Guild Wars 2

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.

Are you still referring to battle groups?

if so.. I think you missed the part about them working similar to servers, rather than guilds.

A battle group being “full” is no different to a server being full.

Kicking people out is moot. Players would not have that authority – just like they don’t with servers.

Essentially the concept evolved to “battle group = smaller server”.
And matches would be made of 3 factions. Each faction being 1-x battle groups.

The principle being a larger quantity of smaller chunks makes it easier to create more equally sized “whole objects” – or factions in this case.

Also because we would essentially have empty battle groups to join, it facilitates destacking from hugely stacked servers. – much lower, and rigid account cap – Perhaps with some kind of inactivity purge from battle groups ( performed systematically and impartially by anet) would be needed. – Also noting, you wouldn’t need to be in a battle group – unless actually going into wvw. At which point you’d have to pick a battle group before entering the maps.

The number of factions ( in multiples of 3) could scale to suit the current population – aiming to be near/just over map queues).
additionally battle groups could be reassigned as frequently as anet wants.

Something to note:
The phrases “battle group” and “faction” replacing “server” & “linked servers”(or not linked servers, it doesn’t really matter) respectively is simply to make it easier to communicate the proposed changes. You could call them “banana splits”, and “dessert tables” if you wanted.

One good idea would be remove WvW and so everybody could play EotM. Kind of pointless try to keep dead game mode alive.

Junkpile.7439:

One good idea would be remove WvW and so everybody could play EotM. Kind of pointless try to keep dead game mode alive.

How do players get assigned a Color in EotM now?

How would players get assigned a Color if the current system goes away?

Do players pick it themselves?

If you say MegaServer…

What are the specific details behind the mechanics that will allow it to work.

Then, I’d like to ask…Could these mechanics be abused by players to manipulate things again that will bring us back to all the same problems that we’re stuck with now?

Or, you might be saying that WvW should changed from a Competitive Game Mode into a “Disneyland Themed Ride” where scoring only matters for that brief moment you’re riding it.

After you get off the ride…the Score Resets to Zero for all Colors & a new batch of riders get on to experience the ride…let’s say for an hour.

Then using the MegaServer makes sense…we get a constant & consistent amount of “New” Match-Ups & Score is Reset to Zero on the hour for new players that gets on the ride.

WvW is made into a “PvP Themed Ride” & is no longer a Competitive Game Mode where you can host an Annual Tournament…like in professional sports…and ANet will miss out on an opportunity to generate revenue streams similar in scope.

Merge the servers and be done with it.
I’ll never feel connected in anyway to players from other servers.

Atm the server I play on is dead,the server we are linked with is even even more dead,
and as a result the only way to do some WvW is to roam on my Thief.
Any short of group play with such imbalances on the population is impossible,and server linking does jack kitten about it.

As long as the focus is to monetise WvW via server transfers,which requires population imbalances between the servers in order to instigate the transfers,WvW will be declining more and more,until even the bandwagon servers of the month will become empty too.

Other measures have to be taken in order to make the weekly campaign something more than grinding points,and winning a match up should not be as pointless as it currently is,but balancing the population between the servers should be a top priority.

It should be fairly obvious at this point that, as painful as it may be, wvw needs to go the way of the mega server. “Stack numbers and face roll the competition” has to stop.

Unless they relink crazy fast, say every other week and impose a heavy transfer cooldown of 3-4 months, linking will never keep up with player movement and we will forever be caught in the mess we are now.

Jesus, this thread is still talking about alliances, or whatever.

Simple solution: limit the amount of transfers you can do in a year, like 2 or 4.

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.

Riiiiight. We’re hibernating. That’s why BG is closed.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

A battle group being “full” is no different to a server being full.

Excellent point. Then why create battlegroups at all if there’s no difference?

Doing so will only kitten off a lot of people.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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 server, 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.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

@ Malevolent,

re: Comunities

Just because this is how YOU approach WvW doesn’t mean others do. This is more of a reflection of how YOU want to play the game and view it.

