Guild Wars 2

Regarding PPT scaling…PTT wouldnt necessarily be scaled by ranked population. Rather PPT percent increase or decrease would be capped at a specific percent…maybe 20%, and would be based on a moving average of the current server population. This way PPT is entirely related to coverage, and coverage being in this case the ratio of current server populations as measured and adjusting the moving average at some randomly determined point between Ticks.

Therefore MF%, Loot Drops, ect based on server population by rank…Where as PPT % increase/decrease would be determined and constantly changing during the matchup based on how each server’s total WvW population (all WvW Maps) relates to their enemy. During Primetime…Numbers might be more even so PPT scaling may be negligible, unless enemy server is stacked in which case the underdogs get a ppt bonus. During the night a Server (maye not the same one) might have group of 50 that go and destroy everything, and the other servers dont. Therefore their ppt would take a hit because they have more numbers.

Why is it fair? The points are arbitrary and merely relative. However! They are MEANT to represent an instrinsic value similar to reality. Keeps are better than towers…ect. But In reality objectives dont necessrily have a score attached (unless you work on COA and MDMP)their value may change based on the overall goals or strategic maneuver. If Everyone abandoned the battle field, and you take over the area how much value did the abandoning team assign to that objective….0. They left (they went to sleep) because they nolonger valued the objective. From their perspective the value is now 0, trash. The fact that it adds to the score of the one holding it doesnt represent reality, its an artificiality and static value coded into a virtual environment.

SO. If POINT Values are meant to be a relative indicator of difficulty (otherwise all the obejectives would be worth one point)then point total should represent the cumulated difficulty overcome to achieve such points. If Points are just points then make em all 1. But if the Points have any corelation to the Challenge of the objective, then yes…capturing points when there is no or low enemy population in WvW should be worth far less. A 20% decrease in value is more than adequate.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Regarding PPT scaling…PTT wouldnt necessarily be scaled by ranked population. Rather PPT percent increase or decrease would be capped at a specific percent…maybe 20%, and would be based on a moving average of the current server population. This way PPT is entirely related to coverage, and coverage being in this case the ratio of current server populations as measured and adjusting the moving average at some randomly determined point between Ticks.

This is clearly worser as the dynamic objective values I proposed above, as conquest and tick happen at different points in time and need very different amounts of man power.

Assume the superior server A runs over the map with his 50 people zerg to conquer it, and goes to next map or even EotM. Now the de facto inferior serve B tries to get its stuff back with 10 people, A left a few people to defend the map, but as currently more B than A are on the map the superior A even scores higher scaled than B.

I think until we get our concerns addressed officially, suggestions after 22 pages are just chasing shadows. We really don’t have any idea on a scope of whats possibly/feasible.

Dayra.7405:

PabbyGaul.9682:

Regarding PPT scaling…PTT wouldnt necessarily be scaled by ranked population. Rather PPT percent increase or decrease would be capped at a specific percent…maybe 20%, and would be based on a moving average of the current server population. This way PPT is entirely related to coverage, and coverage being in this case the ratio of current server populations as measured and adjusting the moving average at some randomly determined point between Ticks.

This is clearly worser as the dynamic objective values I proposed above, as conquest and tick happen at different points in time and need very different amounts of man power.

Assume the superior server A runs over the map with his 50 people zerg to conquer it, and goes to next map or even EotM. Now the de facto inferior serve B tries to get its stuff back with 10 people, A left a few people to defend the map, but as currently more B than A are on the map the superior A even scores higher scaled than B.

Not based on MAP population…Based on current Server WvW population, meaning all WvW Maps. So they can move to which ever map they chose, they will still be counted.

If they leave, then they wouldn’t be counted for that tick, but that is why a MOVING AVERAGE is used, so even after they leave the effect of them having been there will persist for several ticks. And if they are gone, the other server can work to get their things back ect. Scaling would work in both directions. If yer outnumbered you get a bonus, if you outnumber, you get a penalty…ect. So at the most extreme the difference could be as much as 40%. With moving average, and never really knowing when the count will happen(random sampling) you cant really map hop to get away from the counter, unless of course you don’t play…which also solves the problem for the server with less coverage.

But, the POINT of scaling PPT is not to make the server with less numbers beat larger servers. So in the above situation I don’t see that as a problem. PPT scaling would offset much of that damage that will occur, reduce the tendency/payoff for outnumbering server to play-off peak, increase the tendency for outnumbered server to defend off/peak.

About dynamic scoring

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

munkiman.3068:

PabbyGaul.9682:

I don’t think high-population servers are the root of the problem. I think the imbalance is simply human nature, playing the game against the rules they are given. Its all artificial. If you want it function in verisimilitude yer gonna have to simulate it.

Again, my point to balance things out has to be centered around the design of the game mode. Tier 1 players have noted they typically don’t queue more than 2 maps during seasons, so lowering the cap (unless it’s brutally lowered) does very little to influence movement. What about the people that like playing on BG JQ TC and aren’t there simply to win? It’s basically a punishment to those folks.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Well “punishment” is necessary in any balanced system. Pick any naturally balanced system and you will find that something pull in the opposite direction, generally something that directly counters that which is pulling in the other direction and is related to the consequences for doing so. Just how it is. rarely do things people want come without a price, there are natural consequence for practically everything worth having, doing ect. In essence we are really just taking the “bonus” from the higher tier servers and giving it to the lower tiers. So, it snot just a punishment, someone gets a Bonus! And the point would not be to force anyone, simply put the stuff in place and let it work itself out.

As many have mention, Overpopulation, Coverage, Rewards, Tournaments, all related. We submitted about 20-30 different changes. Its like 7 pages of stuff…If people are interested I could post I suppose.

