Guild Wars 2

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

Jim Hunter.6821:

The problem is stale matchups. Besides for the complete joke of a matchup this week because of the tournament, how many months has it been since you fought someone that wasn’t JQ and TC?

Here’s the thing. The matchups aren’t stale. One red tag replaced by another doesn’t make a difference. What would make the matchup stale is if a lesser populated server got matched up with us and couldn’t/wouldn’t show up to fight. It seems you want ‘diverse’ but balanced matchups, but with WvW being set up so that you’re essentially anonymous to the other server besides some different letters, what difference does it make?

The difference is in the diversity of various playstyles which are largely influenced by server culture. Your server has exactly one playstyle, and this is not a problem we experience with many other servers.

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population. Again, not really an issue for us

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

Reverence.6915:

Jim Hunter.6821:

The problem is stale matchups. Besides for the complete joke of a matchup this week because of the tournament, how many months has it been since you fought someone that wasn’t JQ and TC?

Here’s the thing. The matchups aren’t stale. One red tag replaced by another doesn’t make a difference. What would make the matchup stale is if a lesser populated server got matched up with us and couldn’t/wouldn’t show up to fight. It seems you want ‘diverse’ but balanced matchups, but with WvW being set up so that you’re essentially anonymous to the other server besides some different letters, what difference does it make?

Different servers run different tactics. Get out of the blob and you will encounter different raomers/ havok squads and they all fight very differently. With a more balanced population you wouldn’t run up against a lesser populated server that couldn’t show up to fight you.

Honestly if people don’t want to make WvW competitive they may as well just do away with it and introduce a PvP megaserver so we can have a real sandbox.

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

JaredKincade.9761:

Yak’s Terrace, Dragon Rock, Crystal Crossing, Stormbluff Furnace, Devona’s Kaineng, Isle of Emery, Northern Rall, Henge of Darkhaven, and Borlis Madness. (examples)

Dear sweet Jesus please do not choose these abominations of names.

Wanderer.3248:

JaredKincade.9761:

Yak’s Terrace, Dragon Rock, Crystal Crossing, Stormbluff Furnace, Devona’s Kaineng, Isle of Emery, Northern Rall, Henge of Darkhaven, and Borlis Madness. (examples)

Dear sweet Jesus please do not choose these abominations of names.

What about Tarnished Black Coast of Sorrows?

Wanderer.3248:

JaredKincade.9761:

Yak’s Terrace, Dragon Rock, Crystal Crossing, Stormbluff Furnace, Devona’s Kaineng, Isle of Emery, Northern Rall, Henge of Darkhaven, and Borlis Madness. (examples)

Dear sweet Jesus please do not choose these abominations of names.

You don’t think Devona’s Kaineng has a nice ring to it?

What about EU?
The communities here are not only formed by server but also by language.
Remember, this was one major critic point with the PvE megaserver implementation and will have a hughe impact on the communication in an alliance. How will this be addressed?
——————-
So far this alliance things smells too much like EOTM for my taste just with a diffrent name and the last time i tried that was one of the most disgusting expieriences i had in GW2.

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

Well Dawntree must’ve deleted their post but I thought it was spot on. I don’t know what most people read into what John was saying but it wasn’t what I read.

Everyone seems to be overcomplicating the proposal. We’ve got to remember, this has to actually be able to be implemented – its got to be relatively simple.

What I believe John was saying is simple:

1. They will create a certain number of new Worlds. Worlds will now fight in WvWvW. I.E. World 1 v. World 3 v. World 7.
2. Alliances will be formed by players choosing their Alliance.
3. The Alliances will be distributed/combined into the Worlds.
4. The Worlds will fight in WvWvW matches in an “offseason”.
5. Tournament. Worlds will fight in a WvWvW tournament.
6. After Tournament. Create new Worlds and repeat steps 1 – 5.

He also said communities should stay together. Meaning BG (or SFR in EU) could be one Alliance. So the Alliance populations would be based on the population of the largest existing server.

I really don’t know what they’d do with all the people who don’t ever or very rarely log into WvW.

Personally I’m in favor of Time Sliced Matches. It would solve everything. And they could do it in a couple of weeks. They have all the mechanics in place. They don’t need to change anything. Don’t need to code anything new.

But at this point I’m willing to try anything. I’m on the verge of uninstalling. I need some change. I don’t care what it is. And quickly, not 6 months down the road.

What’s the timeframe for this proposal John?

Oh and a new map.

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

nirvana.8245:

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

With a more balanced server population you could put your money where your mouth is.

Jim Hunter.6821:

nirvana.8245:

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

With a more balanced server population you could put your money where your mouth is.

Merge those lower tier servers and lets see how they do.

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

Right, “numbers” and coverage: that’s how they operate. I get that. Your friend didn’t have a revelation. He observed the same thing twice, in different words.

I’ve played in all tiers. I’m in this week’s tier 1 match. Your playstyle is extremely unvaried. You’re welcome to it.

storiessave.3807:

NevilleDevil.4530:

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:

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.

