Guild Wars 2

I would really like to know some data on the participation of players during the first week (best) and the second week (worst) of the current season.

Could you provide us with the WvW player-hours for NA and EU for the first and second week, divided up into four sections. Reset-6hrs, 6-12,12-18 and 18-24. You don’t have to organize it by server or give exact numbers. Just give totals as a percent of the max player-hours, so that we can see how the lowest pop times compare to the highest pop times as well as see if there’s a significant drop off from “competitive” first week matches and “blowout” second week matches.

After reading the devs post about alliances i have a few questions and have seen some of my fellow blackgate members point these topics out. First of all I am not in a WvW guild nor do I want to be, but all I play is WvW. I am in a guild CoE that has been together since the beginning of guild wars 1 ankitten ot leaving anytime soon. My fellow guild members have no interest in WvW, but I have fought with blackgate in WvW since I bought the game and whether it be KnT, Icoa, Jinx, Ons, etc. I love fighting with these guilds and still want to play with them. So I would want to be in their Alliance but my guild would not. So can individual members decide the Alliance they want to join and not have to be in a guild in that alliance? I am sure this is the case for a lot of players also no just me and just not on blackgate but any other server also.

Alliances are a good step towards fixing the problem, but they can’t resolve it alone.

Several things to consider with alliances

• Alliances can’t be permanent (aka a guise for server merges) Simply because the same population issue can creep up down the road. You want to be able to have some flexibility in the alliance system so that servers can be moved to adjust for population shifts and to provide a more consistent/competitive environment
• We have to work on alliance communication Introducing alliances could mess with communication. It was noted by people here that getting alliance people on the same voice-coms would become a nightmare. One possible way of alleviating that is to make one higher ranking server the one an alliance is based around. Another way is to introduce alliance specific wvw chat channels, that span all 4 maps. We would need to discuss this one very thoroughly
• An alliance will help low tier servers but it won’t stem the flow of people out of WvW I go back to some other suggestions that have been made, such as EotM rewards restructuring to get people in WvW, buffing defensive WvW rewards (just check if in combat during attack = get reward, combat time proportional to reward level). Introduce weekly winner rewards so that we get constant gunning for #1, no more playing for 2nd. etc.
• Alliances must be evenly matched this one seems like a duuuuh but it’s tougher than it seems. In the begining we can simply use the server rankings to create fairly evenly matched alliances, but how do we approach the re-balancing down the road. I am not going to believe that population will remain the same after the initial creation, that’s a fairy tale. Does Anet have the metrics of ACTIVE wvw players to rebalance servers down the road? Active meaning you don’t count the pve players going into a home bl to visit the bank/craft, but ones involved in objective capture/defense/completion.

Lets keep discussing this from all points, one solution is not the answer to all the problems, but if we do use one solution, make it a good one!

Here’s a breakdown: (in no particular order)

Map population cap lowered
*Proposed – Reduced lag → Less players (more queuing on higher pop servers making people want to move to lower ones)

Dynamic Map population cap
*Proposed – Changes as players leave and join a map → Limits uneven populations

Servers Merge
*Proposed – Forced balance to population

Change PPT and mechanics to help balance coverage and pop discrepancies
*Proposed – Keeps servers as is → Shakes up the meta

Scale PPT to pop
*Proposed – Keeps servers as is → Attempts balance pop gaps per match

Battle Groups
*Proposed – Keep the concept of servers →Pits higher and lower pop server into groups balancing via a soft merger.

Alliances
*Proposed – Removes all servers merging into less servers with new names based on chosen alliances

Alliances-2
*Proposed – Allows different tiers at ally together and fight in a guesting type way as need or desired.

Free or reduced transfer cost
*Proposed – allows players to freely or cheaper ability to move around.

2v2v2 or similar
*Proposed – Soft merger → Less match-ups

There’s a lot of stuff in this thread, i’m certain i’ve missed some…

I’ll throw my idea here, because why not:

Why can’t the server caps (full, high, etc) be balanced around the server’s average WvW population? Now that megaservers are a thing, it seems useless to balance the server’s overall population based on total numbers.

The system would have to be smart enough to have a long-term sample (a month of activity, maybe), rather than the current immediate sample (where entire guilds log off at the same time to let other guilds transfer to their already full server). Ideally a “high” population server would be a server with good coverage, a “full” server would have coverage and queues (so basically T1), and medium/low servers could be servers that only manage strong numbers at a set time, if at all. There would have to be some sort of WvW-themed encouragement to spread guilds out (more badges/money on lower pop servers, maybe? I don’t know, anything that’s strong enough to encourage moving, but not so strong it breaks the balance or rewards systems)

It would be interesting if someone could also think of a way to make this system take in consideration the player’s play time (as in when they usually play WvW), as well as the servers’ coverage.

