Guild Wars 2

The hard truth is the population imbalance is, mostly, a player created problem. Constant bandwagoning and server stacking during the course of two years (and this has been an issue since the game’s launch) have led to us to the situation we are in. Any solution that relies on players to move on their own (even with incentives or punishments) will most likely fail – players will still look for the path of least resistance that gives them the easiest possible experience on the most populated servers. There isnt an incentive big enough to stop that. This would apply to caps as well – you would still see players glomming into the smallest group of servers possible – to the detriment of all others.

ArenaNet needs a solution that will adapt with the game population, much the way the megaserver does in PVE, without breaking apart the communities that have formed during the past two years (or, in the case of the bandwagonning servers, that have been cobbled together more recently).

This is why I am so in favor of a server alliance system that groups servers together into battlegroups. It really offers the only solution, that ive seen or can think of, that allows servers to stay intact while ensuring matches aren’t as lopsided – or that the winning server isnt predetermined solely by the number of players they have.

Blaeys.3102:

The hard truth is the population imbalance is, mostly, a player created problem. Constant bandwagoning and server stack during the course of two years (and this has been an issue since the game’s launch) have led to us to the situation we are in.

The rules of the game so far enforce it:
- You win if you are more
- You get more season-rewards if you win
- You dominate EotM if you are more, instead of sitting in queue

And in game as well:
- You maximize anyones rewards, if anyone runs around in a big blob and PvDs

People optimize their behavior according to the rules.

The rules need to be changed, if the result is bad, not the people blamed to behave optimal.

Blaeys.3102:

The hard truth is the population imbalance is, mostly, a player created problem. Constant bandwagoning and server stacking during the course of two years (and this has been an issue since the game’s launch) have led to us to the situation we are in. Any solution that relies on players to move on their own (even with incentives or punishments) will most likely fail – players will still look for the path of least resistance that gives them the easiest possible experience on the most populated servers. There isnt an incentive big enough to stop that. This would apply to caps as well – you would still see players glomming into the smallest group of servers possible – to the detriment of all others.

ArenaNet needs a solution that will adapt with the game population, much the way the megaserver does in PVE, without breaking apart the communities that have formed during the past two years (or, in the case of the bandwagonning servers, that have been cobbled together more recently).

This is why I am so in favor of a server alliance system that groups servers together into battlegroups. It really offers the only solution, that ive seen or can think of, that allows servers to stay intact while ensuring matches aren’t as lopsided – or that the winning server isnt predetermined solely by the number of players they have.

Population is a player created problem based off mechanics designed by ArenaNet that we use and abuse. You can’t leave it up to the players to invoke a change that effects thousands of players but you can provide a system in which they can utilize and not manipulate.

There are several solutions to these issues whether it be GvG’s being vastly supported with mega servers or Server Alliances. As this game suffers from attrition the problem will continually get worse untill ArenaNet and not the players do something about it.

The same way they chose to make free server transfers before Season 1 and the same way they developed a WvW and server capacity limit. These mechanics are then used by the communities for the greater good or worse of the state of the game.

Dayra.7405:

Blaeys.3102:

The hard truth is the population imbalance is, mostly, a player created problem. Constant bandwagoning and server stack during the course of two years (and this has been an issue since the game’s launch) have led to us to the situation we are in.

The rules of the game so far enforce it:
- You win if you are more
- You get more season-rewards if you win
- You dominate EotM if you are more, instead of sitting in queue

And in game as well:
- You maximize anyones rewards, if anyone runs around in a big blob and PvDs

People optimize their behavior according to the rules.

The rules need to be changed, if the result is bad, not the people blamed to behave optimal.

This ^

1) Create only 3 megaservers to wvw
2) Each player must enlist on one server, and it must have a limit to the difference of listed players
3) When the player wishes to change the listed server, the operation is the same as the exchange server Today

This is my suggestion

GreenRipper.6432:

1) Create only 3 megaservers to wvw
2) Each player must enlist on one server, and it must have a limit to the difference of listed players
3) When the player wishes to change the listed server, the operation is the same as the exchange server Today

This is my suggestion

You forgot to title this. Here let me help.

”How to kill WvW in 3 easy steps”

There is no way to fix it. The problems with WvW are very much in the core of the system.

aNet knew this so they introduced Edge of the Mists. Edge of the Mists wasn’t put in as a buffer zone, it was put in as a replacement. That’s why it has greater rewards, multiple server support on one color and a lot of the same gameplay as WvW.

World Vs World is dead.

They should just get rid of it and replace it with a GvG system with cross-server alliances and drop the server=world aspect altogether.

It’s going to come to that anyway.

I think what they’ll try to do to stop the bleeding is knocking Tiers ‘together’ like Edge, with multiple servers sharing the same battleground, and call it something like ‘Alliances’ (decided by glicko) but that’s not going to do a kitten thing because of how disgusting the balance between servers already is.