So much this. I came from SF last year, and the constant action in T1 has been so much more fun than the small-scale (and scattered) fights we had there.

I would be very sad if the goal was a smaller active WvW population than T1 has right now. I know some lower tier servers wouldn’t want the large-scale and constant battles that we have in T1 (the “T1 blobs” are often criticized), but at the same time, those of us in T1 don’t want to lose those.

Any one currently in a lower tier, even one fighting a T1 server during a season has no clue what T1 is like when were not in season. Season in T1 = PPT push from hell. Normal week in T1 = fun fights on every map all the time for everyone, zergs and roamers alike. I will take that PPT hell, and sometimes having to drop my havoc/roaming to fall in with the zerg, because I get to play the rest of the year which is perfect.

Otokomae.9356:

So, you’re saying that THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH POPULATION IMBALANCE in your Tier? Awesome, that’s 1 less server for Anet to worry about! Leave EBay alone Anet, they’re doing just fine (^_^).

Population imbalance? Yes. Problem? No

The population will always be imbalanced, that’s the reality. It’s not like the human population, or rather the population of people who play GW2 is evenly spread across time zones.

Any sort of grouping/merging/de-merging will eventually result in mercenaries and fairweathers who primarily care about winning hopping to where the grass is greener. So I ask again, what problem does server merging (or merging by any other name) solve?

And I would be thrilled if EBay was left alone I don’t mean for it to remain static, people come and go and it’s always been fun. I started WvW when EBay was at it’s peak in the middle tiers, when reset night meant that most maps were queued. That was fun in its own way. Now, running solo or in small group is also enjoyable in its own way. The way our core community adapts to changing conditions forms part of our server identity.

I don’t consider population imbalance to be the problem. I think the real issue is how to adjust gameplay so that winning isn’t primarily determined by who has the highest population.

Gully.7358:

It’s the reason why people stack on tier 1 servers, it’s simply the easiest way to get rewarded.

Focus on better reward system for the people who do a lot of work with less then 5 or 10 man groups, add some more objectives and I have a feeling the population will actually spread out a little better while making more servers be more competitive.

This! Alliances as described won’t solve the core problem, which is that stacking/zerging is by far the best way to win and get rewards. The scoring absolutely is part of the problem/solution and i really think trying to factor it out of the discussion as a separate system is the wrong way to go.

IMO, the scoring system has to upscale/downscale with the number of participants or the objectives/rewards need to upscale/downscale. Or both. A simple change that would make a huge difference is changing the scoring per side to:

PPT = held_points * total_players_all3_servers / (3 * current_players)

Eg: server1 has 500 players across all 3 maps, server2 has 250, server3 has 250. server1 would have to hold 1.5x the number of points per tick to remain even with servers 2 & 3.

Rewards would need to be scaled in a similar fashion to reduce the incentive to stack servers just for the rewards.

Note that this scoring system also “fixes” the timezone problem, as the core change is that PPT is determined by the playing population at time of tick, not just by total points.

Current and total players should be effectively calculated as a moving average to avoid exploits oriented around mass joining/leaving of WVW prior to tick calculation.

nirvana.8245:

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

I do have a pretty needy cat, for sure.

Anyway, relax man i’m not attacking anything, but the concept that tier 1 simply plays better is an exaggeration. You could probably loose 3 match in a row to a blow out and only move down the ladder one spot. It was more about the flaws in the scoring system than it was about tiers.

It’s a numbers game, get more bodies 24/7 win more brackets, everyone knows it. Ofc, i for sure don’t know the tier 1 meta, that’s about as obvious as the nose on my face. But every tier plays the same game, with the same mechanics and the same scoring problems.

Jim Hunter.6821:

nirvana.8245:

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

With a more balanced server population you could put your money where your mouth is.

Id be more than happy to “put my money where my mouth is”. But going by the current trend of discussion, I won’t be able to do that because there won’t be a blackgate or servers for that matter, but alliances which won’t have the consistency that BG has right now. If it were a case that the lowest tier servers were merged with mid tier servers to redistribute the population whilst T1 servers where untouched then maybe I could “put my money where my mouth is”.

I despise what the megaservers did to PvE, so much so that I took a month off from the game when they were implemented. I’m not the only one on my server who feels that way. I don’t want to endure the same thing in WvW, because then I’d likely quit the game. I have no desire to play a visually beautiful game at 1-2 frames per second (or with settings dialed down so that everything looks awful) with a screen full of chaotic flashes and skills that don’t work. I might was well watch a screen saver at that point. I’m fine rarely running into that during a large battle for a keep or Stonemist Castle, but I have no desire to see that as the norm.