This idea is mostly because I want the population problem to be solved without resorting to scrapping or merging servers, as I like the concept of “server pride”, rather than “alliance pride”. With servers, there can be new, up and coming commanders that gain reputation on their own, without having to go into guild politics first. It gives more opportunity for start up guilds to become relevant to their servers (one guild I’m at started as a joke guild among friends and now it’s one of the big guilds leading WvW on our server).

Plus, there’s a psychological difference between “I’m defending my team (alliance)” and “I’m defending my home (server)”. I think the latter is more impactful and interesting.

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

BrunoBRS.5178:

Plus, there’s a psychological difference between “I’m defending my team (alliance)” and “I’m defending my home (server)”. I think the latter is more impactful and interesting.

Take a moment and consider this from the perspective of somebody new to the game or who has maybe only played PvE… why do you care to fight for that thing you picked right when you got the game that doesn’t seem to make a difference at all?

John Corpening.9847:

Anyway, this discussion made it clear it is who you play with that’s important and a number of ideas in this thread preserved that without restricting the number of people who could play at a time. These have had a number of names but for the sake of discussion I’ll go with Alliances. The idea that I liked for Alliances is that it is a group of guilds and people that are guaranteed to stay together no matter how things are rearranged. There would probably need to be a size limit on Alliances and several of you pointed out that whatever limits are put in place it should be based on WvW participation.

The idea of alliances sounds cool and I think it could work but i’m skeptical because I don’t see how it addresses the underlying problems in WvW. I see coverage still being a huge issue, i.e. one alliance could out-populate another alliance during off hours making this entire endeavor useless.

If more specifics were given as to how alliances would work then perhaps folks could get behind it but until then this sounds like an idea that would hurt WvW.

John Corpening.9847:

One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

With respect, I disagree here.

Population and Coverage are the two biggest factors that control who wins a weekly matchup. That’s why this thread exists. The scoring system is partly to blame for that because no added points are given to a tower that is held for 15 hours compared to 15 minutes. Nobody bothers to defend because it’s easier to recapture right before the tick. That tactic is derived and encouraged by having a population advantage. In essence, the most efficient path to winning a match is steamrolling through zones capturing everything you can as quick as you can with as many people as you can while giving no regard for defending what you capture and holding the territory that you control. Why bother to defend when it’s easier to recapture. Essentially, population imbalance is affecting the outcome of the match because of zerging and PvD tactics.

If you eliminate the effect population imbalance has on the outcome of the match you eliminate it from being a problem. A battle where you are outmanned but can still achieve victory is possible with the right tactics but when it comes to the War Score it’s still the PvD and zerg tactics that win. Shouldn’t teamwork and strategy be the more prevalent approach to winning then PvD and zerging?

Yes, in a perfect game all the servers would have equal populations at all times of the day, but that is never going to happen. The trick here and what I believe your goal should be is to diminish the impact population has on the outcome of the match as much as possible. Alliances is a good idea, but it doesn’t do that.

And for the record I’m not advocating that a change to the scoring system alone would fix things. Many things contribute to the effect population imbalance has on the outcome of a match, ideally we would address all of them.

Regards,

-Tekyn

Grimm.3972:

When it comes to Alliances, as I have seen some others comment, the WvW Community is generally defined by the common Server voice comm (Mumble/TS) than guilds. Many people with small guilds make up the core community of the server and they are tied together by the voice comm. Personally, I’m part of 2 WvW guilds, one I classify as more a militia guild, and it varies which one I rep.

Overall, any Alliance implementation can’t just be guild focused, but more individual player focused as to joining or having access to the Alliance. Otherwise, the accessibility to new players will be limited.

This. I dont want to be bound to a WvW guild.

Tekyn.5376:

John Corpening.9847:

Anyway, this discussion made it clear it is who you play with that’s important and a number of ideas in this thread preserved that without restricting the number of people who could play at a time. These have had a number of names but for the sake of discussion I’ll go with Alliances. The idea that I liked for Alliances is that it is a group of guilds and people that are guaranteed to stay together no matter how things are rearranged. There would probably need to be a size limit on Alliances and several of you pointed out that whatever limits are put in place it should be based on WvW participation.

The idea of alliances sounds cool and I think it could work but i’m skeptical because I don’t see how it addresses the underlying problems in WvW. I see coverage still being a huge issue, i.e. one alliance could out-populate another alliance during off hours making this entire endeavor useless.

If more specifics were given as to how alliances would work then perhaps folks could get behind it but until then this sounds like an idea that would hurt WvW.

John Corpening.9847:

One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

With respect, I disagree here.

