describe a planned action by the majority.

Unless you can name me one server that actually managed to tank down couple of tiers during pre-link days. Then I believe tanking exist. Why not server links? Because some servers links do have population capable of rivaling top 3 biggest solo server.

SkyShroud.2865:

Unless you can name me one server that actually managed to tank down couple of tiers during pre-link days. Then I believe tanking exist. Why not server links? Because some servers links do have population capable of rivaling top 3 biggest solo server.

Look at the server history for the 5 weeks leading up to linking…one server stands out as dropping from 16th to 21st with hardly any PPT during that time and losing to servers they handily beat prior to that, and then boom…linked with T2 server that then moved into T1.

Cough.

Thelgar.7214:

An alliance system isnt a way of solving the current issues. It is all of the worst of the issues made central to the game mode.

It is dynamic and flexible, as opposed to the current system which is stagnant and inflexible. Measures to prop it up like making changes in relation to transfers won’t fix it, they just delay the inevitable.

Sylvyn.4750:

SkyShroud.2865:

Unless you can name me one server that actually managed to tank down couple of tiers during pre-link days. Then I believe tanking exist. Why not server links? Because some servers links do have population capable of rivaling top 3 biggest solo server.

Look at the server history for the 5 weeks leading up to linking…one server stands out as dropping from 16th to 21st with hardly any PPT during that time and losing to servers they handily beat prior to that, and then boom…linked with T2 server that then moved into T1.

Keywords, “linked” with server and furthermore, T5 server? LoL? Really? If you have no good answer, then don’t answer.

I guess it IS possible that some are kept out of the loop. You’re better off really. Some of it is brain numbing.

I think we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the possibility of tanking. If say I were to be a leader of a guild of 50 dedicated wvw players and we’re part of an alliance who agreed not to play for a period of time. That would definitely have an impact on population metrics. I think the population is measured on activity, right or no?

Sylvyn.4750:

It’s not perfect, but seems to be working better than what we had right before the linkings. My one gripe is that being on a “guest” server, we no longer have an identity. Our actual server name is not used in WvW in any meaningful way. It is harder to recruit people or be recruited in a guild because not everyone on the map is on your server and if you join a cross-server guild, that may work against you when the next linking occurs within 2 months and that guild’s main server is now either your enemy or in a completely different tier. Voice communication is also harder to coordinate with multiple servers that switch every 2 months. I really think server merges are the next logical step, because at this point, I already don’t feel like I’m on my own server anyway. At least a merge would give guest servers a more permanent identity to what we have now, and allow us to build a sense of community instead of feeling like gypsies. I also hate knowing that I’m fighting against the wonderful people I was linked with previously…it doesn’t feel right.

Your last sentence. I totally agree.

We aren’t independent servers any longer.

The linking isn’t working to “lower population” or “lower queues” except after the most played times – which for most is 4pm PST to early in the morning. Even then we can get queues at 4am!

Roxanne.6140:

I think we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the possibility of tanking. If say I were to be a leader of a guild of 50 dedicated wvw players and we’re part of an alliance who agreed not to play for a period of time. That would definitely have an impact on population metrics. I think the population is measured on activity, right or no?

Tanking? You mean quitting for a specified period of time.

Sorry, but I don’t know any real WvW’er on any server who would Stand Down no matter what they were “told”.

Heimlich.3065:

The Battlegroup plan could be interesting, but it’s in an awkward spot vs. existing WvW.

It’s different enough that it should be a separate or new mode. Most notably it’s a huge change for roamers/casual players/occasional participants to have to enroll into a battlegroup before playing.

It’s similar enough for the hardcore and big guild players that it would compete for attention and time with current WvW.

I suppose I don’t have a lot of faith in ANet’s ability to deliver on a concept like that given the attention and resources they’ve been willing to focus on WvW so far.

Battlegroup? That’s like going backwards both in time and effort.

Roamers would be gone.

WvW would be a non-played game mode for even more people than it is now.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.

The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.

Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.

Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.

Monthly?

You said monthly ???

We can’t even get to know the linked servers in a single month!

That’s ridiculous to say the least!

atheria.2837:

Roxanne.6140:

I think we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the possibility of tanking. If say I were to be a leader of a guild of 50 dedicated wvw players and we’re part of an alliance who agreed not to play for a period of time. That would definitely have an impact on population metrics. I think the population is measured on activity, right or no?