For example, Tier 1 and Tier 2 would end up looking like this right now:

StackGate+JadeQuarry VS Tarnished Coast+Fort Aspenwood VS Sea of Sorrows+Maguuma.

I mean, that’s a joke, so that can’t happen.

If we go by non-Tournament, it would be:

StackGate+Sea of Sorrows VS Jade Quarry+Fort Aspenwood VS Tarnished Coast+Magumma.

That would be 1+1 VS 2+2 VS 3+3 (Place in their Tier). That’s still a massive joke.

If you did a 1+3, 2+2, 3+1 you get:

StackGate+Maguuma VS Jade Quarry+Fort Aspenwood VS Tarnished Coast+Sea of Sorrows

That’s a bit better, I guess.

Azumi.9572:

(…)
If you did a 1+3, 2+2, 3+1 you get:

StackGate+Maguuma VS Jade Quarry+Fort Aspenwood VS Tarnished Coast+Sea of Sorrows

That’s a bit better, I guess.

Because of the unbalanced population, I think you need to try something like
BuyGate vs JQ+Mag vs TC+SoS+FA

My 2 cents…the individual who mentioned ecology hit the nail on the head.

Wall of text incoming…first para is the gist of it…

Utilize resource scaling (supply, camps, yaks, nodes/gathered items, and rewards) to influence population movement, at the same time as you provide a system for incentivizing different server “strategies” or reason to care about PPT. Basically, and very generally, scale the amount of resources available based on population size, give us more to spend resources and guild influence on so we can play wvw with more strategy and reason while still providing “great fights”. Finally, I think I agree with the idea of an “expansion” or something to bring some new and old players into GW2, otherwise server migration and/or alliances may be unavoidable.

Remove supply caps from map objectives and allow us to move supply from/to anywhere we want…let us decide where we want to hide our stash. Basically, if a server wants to grab a supply camp and move all the supply to a tower in order to upgrade the tower, we should be allowed to…or hide it all in garri…whatever so that we can implement our own map strategy instead of the extremely rigid one we have to play with…

Implement a resource scaling system that is based on server, wvw, and map population such that each pop metric influences options and strategies the server can use to play different styles. Make sure this system employs diminishing returns for population size (or inversely, diminishing support for the lack thereof). Bascially, supply flow is lowest for highest pop server, highest wvw pop server, and as a function of the map status. HomeBL is 100% and fully upgraded = very slow supply generated by the BL (EotM still drops). HomeBL and you own 1 camp, supply comes quickly.

Implement incentive system that acts as supply, guild influence, and gathered item sink scaled based on pop statistics. If Server A is the biggest server and has homebl 100%, then options to add another supply camp (since supply flow is limited), or build a watchtower, or extra wall (like close off the wurm gate cannon at bay). Or if Server C is the smallest server and has homebl 100%, then options to build a Legendary Omega in enemy BL, or option for a crate of 20 Wall Smasher Hammers to drop in enemy BL so now you can beat the wall down like you always wanted too. The scale of these, and options for new content are endless, but they should be random in occurrence and based on the pop metrics identified above.

Finally, must include instances in wvw to really spice things up. Random, event and pop based instances that activate for commanders, or “pop up” like siegerazer. Something like, a commander is defending garri, suddenly a wild instance pops up and offers the commander to take the fight into the “Keep Dungeon”. The cost is x,xxx gathered items, xx,xxx guild influence, and/or x,xxx supply, and X guilds have to participate. Or a commander shows up on an enemy bl with a group and there is a spy at spawn willing to get the group into one of the northern towers to “Ransack” supply. Again these are random and based on the pop metrics above.

Oh, and really finally…since we are saying pop imbalance exists, we must assume that the current T1 and T8 are the extremes, and should not be supported, if you will, by this new system. So design and implement this such that these servers can do nothing under this new system (hence the diminishing returns). I guess that would look like any T2 or even T3 server should have an easier time beating a T1 server than the other way around. Similarly, the current T8 servers should not benefit from this system against a T7 or T6 server, basically forcing them to try to get more population.

Thanks, it’s just a rough idea people, and I feel better now

~psyco~

Loot scaling according to participation? Good luck with that. I can bet money that the majority of the people left playing WvWvW don’t care about loot, or they wouldn’t keep playing the mode with the poorest compensation in the entire game(they can just go to EotM for exp/loot farming). It’s mostly other players keeping players here and most of the people I know who left are not coming back in any meaningful capacity(hint~ it wasn’t the loot that turned them away) and people are leaving together. Also, it’s probably too late to try to spread an already thin population to all these servers(not that things still couldn’t get lopsided anyway). Anet blew their chance.