Population and Coverage are the two biggest factors that control who wins a weekly matchup. That’s why this thread exists. The scoring system is partly to blame for that because no added points are given to a tower that is held for 15 hours compared to 15 minutes. Nobody bothers to defend because it’s easier to recapture right before the tick. That tactic is derived and encouraged by having a population advantage. In essence, the most efficient path to winning a match is steamrolling through zones capturing everything you can as quick as you can with as many people as you can while giving no regard for defending what you capture and holding the territory that you control. Why bother to defend when it’s easier to recapture. Essentially, population imbalance is affecting the outcome of the match because of zerging and PvD tactics.

If you eliminate the effect population imbalance has on the outcome of the match you eliminate it from being a problem. A battle where you are outmanned but can still achieve victory is possible with the right tactics but when it comes to the War Score it’s still the PvD and zerg tactics that win. Shouldn’t teamwork and strategy be the more prevalent approach to winning then PvD and zerging?

Yes, in a perfect game all the servers would have equal populations at all times of the day, but that is never going to happen. The trick here and what I believe your goal should be is to diminish the impact population has on the outcome of the match as much as possible. Alliances is a good idea, but it doesn’t do that.

And for the record I’m not advocating that a change to the scoring system alone would fix things. Many things contribute to the effect population imbalance has on the outcome of a match, ideally we would address all of them.

Regards,

-Tekyn

This is pretty much it… Sadly, it’s probably not going to be addressed.

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The suggestions are so vague. What is alliance? How does this alliance gonna behave in this WvW context? What is worlds?

TBH, I still believe closing 9 servers is the better way to go. The large list of servers to choose from is one of the reasons why the population base is spread thin.

SkyShroud.2865:

The suggestions are so vague. What is alliance? How does this alliance gonna behave in this WvW context? What is worlds?

TBH, I still believe closing 9 servers is the better way to go. The large list of servers to choose from is one of the reasons why the population base is spread thin.

Do you think Crystal Desert should be closed?

Samis.1750:

One could adjust the score, at least to some extent, based on the numbers playing to reduce the affect of off-hour coverage on scoring. The present system gives too great a weight on off hour coverage. There’s a reason why California has more electoral votes than Delaware.

One could weight the scoring as follows: .3 (highest pop server) + .6 (middle pop server) +.1 (lowest pop server). I picked lower weight for the lowest population server since one doesn’t want to discourage people from playing so as not to harm their server. You can normalize things with some type of log function. I made another post on this topic awhile back.

I actually like this idea.
Have the points scored per tick be modified (amplified or mitigated) based on the number of people playing the game at the time of the tick. If there are 3 servers and one is ticking 400+ but has 5 times the population then their tick should be mitigated as such. However if they’re ticking 400+ and there are plenty of unorganized defenders on the other two teams then that 400+ is earned. Likewise, if you’re ticking 235 with half of the population than the next guy ticking 235 then your 235 should be worth more.

If this were to happen then balancing the servers would still mean something, but would be significantly more relative. It wouldn’t need to be exact by any means.

~ Kovu

I mentioned this solution about a year ago that I think would help balance WvW;

Considering that there are 24 servers, base gem transfer costs on the ranking of a server. Transferring to the the highest ranking servers would cost the most, and the lowest ranked servers costing little or nothing to transfer. i.e currently BG would cost 2400 gems, TC 2300 and so on down to AR would be 100 and ET would be 0 respectively. The gem transfer costs would be reset on Friday the same as the match reset.

I think this would be incentive for players to transfer to the lower tier servers and would help prevent stacking.

I know this isn’t an end all be all solution for fixing WvW but it would help. Thoughts?

timmyf.1490:

SkyShroud.2865:

The suggestions are so vague. What is alliance? How does this alliance gonna behave in this WvW context? What is worlds?

TBH, I still believe closing 9 servers is the better way to go. The large list of servers to choose from is one of the reasons why the population base is spread thin.

Do you think Crystal Desert should be closed?

If that improves the gameplay, then so be it. The server pride is not going to solve problem, in fact, it is a obstacle to solving the problem. Alliance? It just gonna create confusion. How even this alliance gonna works anyway, no one knows. There are only two options, keep the problem or solve the problem.

Closing servers doesn’t have be done selectively but rather, holistically. Closing all servers and recreate 18 servers of new names. All players are given option to choose a new server. Allowing transfer to be free for a period of time. Basically, resetting everyone to square one.

If people want the server pride or don’t want to begin from square one again even though population issue is resolved, then, don’t complain about population imbalance.

For the record, I didn’t complain about population imbalance.

Kovu.7560:

Samis.1750:

One could adjust the score, at least to some extent, based on the numbers playing to reduce the affect of off-hour coverage on scoring. The present system gives too great a weight on off hour coverage. There’s a reason why California has more electoral votes than Delaware.

One could weight the scoring as follows: .3 (highest pop server) + .6 (middle pop server) +.1 (lowest pop server). I picked lower weight for the lowest population server since one doesn’t want to discourage people from playing so as not to harm their server. You can normalize things with some type of log function. I made another post on this topic awhile back.