Lowering map caps doesn’t do much more than institute frustration, but as John mentioned it’s a suggestion that is the least amount of work, but it’s also one of the least effective methods. Which falls right in line with your natural balance example.

I understand why PPT is what we have, it’s very likely a more death-match type scoring system has overhead and tracking issues. It also would cause scores to vary wildly, higher pop servers could have quite a bit higher points than lower pop, but if you score on averages via a max point count, say to win you need more than 33% of the total score, then you solve that problem. I mentioned before that PPT has been a bad idea since almost a month or 2 after release, which is why we keep having these conversations. The mode needed a restructure before it even made it to the design table.

Im not sure you are responding to my post….miss click maybe?

Map Caps, I don’t mention except to say they wont help….and averaging PPT is not something I discuss either.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

The only reason people are advocating do nothing, is forcing population normalization will ruin wvw for large groups of players.

Either you force everyone into T1 population levels, which players who prefer more chill wvw will understandably hate.

Or you cut population so all wvw is more T2/3 level which any one in T1 will hate.

I have yet to hear a solution (to population imballence) that fits all players better than doing nothing.

There are very large group fights in the lower tiers….

There will be no solutions that everyone will like because it will require a force in the opposing direction…so maybe we need to choose an option that everyone will dislike the least:)

Lurock Turoth.9085:

Now altering point gain based off of the out manned buff or other changes to the point system are a totally different subject.

Agreed sir! But buffs need to be separated into “Low Server Population Buffs” and “Low Map populations Buffs” and they needn’t be the same thing. The former would be to incentivize movement and balance, and the latter to offset possibly unbalanced situations in matchups.

Vote
http://www.gw2wvw.net/content/how-would-you-change-wvw-server-populations

PabbyGaul.9682:

About dynamic scoring

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

You don’t want to keep and defend an keep you acquired via feinting, do you?
You want to reset something to wood is my experience with feinting. So the score this objective have afterwards is quite irrelevant. Important is that the WP, walls and it’s former score for the opponent is destroyed. All this you can achieve with any scoring.

Concerning rewards: I really thing that taking a keep after an 1 hour fight should be (at least) equally rewarding than taking N keeps and X towers via PvD in an hour. Currently PvD is far more rewarding and thats why EotM is as it is and a lot of “feinting” is only karma-train (or PvD score race) in reality (oh they defend this, lets try there). (And yes, this should not lead to a global reduction of rewards, rather to an increase, WvW is already the least rewarding per hour)

I think dynamic scoring leads to more defense and fights (you defend objectives you gained a high score for) and you cannot afford to loose anything with high odds in your favor, so you have to be more defensive when you have superiority (loosing a tower while have 5:1 superiority may cost you 50 points score per tick.) And at least I think this is a strong improvement in it’s own: Fighting for something is much more fun than PvD.
I am tired of hearing (or saying) we cannot afford to fight that long for this single objective, our score is going down.

Dayra.7405:

PabbyGaul.9682:

About dynamic scoring

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

You don’t want to keep and defend an keep you acquired via feinting, do you?
You want to reset something to wood is my experience with feinting. So the score this objective have afterwards is quite irrelevant. Important is that the WP, walls and it’s former score for the opponent is destroyed. All this you can achieve with any scoring.

Concerning rewards: I really thing that taking a keep after an 1 hour fight should be equally rewarding than taking N keeps and X towers via PvD. Currently PvD is far more rewarding and thats why EotM is as it is and a lot of “feinting” is only karma-train in reality (oh they defend this, lets try there).

Feinting is not a Karma-training tactic. Karma training is not about fighting and is simply always being where the enemy is not and to put all your resources into capping the next objective which is either paper or forget it, next objective.

Feinting is used to gain the advantage IN a Fight. In this case is used to get a head-start on papering a t3 objective. My server is perpetually an underdog and so we use feinting a lot. Will we keep the structure? Sometimes. But as you say mostly to make it easier to take in the future, requiring them to use resources to retake…ect. I could prolly write atleast several more paragraphs on the billion uses of feinting, via viels, siege, and everything else.

I don’t disagree with dynamic rewards, fighting outnumbered, length of fight, enemies killed, objectives won or lost, upgrade tiers ect…all good metrics to add spice to rewards and we submitted similar stuff.

BUT… I think the rewarding part, should be a benefit directly to the players, in the form of WxP, Exp, Loot….ect. The relative value of the objective hasn’t changed because the two opposing forces…even if they are on different maps, are still in contest over that objective and therefore is still worth something to the current active population and therefore still has value. However, if the server population is at like 0, so no opponent on any maps anywhere that’s when I think PPT should be adjusted.

Necessitating active defense for the enemy to get points means the best way to defend against your opponents is to abandon it before they get there. Please explain to me that Im wrong here. Because if Im correct that would mean that not only does it encourage karma training, but in fact becomes the only way to actually win. Never defend (so enemy gets the least points) and always attack, hoping someone is at your next target to defend so you can finally get some ppt. Now of course we could add…all kinds of If/Then statements to this situation (well if someone was there in the last 3 min….if someone is within a certain distance….if…the cap was 0 then after a few minutes it will be back to normal or slowly increase ppt contribution……), and go back and forth about how our 4 nested If/then statements interact or don’t to achieve some strange effect. Dunno, sounds like it would force the karm-train to become the new meta for all wvw….Clearly your idea is worser….lol sorry I couldn’t resist

PabbyGaul.9682:

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

This is the big challenge for implementing any sort of population-based handicapping. Another problem is that the enemy, upon anticipating that they’ll be unable to stop you from flipping their SMC, will abandon the map completely to reduce the reward for flipping the objective. If it’s beneficial for an overpowered server to sandbag and leave WvW, players will do that as a tactic to deny their opponent points, and that could create exactly the sort of hostility that ANet wants to avoid — players abusing other players for playing WvW when doing so might help the enemy’s score.