From a server perspective -
I think the most effective way to “Quick” fix the population imbalance would be either server mergers or some type of alliance system. Server mergers would have to be down based on coverage ( server X has OCX, server Y doesn’t etc. ) An alliance system could maybe work but I have no idea how one could be implemented successfully and not slowly devolve into the situation we have now. Yea server merges aren’t desirable because of server pride and server community issues, but I think it would promote bigger WvW communities and help WvW sustain itself alittle longer. Atleast until Anet is able to make some significant changes to the system.

Please do not implement any type of megaserver (EOTM) system. Honestly EOTM should be removed completely and broken down into 3 new maps ( Jungle theme, Desert theme, tundra theme or 1 new map with alternating themes ). The extra maps would allow these condensed servers or alliance match-ups to spread out across more BLs keeping queues low.

From a guild perspective -
A gvg mode would be awesome. It would mean guilds, who are actively seeking to improve , wouldn’t be forced to transfer to higher tiers. Whether that’s expanding on the current OS or creating a 15v15 or 20v20 arena based system ( allowing pve builds/ no build restrictions ) It would certainly bring people back to the game and maybe get more guilds interested in a more competitive environment.

Dayra.7405:

Isn’t that a bit to emotional reaction?

If anything, it probably understates how strongly I feel about it. I play Guild Wars 2 for recreational enjoyment, and the megaservers sucked most of the enjoyment out of PvE for me and other people I know who played on Eredon Terrace. Everywhere I go, zergs.

I know a lot of people here apparently love the massive play but I don’t. I get a taste of that even on ET and I personally don’t think the game plays well at that scale for a variety of reasons (poor graphics performance, lag, inability to distinguish opponents, random rallying, etc.).

Dayra.7405:

Mega-server still mean you may or may not meet your people, while in a community preserving merge, you are guaranteed to meet all ET people, just some others as well.

And how, exactly, do you envision a T8 server being absorbed into a T1 server? As equals?

But that’s beside the point. If I wanted T1 massive battle play, I’d transfer to a T1 server. I’m quite happy with the play I get on ET. The only thing I’m not really happy about is that we have overnight coverage, so any point lead we might achieve or upgrades we might complete while we have people on will inevitably be erased by one or both of our opponents that have better coverage than we do. The time slice solution would solve that problem. But the play I see during primetime, even when we aren’t leading in points, is great as far as I’m concerned.

Dayra.7405:

It like a merge of two schools where classes remain the same (WvW merge) vs a merge of two schools where classes are mixed on order of entrance (mega-server and EotM).

That solution is like merging a small local college with a bottom ranked sports team with a massive state university with a top ranked sports team. What do you think would happen to the athletes and community of the small local college during such a merge?

I love how fair weather post show up. We can t expect ppl to read 3, let alone 20 page,but geesh.

Berk.8561:

Dayra.7405:

Isn’t that a bit to emotional reaction?

If anything, it probably understates how strongly I feel about it. I play Guild Wars 2 for recreational enjoyment, and the megaservers sucked most of the enjoyment out of PvE for me and other people I know who played on Eredon Terrace. Everywhere I go, zergs.

I know a lot of people here apparently love the massive play but I don’t. I get a taste of that even on ET and I personally don’t think the game plays well at that scale for a variety of reasons (poor graphics performance, lag, inability to distinguish opponents, random rallying, etc.).

Dayra.7405:

Mega-server still mean you may or may not meet your people, while in a community preserving merge, you are guaranteed to meet all ET people, just some others as well.

And how, exactly, do you envision a T8 server being absorbed into a T1 server? As equals?

But that’s beside the point. If I wanted T1 massive battle play, I’d transfer to a T1 server. I’m quite happy with the play I get on ET. The only thing I’m not really happy about is that we have overnight coverage, so any point lead we might achieve or upgrades we might complete while we have people on will inevitably be erased by one or both of our opponents that have better coverage than we do. The time slice solution would solve that problem. But the play I see during primetime, even when we aren’t leading in points, is great as far as I’m concerned.

Dayra.7405:

It like a merge of two schools where classes remain the same (WvW merge) vs a merge of two schools where classes are mixed on order of entrance (mega-server and EotM).

That solution is like merging a small local college with a bottom ranked sports team with a massive state university with a top ranked sports team. What do you think would happen to the athletes and community of the small local college during such a merge?

If they were to merge servers, I presume they would leave the top 3-4 servers alone that are currently at FULL status and merge the mid-low servers to consilidate the lower populations. Not sure that the discussion on that is really something we need to go into though as Anet has indicated something entirely different from merging servers, but rather breaking up ALL servers and forming alliances. And since we haven’t had any input since this the thread is just all over the place with an ambiguous topic.