I actually like this idea.
Have the points scored per tick be modified (amplified or mitigated) based on the number of people playing the game at the time of the tick. If there are 3 servers and one is ticking 400+ but has 5 times the population then their tick should be mitigated as such. However if they’re ticking 400+ and there are plenty of unorganized defenders on the other two teams then that 400+ is earned. Likewise, if you’re ticking 235 with half of the population than the next guy ticking 235 then your 235 should be worth more.

If this were to happen then balancing the servers would still mean something, but would be significantly more relative. It wouldn’t need to be exact by any means.

~ Kovu

I like this idea, but it would still need somewhat balanced servers to make it work. Otherwise a stacked server could just dominate reset night and the weekend and then run a skeleton crew the rest of the week because with the PPT ticking for less points for the other servers it would be harder to catch back up.

SkyShroud.2865:

If people want the server pride or don’t want to begin from square one again even though population issue is resolved, then, don’t complain about population imbalance.

For the record, I didn’t complain about population imbalance.

Neither did I. I just seem to see a lot of folks on the top tiers suggesting that lower tier servers be closed down and a lot of folks on the lower tiers suggesting lower caps to spur transfers.

Neither of these are good ideas. Getting people to join together or spread out should be based on PLAYER CHOICE and not due to ArenaNet forcing people together/apart.

Here are some of my hastily compiled ideas. Keep in mind that I’m going off NA server numbers, and EU would have to be set up slightly different.

1) Encourage de-stacking of population

-Transfer downward: Bronze-free – Silver-200 gems – no Gold to Gold transfers
-Transfer upwards: Bronze-200 gems per WvW rank up – Silver-400 per rank up – no Gold upward transfers – (e.g. going from Gold to Silver is 200 gems flat rate, but going from rank 24 server to 20 server is 800 gems, from rank 13 to rank 10 is 1200 gems)
-Limit so that everyone does not simply agree to stack onto a low ranked server
-Possibly set a publicly visible transfer cap – higher caps for lower ranked servers

2) Run a month of traditional matchups

-Test population balance and determine effective strength – transfers are LOCKED during this time
-Effective Strength = weekly average for the # of players in WvW for 15+ minutes in a 24hr period

3) Set up Alliances

-Treat each server as a “nation” – each alliance will be made up of 8 nations – 3 total alliances.
-Alliances must have equal as possible combined effective strength
-Having only 3 alliances allows flexibility with 8 nations per team that can be matched up for balance and fresh matchups each week

4) Begin new matchups

-Matchups will be will be linked together, two nations to a side, each with their own borderlands (6 total) but only 1 EB
-Matchups will be balanced around the combined effective strength of both nations on a side (i.e. side A&B strength ~ side C&D strength ~ side E&F strength)
-Matchup results and scores contribute to overall “war score”
-After a set time (3 months?) the alliance with highest score wins the war

5) start the cycle over again

-Skip step 2, as effective strength of each nation should be tracked throughout the war

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

SkyShroud.2865:

timmyf.1490:

SkyShroud.2865:

The suggestions are so vague. What is alliance? How does this alliance gonna behave in this WvW context? What is worlds?

TBH, I still believe closing 9 servers is the better way to go. The large list of servers to choose from is one of the reasons why the population base is spread thin.

Do you think Crystal Desert should be closed?

If that improves the gameplay, then so be it. The server pride is not going to solve problem, in fact, it is a obstacle to solving the problem. Alliance? It just gonna create confusion. How even this alliance gonna works anyway, no one knows. There are only two options, keep the problem or solve the problem.

Closing servers doesn’t have be done selectively but rather, holistically. Closing all servers and recreate 18 servers of new names. All players are given option to choose a new server. Allowing transfer to be free for a period of time. Basically, resetting everyone to square one.

If people want the server pride or don’t want to begin from square one again even though population issue is resolved, then, don’t complain about population imbalance.

For the record, I didn’t complain about population imbalance.

I could go along with this if they made the server cap the active number of WvW players divided by the number of servers in order to balance the servers. Doing it without the cap would be pointless because people would stack on certain servers and we’d have the same problem.

I know 2v2v2 has been discussed, but take a look at this video

Reflect the current ratings (throw Mag to rank 17) and there you go, Alliance System that does not force anyone to move. The downside is some servers do not have the will to win, like in one of the previous post “why bother play WvW” attitude will not fly well with some other servers.

Now to solve the reorganization of TS, once these alliances are set in place. They are locked, no matter what. So all of the people of the “alliance” can fight with voice coms, and same map. It also gives people from EBay and AR a chance to see what happens in T1/T2, if they never went there. No many repercussions against PuGs/Milita people.