To be viable, any population-based handicapping:

1. Must react quickly to upward population shifts but slowly to downward population shifts to reduce the benefit of quickly abandoning a map or WvW or rapidly surging into a map on WvW. In the past, I’ve recommended calculating a server’s WvW strength as a 1 hour rolling average (average population for the last hour) or current population, whichever is greater across all of WvW.
2. Must never make it more beneficial to for players to leave WvW and let opponents rampage less impeded instead of staying in WvW and fighting to slow them down. This likely means a handicap that provides a partial benefit to the weaker opponent but does not entirely erase the disadvantage. This likely also means retaining some benefit to PvDoor so that an abandoned map remains beneficial to control.
3. Must be gradual rather than having sharp tipping points, so that the presence or absence of one player never makes a huge difference and changes the game significantly.
4. Will likely need to include incentives to make the players on the underdog server(s) show up and play even when they are outnumbered and have trouble winning.

It’s possible that part of the answer to getting the population to spread out and to get people into WvW on low population servers is it base the in game rewards, the loot and chances for ascended gear and precursors, on effort such that one gets noticeably better drops for a desperate fight against a more numerous opponent than one gets being on a more populated server getting an easy win.

Berk.8561:

To be viable, any population-based handicapping:

1. Must react quickly to upward population shifts but slowly to downward population shifts to reduce the benefit of quickly abandoning a map or WvW or rapidly surging into a map on WvW. In the past, I’ve recommended calculating a server’s WvW strength as a 1 hour rolling average (average population for the last hour) or current population, whichever is greater across all of WvW.

Yep, using Moving Average…I suggested that it be taken at a random time-point between ticks.

Berk.8561:

1. Must never make it more beneficial to for players to leave WvW and let opponents rampage less impeded instead of staying in WvW and fighting to slow them down. This likely means a handicap that provides a partial benefit to the weaker opponent but does not entirely erase the disadvantage. This likely also means retaining some benefit to PvDoor so that an abandoned map remains beneficial to control.

Agreed, Scaling rewards and PPT does this. If plpa re ona lower population sever they will always get a MF, Drop rate, and WxP bonus in WVW. IN a matchup if they are seriously outnumbered the PPT increase for heir capture points would scale possible to +20%, and the opposing server at -20%. Also these could be easily adjusted post implementation. This also mean more ppl in lower tier servers will come out to play WvW:)

Berk.8561:

1. Must be gradual rather than having sharp tipping points, so that the presence or absence of one player never makes a huge difference and changes the game significantly.

Moving Average

Berk.8561:

1. Will likely need to include incentives to make the players on the underdog server(s) show up and play even when they are outnumbered and have trouble winning.

It’s possible that part of the answer to getting the population to spread out and to get people into WvW on low population servers is it base the in game rewards, the loot and chances for ascended gear and precursors, on effort such that one gets noticeably better drops for a desperate fight against a more numerous opponent than one gets being on a more populated server getting an easy win.

Good Stuff:)

PabbyGaul.9682:

munkiman.3068:

PabbyGaul.9682:

I don’t think high-population servers are the root of the problem. I think the imbalance is simply human nature, playing the game against the rules they are given. Its all artificial. If you want it function in verisimilitude yer gonna have to simulate it.

Again, my point to balance things out has to be centered around the design of the game mode. Tier 1 players have noted they typically don’t queue more than 2 maps during seasons, so lowering the cap (unless it’s brutally lowered) does very little to influence movement. What about the people that like playing on BG JQ TC and aren’t there simply to win? It’s basically a punishment to those folks.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Well “punishment” is necessary in any balanced system. Pick any naturally balanced system and you will find that something pull in the opposite direction, generally something that directly counters that which is pulling in the other direction and is related to the consequences for doing so. Just how it is. rarely do things people want come without a price, there are natural consequence for practically everything worth having, doing ect. In essence we are really just taking the “bonus” from the higher tier servers and giving it to the lower tiers. So, it snot just a punishment, someone gets a Bonus! And the point would not be to force anyone, simply put the stuff in place and let it work itself out.

As many have mention, Overpopulation, Coverage, Rewards, Tournaments, all related. We submitted about 20-30 different changes. Its like 7 pages of stuff…If people are interested I could post I suppose.

Lowering map caps doesn’t do much more than institute frustration, but as John mentioned it’s a suggestion that is the least amount of work, but it’s also one of the least effective methods. Which falls right in line with your natural balance example.

I understand why PPT is what we have, it’s very likely a more death-match type scoring system has overhead and tracking issues. It also would cause scores to vary wildly, higher pop servers could have quite a bit higher points than lower pop, but if you score on averages via a max point count, say to win you need more than 33% of the total score, then you solve that problem. I mentioned before that PPT has been a bad idea since almost a month or 2 after release, which is why we keep having these conversations. The mode needed a restructure before it even made it to the design table.

Im not sure you are responding to my post….miss click maybe?

Map Caps, I don’t mention except to say they wont help….and averaging PPT is not something I discuss either.

I was re-affirming your post, sorry.

remove EotM, or at least make it available ONLY IF all the WvW maps for a server are queued. 4 maps queued —> EotM open.

if those people want to karma train in WvW let them be. PPT=karma train. no difference. at least those karma trainer help the competing servers in terms of PPT.

can’t get to real WvW because of queue ? de-stack.