I have one idea for balance:

-Define a difference MARGIN, lets say 5 people
-Define a TRIGGER for a server, lets say 20 people
-Assume the player on each SERVER on the map,
-Lets add 1, 2 and 3 for identifing each server, like SERV1, SERV2 and SERV3

This is the rule:

DIFF1to2 = SERV1 – SERV2
DIFF1to3 = SERV1 – SERV3
DIFF2to1 = SERV2 – SERV1
DIFF2to3 = SERV2 – SERV3
DIFF3to1 = SERV3 – SERV1
DIFF3to2 = SERV3 – SERV2

1) if (DIFF1to2 > MARGIN and SERV1 > TRIGGER )
Queue on SErver1

2) if (DIFF1to3> MARGIN and SERV1 > TRIGGER )
Queue on SErver1

3) if (DIFF2to1> MARGIN and SERV1 > TRIGGER )
Queue on SErver2

4) if (DIFF2to3> MARGIN and SERV1 > TRIGGER )
Queue on SErver2

5) if (DIFF3to1> MARGIN and SERV1 > TRIGGER )
Queue on SErver3

6) if (DIFF3to2> MARGIN and SERV1 > TRIGGER )
Queue on SErver3

CASE TEST:

SERV1: 15 OK
SERV2: 26 (4) QUEUE SERVER2
SERV3: 20 OK

SERV1: 15 OK
SERV2: 26 (4) QUEUE SERVER2
SERV3: 26 (6) QUEUE SERVER3

SERV1: 23 OK
SERV2: 26 OK
SERV3: 26 OK

SERV1: 23 OK
SERV2: 29 (3) QUEUE SERVER 2
SERV3: 26 OK

SERV1: 32 OK
SERV2: 29 (3) QUEUE SERVER 2
SERV3: 26 OK

I think you and the other devs are going at this issue all wrong.

You have a population of WvW’ers who do almost nothing else BUT WvW.

Why not WvW dedicated servers?

I’d rather “guest” to do pve (pvp doesn’t matter since it’s still an instance in an instance) than be stuck on uneven servers where numbers matter more than strategy.

Anet is giving $25,000 to a pvp (cough) winner when the real end game is WvW and the possibilities are endless what Anet could have and can still do with WvW do make it a far more challenging (not grind, just even) with numbers being about the same during the “day” and “night” by balancing by region – shutting the door on any server that gets to its numbers – case closed, until – say 1% is lowered in any server then people may join it.

1%-5% isn’t a problem but 20-50% more is a continuing issue on some servers – ask some who are going against numbers they are not able to counter – not at all.

Imbalance is built in when some have a choice not to go into WvW and some don’t even know it exists.

I certainly didn’t know WvW existed AT ALL for the first eight months of the game – and I was in on Pre-Release weekend and haven’t had a break from the game since…

WvW Servers -no more huge inequities and demoralizing of servers – guest to any server to play pve – but give us our playground – please.

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,

Just a quick note to let you know I’m not dead I took a day off to celebrate a birthday for a special little dude in my life. Now I’m back and waaaaaay behind!

I’ve had some thoughts based on some feedback you guys have given on the proposal I posted. I’m going to try to get caught up on this thread then see how we can adjust things to cover some concerns.

John

Special little dude sounds like a son, well at least that’s what i’ve called all my boys, so congrats? maybe? Sorry out have to welcome you back to read such doom and gloom…

Azumi.9572:

So what’s the point? WvW is dead. No competitive Tiers, dying and drying up population, less influx of casuals due to EotM being a much better fit for them, etc.

Edge of the Mists replaced it, basically. Pointless to worry about WvW at this stage.

People don’t play EOTM because it’s fun; they play it to farm. The rewards for karma train behaviour in EOTM are waaaay out of proportion.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Limit rewards

Won’t be enough. Servers actually have to stand a chance of actually winning.

Scaling PPT to active population when tick is calculated is the best solution as it means servers with a low but dedicated population can still beat a lazy, overstacked server like BG.

Moreover scaled, moving-averaged PPT also addresses the timezone/coverage issue – since points/pop at time of tick is all that matters.

that’s why i said remove EotM for now, and WvW will be back to normal, at least until a better solution is found.

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,

Just a quick note to let you know I’m not dead I took a day off to celebrate a birthday for a special little dude in my life. Now I’m back and waaaaaay behind!

I’ve had some thoughts based on some feedback you guys have given on the proposal I posted. I’m going to try to get caught up on this thread then see how we can adjust things to cover some concerns.

John

Basically, take the responses as a whole. There is a lot of disagreement on what the ideal WvW situation should be and some suggestions put forward will outright kill WvW as we know it.