Then rebalance EotM to be a viable map or convert some other PvE (or make new map but that is a lot of resources) map , and add it as a 5th map for real WvW. Change EotM into an 8 hr cycle so defense has some meaning, or longer.

It’s just another wall of text that will be probably ignored many, but hopefully the right people read this and watch the video as this may be a cool idea.

timmyf.1490:

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

The current scoring system ensures that the server with the most players wins. This is a big chunk of why WvW is so damaged at the moment.

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

Jim Hunter.6821:

timmyf.1490:

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

The current scoring system ensures that the server with the most players in the right timezones wins. This is a big chunk of why WvW is so damaged at the moment.

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

FTFY

Alliances can work but there needs to be more the 3 of them

Jim Hunter.6821:

SkyShroud.2865:

timmyf.1490:

SkyShroud.2865:

The suggestions are so vague. What is alliance? How does this alliance gonna behave in this WvW context? What is worlds?

TBH, I still believe closing 9 servers is the better way to go. The large list of servers to choose from is one of the reasons why the population base is spread thin.

Do you think Crystal Desert should be closed?

If that improves the gameplay, then so be it. The server pride is not going to solve problem, in fact, it is a obstacle to solving the problem. Alliance? It just gonna create confusion. How even this alliance gonna works anyway, no one knows. There are only two options, keep the problem or solve the problem.

Closing servers doesn’t have be done selectively but rather, holistically. Closing all servers and recreate 18 servers of new names. All players are given option to choose a new server. Allowing transfer to be free for a period of time. Basically, resetting everyone to square one.

If people want the server pride or don’t want to begin from square one again even though population issue is resolved, then, don’t complain about population imbalance.

For the record, I didn’t complain about population imbalance.

I could go along with this if they made the server cap the active number of WvW players divided by the number of servers in order to balance the servers. Doing it without the cap would be pointless because people would stack on certain servers and we’d have the same problem.

Server capping. Yes, I got a new idea to improve that too. Server population does include all types of players, if WvW depend on the server population balance then PvEr population can upset that balance. Then, why not put it this way. PvE is now a mega server, it can actually be seen as a neutral zone. So, making people choose “Worlds” at the start of the game doesn’t make much sense, especially when they haven’t join any guilds yet or know any things about WvW. Why not allow people to choose their “Worlds” only when they want to enter WvW, then tie their account to that world.

Also, the word, “World”, doesn’t really relate well now. The PvE environment is no longer unique to the “world”, I suggest we change the “world” to other words, maybe, “Fraction”? “Fractions War” sounds more attractive than “WvW” too!

EOTM can also be used as a testing zone for new players to get a bit of taste and understanding of the WvW before they choose to join a world.

NevilleDevil.4530:

Jim Hunter.6821:

timmyf.1490:

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

The current scoring system ensures that the server with the most players wins. This is a big chunk of why WvW is so damaged at the moment.

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

Not true.

Bloodlust and scrubs. If one server is outmanned and the other server are scrubs, all you need to do is gain bloodlust and farm. You’ll get more points from killing than having the tower/keep/SM.

You win with less numbers, in your bags and your ppt.

That doesn’t work when the other server actively avoids fights. They turtle behind siege, WP and hit other objectives, and will only fight if they have a minimum of triple our numbers. Even when we win those fights it is tough to get a decent number of stomps in because of all the aoe flying around.

Jim Hunter.6821:

timmyf.1490:

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

The current scoring system ensures that the server with the most players wins. This is a big chunk of why WvW is so damaged at the moment.

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

I don’t know why it is you think you can be aware of whether a server is winning or losing every fight in a 168 hour long battle with four maps in which you can only play on one.

I think it’s more important to balance for timezone discrepancy than it is player-count discrepancy. Holding a 100 PPT lead in NA prime (for NA servers) requires a lot more people than holding the same lead off-prime. It should be more rewarding because of it.

This is why I think that the scoring system should remain roughly the same, but the tick should adjust based on population. The more players on the map, the more frequent the tick. This system, as best as I can tell, meets most logical requirements (“should encourage rather than discourage additional players” for example) and is easy to tweak over time.

I suggested on Reddit a system which scales the tick from 8:00 (above 80% max population) to 24:00 (less than 10% max population) per map. Those times can obviously be adjusted, but they help make high-population times more important.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged. There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.

I mean, you started this thread about how your server needs help with population &/or Outmanned issues, to such a degree that your server (which is in 2nd to last place, currently) can’t even compete consistently in Tiers 7 or 8; you can’t really believe that there’s no problem at all with Anvil Rock, and that this is somehow EVERYONE ELSE’S SERVERS FAULT, and therefore they need to change, not AR… can you? Because that really seems to be what you’ve been pushing this whole time: “Please Anet, bring the map caps down only the number of players that my NEXT-TO-LAST-PLACE SERVER can field, it’s the only way to save WvW!” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense! I have to ask here, was this whole thread originally based on a troll post? If so… you got us, man! Good one.