What’s wrong with trying to fill time zones that have low activity? For example, BG has 1 EU guild. It would be great to get another. Nothing wrong with that. The BG war council doesn’t do the nefarious things you are getting at. They are volunteer people that often change and exist mostly to maintain the administration of the website, TS, and provide a means and coordination for the various guilds to get together and communicate to each other on a semi-regular basis.

The people that “waged war” by trying to activily poach guilds and pay for a large amount of a guild’s transfer cost was you.

But that’s a moot point since BG has been closed for months. Yes, we are trying to get another EU guild on BG so that it can eleviate some of the stress of the other EU commander/guild. Try to remember these are real people who play this game to have fun. It’s easy to get caught up in the copetition and it can get stressful when it seems like a whole timezone is on your shoulders.

Our community is back into a good place with nice, supportive people. While I personally don’t believe in doing it, and have never contributed 1G to transfers, there are others that are happy to help and it usually ends up contributing to 10% – 20% of a guilds transfer costs. I don’t think there’s anyone on BG who wants to pay for an entire guilds, or the majority of their costs. But, again, this is moot since BG is closed.

Just because you view peoples actions as nefarious, doesn’t mean they are. It is more likely because many of your own actions are nefarious. It’s not a mistake that your name is what it is.

Spurnshadow.3678:

@ Malevolent,

re: Comunities

Just because this is how YOU approach WvW doesn’t mean others do. This is more of a reflection of how YOU want to play the game and view it.

What’s wrong with trying to fill time zones that have low activity? For example, BG has 1 EU guild. It would be great to get another. Nothing wrong with that. The BG war council doesn’t do the nefarious things you are getting at. They are volunteer people that often change and exist mostly to maintain the administration of the website, TS, and provide a means and coordination for the various guilds to get together and communicate to each other on a semi-regular basis.

The people that “waged war” by trying to activily poach guilds and pay for a large amount of a guild’s transfer cost was you….

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.

There is nothing wrong with BG trying to fill its coverage gaps just like there is nothing wrong with me looking to do the same. However, doing this based off BG’s current standings is damaging to the game considering BG’s status as a server. There is a reason BG is locked and not paired. There is a reason BG can win the majority of it’s match up as well.

Now you’ve used this word “nefarious” multiple times, but not once have I described the actions of any server community as negative or nefarious. In fact, I’ve been defending against such talk.

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.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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 server, 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.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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 server, 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.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.

However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.

I want IoJ back. You guys can argue about “more bodies” all you like, I want my skillfull “yay a stinky thief (me) in our zerg, firefields, please” constant 25 stacks of might server back.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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 server, 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.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.

However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.

When you want to make your points, its better to stay on point rather than target someone and talk down to them. Here you could have easily explained why you think I’m not thinking this through based off what I posted in response. Be less condescending and more productive.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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 server, 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.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.

However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.

When you want to make your points, its better to stay on point rather than target someone and talk down to them. Here you could have easily explained why you think I’m not thinking this through based off what I posted in response. Be less condescending and more productive.

There’s only so many times you can repeat yourself.

The problem here is you believe you’ve presented an unassailable pov. When I counter with real issues, you don’t address them, just redivert into ideologies that you adhere to, or dismiss them as unimportant. When I say “but what about” .. you do a Hellion wall of text.

What I think is going on is perhaps just a basic inability for each of us to understand each other, and that happens.

And I’m incredibly productive. You should see me at work

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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 server, 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.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.

However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.

When you want to make your points, its better to stay on point rather than target someone and talk down to them. Here you could have easily explained why you think I’m not thinking this through based off what I posted in response. Be less condescending and more productive.

There’s only so many times you can repeat yourself.

The problem here is you believe you’ve presented an unassailable pov. When I counter with real issues, you don’t address them, just redivert into ideologies that you adhere to, or dismiss them as unimportant. When I say “but what about” .. you do a Hellion wall of text.

What I think is going on is perhaps just a basic inability for each of us to understand each other, and that happens.