Berk.8561:

PabbyGaul.9682:

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

This is the big challenge for implementing any sort of population-based handicapping. Another problem is that the enemy, upon anticipating that they’ll be unable to stop you from flipping their SMC, will abandon the map completely to reduce the reward for flipping the objective. If it’s beneficial for an overpowered server to sandbag and leave WvW, players will do that as a tactic to deny their opponent points, and that could create exactly the sort of hostility that ANet wants to avoid — players abusing other players for playing WvW when doing so might help the enemy’s score.

To be viable, any population-based handicapping:

1. Must react quickly to upward population shifts but slowly to downward population shifts to reduce the benefit of quickly abandoning a map or WvW or rapidly surging into a map on WvW. In the past, I’ve recommended calculating a server’s WvW strength as a 1 hour rolling average (average population for the last hour) or current population, whichever is greater across all of WvW.
2. Must never make it more beneficial to for players to leave WvW and let opponents rampage less impeded instead of staying in WvW and fighting to slow them down. This likely means a handicap that provides a partial benefit to the weaker opponent but does not entirely erase the disadvantage. This likely also means retaining some benefit to PvDoor so that an abandoned map remains beneficial to control.
3. Must be gradual rather than having sharp tipping points, so that the presence or absence of one player never makes a huge difference and changes the game significantly.
4. Will likely need to include incentives to make the players on the underdog server(s) show up and play even when they are outnumbered and have trouble winning.

It’s possible that part of the answer to getting the population to spread out and to get people into WvW on low population servers is it base the in game rewards, the loot and chances for ascended gear and precursors, on effort such that one gets noticeably better drops for a desperate fight against a more numerous opponent than one gets being on a more populated server getting an easy win.

Interesting points. One thing it does overlook is float teams, which are a common organization within T1 servers in every timezone. This would skew some of the figures and add an element of random luck to PPT.

Also, it would remove a tactical approach to WvW in terms of objective prioritization by making it less beneficial to defend some of them due to population constraints IE may not be worth holding natural keep on an enemy BL.

azizul.8469:

remove EotM, or at least make it available ONLY IF all the WvW maps for a server are queued. 4 maps queued —> EotM open.

if those people want to karma train in WvW let them be. PPT=karma train. no difference. at least those karma trainer help the competing servers in terms of PPT.

can’t get to real WvW because of queue ? de-stack.

This should have been implemented straight away. Among other things it was supposed to be a solution to the queue problems that existed in the past and haven’t existed now for a long time. When they didn’t impose it initially, I thought it was just to let everyone experience it. Then they kept it. Not sure why…

I personally think there needs to be a greater incentive to play WvW. Currently, your server/guild’s WvW performance has very little impact on your gameplay. If we could increase the impact on gameplay in PvE, I think there should be a greater participation rate from PvE players and guilds looking to maximise their PvE experience as well. This should include increased XP and Karma gain (and maybe gold?) for guilds who perform certain tasks regularly in WvW (similar to a daily achievement thing, but for guilds) such as claiming X amount of structures/camps with active buffs running, or having X amount of players repping the guild perform capture or defense events. Bring back crafting/harvesting bonuses for open world players as well and increase the bonuses.

Weekly bonus chests are a good thing but needs to incentivise people who aren’t on winning servers to participate as well, so instead of a winning server getting 3 bonus chests etc, change it to challenges in WvW, a checklist of achievements that will give more bonus chests the more you complete. Yes, this will bring out achievement hunters, but since the vast majority of players play on servers that can’t queue 4 maps, some pain felt on the higher populated servers seems well worth it, especially if the achievements are well designed in order for the achievement hunters to actively help out the server.

Yes, some of these suggestions might further incentivise stacking. The thing is though, we already have 5 full servers. Players in Very High and High servers are the ones that will benefit. Players in Sea of Sorrows and Dragonbrand (especially Dragonbrand) will also benefit immensely from an infusion of players looking to increase their EXP/Karma gain for alt leveling or other such factors as they aren’t massively populated in WvW compared to the Tier 1 servers.

The reason I think more so than anything, more incentive needs to be placed on playing WvW is because WvW will always have population imbalances. A guild deciding to raid 2 hours longer than they normally do will create a massive imbalance. A server deciding to push hard and have players playing longer than they normally do will create a massive imbalance. Rather than fixing population imbalances that will always exist (because the population caps on the maps are really low in comparison to the number of people playing the game), just increase the number of players playing the game, which will reshuffle the servers and create new equilibrium. Lower populated WvW servers will keep their quiet WvW experience and the people who want more people to play with/against will still have that.

Unfortunately, any solution that relies on players to take action – whether it be transferring servers or “playing more WvW” is unlikely to work, no matter what incentive you offer. This is a player created problem (even if it is the result of an Anet designed game mode), but it isnt something the players can be expected to fix.

Large groups of players will always look for the quickest path with the least resistance to the most profitable outcome. It is why server bandwagoning has always been the driving factor in who “wins” wvw – dating ALL the way back to the launch of the game.

After two years of players shifting, we now have the tremendously lopsided situation we do. And, there isnt an incentive or punishment big enough to convince players to even the problem out on their own. Groupthink and the desire to find the path of least resistance are just part of human nature when we are dealing with populations as large as GW2 servers.

It is time to implement the server alliance (or battlegroup) solution many in this thread have championed. It is the only way this problem is going to be fixed outside of forced transfers (which wouldnt be fair to the players), or server merges/splits (which would destroy close knit server communities).