Otokomae.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged. There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.

I mean, you started this thread about how your server needs help with population &/or Outmanned issues, to such a degree that your server (which is in 2nd to last place, currently) can’t even compete consistently in Tiers 7 or 8; you can’t really believe that there’s no problem at all with Anvil Rock, and that this is somehow EVERYONE ELSE’S SERVERS FAULT, and therefore they need to change, not AR… can you? Because that really seems to be what you’ve been pushing this whole time: “Please Anet, bring the map caps down only the number of players that my NEXT-TO-LAST-PLACE SERVER can field, it’s the only way to save WvW!” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense! I have to ask here, was this whole thread originally based on a troll post? If so… you got us, man! Good one.

I honestly think Jim cannot be argued to. Out of all my post that I have tried to argue him to, he has only read the whole post of one of them. The rest of them he has taken a single sentence from them, and said stuff that completely puts words in my mouth that I have never said.

Jim Hunter.6821:

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

Has this ever happened? I mean, EVER? In Tier 1, this would be nearly impossible, as most weeks Points From Stomps are at least 1/3 of the winning server’s total.

What’s going on down there in Tier 8?

Otokomae.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

Has this ever happened? I mean, EVER? In Tier 1, this would be nearly impossible, as most weeks Points From Stomps are at least 1/3 of the winning server’s total.

What’s going on down there in Tier 8?

Let’s go ahead and cut this off here.

Of course he is biased towards his own personal experience, just as you are biased towards yours and I am biased toward my own. Don’t devolve this into server bashing and trash.

Everyone, contribute towards the discussion or please refrain from posting.

Otokomae.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged. There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.

I mean, you started this thread about how your server needs help with population &/or Outmanned issues, to such a degree that your server (which is in 2nd to last place, currently) can’t even compete consistently in Tiers 7 or 8; you can’t really believe that there’s no problem at all with Anvil Rock, and that this is somehow EVERYONE ELSE’S SERVERS FAULT, and therefore they need to change, not AR… can you? Because that really seems to be what you’ve been pushing this whole time: “Please Anet, bring the map caps down only the number of players that my NEXT-TO-LAST-PLACE SERVER can field, it’s the only way to save WvW!” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense! I have to ask here, was this whole thread originally based on a troll post? If so… you got us, man! Good one.

You should probably read the whole thread before spouting this crap. I love my server. We have fantastic fights especially against ET who actually jump into fights instead of hiding behind siege. We often have fights that come down to the last hour before reset to determine the winner and the small scale/roaming is terrific.

The problem is there are only a few servers with a similar enough population that the fights are competitive and fun.

This isn’t strictly a tier 8 problem. Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout. Every server has a handful of servers that they constantly fight because the populations are so imbalanced between all of the tiers.

I don’t care about more people to fill our ranks. We have an awesome community. I’m a roamer, bigger zergs just get in the way of my fun. But facing the same few servers is getting old, I want more variety in our matchups. Judging on how quickly this thread jumped to 13 pages I don’t think I’m the only one that is looking for a change.

Dayra.7405:

Otokomae.9356:

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged.
…
There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.
…

When I see Blackgate in the signature and read such a text I can hardly suppress the interpretation: Don’t touch the system, in which I am winning

Really, it’s “Don’t touch the system where people are actually enjoying WvW”. It makes more sense than the suggestions of “Lower map caps so that everyone plays like Tier 8” or “Force those nasty Tier 1 guilds to come help us out, since no one on my server wants to fight, and I don’t want to move, but I still want to win”. I mean, there is a small minority on here from the lowest 2 Tiers whose main argument seems to be “I’m miserable because my server never wins WvW, so either bring everyone else down to our level or force them to fight for us.” These arguments just really don’t make any sense to me.

NevilleDevil.4530:

Otokomae.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged. There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.

I mean, you started this thread about how your server needs help with population &/or Outmanned issues, to such a degree that your server (which is in 2nd to last place, currently) can’t even compete consistently in Tiers 7 or 8; you can’t really believe that there’s no problem at all with Anvil Rock, and that this is somehow EVERYONE ELSE’S SERVERS FAULT, and therefore they need to change, not AR… can you? Because that really seems to be what you’ve been pushing this whole time: “Please Anet, bring the map caps down only the number of players that my NEXT-TO-LAST-PLACE SERVER can field, it’s the only way to save WvW!” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense! I have to ask here, was this whole thread originally based on a troll post? If so… you got us, man! Good one.

I honestly think Jim cannot be argued to. Out of all my post that I have tried to argue him to, he has only read the whole post of one of them. The rest of them he has taken a single sentence from them, and said stuff that completely puts words in my mouth that I have never said.

