Guild Wars 2

Here are some activity charts for NA and EU servers for those interested.

EDIT: I added the lower tier servers that I missed. Even my software wasn’t paying attention to them.

No surprise there. EU WvW dominated by localised servers.

Anvil rock is so dead they didn’t even make the list?

Puck.9612:

Anvil rock is so dead they didn’t even make the list?

Aye lol that moment when ruins of surmia doesn’t even show up.

I must of missed some when copying data. probably the ones at the bottom though.

What’s most sad in that data: all that is just capturing objectives, and as we all know well, that MOSTLY means capturing empty objectives.
And that’s called “activity”… can be something more sad than that?

I don’t blame your software btw. All that is something, some “happenings”.
Imagine how I’m on an empty map, capturing a camp or soloing a tower… Where’s the fun? Where are the huge epic battles, the multiple guilds coordinating a huge war effort against a rival? Where is SoR vs. BG. vs. JQ?
I really miss that sound of life, of a living WvW, the constant struggle…

“How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!”

Hahaha… Being on FSP that is pretty telling. Still in the upper third rankings, capture activity lower than middle. Outmanned on EB primetime :/

Oh well, if you aint fighting to overcome adversity then there’s little point to fight anyway.

Aeowia.7214:

What’s most sad in that data: all that is just capturing objectives, and as we all know well, that MOSTLY means capturing empty objectives.
And that’s called “activity”… can be something more sad than that?

I agree, capture data is fairly similar to the current scores. Servers with higher score in their current MU have captured more objects too. It also means servers with strong off-hour populations are high up.

I still consider number of kills per server more accurate description of how much “action” is going on.

As for a reference point, After 5 ish day’s of PPTing CD is just past 31k on the scoreboard. Them and Everyone below them is dead as hell.

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

Kodash Nr1 ? Wow… really? Im from Kodash and we fight against the death of wvw REALLY hard!
At this moment we (only) have around 150 to 170 (real) Guild WvW Player on the server.

And its a pain in the a… to get new player to play WvW or even join guilds.

Yeah… Kodash Nr 1 and we are not even trying… wow wvw is really dead

sydney.4901:

As for a reference point, After 5 ish day’s of PPTing CD is just past 31k on the scoreboard. Them and Everyone below them is dead as hell.

That last part is just incorrect. T6 has been having quite a heated battle for who stays in it. Just because CD are falling fast doesn’t mean the servers below it are just as dead since CD probably hasn’t stopped falling. Wait for it to settle before making these assumptions please.

dunno about how cd feels about itself, but yall got respect from me. what i see is an overpowered server ..that is still scoring. there may only be 5 of you fighting there, but i salute the 5 that are fighting and scoring. I’ve seen scores vs dh that were similar to yours at a different scale, we still scored too! you guys will have a lot to offer higher up servers should you ever decide to move. I’ll support you over a blob any day!!

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

PPT activity implies fights. Activity is activity. Kills and deaths follow capture rates and volume.

There may be a few exceptions to this but I would guess not many.

OMG! What ground-breaking news! Camps get flipped more often on high-pop maps. Who could have imagined that?

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Well fights can be measured in kills and deaths. I am pretty sure that kills and deaths tend to be correlated to PPT. Once Anet fixes api I will be able to show that easily enough. Until then we can just disagree.

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Sometimes you have to remind people of statements they posted.

Sad to see Ruins of Surmia where they are now. Over time most WvW guilds left to other servers but there were still lots of lone wolves and several small guilds fighting. Then HoT got released ruining the game for solo players and small guilds and causing most of them to leave the game, leaving very few active WvW players on this server :-(

Skynet.7201:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Sometimes you have to remind people of statements they posted.

You referenced the number of people “playing” not specifically fighting. So your argument is fundamentally flawed there. And as I said fights are correlated to PPT. But some people prefer to use their anecdotal evidence rather than actual data. And you can do that, but I am going to put the data in front of you to force you into a more delusional state.

The first chart shows that killing (aka fights) is strongly correlated to capture activity. The correlation is 0.98.

The second chart shows that not only is fighting correlated to capture activity, but that the rate of the fighting increases with capture activity. that is, the proportion of kills to caps increases as caps increase. (correlation 0.94)

The only conclusion that can be reached from this data is that capture activity drives fights.

The data used in the charts was last weeks NA data.

Magnuzone.8395:

No surprise there. EU WvW rendered boring by localised servers.

ftfy

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Sometimes you have to remind people of statements they posted.

You referenced the number of people “playing” not specifically fighting. So your argument is fundamentally flawed there. And as I said fights are correlated to PPT. But some people prefer to use their anecdotal evidence rather than actual data. And you can do that, but I am going to put the data in front of you to force you into a more delusional state.

The first chart shows that killing (aka fights) is strongly correlated to capture activity. The correlation is 0.98.

The second chart shows that not only is fighting correlated to capture activity, but that the rate of the fighting increases with capture activity. that is, the proportion of kills to caps increases as caps increase. (correlation 0.94)

The only conclusion that can be reached from this data is that capture activity drives fights.

The data used in the charts was last weeks NA data.

These charts are meaningless to your capture volume by server (your first charts) since you’ve switched to capture volume by tier.

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Sometimes you have to remind people of statements they posted.