And I’m incredibly productive. You should see me at work

I’ve answered every single “what about…” But you respond with your not thinking this through. But my hellion walls of text clearly show i’ve been thinking this through. So tell me what I’ve missed.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Jesus, this thread is still talking about alliances, or whatever.

Simple solution: limit the amount of transfers you can do in a year, like 2 or 4.

+1 to this – This will limit the volatility of servers and force guilds to really think about the community / server they will transfer to.

Also, no to Battlegroups. ANet has enough on its plate already. Can’t expect them to actively monitor WvW population.

ukyo.5639:

Spurnshadow.3678:

Jesus, this thread is still talking about alliances, or whatever.

Simple solution: limit the amount of transfers you can do in a year, like 2 or 4.

+1 to this – This will limit the volatility of servers and force guilds to really think about the community / server they will transfer to.

Also, no to Battlegroups. ANet has enough on its plate already. Can’t expect them to actively monitor WvW population.

Are they not already monitoring WvW population enough to make adjustments even.

Jayne.9251:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

A battle group being “full” is no different to a server being full.

Excellent point. Then why create battlegroups at all if there’s no difference?

Doing so will only kitten off a lot of people.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Server-Linking-Discussion/page/9#post6360338

There are many interesting theories of how to re-structure WvW in this thread. But I’m not convinced that the game client can support the type of numbers we would see based on limiting our options of play. Total theory here, if the Battlegroup type of concept goes into effect, more players will be on the maps. Right? I mean that certainly would be part of the goal. Right now when we have a “full map blob” three way fight, the game client lags so badly people can’t play. Games are always limited by the mechanics. Its incredibly difficult for a company to predict what their community and playerbase needs will be four years in. So they do attempt to fix what exists now or spend more resources incorporating our suggestions into a new expansion?

Even if there is a system designed to balance out the groups fighting, there is zero guarantee that players will show up each day, everyday, week in and week out. For many people the incentive is good competitive fights. Though I imagine the opinion on what that really means changes. Finding a system where one group can roam, one can blob, one can karma train, another has coverage, supporting big guilds and small guilds? It just sounds like we would be better served by having open world pvp where the players can create the content they want to see. Without being tethered to a matchup. I like WvW in this game for what it is but it certainly leads to burnout. And I still think that despite all of the creative solutions we are going to run into a huge barrier with the coding itself. We already complain daily about the lag as it is.

Fatherbliss.4701:

There are many interesting theories of how to re-structure WvW in this thread. But I’m not convinced that the game client can support the type of numbers we would see based on limiting our options of play. Total theory here, if the Battlegroup type of concept goes into effect, more players will be on the maps. Right? I mean that certainly would be part of the goal. Right now when we have a “full map blob” three way fight, the game client lags so badly people can’t play. Games are always limited by the mechanics. Its incredibly difficult for a company to predict what their community and playerbase needs will be four years in. So they do attempt to fix what exists now or spend more resources incorporating our suggestions into a new expansion?

Even if there is a system designed to balance out the groups fighting, there is zero guarantee that players will show up each day, everyday, week in and week out. For many people the incentive is good competitive fights. Though I imagine the opinion on what that really means changes. Finding a system where one group can roam, one can blob, one can karma train, another has coverage, supporting big guilds and small guilds? It just sounds like we would be better served by having open world pvp where the players can create the content they want to see. Without being tethered to a matchup. I like WvW in this game for what it is but it certainly leads to burnout. And I still think that despite all of the creative solutions we are going to run into a huge barrier with the coding itself. We already complain daily about the lag as it is.

What I would assume is that the map caps would remain the same, and WvW in general would be more active across more tiers simply because its matchmaking. However, as someone pointed out this leads to a lot of questions about the match making process and the entire ordeal about Battlegroups rest on Arena Net matchmaking abilities.