Most importantly, it would do for WvW what megaservers did for PVE – it would give everyone, regardless of server size or active WvW community, the same potential experience in WvW. That is crucial to the long term success of this game. Otherwise, the divides between servers just become worse and worse as time goes on (due to more people transferring or simply getting frustrated and quitting WvW).

And that equality between servers is crucial. People on T1 servers keep saying the lower level servers are looking for a “quiet” wvw" experience, but the reality is more often the exact opposite – we want challenging large scale pvp the same as everyone else (that’s what WvW is). All we want is for all players to have access to that – not just those who were lucky to get on the right server or were able/willing to move their guilds en masse to a server where they were guaranteed numbers (for many, that simply isnt an option)..

Do devs really want a situation where the top 3-6 servers are fun in WvW, while the lower servers (where the new players will probably end up and experience their first WvW fights) struggle with ever dwindling numbers. Its very easy for people on the bandwagon servers to criticize or say this isnt needed, but it really (desperately) is.

And, imo, this change (battlegroups) needs to happen before they host another seasonal tournament.

Which ever way it goes some people will get upset with change.

Im sure Anet have the tools/graphs to see the population use and coverage of WvW.
So what about implementing some sort of rotating transfer allowance? Something like a constant free transfer window to the lowest 3 servers in regards to population and coverage and a constant block on the 3 highest servers in regards to population and coverage. This will change dynamically depending on the change of coverage and population.

For example, i am from EU on Deso and since i don’t have magic figures and graphs i’ll use ranks as an example:

Highest population and coverage
SFR and Deso and Kodash will have a block on transfers.
A few things can happen to change these transferable again:

1. People wanting to transfer to either of these servers for the T1 experience will be forced to transfer (if they still wish to do so) to the next highly populated server, but unfortunately for them it will be T2 bringing that band of servers more in line with ratings to the T1 servers and eventually becoming T1 themselves and them being blocked.

2. People will for what ever reason eventually leave the T1 servers (please note im using T1 as an example of highest populated) and find a new home bringing that server eventually off the block list.

3. People sick of the queues and transfer out, perhaps take advantage of the free transfers at the bottom of the ladder.

Lowest population and coverage
Underworld and Vabbi and Whiteside Ridge will have constant free transfer.
A few things can happen to make these server no longer a free transfer:

1. Guilds/people may fancy a change and take advantage of a free transfer.

2. Guilds/people may think they could take on a project of raising one or more of these servers out of T8 (NA) T9 (EU) and climb the ladder.

3. People may want to transfer to another region and want to test the latency/lag for themselves at a free cost.

Guilds/people are always transferring from T1 servers for many different reasons and they have no worry about doing so because they can always transfer back at some point, but taking away the ability to transfer back until that server is in a more balanced category is what each region needs.

Yes it will take time, and yes u will always get people/guilds that don’t mind paying to transfer, but im sure there are more that would prefer to transfer for free or at a lower cost and not having the ability to transfer back or too a clearly over stacked servers is always a good thing.

I’m not saying that it would balance it in a way where T8/9 will be able to compete with T1/2 because that should not be the case, we have tiers for a reason, but it should at least get the more of a balance between corresponding servers so T1 isn’t steam rolling T2 like they are nothing and T8 isn’t steam rolling T9 like they are nothing and same goes for all the other tiers in between.

After all this discussion, if arenanet increases server caps after the tourney they are giving most servers the figurative middle finger

nirvana.8245:

Interesting points. One thing it does overlook is float teams, which are a common organization within T1 servers in every timezone. This would skew some of the figures and add an element of random luck to PPT.

I think it may be better to look at overall WvW population rather than map-by-map population, since the time to switch maps is fairly negligible and there should be some reward for good scouting and coverage. In the past, I’ve suggested the possibility of eliminating the 30 second delay before swords appear on an objective under attack for greatly outnumbered servers to improve their ability to respond to PvDoor attacks.

The latter would reduce the effectiveness of surprise float team attacks, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing when their opponent is outnumbered. But if the population is calculated across all maps rather than single maps, it would change very little between three T1 servers who are fielding roughly similar numbers in WvW.

nirvana.8245:

Also, it would remove a tactical approach to WvW in terms of objective prioritization by making it less beneficial to defend some of them due to population constraints IE may not be worth holding natural keep on an enemy BL.

Not if population is calculated across all maps, rather than map-by-map, which would give no priority to any particular map or objective. But note that if handicap were calculated on a map-by-map basis, it would almost always be more beneficial to struggle to take and keep objectives where your forces are outnumbered than to take and hold objectives where you have a numerical advantage.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Berk.8561:

1. Must be gradual rather than having sharp tipping points, so that the presence or absence of one player never makes a huge difference and changes the game significantly.

Moving Average

What I specifically meant was that any handicap should not suddenly kick with a big effect at a specific tipping point, which is independent of how the population disparity is calculated. For example, if everyone were to get a +50% Magic Find bonus when one population is 50% greater than another, a single person entering the map for the low population server could remove the bonus single-handedly and be blamed for losing it. But if the bonus were to increase by +1% for every 1% difference in population such that it gradually reaches a +50% bonus at a 50% population disparity, then no one person entering or leaving WvW will be responsible for a huge bonus disappearing or appearing and the effect of each person will be minimal.

What any handicapping needs to avoid is the behavior of one person entering or leaving WvW or a map being responsible for losing or gaining an entire large handicap. Instead, each person should contribute a small amount of the bonus until the bonus scales large because the disparity is large. This is to avoid the problem seen in some events (such as the final Lion’s Arch living story events or defending the weapons at Taquatl) where a person or two could suddenly cause the appearance of champions into an event making it much harder to complete. ANet should avoid single person tipping point cut-offs wherever possible, so one person is never to blame for changing the character of an event or battle.