Yes, before megaservers, it was sometimes annoying that a lot of events were difficult or impossible to complete on a low-population server, but I consider the cure worse. Events that used to work great, where I used to have fun struggling to complete with a dozen people (e.g., the Frozen Maw or the Shadow Behemoth) are now mobbed with zergs and commanders, the pre-events are over in seconds and I never see loot from the defeated Champion anymore in the Frozen Maw because there are too many people doing it. I’d hate to be a new player with a low-level character running into that and being unable to tag anything with enough damage to even get credit for the event. Seriously, the near-empty maps were far more enjoyable.

I’ve read about T1 play. I’ve talked to people in T1. I have zero interest in T1-type play. I actually enjoy the pay on ET, down at the very bottom of T8, during prime time. No queues. Lag is rare. Skills work when activated. I get a decent frame rate even with the detail dialed up. If I wanted T1 play, I could afford to transfer, and I’ve been asked. I don’t want to play WvW like that. Similarly, there are players who hate T8 and transfer up because they get bored or want something bigger and it sounds like plenty of people on T1 love what they’ve got. So instead of trying to make WvW a uniform experience, especially a uniform T1 experience like we’ve been reamed with in PvE, how about preserving the different levels of play so players who want huge zergs smashing into each other can have that and they players wanting small scrappy groups can have that, instead?

Think about it like housing. People can choose to live in areas that are rural, suburban, and urban and each has trade-offs. Jut because rural or suburban people have problems doesn’t mean that they all secretly want to live in a city and people who live in cities don’t want to be forcibly relocated to the suburbs or out into the country. People have different tastes. Whatever solution you choose to pick the scoring and population imbalance problems, please do not implement a solution that assumes everyone wants to play on Blackgate or Jade Quarry. I don’t. If I did, I’d have transferred already. And if people on Blackgate or Jade Quarry wanted an Eredon Terrace experience, they’ve had plenty of opportunity to transfer cheap or for free.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This man has it@!!!!!!!!

I couldn’t get through 15 pages, so not sure if it’s been brought up or not, but someone on my server proposed increasing the rewards for wvw. The rationale being, if people are grinding dungeons for rewards, perhaps they’d have more of a reason to enter wvw.

It wouldn’t address population and coverage balance, but it may increase wvw populations overall. Combine with the ol’ free transfers to lower tier servers (or establishing some sort of market dynamic), and it might help.

Or not. It’s clear I haven’t put nearly as much thought into this as others, so I’d defer to those who have. But I can say as a long time wvw’er on one of the lower tier servers that there isn’t much appetite there for server mergers. Most of the people who would have favoured that already transferred up to higher tier servers (it’s what dropped us from mid to lower tier in the first place).

Berk.8561:

Think about it like housing. People can choose to live in areas that are rural, suburban, and urban and each has trade-offs. Jut because rural or suburban people have problems doesn’t mean that they all secretly want to live in a city and people who live in cities don’t want to be forcibly relocated to the suburbs or out into the country. People have different tastes. Whatever solution you choose to pick the scoring and population imbalance problems, please do not implement a solution that assumes everyone wants to play on Blackgate or Jade Quarry. I don’t. If I did, I’d have transferred already. And if people on Blackgate or Jade Quarry wanted an Eredon Terrace experience, they’ve had plenty of opportunity to transfer cheap or for free.

Take my +1. Just take it already.

I agree with the fundamental idea being presented that various levels of play should be maintained in order to suit people’s tastes.

Perhaps a good way to do this would be to create worlds with different population caps. High population caps for servers meant to be higher Tier, and low caps for more “rural” servers.

Johje Holan.4607:

Well Dawntree must’ve deleted their post but I thought it was spot on. I don’t know what most people read into what John was saying but it wasn’t what I read.

Everyone seems to be overcomplicating the proposal. We’ve got to remember, this has to actually be able to be implemented – its got to be relatively simple.

What I believe John was saying is simple:

1. They will create a certain number of new Worlds. Worlds will now fight in WvWvW. I.E. World 1 v. World 3 v. World 7.
2. Alliances will be formed by players choosing their Alliance.
3. The Alliances will be distributed/combined into the Worlds.
4. The Worlds will fight in WvWvW matches in an “offseason”.
5. Tournament. Worlds will fight in a WvWvW tournament.
6. After Tournament. Create new Worlds and repeat steps 1 – 5.

He also said communities should stay together. Meaning BG (or SFR in EU) could be one Alliance. So the Alliance populations would be based on the population of the largest existing server.

I really don’t know what they’d do with all the people who don’t ever or very rarely log into WvW.

Personally I’m in favor of Time Sliced Matches. It would solve everything. And they could do it in a couple of weeks. They have all the mechanics in place. They don’t need to change anything. Don’t need to code anything new.

But at this point I’m willing to try anything. I’m on the verge of uninstalling. I need some change. I don’t care what it is. And quickly, not 6 months down the road.

What’s the timeframe for this proposal John?

Oh and a new map.

It doesn’t do anything to avoid stacking though, the result would be the same as we have now. Ultimately the players can’t be left to decide which alliance to join, because they won’t do it in a balanced fashion.