“So they do attempt to fix what exists now or spend more resources incorporating our suggestions into a new expansion? "

This is my opinion. When we first started the live beta and when Arena Net axed battlegroups initially I didn’t say anything. I didn’t say anything because of what Arena Net said. They said that Battlegroups would take 6 months of production and that Server-links is something fast that can produce results quicker. When you look at this, you can see that Server-links have been in play for 6 months or more yet the system is highly disliked and doesn’t provide any new but further creates issues. So in my opinion, the resources ArenaNet had was largely based off a poll in which the community voted in favor of links. Yet the community doesn’t like them. So in fact taking the short route can prove to be more damaging to the overall community.

Open world PvP is great, but that’s not what WvW is. I would agree that a typical MMO RvR model would do ArenaNet some good but thats simply not the game we are playing.

In terms of coding. I’m a programmer myself and I don’t see how the programming can cause issues. I want to point out that, I believe Arena Net knows what their capable of more than the community itself. Battlegroups was an ArenaNet design and not the communities, thus I believe they think they can do this if they had the time to do it.

ArenaNet thinks ahead of all of us and this is why they are working on an expansion already. Because they are working on this expansion, I feel its shortened everything else they have to work on and they are too quick to find easy fast solutions that are more than likely a bandaid or something thats simply not going to work.

I don’t like that Arena Net is working on an expansion and they could possibly add something like Battlegroups for it. I don’t like that thought because we’ve just purchased an expansion that did nothing but hurt WvW and added very little. Now we are about to add ontop of that and its going to cost us more money when the last expansion failed WvW hardcore to the point where people are screaming for legacy fights and to have maps reverted.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Are they not already monitoring WvW population enough to make adjustments even.

Keyword “active” – It sounds like ANet are just looking at number of players and the hours played and then matching those servers up with links to fill in for those servers that come in short. Looks great on paper for when links are done and then poof, in one week, all of the balance goes out of the window when the majority of players move to the server that they think will be the next best place.

To do true balancing they would have to kitten guilds, their playtime, commanders, timezones, etc etc. Sorry, but with how often this information changes it is too expensive and costly for them to do it “right” and thus not worth their time and effort to invest heavily.

Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.

Hadn’t been following the thread, interesting discussions.
But kitten it Mal time to bust out the flow charts up in here!

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Are they not already monitoring WvW population enough to make adjustments even.

Keyword “active” – It sounds like ANet are just looking at number of players and the hours played and then matching those servers up with links to fill in for those servers that come in short. Looks great on paper for when links are done and then poof, in one week, all of the balance goes out of the window when the majority of players move to the server that they think will be the next best place.

To do true balancing they would have to kitten guilds, their playtime, commanders, timezones, etc etc. Sorry, but with how often this information changes it is too expensive and costly for them to do it “right” and thus not worth their time and effort to invest heavily.

Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Xenesis.6389:

Hadn’t been following the thread, interesting discussions.
But kitten it Mal time to bust out the flow charts up in here!

!!!! indeed!

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)

For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.

EDIT: on the idea that it would require much work. The idea of Battlegroups is to be reevaluated every 15 weeks. The system of server links is to be reevaluated every 2 months with changes inbetween to fix glicko and server transfers. With battlegroups you’re locked in place for that duration. So you’re actually actively monitoring population and WvW more with Server-links than you could be in a system thats not even fine tuned or completely outlined.

2 EDIT: perhaps WvW needs a dedicated team to over see it in general.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)

For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.

Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.

All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)

For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.

Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.

All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.

I fully agree to your second paragraph but not the first. I dont think it requires any extra monitoring and even if it did I think the monitoring of WvW is something thats greatly needed. Your second paragraph is ideally why I back what I’m backing because I believe the what you said and thats structurally WvW needs a massive overhaul but server-links are indeed whats making people quit the game. I know a lot of people who have given up since. I know people who are forced to move and play for a server they do not wish to play for. All these things are caused by server-links.

You bring up meaningful change and I agree. Meaningful change is what WvW needs. I believe any extra effort to bring meaningful change is better than making something easy with less effort.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)

For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.

Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.

All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.