Blaeys.3102:

Most importantly, it would do for WvW what megaservers did for PVE – it would give everyone, regardless of server size or active WvW community, the same potential experience in WvW. That is crucial to the long term success of this game.

I absolutely despise the what the megaservers have done to PvE experience, and I am not alone. It is one of the main reasons why the person who introduced me to GW2, who once played every day, and who has over 10,000 achievement points hasn’t played in around two months. It’s why I took a month off from GW2. It’s why other friends no longer play as often as they used to.

Yes, there were frustrations about being able to complete certain events on a low-population server, but the megaserver cure has been worse. Maybe I’m an outlying minority in my tastes, but given the comments I’ve seen and heard, I don’t think I’m anywhere near alone. There are, in fact, people who transfer off of T1 servers because they don’t like the play there.

More broadly, giving the customer a one-size-fits-all experience is generally not the path to success in any business unless you have a really huge customer base looking for that one experience because the customers not looking for the one experience offered will find somewhere else to go that offers what they want.

Blaeys.3102:

And that equality between servers is crucial. People on T1 servers keep saying the lower level servers are looking for a “quiet” wvw" experience, but the reality is more often the exact opposite – we want challenging large scale pvp the same as everyone else (that’s what WvW is).

I’m on a bottom-ranked server and and I much prefer mid-ranged engagements (5-20 on each side) to massive zerg clashes in WvW and I really do not want a T1 experience. You will also find people who have left T1 because they didn’t want that experience. I see little evidence that everyone wants the same experience in WvW.

Blaeys.3102:

Do devs really want a situation where the top 3-6 servers are fun in WvW, while the lower servers (where the new players will probably end up and experience their first WvW fights) struggle with ever dwindling numbers. Its very easy for people on the bandwagon servers to criticize or say this isnt needed, but it really (desperately) is.

We have a lot of fun on Eredon Terrace. Really. Yes, there are periods of frustration when we get rolled over by a much more numerous opponent (especially during tournaments), don’t have enough people to do everything we want to do, and watch opponents rack up points overnight when our coverage is weak, but we also have some really great fights, especially during primetime, and I do like the quieter times, too, when the battles are small and personal. We could certainly use a few more people, especially to cover our overnights and off hours, but I don’t think we need a T1 population to have fun.

titanlectro.5029:

Svarty.8019:

titanlectro.5029:

PabbyGaul.9682:

[..]

This is perfectly inline with my analysis also.
(for reference :https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/4438581)

I propose a test! Lets give this idea a try for a few months.

This is one of the least disruptive ideas. It will not break server communities or server coordination or large group combat or any of that stuff. It is not overly complicated. If it works, then we can be done with all of these crazy “remake everything about WvW” ideas. If it doesn’t work, then there is nothing stopping Anet from doing something more drastic later.

This idea has a lot of potential benefits, and very few risks. Most of these other ideas come with huge risks and sacrifices (including the one Anet proposed); some might even completely ruin WvW and turn it into EotM. Before we try anything drastic, lets give this simple but powerful tweak a try.

His suggestion is the Outmanned buff by another name. Look how well that works as incentive to move to an Outmanned map (i.e. it doesn’t). Scale it to server size. Personallly, I don’t see it having the desired effect.

It could also be abused by the “server riding” effect where swathes of people transfer to a low server and ride it up the league, then repeat.

This suggestion is significantly different than the Outmanned buff.

Outmanned is a minor buff (1.3x loot) that effects a map only so long as it has 4v1 odds.

The suggested change will effect the loot for entire servers. Every server in T8 would be getting a massive loot bonus relative to T1. Before the population begins to balance out, that difference could be more than 3x the loot. That bonus would not go away just because a guild group switched maps.

I think it’d be pointless because when you are severely outnumbered you will lose. You won’t get any loot whatsoever. You will get (nothing x3 = nothing). If you are on T1 you will get normal loot x1 (ofc, if they made it 0, then we’d be talking!).

titanlectro.5029:

If a large group of people transfer to a server, then that bonus would decrease (assuming that it is tied to man-hours as it should be). They could not cheese the system that way. They only way to “manipulate” the system would be to constantly transfer to underdog servers, which is EXACTLY what we want to have happen.

^This makes sense.

titanlectro.5029:

Here is the best part. We could try it and see who is right! If the naysays are correct, then we can try something else, no harm done.

This isn’t the Arenanet way. They seem to want to band-aid WvW in the most efficient way and then forget it for another 2 years.

I don’t think this alliance proposition will solve anything. I have the feeling the end result will be a situation similar to what we have now.

The best WvW guilds will form a few alliances among themselves. These stronger alliances will be able to attract/recruit the best players.

In the end, you’ll have a few very strong alliances with the best players and the best organisation, that will be able to crush the other alliances with no problems; the same way you currently have a few strong servers that are able to crush all the others easily.

We could do a ppt set up fix where the losing side gets more points from the other teams bl keeps camps etc.. but at the same time the wining side gets less ppt from the other teams bl keeps and camps. Though this may make a lot of work for nothing feeling on the wining side. I do not think there is a real fix for this beyond removing worlds from wvw and making it more of a rvrvr system where ppl chose what faction they are on. This comes with a lot of problems of its own and it maybe much to game braking for a lot of ppl to lose where world they fight for. So i realty do not know how to fix this and i have yet to see a good idea that dose not address these major problems.

Blanche Neige.7241:

I don’t think this alliance proposition will solve anything. I have the feeling the end result will be a situation similar to what we have now.

The best WvW guilds will form a few alliances among themselves. These stronger alliances will be able to attract/recruit the best players.