Not going to read 20+ pages of thread…been drinking…a little frustrated with my cable provider – Suddenlink – and now with WvW… PLEASE MERGE THE SERVERS!!!! Anet… you gotta see that the servers are already low population on the majority… low pop servers don’t stand a chance against the T1 servers…. WHY HAVE TIERS TO BEGIN WITH!!!? if you are having population issues merge the servers…. Mega servers is nice and all but its useless when it comes down to WvW…. I am on Magumma…and we are getting wrecked! AND I MEAN WRECKED!!! each week…..it is impossible for us to get first cause nobody does WvW on our server….and being in T1 does not help our cause…in the end the rewards for doing WvW SUCK….for the average player….for those that do play WvW…there is no one on to actually do WvW….merge the low pop servers!!!!! make new servers if populations become too high amongst all the servers!!! give incentive for players that move from a HIGH Pop to a medium and low pop! give more incentives period!!! AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS DWAYNA!!!!! RELEASE AN EXPANSION TO GW2!!!!!!! WE WANT TO EXPLORE THE REST OF TYRIA FOR GRENTHS SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it’s fair to say that the only people happy with this season so far are the t1 servers. After all they get to blob everyone over and get the bags.

Hodori.1068:

Not going to read 20+ pages of thread…been drinking…a little frustrated with my cable provider – Suddenlink – and now with WvW… PLEASE MERGE THE SERVERS!!!! Anet… you gotta see that the servers are already low population on the majority… low pop servers don’t stand a chance against the T1 servers…. WHY HAVE TIERS TO BEGIN WITH!!!? if you are having population issues merge the servers…. Mega servers is nice and all but its useless when it comes down to WvW…. I am on Magumma…and we are getting wrecked! AND I MEAN WRECKED!!! each week…..it is impossible for us to get first cause nobody does WvW on our server….and being in T1 does not help our cause…in the end the rewards for doing WvW SUCK….for the average player….for those that do play WvW…there is no one on to actually do WvW….merge the low pop servers!!!!! make new servers if populations become too high amongst all the servers!!! give incentive for players that move from a HIGH Pop to a medium and low pop! give more incentives period!!! AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS DWAYNA!!!!! RELEASE AN EXPANSION TO GW2!!!!!!! WE WANT TO EXPLORE THE REST OF TYRIA FOR GRENTHS SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol i second everything he said even tho im on fa. and mag isnt t1 mag is t2 but should be t3 or t4. mag got f’d worse than fa this season. I actually feel bad for mag, mag has no chance unless fa and sos and t1 suddenly lose every player.

Mattargul.9235:

Azumi.9572:

(…)
If you did a 1+3, 2+2, 3+1 you get:

StackGate+Maguuma VS Jade Quarry+Fort Aspenwood VS Tarnished Coast+Sea of Sorrows

That’s a bit better, I guess.

Because of the unbalanced population, I think you need to try something like
BuyGate vs JQ+Mag vs TC+SoS+FA

Um…no. FA players and SoS players have a lot of animosity towards each other. It would fail.

azizul.8469:

that’s why i said remove EotM for now, and WvW will be back to normal, at least until a better solution is found.

You don’t want the upscaled karma-train in WvW, do you?
So it’s good that there is EotM for them. Equal reward level of course would be nice.

scerevisiae.1972:

Scaling PPT to active population when tick is calculated is the best solution as it means servers with a low but dedicated population can still beat a lazy, overstacked server like BG.

Moreover scaled, moving-averaged PPT also addresses the timezone/coverage issue – since points/pop at time of tick is all that matters.

Simply scaling tick by man power isn’t enough, as it not only ignores the coverage problem, it worsens it, capping the map in off-time will be even stronger. It also ignores that in the end you only need 1 scout and a blob waiting somewhere else (e.g. EotM) to keep it.

Determing the value of an objektive by the manpower-ratio used to acquire it, however would work.

azizul.8469:

that’s why i said remove EotM for now, and WvW will be back to normal, at least until a better solution is found.

You must be new here…before EOTM WvW was the Karma Train.’

EOTM has helped separate the farmers from the PvP’ers.

i wish they could bring wvw in to the pve maps so factions could fight for land

Sube Dai.8496:

azizul.8469:

that’s why i said remove EotM for now, and WvW will be back to normal, at least until a better solution is found.

You must be new here…before EOTM WvW was the Karma Train.’

EOTM has helped separate the farmers from the PvP’ers.

at least those “empty servers” get back their people. if they want to karma train let them be.

Just gonna say, from SoR, if they try to merge us. I won’t quit. But I will kittening HATE Anet forever. I can’t even go to LA and call for more SoR to go to WvW anymore because it’s not server specific.

They’re probably all “but with mega severs we’re all one big happy community now!” No. I still hate BG, I still hate JQ, I always will, they RUINED WvW for everyone with their server stacking tactics. Anet ruined it because they let dollar signs block their view of what we warned them would happen if they allowed it.

I don’t give a kitten if you think “oh just another SoR QQing.” Causality has its place, in everything. BG stacks, Anet turns a blind eye, BG eventually wins by numbers and PPT; everyone tries to stack and WvW is RUINED. Period. That’s what happened, we all kittening watched it happen.

If ANET wants to try an honest “brainstorm” towards any sort of solution, they need to take responsibility for this monumentally “bad decision,” if not apologize to ALL of the servers ruined as a result. No, not just SoR, but the people who tried to fight, to recover after, all of them. No one deserved whats happened.