Tanking? You mean quitting for a specified period of time.

Sorry, but I don’t know any real WvW’er on any server who would Stand Down no matter what they were “told”.

It’s totally possible. I’ve already witnessed a commander & small group being able to survive in Stone Mist for over 30 minutes without being wiped while our Host Server was “Outmanned” in EB. They were allowed to live & farm bags with the other enemy forces because they were deemed “friends”.

It’s called a “verbal” based alliance between players.

Don’t be surprised…you can see it happening when players are dueling & it’s agreed that players don’t attack each other…except those dueling.

Tanking is just a longer period of time & definitely on a larger scale than you’d want to imagine.

When WvW Rank is meaningless…it’s no sweat off a player’s back to let their friend’s server to win & move up in Rank.

They can get away with it because Tiers mechanically locks 3 “teams” in a room to fight & nobody else is able enter the room to offset the in-balance until ANet re-forms teams to react.

However, by the time ANet reacts…it’s already (2 months) too late.

atheria.2837:

Tanking? You mean quitting for a specified period of time.

Sorry, but I don’t know any real WvW’er on any server who would Stand Down no matter what they were “told”.

I do on several servers.

atheria.2837:

We can’t even get to know the linked servers in a single month!

That’s ridiculous to say the least!

Well if you’ve followed the debate about server linkages its clear that there’s an issue with players bandwagoning to linked servers for little cost, making it monthly would help that. Also servers change over the course of 2 months and there’s no opportunity to change linkages if a change drastically warrants it.

The whole linking system is a desaster for every non linked server.

Just look at the EU and tell me it’s not…

Btw. move BB to NA, they have 0 daytime coverage but have 100 – 200 players at night who just cap everything. Great, juuuuuust great.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

My approach to WvW wasn’t the context of any of my post. My post are a reflection of things I experienced playing this game for its full duration as a leader.

Now you say the BG War Council doesn’t do the things I’m getting at but then you say in the same post that BG looks to fill its coverage gaps they think they have.

1. BG During Season 1 made deals to recruit mercenaries to BG for the sake of winning Season 1. Doing this time, the only say I had was as a guild leader.

2. During Season 1, Riven of KnT was appointed server leader of the BGWC and his first actions was to make a deal with Jericho of AGG to not hit BG. He then proceeds to announce in global Commander comms to not hit AGG at all because they are working for us.

3. BG War Council had several auctions to auction off legendaries and collect funding. At one point in time BG community donated over 11 thousand gold. BG also bought Ra and while the deal was sealed by me, it was backed by the entire war council. After all 11 thousand gold didn’t come out of my pocket nor do I speak Chinese thus, BGWC hand to handle the deal.

4. BG War Council is directly responsible for sending TW to JQ in efforts of stabilizing JQ with alt accounts. Yes, indeed that was also a Black Gate War Council meeting in which BGs War Council was scared for it’s own community because of a lack of fights. Thus, TW opted to save the day and the BGWC agreed.

5. Everyone knows BG is steadily trying to recruit JQ’s off hours guilds and if BG did open up, BG would aim to grab the last remanding JQ SEA guilds although they need zero coverage.

You see coverage isn’t a matter of everyone having equal time zone coverage in a tier. Balanced coverage works like a jig saw puzzle and just because you don’t have a lot of EU doesn’t mean you are in need of more numbers when your other timezones have 95% of the game out numbered.

6. BG attempted to 2v1 TC out of the tier for FA. BG attempted to 2v1 Yaks Bend out of the tier for TC.

Now, I will say again. I think everything that BG has done was in the light keeping their own community healthy. However, the effects of what they’ve done has had negative effects on others. But this is just the game we play in called WvW and this is generally what happens when any community organizes to achieve a goal.

The only issue is there are no restraints or restrictions and no structure to monitor and if there had be a structure to monitor, the events of the past wouldn’t have dealt so much damage to the surrounding servers.

Lastly my name comes from a comic book and is used to draw attention in this game. It’s easy to remember and gives me a platform that you are clearly showing right now.