I fully agree to your second paragraph but not the first. I dont think it requires any extra monitoring and even if it did I think the monitoring of WvW is something thats greatly needed. Your second paragraph is ideally why I back what I’m backing because I believe the what you said and thats structurally WvW needs a massive overhaul but server-links are indeed whats making people quit the game. I know a lot of people who have given up since. I know people who are forced to move and play for a server they do not wish to play for. All these things are caused by server-links.

Meaningful change is what WvW needs. I believe any extra effort to bring meaningful change is better than making something easy with less effort.

Server links did not cause players to jump to different servers every two months to follow where they believe the next top server / where the fights will be. That is the player’s fault but who can blame them for wanting to improve their “experience”. It is only natural that they want to go to the server that will win or will provide the most fights. The ones that suffer the most are the ones who stick to one server and just watch the tide ebb and flow. Hence, why I support restricting the amount of transfers a player can do within a time span so that server population can stabilize and people will think about when and where they move.

Well if you said that ANet already has an automated population system in place, then it is not doing a great job. Already they had to change the amount of time between links, and inflate glicko ratings to account for shifts in population for certain servers. I’d rather they spend less on automated population systems and more on meaningful changes even if it means moving on to the next iteration of this game.

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.

All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.

I fully agree to your second paragraph but not the first. I dont think it requires any extra monitoring and even if it did I think the monitoring of WvW is something thats greatly needed. Your second paragraph is ideally why I back what I’m backing because I believe the what you said and thats structurally WvW needs a massive overhaul but server-links are indeed whats making people quit the game. I know a lot of people who have given up since. I know people who are forced to move and play for a server they do not wish to play for. All these things are caused by server-links.

Meaningful change is what WvW needs. I believe any extra effort to bring meaningful change is better than making something easy with less effort.

Server links did not cause players to jump to different servers every two months to follow where they believe the next top server / where the fights will be. That is the player’s fault but who can blame them for wanting to improve their “experience”. It is only natural that they want to go to the server that will win or will provide the most fights. The ones that suffer the most are the ones who stick to one server and just watch the tide ebb and flow. Hence, why I support restricting the amount of transfers a player can do within a time span so that server population can stabilize and people will think about when and where they move.

Well if you said that ANet already has an automated population system in place, then it is not doing a great job. Already they had to change the amount of time between links, and inflate glicko ratings to account for shifts in population for certain servers. I’d rather they spend less on automated population systems and more on meaningful changes even if it means moving on to the next iteration of this game.

I dont see it as simply as guilds wanting to play for the winning team. Instead I see it as people want to fight whom they want to fight in a tier they wanted to play in and due to server-links altercations happen that literally force people to move which ever way. I know the guild LATE that was once on BG’s link moved to TC and this wasnt because they wanted to play on TC as a winning server. In fact we lose to BG and MAG and YB. But its instead due to the environment of Tier 1 in general.

I know DB collapsed due to internal issues and the guilds who left to other servers didn’t leave to be on the best server. They actually picked servers based off cultural relations and the tier they would like to play in.

But yes you are right indeed. The people are are loyal to servers get hurt the worst by server-links because server-links enable the player base to move this way. If the system allows it and is working as intended how is that the fault of the player for using the system as it was designed to be utilized. Furthermore, this is leading me to believe the problem with Server-links reside in how servers work in general. Which is why I think it’s better to design a category/group/ or body that can be easily identified for match making rather than have a make making system design to handle it on a server level when servers do not have the proper restraints.

And yes I believe their automated system they have in place isn’t doing the job because glicko is to slow compared to player movement and their automated system doesn’t account for that. I believe using an automated system like the one described in part in battlegroups would allow for better match making and population balance. Battlegroups in general is all on whether or not Arena Net can produce a match making system around communities with a cap. Right now servers dont have a defined cap and they can’t simply give it one due to the nature of GW2.

anyways very good discussion

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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.

I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.

Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.

EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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.

Didn’t you say before that only five people knew about this at the time and the community as a whole did not. As one of the five, couldn’t you have announced this to the community and opposed it publicly? And, did BG just help YB without any communications from you?

On the topic of balancing guilds vs servers..
The concept that organised players have an advantage over disorganised ones?