Until they take responsibility for the greed they displayed, there will be no serious discussion on the subject because all there will be is the existing bad blood.

We are NOT one big happy community.

Why are so many people suggesting an alliance system? The current servers function exactly like alliances. All the problems we have now will still remain unless the score system is changed first.

KDXX.9520:

Just gonna say, from SoR, if they try to merge us. I won’t quit. But I will kittening HATE Anet forever. I can’t even go to LA and call for more SoR to go to WvW anymore because it’s not server specific.

If I will hate it or like it, depends very much on the details of how it’s done.

If my server turns into an alliance with guild-list and guildless member list, that drops everyone that did not login during the last (3) month, and shows for everyone else WvW-active (was active in WvW during last week) WvW-passive (wasn’t active in WvW during last week), and provides a chat were all online WvW-active player can be reached (somehow limited to avoid spam), if they are online, i will like it as it improves community.

If they just merge us (German speaking server) with a different language server and do nothing that help to preserve community, i will hate it

@ Mal. Thank you for your sweet reply. I was touched and i almost had a tear in my eye.

As you have admitted, certain servers and you yourself have encouraged guilds to transfer by offering to pay for transfers or even paying them extra gold once they had moved. This isn’t new, another example of this would be the sudden arrival of ZD’s onto a T1 NA server for season 1 and then their sudden departure as soon as season had finished.

Don’t get me wrong..but i find that the idea that all these guilds are joining one server because they want to GVG to be rather far fetched. If they want to GVG don’t they need to be on different servers to fight each other? Oh, no silly me…thats your idea, its to create a GVG format that will allow guilds on the same server to fight against each other, so having them all stacked on one server won’t matter (unless of course you didn’t want to totally kill wvw, but that would just be a small problem and who cares anyways, it would make winning season 4 even easier).

Thats Great for GVG’s…but what about WVW? This thread is about WvW. I will try to be sweet about it. Could you please create another topic for GVG’s? It is obvious that your Idea for GVG is motivated soley by the desire to keep all the guilds currently on your server, you are not thinking about WvW as a format.

As you stated yourself, the transfer mechanics have been used and abused (wait T1 servers are “full” so you can’t transfer…..). My point is that it is the players themselves that have created this situation. The urge to “win at all costs” is extrememly short sighted and verges on paranoia when we see just how far people are willing to go (spies, siege trolls etc etc.).

We cannot expect Anet to come along and clean up the mess that we have made without first trying to clean up our act. If the players don’t do this then any “fixes” that Anet may provide with eventually be “used and abused” in the same manner.

Thanks for your reply Mal, at least you were honest enough to come on official forums to reply. Oh, and please remember, not one of the “server” leaders that you spoke to actually believes anything you say concerning balancing in T1 NA. You can write all you want but your actions past and present speak far louder than any words.

It’s a touchy topic. I think keeping server identities are important for many players, but some servers could be paired together for some matches to give more coverage and balance during the tounament season.

The current matches are pretty obvious who will win baised on higher rated server paired with the lower rated ones. We can all see who we expect to win each tier, but i think adding some type of server pairing could make some matches more balanced, and add some unpredictable outcomes, which could be fun.

The pairing would only be temporary, maybe have tournament seasons be shorter, but mix up servers so they are partners thoughout the season, but next season servers could be paired with a different ones. This way each server and community is kept together, yet the matchups will atleast be a suprise, and the top rated server for each tier doesn’t win, as expected.

Might be cool thing to try for 1 season and see how people react

Suggested Gold League:
BG+IOJ vs. JQ+DR vs. TC+SI
SOS+DB vs. FA+CD vs. YB+MAG

Suggested Silver League:
NSP+ET vs. HOD+AR vs. BP+SF
GOM+FC vs. KAIN+DH vs. SOR+EB

Curse Drew.8679:

Suggested Gold League:
BG+IOJ vs. JQ+DR vs. TC+SI
SOS+DB vs. FA+CD vs. YB+MAG

Lol T1 does not need a merge, T1 need a fence
Suggested Gold League:
BG vs. JQ vs. TC

Everything else into 6 (unlikly 9) server of Silver with mergers for man-power balance (only ANet can get the numbers for a good grouping)

Dayra.7405:

Curse Drew.8679:

Suggested Gold League:
BG+IOJ vs. JQ+DR vs. TC+SI
SOS+DB vs. FA+CD vs. YB+MAG

Lol T1 does not need a merge, T1 need a fence
Suggested Gold League:
BG vs. JQ vs. TC

Everything else into 6 (unlikly 9) server of Silver with mergers for man-power balance (only ANet can get the numbers for a good grouping)

I agree! I was just did quick balancing by server rating. Honestly i play bronze league and know nothing of t1. Maybe the top 3 rated servers should be excluded, since they already have long waits to enter wvw, adding more ppl would only make it worse for them.