If you want a balanced matchup the system needs to say “Team 1 has 20 players, Team 2 has 10 players, therefore the next 10 players must join team 2.”

It sounds like ultimately the playerbase doesn’t want that, because they want to fight with their friends/guild/server…which is too bad because it would solve the problem easily.

Therefore we would need an alliance/matchup queue of sorts. If a guild of 80 people want to play a match then they have to wait in queue until an opposing guild or guilds/mercenaries equal to the same size sign up to play against them.

John Corpening

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.

This is where I believe this whole initiative falls flat. The population imbalances have always existed, but it is the scoring system that exacerbated the problem. You cannot fix population distribution in a game mode where coverage wins. Similarly, you cannot fix the scoring system when there is such a massive disparity between not just the server player counts, but the playstyles that those player counts bring about.

You are seeing it yourself in this thread, T1 folk say ‘we don’t want to play ghosttown pvd’ and T8 folk cry ‘no zergs, please’. How do you fix population imbalance when the two ends of the community can’t even agree what the imbalance is? T1 thinks T8 is just disorganized, T8 thinks T1 sucked out all of their players. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is no way to preserve these two RADICALLY different playstyles while fixing the problem. What IS the problem? Does Blackgate have so many players because it is really the best server hands down, does Eredon Terrace have none because it is a stinky dump?

Neither is true. Back to my original point, anyone who cares about winning (which is not wholly unacceptable in a supposedly competitive game mode) knows Eredon Terrace ain’t where the Ws are at. Blackgate wins often, and wins are accompanied by loot, “prestige”, and since the dawn of tournaments, ADDITIONAL KITTEN REWARDS (man I can’t stress what a hoser move that was). It is unfair to say that top servers did not ever show skill in rising to the top, but it is very fair to say that massive player counts have helped keep them there. There are those who bemoan fairweathers and ‘pve scrubs’, but even a common gear longbow ranger spamming Rapid Fire is a plus. They might not help in a GvG or rack up the PPT, but compared to no player at all?

Again, this is not to say top tier servers never win through talent, but the talent they utilize now is in organization, coordination, communication. Consider the 2v1 tactics, that is not something Eredon Terrace can replicate and use on say, Kaineng. What I’m trying to say here is that the two ends of the spectrum have adapted differently to the PPT system, and the end result is very different experiences. There is no one-size-fits-all repair.

The overall point being, it is the scoring system that has made the population imbalance this bad – if winning matters, as the tournament rewards seem to indicate it does, then it makes sense NOT to be on Eredon Terrace. Any fixes to the population distribution will simply be recreated in time, because winning matters and wins are the result of 1 part skill, 1 part coordination, and 2 parts coverage in the PPT world. Eredon Terrace does not have constant coverage, and neither, from the posts in this thread, do most of the servers, so there will once again be coverage winners and coverage losers. Since winning is more fun than being dumped on, those winners will once again snowball into the monoliths and the losers into pebbles.

Therefore, it doesn’t make any sense to try and fix population independently of coverage and scoring. These three areas impact each other directly. No population fix will be successful unless it is made relative to scoring changes. Having a thread full of great ideas is totally worthless, because these ideas are only good compared to the status quo. Scoring and coverage are currently joined at the hip, and these two concepts drive player population direction. A fix for one must be a fix for all.

i commend the 15 page thread and the passion herein but….

if any of you think they are actually going to do something about this you will be sorely disappointed. excuse my qq but just look at how “much” we have gotten in the wvw community recently….

Side note, the devs that have been adopted onto servers should really be looking at their servers internal discussions on this subject. I know TC has a thriving thread about this and I’m sure most other servers do as well. Heck the TC/FA/MAG match up thread is even talking about it.

Choppy.4183:

I couldn’t get through 15 pages, so not sure if it’s been brought up or not, but someone on my server proposed increasing the rewards for wvw. The rationale being, if people are grinding dungeons for rewards, perhaps they’d have more of a reason to enter wvw.

It wouldn’t address population and coverage balance, but it may increase wvw populations overall. Combine with the ol’ free transfers to lower tier servers (or establishing some sort of market dynamic), and it might help.

Or not. It’s clear I haven’t put nearly as much thought into this as others, so I’d defer to those who have. But I can say as a long time wvw’er on one of the lower tier servers that there isn’t much appetite there for server mergers. Most of the people who would have favoured that already transferred up to higher tier servers (it’s what dropped us from mid to lower tier in the first place).

It has, probably many times in many threads. even PvE is limited on the reward level. WvW has been pretty neglected on the rewards as well. Not that it’s not worth bringing up again and again though.

RlyOsim.2497:

i commend the 15 page thread and the passion herein but….

if any of you think they are actually going to do something about this you will be sorely disappointed. excuse my qq but just look at how “much” we have gotten in the wvw community recently….

You and I feel the same. I’m not sure if Anet has the balls and resources to actually do an overhaul to a system which remain relatively unchanged since launch. At the earliest we’ll see something in 6 mo – 1 yr. At the earliest.