I have read the entire thread. Sorry if I don’t feel the need to quote your wall of text every time I respond to you, especially when most of it doesn’t add anything worthwhile to the conversation.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout.

It’s because of the Swiss style system. Next week should be better matchups. It has nothing to do with systemic problems in WvW rankings.

At this point, server pride doesn’t really matter anymore. WvW population on some servers are so low, it’s just not worth it. They should’ve merged a long time ago.

timmyf.1490:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout.

It’s because of the Swiss style system. Next week should be better matchups. It has nothing to do with systemic problems in WvW rankings.

Yup, this week is SUPPOSED to be the most imbalanced week of the entire Season. It’s BY DESIGN. Most matchups involve servers that are usually 3 tiers apart from each other.

This thread is plagued by a lot of people who do not understand what the developer is proposing. Please read that entire dev post until you are sure you understand it!

Essentially, John suggested using multi-guild alliances as “chunks” of players. Every few months, these “chunks” will be randomly reassigned to new servers, in such a way as to make the populations balanced.

(Oversimplified) Example:

For the first few months it would be:
Server 1: Alliance A, Alliance B, Alliance C
Server 2: Alliance D, Alliance E, Alliance F
Server 3: Alliance G, Alliance H, Alliance I

Then for the next few months it could be:
Server 1: Alliance A, Alliance D, Alliance G
Server 2: Alliance B, Alliance E, Alliance H
Server 3: Alliance C, Alliance F, Alliance I

So you would always play with the people in your alliance, but the alliances themselves would be shifting between servers involuntarily every few months.

This is why people are concerned about SERVER coordination, because you will have to start from scratch again every few months, as I explained in my earlier post.

timmyf.1490:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout.

It’s because of the Swiss style system. Next week should be better matchups. It has nothing to do with systemic problems in WvW rankings.

It absolutely does. If the gap in population between the tiers wasn’t so big this week would have stayed competitive.

nexxe.7081:

At this point, server pride doesn’t really matter anymore. WvW population on some servers are so low, it’s just not worth it. They should’ve merged a long time ago.

I hope you don’t mind me using you as an example. This attitude is precisely why server mergers won’t work. Whatever server you’re on won’t mesh with the folks on SoR. We still have pride in our server. Buckets of it.

If we were merged with your server – assuming they feel the same way you do – there’d be endless conflict.

Mergers should only happen on a by-player-choice basis. Alliances could be built to do that.

Otokomae.9356:

Dayra.7405:

Otokomae.9356:

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged.
…
There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.
…

When I see Blackgate in the signature and read such a text I can hardly suppress the interpretation: Don’t touch the system, in which I am winning

Really, it’s “Don’t touch the system where people are actually enjoying WvW”. It makes more sense than the suggestions of “Lower map caps so that everyone plays like Tier 8” or “Force those nasty Tier 1 guilds to come help us out, since no one on my server wants to fight, and I don’t want to move, but I still want to win”. I mean, there is a small minority on here from the lowest 2 Tiers whose main argument seems to be “I’m miserable because my server never wins WvW, so either bring everyone else down to our level or force them to fight for us.” These arguments just really don’t make any sense to me.

All in the people in T1 want the 24hr coverage. It’s what we enjoy, and the follwing is quoted from the TC community website:

[/quote]
I feel like there are a scary number of people in that thread who seem to think T1 is the problem rather than the goal, which scares the crap out of me.

Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

We want to stay in our coverage and tier for a reason. Anyone who did’t like it left T1 already. Why can’t you see things from other’s perspective.

Before you say all I like is winning. in PTT. I hate PPT; I am in a fighting guild that has fun finding other zergs and killing them. I enjoy the 24/7 coverage because I always can find a zerg to fight, and there many more in T1 that agree with me, all of T1.

Otokomae.9356:

timmyf.1490:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout.

It’s because of the Swiss style system. Next week should be better matchups. It has nothing to do with systemic problems in WvW rankings.

Yup, this week is SUPPOSED to be the most imbalanced week of the entire Season. It’s BY DESIGN. Most matchups involve servers that are usually 3 tiers apart from each other.

And you think that this is just how things should carry on? Wouldn’t it be better if servers in any tier could compete with each other?

Otokomae.9356:

Really, it’s “Don’t touch the system where people are actually enjoying WvW”.

Last week I enjoyed EU-T2 a lot! It was a totally open match till Wednesday and could still be turned at Friday.

Unfortunately our “reward for winning” was to play in T1 this week. A match clearly decided on Saturday morning. And which I did not entered afterwards, because I hope we are loosing it, to get the “reward of the looser”: go back to T2 to have another great match full of suspense next week.

That was much better till January this year, but then EotM took the queue away and season 2 enforced a lot overstacking on the expected winners. Since them I think the top servers have to be broken up to restore balance.