As a member of BGWC and BG in general Ill vouch for most if not all of what Mal states here
1. BG actively recruited to fill out EU gap and the massive gap during OCX for season 1 after JQ bought MERC from us. We didnt get the OCX coverage but EU was covered by ZD (?) Russian guild.

2. Im not aware of this but possibly true, whether its outside standard map politics is unsure. Similar things occur to this day in WvW but this would only be 1 time zone and usually only 1 guild involved with the opposing guild just staying out of the way. Agreeing not to hit a target can be just to get a better fight as a result.

3 True. Ra brought in becuase BG facing 1x 35-40 man JQ blob and a few smaller 10-15 guild groups during this time zone. After Ra came in we had some great fights for a long time during this time zone with equal numbers. Then YB came up and OCX -EU were dead time zones for fights

4 Hmm questionable on that one. The whole TW affair caused both Mal and a lot of BG community grief over the kitten storm that went down as result.

5 As a regular OCX/SEA player Im not aware of any of this. Can’t verify because Im not in the loop on this one but yes BG are currently struggling during OCX and SEA. Lack of guild forces and too many fair weather militia doing stuff all are doing us harm. BG militia can be the best in GW2 but I think the standard of wvwers has dropped over the years

6. Neither TC or YB were providing entertainment for either opposing server. Both servers were guilty of running 30-40 man groups that would run as soon as you moved maps or if you went for their stuff would built 30 AC’s. This wasn’t a numbers issue as much as a militia/ppt/not getting in TS mindset (same as BG’s issue in point 5).

Remember before season 1 when every time BG popped its head into Tier 1 we’d get smacked down 2v1 by JQ and SoR (SoS?) for months relentlessly. TC and YB are a bit like that at the moment and just like BG did they’ll get crapped on if they dont bring a good fight.

Roxanne.6140:

I think we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the possibility of tanking. If say I were to be a leader of a guild of 50 dedicated wvw players and we’re part of an alliance who agreed not to play for a period of time. That would definitely have an impact on population metrics. I think the population is measured on activity, right or no?

Everyone here posts mostly based on their personal experiences. It is possible those experiences do not include exposure to exactly how well organized some guilds and servers can be so I’m not surprised at the disbelief. Pugs tagging up because no one else is doesn’t mean they’ll be as effective as an organized group. Terms like “push week” and “hibergate” didn’t come out of thin air.

My suggestion was to keep players guessing at whether a server will receive a link not because of whether one believes tanking exists or not, but to remove an avenue by which organized groups will try to affect outcomes.

Chaba.5410:

My suggestion was to keep players guessing at whether a server will receive a link not because of whether one believes tanking exists or not, but to remove an avenue by which organized groups will try to affect outcomes.

Tanking does exist based on my personal observation.

Organized & Non-Organized for different reasons.

Non-Organized = Players tend to quit when Outmanned or No Commander

There’s no game mechanic that I’m aware of that can prevent or remove a “verbal” based alliance between players.

This game mode should actually incorporate & encourage this simple ability of players to make “verbal” based alliances in a positive way instead of fighting it.

The way it’s being used is negative because Tiers enforce a limit on players being able to fully cooperate across all borders. We’re not allowed to attack other servers outside our Tier.

ANet’s Adjustments to linked pairs will always be too slow (2 months) to react & counter Organized “Tanking”…imho

ANET thanks for listening to me in the past, I know you can’t admit it.

T1 and T2 Servers NA should have no server links. They don’t need them. And it just causes Problems.

All server links should be T3 and T4 Only. TY for listening to me.

Warlord.9074:

ANET thanks for listening to me in the past, I know you can’t admit it.

T1 and T2 Servers NA should have no server links. They don’t need them. And it just causes Problems.

All server links should be T3 and T4 Only. TY for listening to me.

And what do you do when a T3 server rolls up to T2 in the first 2 weeks of a new linking period?

I already brought this up several times. Basically unlink tiers 1 and 2, and leave server linking to help the populations of lower tier servers in tiers 3 and 4, and possibly re-establish a fifth tier for NA. This would need to go alongside a shortened re-linking evaluation schedule to allow better and faster adjustments to matchups. Tiers 3 and 4 would be 3v3v3 and if a 5th tier was re-established then tiers 3/4/5 would be 2v2v2.
The uncertainty and population shifts towards higher tiers every re-linking just creates a lot of instability and a type of roller coaster effect which basically punishes a server for winning because eventually it will lose its link, a lot of players, coverage etc and will eventually begin a decline.