If numbers/playtime is similar, the more skilled/organised (coordinated) group should win..

I don’t really see the problem with that. ( in fact the only people who will, are those who want to win, with next to zero effort..)

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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.

I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.

Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.

EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…

The plot thickens…

Artemis Thuras.8795:

On the topic of balancing guilds vs servers..
The concept that organised players have an advantage over disorganised ones?

If numbers/playtime is similar, the more skilled/organised (coordinated) group should win..

I don’t really see the problem with that. ( in fact the only people who will, are those who want to win, with next to zero effort..)

I have no doubts that there are players/guilds that are so well organized outside the game that they will use alt-accounts to game the battlegroup system.

All I know is that with the linking and constant change of our ‘partners’ my WvW Roaming alliance pretty much died… most of both guilds quit the mode because they did not like the almost constant large zergs.

For people that like the big fights, it’s great, but for us smaller scale players… meh.

Kylden Ar.3724:

All I know is that with the linking and constant change of our ‘partners’ my WvW Roaming alliance pretty much died… most of both guilds quit the mode because they did not like the almost constant large zergs.

For people that like the big fights, it’s great, but for us smaller scale players… meh.

Yes and it’s a sad thing that ANet will not make any changes in this regard. The smaller servers will continue to be moved from place to place as “filler” for the hosts. People will continue to drop off until all that’s left really are the ones that want to zerg/blob.

What this tells me is that is what ANet’s vision of WvW is. Not roaming groups, not small defense teams that can actually be effective now and then… but just blobs fighting blobs.

I’ve said it before… I used to spend at least 95% of my online time in WvW… now it’s more like 25% and dropping… I truly truly don’t have any investment in “protecting the land” anymore. It seems all anyone cares about is PPT and PPK. Meh, if all I want is to kill things period then PvE is always there… ugh… but it’s ok when friends are on to run with for fun.

apharma.3741:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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.

I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.

Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.

EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…

The plot thickens…

Hes focused on Me. I’m focused on solving the games issues. \o/ You say i’d rather play victim but you paint me as the bad guy thus im defending. You see the issue here.

ukyo.5639:

Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.

This is the path Anet chose to implement from the beginning… not sure I’d trust any of you as far as I can throw you to take care of the ‘problem’… it seems rather it was put in place as a hands off approach and when it failed … not their problem.

I’d rather try something new, because trying the same thing over and over expecting different results is … well you get where I’m going.

Hexinx.1872:

ukyo.5639:

Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.

This is the path Anet chose to implement from the beginning… not sure I’d trust any of you as far as I can throw you to take care of the ‘problem’… it seems rather it was put in place as a hands off approach and when it failed … not their problem.

I’d rather try something new, because trying the same thing over and over expecting different results is … well you get where I’m going.

Yes ANet was very naive to assume that with unlimited transfers that the players would figure it out. Framework has to be robust, takes into account attempts to game the system, but is still flexible enough to allow people to move around, just not at the pace that is happening now.

Actually, when T1 and T2 were very distinct and there were weeks where a T2 server had almost no chance of coming to T1 was when the game was very fun. T2 had the skilled players organizing their own fights and respecting their own set of rules which lead to heightened interest in the game. That’s why I say the players can organize it when everyone accepts some rules and is interested in creating an environment for the sake of both competition and fun.

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.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

apharma.3741:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

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.

I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.

Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.

EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…

The plot thickens…

Hes focused on Me. I’m focused on solving the games issues. \o/ You say i’d rather play victim but you paint me as the bad guy thus im defending. You see the issue here.

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.

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!”

This could have been avoided by linking the Transfercosts to that of the highest servers.

ANet missed the most logical thing and so many people are bandwaggoning, gg wp. x.x

Do you know what is annoying? It’s frigging annoying that people cap stuff back even if they don’t have players. Smart move would be let enemy keep everything so they can’t karma train.

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.

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.

Well the original discussion was about linking and it’s become derailed into alliance nonsense. Which has already been addressed by a dev in this very thread as a non-starter. Yet it continues…..

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.

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?