John Corpening.9847:

There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. 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.

Can you please elaborate further on this? Why do you think they are a separate issue? Population imbalance is a direct result of coverage issues which is a consequence of the scoring system. Honestly, if anet genuinely wants to fix this issue, then they need to hit it at it’s root. Right now we’re just trying to fix a symptom.

Sube Dai.8496:

It doesn’t do anything to avoid stacking though, the result would be the same as we have now. Ultimately the players can’t be left to decide which alliance to join, because they won’t do it in a balanced fashion.

If you want a balanced matchup the system needs to say “Team 1 has 20 players, Team 2 has 10 players, therefore the next 10 players must join team 2.”

It sounds like ultimately the playerbase doesn’t want that, because they want to fight with their friends/guild/server…which is too bad because it would solve the problem easily.

Therefore we would need an alliance/matchup queue of sorts. If a guild of 80 people want to play a match then they have to wait in queue until an opposing guild or guilds/mercenaries equal to the same size sign up to play against them.

Or the system needs to be designed that avoids the ability to dominate almost solely based on numbers, there are plenty ideas here that try and tackle that. Regardless, I don’t mind losing as long as i’m having fun and i really do enjoy the community i’m in if you take that away i really have no reason to play anymore. As it is i don’t play much, the megaserver dismantled my social experience and any thought of a challenge in most world events.

I bugs me to no end that the answer is the easiest one with the least benefit to the game. There are probably a billion things the population could come up with that take time, money and manpower to implement.

If the answer is server merges, than the answer is no.
If the answer is lower caps, the answer is no.
If the answer is alliances, the answer is no.

All these thing impact the game mode in the easiest, but also in a very negative way. I love how the OP basically “settled” for what he though would fly, based on past experiences. It’s become a what would you rather do, cut off a finger or a toe.

All I know is that Anet needs to do something drastic very quickly. WvW has been slowly dying over the past year due to population imbalances (think 2 stacks of bleeding). Since the end of the spring tournament the rate it is dying at picked up (10 stacks), and once GvG died it has increased to a whopping 18 stacks of bleeding. Anet, please make merge the servers, death-shroud is running out and consume conditions is on CD.

munkiman.3068:

Or the system needs to be designed that avoids the ability to dominate almost solely based on numbers, there are plenty ideas here that try and tackle that. Regardless, I don’t mind losing as long as i’m having fun and i really do enjoy the community i’m in if you take that away i really have no reason to play anymore. As it is i don’t play much, the megaserver dismantled my social experience and any thought of a challenge in most world events.

I bugs me to no end that the answer is the easiest one with the least benefit to the game. There are probably a billion things the population could come up with that take time, money and manpower to implement.

If the answer is server merges, than the answer is no.
If the answer is lower caps, the answer is no.
If the answer is alliances, the answer is no.

All these thing impact the game mode in the easiest, but also in a very negative way. I love how the OP basically “settled” for what he though would fly, based on past experiences. It’s become a what would you rather do, cut off a finger or a toe.

Then it becomes a scoring discussion.

Incidentally I don’t mind losing either, but I at least want a chance of winning. Most matchups there is no chance of beating the server with more numbers…

John Corpening.9847:

After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.
…
Thanks,
John

Given the severe imbalance in population & coverage between servers a mega-server style solution is the only thing with a chance of working. My (rough) suggestion:

1. Discard the concept of servers entirely (for WvW).
2. Every week (or whatever period you choose) assign accounts to a temporary battlegroup (or whatever you name it). The assignment only lasts for the period’s duration. Next period everybody gets re-assigned. If the assignments are done right both population and coverage could be roughly balanced between battlegroups.

How to do this and keep communities together? The same way the megaserver system does it now – by grouping friends and guildmates together in the same battlegroups as much as possible. Maybe include a guarantee that you will be assigned to the same battlegroup as your most represented guild – that way WvW guilds could be sure they would play together. Guild population limits would ensure this stays balanced despite the guarantee.

Not a perfect system certainly, but it would produce games worth playing while keeping most people grouped as they prefer most of the time.

P.S. I know you said no coverage issues, but population and coverage are two sides of the same problem. Any solution will have to address both simultaneously or it won’t be a solution.

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.

Honestly, I think that if you can fix the scoring and rewards so that a scrappy underdog server can win by playing and fighting well when they have people on and get well rewarded for their efforts while playing, the population imbalance becomes much less of an issue to me. And as I’ve said in an earlier reply, I don’t want WvW play homogenized around the idea that everyone is looking for a stacked T1 experience because I’m not, nor are the players who have transferred to lower tiers out of T1.