But other proposals that solve the imbalance as discussed here are fine as well.

titanlectro.5029:

This thread is plagued by a lot of people who do not understand what the developer is proposing. Please read that entire dev post until you are sure you understand it!

This is not my understanding of what John is proposing, but if it is, I’m not in favor of it. Perhaps John can clarify on some of the specifics for us when he has time.

throwing in that wvw should have more rewards for doing it, its almost the same as running in a queensdale champ zerg reward wise, fact is its pvp and is more risk, which should be rewarded more as such

John Corpening.9847:

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again for all the great and constructive discussion!
John

John, I think that the implementation of alliances on a large scale would severely reduce community building in WvW as a result of chilling effects on how guilds interact overall. Since server communities are one of the primary draws for WvW players, I think alliances are a poor idea.

Servers bring together a wide range of guilds. The large WvW-focused guilds team up with small havoc squads from PvX guilds and individual players. We all get together and talk and plan, because we are fighting as a server. We are all fighting together for some indeterminate amount of time (in technical terms, this is an infinite length cooperative game unless other conditions are imposed). As a result, we learn to work together and communicate, despite having different interests and priorities and strengths.
Once alliances are introduced, the threat of being moved to another server on any given week, or being reorganized entirely if we change the system more drastically, means that I have much less reason to invest in building a relationship with a non-alliance guild. If you are outside the alliance, I have to be afraid of the fact that I might not be on your team again for a long time. Thus, there is less relationship-building, because relationships are perceived as more transient. This creates a chilling effect where I am less likely to befriend a non-alliance guild, unless I intend to recruit them into my alliance. They are simply outside of the effective “server”.

To take an extreme example, compare alliances to sPvP hotjoin. I don’t really care much about learning to work as a team with these particular players (despite the fact that it will help me win), because these guys likely won’t be on my team again. In fact, it’s possible for them to get shunted over to the other side to balance out the teams during that same game. There is no reason to build an effective team, or even any kind of connection with them, because there is no future benefit. Alliances will shift WvW play in this direction.

Certainly a lot of good people will still help to build communities, and perhaps large alliances will result and replace the server identity. But on the whole, the sense of community will be lowered as a result of alliances, and as such I can offer no support to the idea of alliances as you currently describe it.

Admittedly, I have not gone through the entire thread – so this might be suggesting something that’s already been mentioned.

For the Borderlands (non EB) in particular, why not do something useful with the Skritt and Centaur territories? As of right now, what purpose do they serve?? ~20% of the map goes unused.

My proposal is simple… take some of the good mechanics about EotM and integrate them into the Borderlands. For example, the scorpion-catapults… If capturing the Skritt / Centaur areas gave you a useful buff or siege utility, I think you’d find that added diversity of the BL maps would bring back interested player base… and additionally encourage fighting versus the karma-train.

Hi John

I’m a bit confused on the alliance idea. Are these “new worlds” solely for the purpose of a stress test? If so, how would alliances fit into normal wvw? If not, then I’m wondering why you think its a good idea to stretch population even further.

My hopes would be to solidify populations so at most given times you can find people to fight. The alliance sounds like a solution to that. From what I remember from a youtube video I saw a while back, this is how I see things:
- people are given the option of participating in the alliance. The alliance is across any server that shares the same color (green, red, blue).
- said participation cannot occur unless the server in question has the outnumbered buff on at least one of the maps, and only for an alotted amount of time during each week.
- thats all I remember. Basically you just opt to help out another server and thats that.

NevilleDevil.4530:

I feel like there are a scary number of people in that thread who seem to think T1 is the problem rather than the goal, which scares the crap out of me.

“Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!”

We want to stay in our coverage and tier for a reason. Anyone who did’t like it left T1 already. Why can’t you see things from other’s perspective.

Before you say all I like is winning. in PTT. I hate PPT; I am in a fighting guild that has fun finding other zergs and killing them. I enjoy the 24/7 coverage because I always can find a zerg to fight, and there many more in T1 that agree with me, all of T1.

I personally don’t mind one bit that t1 exists and we aren’t part of it. So at least some of us are on your side. Some of us actually want to improve the mode, for everyone.

It’s been said since almost day one, the scoring system is horrible for this game mode. We’ve lost so many to that issue on top of the lack of updates, rewards and changes to WvW. ANet keeps saying they need to work on the fundamental issues of the game, yet here we are arguing over band aid solutions which will only get people riled up if implemented.

My exhaustive posts stem from this long standing problem, one that pushes people away from wanting to play WvW and causes sever burn-out. It’s completely frustrating that fixing the fundamental problems is not the focus.

We typically end up bleeding players to a lot of the design decisions ANets made and i’m pretty sure if they keep doing it this way, there won’t be much left in a year and they will have no choice but to merge the remaining top 6 servers.