You referenced the number of people “playing” not specifically fighting. So your argument is fundamentally flawed there. And as I said fights are correlated to PPT. But some people prefer to use their anecdotal evidence rather than actual data. And you can do that, but I am going to put the data in front of you to force you into a more delusional state.

The first chart shows that killing (aka fights) is strongly correlated to capture activity. The correlation is 0.98.

The second chart shows that not only is fighting correlated to capture activity, but that the rate of the fighting increases with capture activity. that is, the proportion of kills to caps increases as caps increase. (correlation 0.94)

The only conclusion that can be reached from this data is that capture activity drives fights.

The data used in the charts was last weeks NA data.

Charts are meaningless because your capture activity is by server while your kill totals are by tier.

hwat? you should read the axis labels on the charts. It is the total tier capture volume vs total tier kills.

So … not meaningless.

How they relate to the original charts is irrelevant.

The fact remains that capture activity drives fights.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

PPT activity implies fights. Activity is activity. Kills and deaths follow capture rates and volume.

There may be a few exceptions to this but I would guess not many.

You present a ranked list of captures by server. Then you use it to imply that this ranked list implies fights by server. When asked about kills and deaths, you present charts with the data rearranged by tier rather than by server. So basically you are just saying what everyone already knows; higher tiers have higher levels of activity. You essentially say nothing about individual servers other than show which ones spend more of their time capping objectives over fighting.

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

PPT activity implies fights. Activity is activity. Kills and deaths follow capture rates and volume.

There may be a few exceptions to this but I would guess not many.

You present a ranked list of captures by server. Then you use it to imply that this ranked list implies fights by server. When asked about kills and deaths, you present charts with the data rearranged by tier rather than by server. So basically you are just saying what everyone already knows; higher tiers have higher levels of activity. You essentially say nothing about individual servers other than show which ones spend more of their time capping objectives over fighting.

What I have held is that PPT play drives fights. The exact numbers of kills and deaths on a particular server isn’t important as the overall conflict created by capture activity.

And just so you know … it takes at least two servers two have a fight. So I think grouping the activity by tier is a good way to express overall activity levels. In addition capture levels tend to be calibrated by the server with the lowest activity level so a weekly capture volume isn’t indicative of a servers capacity to cap. But I wasn’t arguing that. It was just a list of capture volumes.

You seem to think that I posted activity levels show who was “better” … that was not it. I simply posted it to see what type of discussion it would drum up.

I think you think I am arguing something I am not arguing.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

PPT activity implies fights. Activity is activity. Kills and deaths follow capture rates and volume.

There may be a few exceptions to this but I would guess not many.

You present a ranked list of captures by server. Then you use it to imply that this ranked list implies fights by server. When asked about kills and deaths, you present charts with the data rearranged by tier rather than by server. So basically you are just saying what everyone already knows; higher tiers have higher levels of activity. You essentially say nothing about individual servers other than show which ones spend more of their time capping objectives over fighting.

What I have held is that PPT play drives fights. The exact numbers of kills and deaths on a particular server isn’t important as the overall conflict created by capture activity.

And just so you know … it takes at least two servers two have a fight. So I think grouping the activity by tier is a good way to express overall activity levels. In addition capture levels tend to be calibrated by the server with the lowest activity level so a weekly capture volume isn’t indicative of a servers capacity to cap. But I wasn’t arguing that. It was just a list of capture volumes.

You seem to think that I posted activity levels show who was “better” … that was not it. I simply posted it to see what type of discussion it would drum up.

I think you think I am arguing something I am not arguing.

The discussion you drummed up is one asking for clarification of what you’re trying to say. You’ve written that PPT activity implies fights so I think that is what you’re trying to argue for.

The terminology you use could be cleaned up. The title is “server activity” followed by charts that are “capture volume” so you use those two terms as synonyms. “Server capture activity” perhaps? The second set of charts are “overall activity level” which cannot be expressed without grouping by tier, adding in deaths by tier, and is something different from server capture activity. Capture volume is also subject to calibration, as you said.

This “overall activity level” is what exactly? More fights? More people? PPT implying fights? Doesn’t the scoring system and glicko rating already tell us overall activity levels and is a better reflection of actual server activity than a simple list of “server capture activity”?

Chaba.5410:

This “overall activity level” is what exactly? More fights? More people? PPT implying fights? Doesn’t the scoring system and glicko rating already tell us overall activity levels and is a better reflection of actual server activity than a simple list of “server capture activity”?

The overall activity levels are defined, in my case, by the data points I am provided in the API. Nothing more. If you don’t find the data useful, ignore it.

Does the glicko rating do a better job of telling us what current activity levels are? No. Glicko is an error correction system. A spike in activity may lead to a win, but it will take a long time before any dramatic and consistent changes in behavior will be properly placed by the Anet’s current implementation of glicko. This is why we witnessed such a slow crawl by Dragonbrand up the tiers.

The Glicko is likely to never precisely say anything. Usually error correction systems dont reach a true value, they just oscillate around it. Glicko is intended to allow for competitive match ups … and as many have said … the current implementation isn’t doing a very good job of that mostly because the superficial walls between tiers slows down movement too much and drastic changes in population can quickly leave a competing server in the same glicko range outmatched.

I address the problem with glicko in another post.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Error-in-WvW-Glicko-Scoring

Here is this weeks server capture volume for those that are interested.

Global capture volume increased this week 1.4% from 1,267,880 to 1,286,480.