That said, if my suggestion for addressing the server population imbalance is to not only make transfers down free but actually pay (in gems) a limited number of players each week to transfer down, and charge them more to transfer back up. If a player transfers down 1 league (at least 4 ranks down) into an open slot, they get 200 gems. If they transfer down 2 leagues into an open slot, they get 400 gems (the reward for 10,000 achievement points or about $5). If there are no open slots, the transfer is free but they don’t get gems in return, so a larger guild could transfer but only some of the players might get gems if there aren’t enough open slots. If they transfer up 1 league, it costs 800 gems. If they transfer 2 leagues, it costs 1600 gems. The number of slots available increases the lower a sever is in its league. So for NA, you might have something like:

Rank League   Slots
01        Gold       N/A
02        Gold       N/A
03        Gold       N/A
04        Gold       N/A
05        Gold       N/A
06        Gold       N/A
07        Silver      0
08        Silver      2  
09        Silver      4  
10        Silver      6
11        Silver      8 
12        Silver      10 
13        Silver      12 
14        Silver      14 
15        Silver      16 
16        Bronze    0  
17        Bronze    2  
18        Bronze    4  
19        Bronze    5  
20        Bronze    8 
21        Bronze    10 
22        Bronze    12 
23        Bronze    14
24        Bronze    16 

Asquared.4091:

NeHoMaR.9812:

My idea to fix population in WvW:

• Don’t touch servers, no need to merge.
• Reduce tiers to only two:
• Tier 1 will be as it is right now, the top 3 servers.
• Tier 2 will be temporally merged servers as it is in EotM map.
• Every week, the 3rd place of T1 will go to T2, and the best performing in T2 will go to T1.
• If the queue is too big in T2, a new instance could be created, etc. (there are multiple solutions to this problem)

Just to be clear, you’re advocating leaving T1 alone, with 3 servers… and merging all the rest to the second “tier” where they fight it out in multi-instance EotM style matchups???

I need to make sure that I’m actually reading that right…

Yes, but not exactly, the “multi-instance” is only for queuing, only one real map (eb+3bl) will give the points, and the “merging” is only for the non tier 1 servers at the moment, temporary, all weeks a different server will go to tier 1. The real WvW will be the first 3 servers (that is happening already anyway) the other servers purpose will be trying to enter the tier 1 next week.

GreyWraith.8394:

John Corpening.9847:

After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.
…
Thanks,
John

Given the severe imbalance in population & coverage between servers a mega-server style solution is the only thing with a chance of working. My (rough) suggestion:

1. Discard the concept of servers entirely (for WvW).
2. Every week (or whatever period you choose) assign accounts to a temporary battlegroup (or whatever you name it). The assignment only lasts for the period’s duration. Next period everybody gets re-assigned. If the assignments are done right both population and coverage could be roughly balanced between battlegroups.

How to do this and keep communities together? The same way the megaserver system does it now – by grouping friends and guildmates together in the same battlegroups as much as possible. Maybe include a guarantee that you will be assigned to the same battlegroup as your most represented guild – that way WvW guilds could be sure they would play together. Guild population limits would ensure this stays balanced despite the guarantee.

Not a perfect system certainly, but it would produce games worth playing while keeping most people grouped as they prefer most of the time.

P.S. I know you said no coverage issues, but population and coverage are two sides of the same problem. Any solution will have to address both simultaneously or it won’t be a solution.

The system has to stop people from stacking though, or we have the same problems as now.

At some point it has to say “this battlegroup is full, join one of the other two”

Berk.8561:

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.

Honestly, I think that if you can fix the scoring and rewards so that a scrappy underdog server can win by playing and fighting well when they have people on and get well rewarded for their efforts while playing, the population imbalance becomes much less of an issue to me. And as I’ve said in an earlier reply, I don’t want WvW play homogenized around the idea that everyone is looking for a stacked T1 experience because I’m not, nor are the players who have transferred to lower tiers out of T1.

That said, if my suggestion for addressing the server population imbalance is to not only make transfers down free but actually pay (in gems) a limited number of players each week to transfer down, and charge them more to transfer back up. If a player transfers down 1 league (at least 4 ranks down) into an open slot, they get 200 gems. If they transfer down 2 leagues into an open slot, they get 400 gems (the reward for 10,000 achievement points or about $5). If there are no open slots, the transfer is free but they don’t get gems in return, so a larger guild could transfer but only some of the players might get gems if there aren’t enough open slots. If they transfer up 1 league, it costs 800 gems. If they transfer 2 leagues, it costs 1600 gems. The number of slots available increases the lower a sever is in its league. So for NA, you might have something like:

Rank League   Slots
01        Gold       N/A
02        Gold       N/A
03        Gold       N/A
04        Gold       N/A
05        Gold       N/A
06        Gold       N/A
07        Silver      0
08        Silver      2  
09        Silver      4  
10        Silver      6
11        Silver      8 
12        Silver      10 
13        Silver      12 
14        Silver      14 
15        Silver      16 
16        Bronze    0  
17        Bronze    2  
18        Bronze    4  
19        Bronze    5  
20        Bronze    8 
21        Bronze    10 
22        Bronze    12 
23        Bronze    14
24        Bronze    16 

Don’t forget what happened with Kaineng, where everyone stacked on a low tier server and ROFL stomped for months on end with superior numbers until they hit T2 and then couldn’t compete and then alot of people left the server.