Merged from other thread*

Ah, I can see your idea of tanking now, I would call those fairweathers instead of tanking. Fairweathers to me fall under natural phenomena

Relinking is here again! Let’s not play again, like what TC does. kittening stupid.

Yeah… because TC is the only server who ever has people who like to take a break…. right.

And they coincidentally always break right before linking, right.

TC is not full, and does not need to break. Breaking before linking was only something we learned from other t1 servers. But it takes far longer than 1 week to do anything. Again we are not full, so there is no point.

Well, there actually is the benefit of not having to recruit guilds or have any gold costs when you get a server link.
Free players to bolster your population with absolutely no work, who wouldn’t take that?

Im on JQ btw, hopefully any of the 4 servers above us dont get linked if we dont get one again

Tanking? You mean quitting for a specified period of time. You mean leaving a server bare for those who play, even in Tier 1 to try to play WvW at all? Tanking is horridly wrong.

Sorry, but I don’t know any real WvW’er on any server who would Stand Down no matter what they were “told”.[/quote]

I do on several servers.

You are one of the many who play “traitor” against your main server.

Ok, so Anet is being a bit silly about those who go to one server then go back to the other one and report (and BOY do they report!) the movements seen AND the TS that they are registered in.

If people are allowed to cheat in such a way, the manipulation of WvW is far more a danger than “linking” ever will be.

Good players aren’t traitors to one server or another.

Loyal players are seemingly a shrinking population on many WvW servers.

If you play on servers that are fighting one another, you are a manipulator.

That, my friend, is wrong in more ways than I’d ever be able to list.

Manipulation of WvW has been and is still being ignored – never spoken about, just ignored.

Jayne.9251:

SkyShroud.2865:

Chaba.5410:

SkyShroud.2865:

No, that’s what you believe, the tanking.

If you don’t believe those kinds of discussions happen in a serious manner, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are confusing the setting of server-wide goals with their ability to execute their plans.

You believe that people have that ability to control pugs and guilds to the extend to tank. Not only that, to tank for entire month.

Easier than you think.

Popular commander doesn’t log in. Pugs log off.

While as a pug myself, I don’t need a commander to play wvw — a lot do. Or won’t play unless they see the blue tag.

also doesn’t need to be a month – 1 or 2 weeks at most for 3rd/4th.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.

The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.

Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.

Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.

Monthly linking would be utterly ridiculous!!

In my opinion you should still merge rather than link too but that will clearly never happen

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server → [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction → [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

The guilds on servers that game the current system will be the same guilds that game the battlegroup system.

Step 1: Have everyone in your guild create an alt-account, maybe more. (assume that this hasn’t already happened)

Step 2: Have each alt-guild join a different battlegroup.

Step 3: Wait for Anet to create matchup, then play for battlegroup where you play with other battlegroups you like.

Step 4: Voids in opposing battlegroups, (by you not playing on your alts) will be filled by pugs.

Step 5: Win and profit.

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

I was thinking along the lines of:
each faction doesn’t need to have the same number of battle groups.
Potentially ( though I cringe give anets pvp matchmaking) using glicko (per battle group) and using that to match make.
Population & hours spent in wvw, maybe KDR/warscore earned could be good measurements to use also.

A battle group ladder could be created ( pretty much glicko rankings, or whatever measure anet uses). Just for bragging rights.

The factions could be recalculated weekly ( especially if automated).
This renders bandwagoning borderline stupid to do.
It also makes buying mercenaries/guilds somewhat silly, since you’d just inflate your population/hours spent/ warscore earned and get potentially fewer allied battle groups for it.

Flexibility on number of factions makes it flexible as the population changes ( it inevitably will).
The concept of “tiers” is no longer applicable, so in theory everyone can get a fun/competitive match each week.

Swamurabi.7890:

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

The guilds on servers that game the current system will be the same guilds that game the battlegroup system.

Step 1: Have everyone in your guild create an alt-account, maybe more. (assume that this hasn’t already happened)

Step 2: Have each alt-guild join a different battlegroup.

Step 3: Wait for Anet to create matchup, then play for battlegroup where you play with other battlegroups you like.