In the end, you’ll have a few very strong alliances with the best players and the best organisation, that will be able to crush the other alliances with no problems; the same way you currently have a few strong servers that are able to crush all the others easily.

That is why the players can’t be in full control. The alliances (or battlegroups) need to happen at the server level (and Anet should be the one setting the battlegroups), not the guild level (and should change week to week). That way server communities remain together (and can maintain the level of coordination they have now) but we dont have the huge disparities in numbers between matches.

I firmly believe that the solution has to be controlled by Anet, not the players. In mass, the players will always flock to the place where they believe they will win the most matches, which will continue the imbalances we have now. It has happened since the first day the game was open.

I know its not a perfect solution, but its the only one that will make the WvW experience comparable regardless of server choice. That is crucial for the future health of the game.

Some servers depend on militia – i.e. casuals to support WvW population. EOTM has definitely destroyed WvW.

The weather is always fair in EotM, something that is rarely seen in WvW.

John,

Seems this thread isn’t doing much to generate anything new. Can we move on to a scoring thread? I think you are more likely to change WvW participation by a change in scoring than anything else.

Swamurabi.7890:

The weather is always fair in EotM, something that is rarely seen in WvW.

John,

Seems this thread isn’t doing much to generate anything new. Can we move on to a scoring thread? I think you are more likely to change WvW participation by a change in scoring than anything else.

I want to see some opinion from the developers, but it appears that this problem is FAR from being solved. I am concerned that this will mean no change.

Svarty.8019:

Swamurabi.7890:

The weather is always fair in EotM, something that is rarely seen in WvW.

John,

Seems this thread isn’t doing much to generate anything new. Can we move on to a scoring thread? I think you are more likely to change WvW participation by a change in scoring than anything else.

I want to see some opinion from the developers, but it appears that this problem is FAR from being solved. I am concerned that this will mean no change.

I think we need input from developers so that we have some idea of what path we would take and then we could talk more in-depth. Right now the discussion is all over the place with various topics.

Very long, multi part post incoming. Fair warning :P

Proposal: Guild Alliances

Objective: replace the current uncompetitive system which consists of multiple reinforcing negative feedback loops with a new one that takes into account the current ‘facts on the ground’, is highly competitive, robust, and capable of continuous dynamic adjustments throughout the day faced with varying degree of player participation and play styles.

Method:
• Scrap the persistent 24/7 timeframe. Replace it with a series of time blocks which are individually scored and rated matches. Suggested time frames are 12 matches of 2 hours in length (probably best), 8 matches of 3 hours, or 6 matches of 4.
• Scrap all existing servers (which will be replaced by):
• Form Guild Alliances. (A detailed explanation of what these are follows after Method and scoring sections).
• Change the current queue option interface/system to offer these choices: Alliance, Group, Solo, Solo (low pop), and Challenge (A detailed explanation of what this means as well as implications is after Method & Scoring sections and Guild Alliances explanation.)
• Each match is on one map (randomly picked between available choices, for now only EB and EOTM –the Borderlands map is too unbalanced for single map play). The sides are filled out by placing Alliances first in order of their Glicko rating (IE first map consists of the top 3 rated Alliances which have queued for that timeslot, next map is the next 3, etc). If there are 1 or 2 Alliances left as a remainder, that map is filled out with the first group queue sides, etc. (This will be clearer once you read the detailed Queue Option section).

Scoring and Rewards:

• Match score follows current PPT rules with the following change: All player kills are worth 1 point, stomps are worth 2.
• All matches that have at least one Alliance present are considered rated matches.
• Rated matches result in glicko rating changes for the Alliances participating and award 3 WvW rank chests and 3 Tournament reward tickets for 1st place, 2 rank chests and 2 tickets for 2nd, 1 chest and 1 ticket for 3rd place.
• Non rated matches have no glicko effects and only reward the 3/2/1 WvW rank chests depending on final score.
• Buff the EB map objective reward levels to EOTM level.
• The current World bonuses are reassigned to be Alliance bonuses and the trigger points would have to be recalculated based on what kind of scores an Alliance could expect given a reasonable amount of playtime during the week.
• Change the EB map structures to conform to EOTM norm: IE all personnel upgrades done; all mortar/cannon/oil upgrades done but not built, waypoints built, doors and walls at reinforced level but not upgradable further.

(con’t)

(con’t from previous post)

Guild Alliances – a detailed explanation

An Alliance is a new organizational level above a guild. While it could be used for PVE purposes, (an example being the various TTS guilds would make a natural PVE alliance,) the main purpose would be to provide the structure to build WvW teams around.
Maximum alliance size will need to be fairly high to account for differences in use and playstyle. Probably 8191 (that isn’t an arbitrary number, its 13 binary digits… the next lower would be 4095 which wouldn’t be enough for TTS.) No matter how large the total alliance membership is, the important limiting factor is only 80 will be able to be in an Alliance WvW match at the same time.
An account can be a member of multiple alliances at the same time, however any alliance can see exactly what alliances you currently have a membership in so they can spot potential conflicts of interest.
All Alliances will have their own glicko rating. This glicko rating is only affected by matches that the Alliance participates in via the Alliance queue. Since the rating is no longer a composite rating covering an entire server it will be much more accurate than current glicko is.
The Alliance will need to have their own rank structure with varying permission levels… this will have to include membership invite/kick, queueing authority, and permission setting authority.
You can add an alliance tag at the end of the current character display. Syntax: Character name [guild tag] [alliance tag].