Sube Dai.8496:

GreyWraith.8394:

John Corpening.9847:

After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.
…
Thanks,
John

Given the severe imbalance in population & coverage between servers a mega-server style solution is the only thing with a chance of working. My (rough) suggestion:

1. Discard the concept of servers entirely (for WvW).
2. Every week (or whatever period you choose) assign accounts to a temporary battlegroup (or whatever you name it). The assignment only lasts for the period’s duration. Next period everybody gets re-assigned. If the assignments are done right both population and coverage could be roughly balanced between battlegroups.

How to do this and keep communities together? The same way the megaserver system does it now – by grouping friends and guildmates together in the same battlegroups as much as possible. Maybe include a guarantee that you will be assigned to the same battlegroup as your most represented guild – that way WvW guilds could be sure they would play together. Guild population limits would ensure this stays balanced despite the guarantee.

Not a perfect system certainly, but it would produce games worth playing while keeping most people grouped as they prefer most of the time.

P.S. I know you said no coverage issues, but population and coverage are two sides of the same problem. Any solution will have to address both simultaneously or it won’t be a solution.

The system has to stop people from stacking though, or we have the same problems as now.

At some point it has to say “this battlegroup is full, join one of the other two”

So my battlegroup is only a temporary (weekly) assignment. I have no reason to fight for my battlegroups pride this week, because next week I will have another battlegroup. I might as well just go play in EoTM and karma train because I won’t be doing any of the duties you need to do in a competitive WvW.

I think this comes down on how entice more players to play wvw. If more players hop on wvw, it will come to point where each server can saturate their queues. At that point, there will be a balance population.

The rewards relative to effort and participation needs a hard look. Players who used to not like dungeons now play them, and got better at them, because of rewards, for example.

Server merge/alliance/player cap solves nothing. Because you cannot prevent people from stacking. If you let it, they will stack. You had a preview of it already in the first year with Titan Alliance in this game. There’s nothing in the game to prevent a group of dedicated guilds to create an air tight 24/7 coverage alliance and you’d be back right where you are. And no, OCX/EU guilds are a finite commodity, you cannot just recruit more if they’ve been taken by other alliances already. So it’s a futile exercise to try and let the community balance itself.

The horse has left the barn already. The kind of suggestions in this thread should’ve been explored in the alpha. You should take the low hanging fruits and make blobbing and coverage not as effective instead while keeping a majority of what exists currently. It’s more efficient, and more effective in the long run. The numbers therein are just a general idea to discuss the framework, it probably needs to be changed and test to fine tune it.

1. Make servers 2 vs 1. Give 2nd place 2x multiplier when they attack 1st place, give 3rd place a 3x multiplier in attacking 1st place. Second place gets focused too often, 1st hits them to keep them back, 3rd hits 2nd to try and catch up, and all that does it let 1st place get away with a bigger and bigger lead especially when they have coverage to PVD. Not giving the losing sides a way to come back makes it boring and contributes to the stacking. It’s like trying to watch a basketball game when you can’t take 3 point shots or getting a basket while getting fouled. Give this multiplier to bloodlust stomps also.

2. Change the way PPT is calculated so it’s based on population participation on the current map. Full 3 way blob? It ticks normally. 70 vs 30 vs 25, you’d tick for less. Holding things on an uncontested map should give you little points. Make it so one side cannot PVD and sit on it overnight to amass an insurmountable lead. Sitting on uncontested keeps should net you close to nothing if you’re in 1st place.

You’re probably thinking, what if my side just logs out after getting a 20/30k lead, so now you can barely score on me. But that’s where my first suggestion comes in, the opponents will be getting 2x/3x the score in my absence. If 2nd and 3rd place are getting a multiplier for all they do, under no circumstance would logging off to turtle be beneficial to me. And under no circumstance is 2nd or 3rd going to ask their players to log off because they’ll be wasting their multiplier to score and they can’t turtle their way to reclaim 1st place because you need people to attack to get points.

3. Increase AOE cap so stacking and blobbing is actually dangerous. It empowers small team play and makes things like guerrilla tactics and pincer attacks actually viable for the smaller side. When 5 guys can only hit 5 opponents and the blob can all hit the original 5 attackers, you’re just inviting everyone to group up and mash 1 to victory.

4. Unless the healer is out of combat, healer cannot res a dead ally. To further slow the blob.

I agree with the idea of alliances as a solution to WvW population imbalance. Here is my vision of how it would work:

Alliance > Server > Guild

Using established server rankings, group servers into alliances such as:

Alliance A = Servers 1+24+21+18+15+12+9+6
Alliance B = Servers 2+23+20+17+14+11+8+5
Alliance C = Servers 3+21+19+16+13+10+7+4

The rankings used to divvy up the alliances should be a few matches or a tournament after locking transfers to prevent last minute mass transfers and let the rankings settle.