Step 4: Voids in opposing battlegroups, (by you not playing on your alts) will be filled by pugs.

Step 5: Win and profit.

I can only name 3 guilds that have made Alt account guilds in this fashion. 1 of them was a roaming/ dueling guild and I’m the guild leader of another. The question I have, is do you see this becoming the norm and why would it? If the Tiers are rotating, you’d therefore give everyone a chance to fight a dead server. Furthermore, the amount of effort it takes to organize and gear an entire alt guild is quite the effort.

In fact, gaming the system now with alt accounts would be easier because I could do this with a linked guest. It would be like having double the flexibility and no draw back to transferring around. To think about it, it’s why I’m seeing more alt accounts as of late.

As I said. I say this with great experience in making an alt account guild designed to effect WvW PPT. The only reason those types of guilds are beneficial are because the game’s tiers are stale. That means the same match-ups happen all the time. We are so beyond that point and still would be with battlegroups.

Swamurabi.7890:

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

The guilds on servers that game the current system will be the same guilds that game the battlegroup system.

Step 1: Have everyone in your guild create an alt-account, maybe more. (assume that this hasn’t already happened)

Step 2: Have each alt-guild join a different battlegroup.

Step 3: Wait for Anet to create matchup, then play for battlegroup where you play with other battlegroups you like.

Step 4: Voids in opposing battlegroups, (by you not playing on your alts) will be filled by pugs.

Step 5: Win and profit.

The same can be done now.

What happens if your “alt account battle group” is teamed up with your “main account battle group”?

Sure, one could game the system, just like they can game the current system in the exact same way..
Only they would need a lot more accounts to do it ( GL convincing an entire guild to buy several alt accounts, and the future xpac’s and grind asc gear, and elite specs…)

Seems like a minority would go to that extent, especially if it required lots of accounts.
battle group switching ( which would cost gems most likely) would be more common…
Which shouldn’t be needed to get a fun matchup anyway.

Yeah for that matter if you tried to make an alt battlegroup, your main battlegroup could get paired with your alt lol. There wouldn’t be a benefit to doing this nearly at all.

Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).

Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).

Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..

This sounds like pvp and not wvw.

Even your scratched out post hints at that.

Swamurabi.7890:

The guilds on servers that game the current system will be the same guilds that game the battlegroup system.

Step 1: Have everyone in your guild create an alt-account, maybe more. (assume that this hasn’t already happened)

Step 2: Have each alt-guild join a different battlegroup.

Step 3: Wait for Anet to create matchup, then play for battlegroup where you play with other battlegroups you like.

Step 4: Voids in opposing battlegroups, (by you not playing on your alts) will be filled by pugs.

Step 5: Win and profit.

Spot on.

At least we have official word from a dev in this very thread that alliances are not going to happen.

morrolan.9608:

Warlord.9074:

ANET thanks for listening to me in the past, I know you can’t admit it.

T1 and T2 Servers NA should have no server links. They don’t need them. And it just causes Problems.

All server links should be T3 and T4 Only. TY for listening to me.

And what do you do when a T3 server rolls up to T2 in the first 2 weeks of a new linking period?

I believe he referring to servers that are “Very High” status since there are players and even guilds transferring to those guest servers due to the low cost. The easy way to prevent that is to simply not link those servers or link the lowest “Very High” server with the lowest “Medium” server (base on situations aka actual raw data and accounting for allowance for possible bandwagoning).

Then, if the linked servers managed to go up, wouldn’t that be variety in the making thus make tier meaningless, bring more chaos to WvW and begone the days of stale matchup.

Of course, if people are so bothered about tiers aka “rank” (or server ego), then please do not ever complain about stale match up because it is contradicting in natural.

Jayne.9251:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).

Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..

This sounds like pvp and not wvw.

Even your scratched out post hints at that.

And the problem with poaching ideas from pvp, for a format people want more pvp oriented is..?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Jayne.9251:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).

Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..

This sounds like pvp and not wvw.

Even your scratched out post hints at that.

And the problem with poaching ideas from pvp, for a format people want more pvp oriented is..?

It’s not even remotely the same game.

If spvp was so optimal, you’d think they’d get more than 50 players for its big competition.

There’s a reason people play and are attached to wvw more than spvp.