Just close eotm simply

Is there a problem?
I choose a server for different reasons then being the “main god” in WvW country..
The opposite however goes for players who WANT to be part of being the main rulers of WvW.

(It is like soccer..the better a team performs, the more “fans” it gets.)

So..no solution possible honestly IMO

I am on FS server..and we get creamed for 2 weeks in a row now during this fall tournament.But still I am enjoying the raids, the laughs and talks on TeamSpeak servers, the screw ups of both FS commanders as well as enemy commanders…

So, if you feel left out or feel being treated unfairly by getting your kitten kicked over and over again in WvW?

Do what every good professional opportunist would do..switch servers

YVW :P

Nightingale.8364:

@ Mal. Thank you for your sweet reply. I was touched and i almost had a tear in my eye.

As you have admitted, certain servers and you yourself have encouraged guilds to transfer by offering to pay for transfers or even paying them extra gold once they had moved. This isn’t new, another example of this would be the sudden arrival of ZD’s onto a T1 NA server for season 1 and then their sudden departure as soon as season had finished.

Don’t get me wrong..but i find that the idea that all these guilds are joining one server because they want to GVG to be rather far fetched. If they want to GVG don’t they need to be on different servers to fight each other? Oh, no silly me…thats your idea, its to create a GVG format that will allow guilds on the same server to fight against each other, so having them all stacked on one server won’t matter (unless of course you didn’t want to totally kill wvw, but that would just be a small problem and who cares anyways, it would make winning season 4 even easier).

Thats Great for GVG’s…but what about WVW? This thread is about WvW. I will try to be sweet about it. Could you please create another topic for GVG’s? It is obvious that your Idea for GVG is motivated soley by the desire to keep all the guilds currently on your server, you are not thinking about WvW as a format.

As you stated yourself, the transfer mechanics have been used and abused (wait T1 servers are “full” so you can’t transfer…..). My point is that it is the players themselves that have created this situation. The urge to “win at all costs” is extrememly short sighted and verges on paranoia when we see just how far people are willing to go (spies, siege trolls etc etc.).

We cannot expect Anet to come along and clean up the mess that we have made without first trying to clean up our act. If the players don’t do this then any “fixes” that Anet may provide with eventually be “used and abused” in the same manner.

Thanks for your reply Mal, at least you were honest enough to come on official forums to reply. Oh, and please remember, not one of the “server” leaders that you spoke to actually believes anything you say concerning balancing in T1 NA. You can write all you want but your actions past and present speak far louder than any words.

Correction, this thread is about Imbalance which could be solved by mega server game types like GvG. Aslo, I’m not sure who you are but if my actions speak louder than my words then they should believe me because my actions are more positive then my trolling on the forums. Since I have no idea who you are or what server you’re from. I’ll leave it to that. I talk with a good bit of these server leaders every week so theres that too.

i have a solution, which will seem to be unfair to blobs .

but thats my point, blobs will be having man power so u will suffer other way around.I wanted a out manned server side will hold their side longer, easier, and if they hit the blobber server they will do more damage then intended, the only way to do this is to put supply system at work, where if you have number advantage on map you will have supply repair sieges disadvantages,

I will propose to make supply capacity, production, building siege and upgrading is proportional to lower man power.

like
1. if you have 80 man pop cap in map your camps will produce half the supplies,
if you have 50 you will have 70% production of supplies even with upgraded camps.

2. the ones have out manned buff will have 25 % upgrade speed , half supply to make sieges, and supply production and supply will be at full. and 10 % damage from sieges,

this way the bobbin server will have to bang their head on doors, they have to actually most times out of supply, this will help the out manned server to close the gap,

My aim was if the blobbin server gets hit it be hard 4 em to repair , hard 4 em to make sieges to get walls gates down, and on the other hand it be pretty easy for 3 man to defend tower if u are out manned this way u can keep more points in your servers off time.

I have a plan here i just wrote what i think will make a lil even ground, i may post my full plan when i have a lil more constructive idea. I know what i am thinking but am not good at presenting with writing :P, if anyone show interest at this idea i will write more.

Curse Drew.8679:

Might be cool thing to try for 1 season and see how people react

Suggested Gold League:
BG+IOJ vs. JQ+DR vs. TC+SI
SOS+DB vs. FA+CD vs. YB+MAG

Suggested Silver League:
NSP+ET vs. HOD+AR vs. BP+SF
GOM+FC vs. KAIN+DH vs. SOR+EB

I guess you are trying to troll, the two lowest pop servers in T3/T2 together (YB and Mag)?
SoS and DB? so you will get no fights during NA and they will paper everything during OcX?
It would make more sense (BG can probably go at it alone)
BG vs JQ + IoJ vs TC + NSP
SoS + SBI vs FA + CD vs DB+Mag+YB

That would have almost equal coverage all around.