A better way to distribute the WvW population may exist this is just my best guess so far.

Next, make transfers to any server within your alliance free at any time with no restrictions. While at the same time making transfers to servers outside your alliance expensive with restrictions in place to hinder trolling or other bad behavior. This would be a permanent change.

For new players they should be locked out of WvW for at least the first 10 to 20 levels then asked to pick an alliance. The game then transfers them to a random middle tier server within their chosen alliance.

An alliance page could be added to the WvW window where news, goings on, PPT of all servers, and maybe an in game alliance only forum could be accessed. An alliance restricted part of the forums could be vital to encourage organization between allied guilds.

My hope is that with this system alliances reward guild organization and team work creating a tight knit community. Allied servers become battlefields guilds can move between so they can avoid queues, being too outnumbered in certain time zones, and maximize their impact on the match. This will make guilds will important beyond “which big guild zerg owns this map” and hopefully also solve the coverage problem.

Alliance setup needs to be taken out of the users hands and handled by the systems in place, otherwise this is no different to the server stacking that happens now *Cough BG guilds paying other guilds to be in their alliance" – Sad but true, human nature, take the path of least resistance.

And here for a completely different solution:

• Make 8 (9 in EU) permanent leagues, i.e. never matchup the different tiers.
• Reduce the map-cap in every tier down by 10 (e.g. 100 in T1, 90 in T2, 80 in T3, …)
• In all leagues: transfer prices are: free to the looser of last week, some gems to the middle one, impossible to the winner. (people can freely move between tier, to experience variation, but they always have to improve balance, never improve imbalance)
• implement a strong balancing inside every tier, i.e. no one, is ever allowed to put more, than the current mean demand (map+queue of all teams) onto the maps
• close a tier when it is (nearly) empty.

For EU there is an alternative, at least we germans enjoy nothing more than fighting each other.

• 1 league german large (map cap 100) with Kodash, Riverside, Elona
• 1 league german small (map cap 50) with Abaddom, Drakkar, Millers+Dzagonur
• 1 league english large with (map cap 100) SFR, Deso, Gandara,
• 1 league english medium with (map cap 60) …
• 1 league english small with (map cap 30) …
• 1 league romanic large (100) with Jade, Baruch, Augury Rock
• 1 league romanic small (50) …

How will this affect voice chat communities and server pride for PuG players that aren’t invited to alliances? There are a lot of more casual WvWers not in a guild but still enjoing their server and voice chat, but now they’ll probably get random placement.

How to say this politely. Nothing in this thread is an actual solution to the population imbalance. Nothing adresses the 24/7 nature of WvW. There are only 2 solutions and neither will be implemented. Removing the aoe cap to make the difference in population moot or redoing the entire server architecture to make a true global wvw system and not this US and EU server crap.

Anything else will do nothing, but create more queues during primetime and still not enough people during off hours or create wins by some sort of point algorithm eventhough you got trampled all week anyway.

All this talk about alliances and grouping does not take into account that people are still going to play at teh time they always do and thus it will never be a solution. The population needs to be spread over timezones not just servers to truly fix an imbalance. removing the aoe cap would be second best, as it would give people a chance, though most liekly still lose in the end.

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.

There’s also the fact that a lot of people in wvw aren’t there for the ppt element. I’m not saying the solution is perfect, and it doesn’t solve the underlying problem (as noted in the above post) but weighing coverage is still a step in the right direction.

~ Kovu

Uhm… How about playing three (or four, I don’t really care) matches in a week? Let’s take GMT as the base timezone.

From 00:01 GMT to 08:00 GMT, every day of the week, match A would play. Then, from 08:01 GMT to 16:00 GMT, every day of the week, match B would be played. Then, from 16:01 GMT to 00:00 GMT, match C would be played. When it was 00:01 GMT again, match A would resume with the scores from the day before.

Of course, these hours are a subject of change to accomodate for EU and NA primetime.

This way, the servers b*tching about night capping etc would only have to worry about the other hours, and still get a sense of accomplishment from winning them.

Alliances have major issue I haven’t seen mentioned yet. And that is Europe and diverse languages (minimum 4 official).

For guilds it’s sort of fine, they usually have at least one person speaking English but what about the rest of players? The semi-random generation of alliances could create big block of French players with small part of Germans on same alliance and now they will be in disadvantage of full Spanish alliance (or mix languages as you wont) and for the one-language-only-speakers the game will not be fun.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

Side note, the devs that have been adopted onto servers should really be looking at their servers internal discussions on this subject. I know TC has a thriving thread about this and I’m sure most other servers do as well. Heck the TC/FA/MAG match up thread is even talking about it.

BG is doing the same thing, having its own internal brainstorming, the purpose of which was supposed to be to weed out all of our bad or unworkable ideas and narrow it down to things we think might actually work, then at some point post those ideas here or hand them to Anet in some fashion. It’s part of the reason why you see so many BG posts in this Thread, a lot of us have had this problem on our minds already this week.