@Mal…oh how lucky I am that you have no idea who I am or what server I am on. I would hate to have any of the toxicity that you have shown toward people on other forums aimed at myself, I do however speak to some of the server leaders that you mentioned on a daily basis about problems that we see in wvw. Your snub at me really goes to show what your attitude is towards other people and how little you think of ideas that don’t come from one of the server “gods”.

Oh and for the fun of it ….

http://www.gw2wvw.net/topic/bgtcsos-s3-week3?page=8 …..very class Mal…very class

The idea that a GVG play format has been talked about so much. I agree it needs to be done. This however is not going to help WvW and the population imbalance. Creating a mega server for GVG will simply give guilds even less reason to move from an allready overstacked server (but thats what you (Mal) really want anyway so its perfect for you). Yet again you show the same short-sightedness that led us to the imbalanced state we see the game in today.

Yet again, if we really want a fix to this problem then players and leaders need to start doing it themselves. Anet cannot implement any new systems if the “win at all costs” attitude persists among a vocal minority who have deemed that their ideas and ways of thinking are the only ways to go, any new system will eventually become just as “used and abused” by these people. If these people are allowed to persist in that kind of attitude and behaviour then the wvw format will be dead and buried.

Assume server will be turned into (open) alliances. Assume further scoring is designed in a way that alliance can really compete independent of size. And the level of competition will stay at alliances on the leaderboard. (Even if they are grouped into teams).

Open alliances have no leader and no membership control, I.e. everyone can join no one can be kicked. Assume further there are also closed alliances, they have leader(s) and join is by invitation only and kick is possible as well.

What would you think would be fair prices to build new alliances?
1’000’000 gems for open alliances?
10,000’000 gems for closed alliances?

(If an alliance has 1000 member 1’000’000 is just 1000 per member, I.e. less than a transfer and alliances should have some continuity, not just be found and abandoned.)

Omega Mccoy.4237:

Curse Drew.8679:

Might be cool thing to try for 1 season and see how people react

Suggested Gold League:
BG+IOJ vs. JQ+DR vs. TC+SI
SOS+DB vs. FA+CD vs. YB+MAG

Suggested Silver League:
NSP+ET vs. HOD+AR vs. BP+SF
GOM+FC vs. KAIN+DH vs. SOR+EB

I guess you are trying to troll, the two lowest pop servers in T3/T2 together (YB and Mag)?
SoS and DB? so you will get no fights during NA and they will paper everything during OcX?
It would make more sense (BG can probably go at it alone)
BG vs JQ + IoJ vs TC + NSP
SoS + SBI vs FA + CD vs DB+Mag+YB

That would have almost equal coverage all around.

I don’t want to ally with YB…..

T1 servers really shouldn’t get in on the alliance action for two reasons.

1: We already have the numbers to crush any two other servers with little to no trouble.

2: You need all the numbers you can get, even if other servers get their population artificially buffed to the point that they can field T1 numbers it will be months before they will have a hope of beating any of the current T1 servers. TC and JQ lack organization compared to BG, but we still have vastly more than 90% of the lower tier servers.

But most of all not every one wants to play T1 wvw AND THATS GOOD!!! T1 is a very brutal play style that wont be for every one, variety is a good thing.

lol.. why you wasting your guys breath… Wasn’t there a population CDI in December of last year. That’s 9 months ago. Same info/suggestion gathering… Anet is buying time & has no interest in putting any effort in WvW. Last 3-4 months what WvW improvements have happened? Golem mastery & siege disablers.. pfft

Re: Server Alliances

Why not a simple, perhaps elegant even, solution like:

(#1 + #24) vs (#2 + #23) vs (#3 + #22)
(#4 + #21) vs (#5 + #20) vs (#6 + #19)
(#7 + #18) vs (#8 + #17) vs (#9 + #16)
(#10 + #15) vs (#11 + #14) vs (#12 + #13)

This would be much more balanced, top to bottom. BL caps would have to be increased, but lag hasn’t really been an issue (for me) in many months… and I play in the T1.

It’s not ideal but, as evidenced by the length of this thread, there are no easy solutions.

Luvpie.8350:

lol.. why you wasting your guys breath… Wasn’t there a population CDI in December of last year. That’s 9 months ago. Same info/suggestion gathering… Anet is buying time & has no interest in putting any effort in WvW. Last 3-4 months what WvW improvements have happened? Golem mastery & siege disablers.. pfft

Well, EotM was one solution to one problem and my guess is that megaserver was going to be another piece of the solution, but then the backlash over the idea of eliminating server identity moved that idea, fortunately, into the garbage can.
Some sort of alliance-based megaserver with server identities left intact is probably the solution but exactly how to do it is not going to be trivial. The real problem is that Anet has let this issue fester so long that there may not be time for a solution to be introduced before most of the WvW population moves on to something else….
My guess is that with the current debacle that is being called the fall tournament, we are already seeing significant dropoffs of WvW participation. Spoon