Queue Option Interface/System – a detailed explanation

The revamping of the queue system is an important part of this change. I will go over each individual option in turn. It is important to know that the Alliance, Group and Solo queues are integrated together while the Solo (low pop) and Challenge options are special cases handled independently.
There will need to be a down time in between match time slots to account for glicko recalculation and to allow time for people to queue up, get a drink, go to the restroom, etc.
There will also need to be a roster confirmation cutoff time (probably on the hour mark) to allow proper matchup calculations.

Alliance Queue

This option is picked by an Alliance member who has queueing authority to kick off a scheduled alliance raid. Once this action has been taken, all alliance members online get notification that a queue request has been submitted (suggestion being an exclamation point on the WvW icon on the upper left part of their screen accompanied with an audible sound similar to when a player receives mail) and the individual who started the queue gets a progress indicator that fills up as other alliance members join the queue. This progress indicator could be quite detailed… IE like the WoW raid interface that shows group number, character name and color coded by class. The queueing member has 2 option buttons: Confirm and Cancel. Confirm commits the Alliance to play in the next match, the Cancel option stops the process to prevent an Alliance that isn’t ready or has too many no-shows from being forced to participate in a rated match.
Note: outside of the submission window the Alliance queue button will put you into a queue for your currently represented Alliance’s match IF a match is underway, you CANNOT submit a new Alliance queue request outside the matchup window OR have 2 separate Alliance matches active at the same time.

(con’t)

(con’t from previous post)

Group Queue

This is the option which people choose if they want more organized yet casual play, whether as entire guilds, fragments of guilds, groups of friends, etc. It will use megaserver technology to fill out sides, prioritizing from the largest guild formations to the smallest mixed groups. This is important because the first 2 map sides filled out via group queue could potentially find themselves matched against the lowest ranked Alliance(s) if there are not enough alliances queued for that match to make the lowest alliance match alliance-only.
Example: A megaguild decides to have a guild WvW night. They group queue with 16 5 man groups. They will all get assigned to the same map side, and will probably be 1st in line to be selected as an alliance match round out team if one is needed. The next map side consists of a 35 person guild, a 25 person guild and a 20 person guild, etc etc etc.

Solo Queue

This is what a player picks if they are queueing alone. Players from this queue will be used first to round out any gaps left in group queue maps, then will be round robin assigned to sides on new maps (ensuring as close to even numbers on all 3 sides as possible).

Solo Queue (Low Pop)

This is one of the two special queue options. Players who select this queue are NOT part of the pool selection for the Alliance/Group/Solo maps. They will be placed on their own map (s) which have half the pop cap of regular ones (IE 40 instead of 80 per side), round robin style. This is basically the roamer/duelist queue.

Challenge Queue

This is another stand-alone that doesn’t interact with anything else. The purpose of this is to allow Alliances and Guilds to do 1v1 fights, either rated or not. Hitting the Challenge queue button would bring up a submenu with 2 further options: Alliance or GvG. Selecting either will bring up another submenu where you choose who the Challenge will be issued to, whether the challenge will be rated/non rated and whether the scoring will be PPT or PPK (points per player kill) only. The GvG option would also have numbers scaling option (IE 10v10, 15v15, etc). Once the parameters were set, the Challenge would be submitted. The Challenged party would receive notification of the Challenge and could either accept or refuse. If accepted, the whole roster confirmation process would proceed on both sides and the match would start once both sides hit the Confirm button. In order to prevent griefing/trolling by making repeated cold challenges, a /challengeblock GUILD <guildname> or ALLIANCE <alliancename> list should be added.

(con’t)

(con’t)

SUMMARY/RATIONALE FOR THIS PROPOSAL

Current WvW is plagued by many limitations and issues inherent to its current form. If it is intended as the ‘3rd Pillar’ of the game alongside PVE and sPvP those limitations cripple the format’s potential to fill that role.
The structure of matches into a competitive format of glicko rated servers with wildly variable actual WvW populations semi-randomly matched against each other in a 24/7 scored matchup usually produces situations where one server has a clear advantage early in the matchup, creating a positive reinforcement loop for participation by that server’s members and a negative one for the other two. This means, in effect, that the only time the match is competitive may be on reset night… making the remaining 160ish hours of the week pointless and pretty boring for all sides.

The best servers are those who have all of the following: very high WvW participation from their server, a lot of organized guild groups as part of that participation, as close to 24/7 coverage as possible, as high a degree as possible of participation on that server’s TS, and a very high amount of coordination between that server’s players. Those servers are also pressure cookers that tend to burn out the players that function as their core fighting forces.

The problem is, there is less than a handful of servers in the NA/EU leagues that fit those criteria, with pretty much no chance of that changing because there are not enough active WvW players around to do that for every server, and human psychology combined with a severe lack of material rewards means that it is not very likely that many PVE/sPVP players can be enticed into becoming regular WvW players. Pretty much all the suggestions made so far are band-aids that either won’t fix the root causes or can trigger more negative reinforcement loops.
With that said, from what I’ve seen all Tiers can manage a fairly respectable turn out on reset nights, EOTM is pretty popular, and overall turnout increases dramatically during tournaments (at least for as long as it takes to get the meta done for the reward) which indicates to me that WvW shouldn’t just be written off.

So, what does the Guild Alliance proposal do?

Pros:

• Population imbalances are no longer an issue
• Coverage is no longer an issue
• Stale matches are no longer an issue
• Matches become much more competitive at any time
• Players have more flexibility in how they play the game
• Players are much more likely to be able to find fights that fit their style of play
• Players can choose Alliances that fit their playstyle
• Alliances actually will have control of their lineup instead of being subjected to the whims of the queue.
• Trolls can be easily dealt with by /alliancekick
• It allows both better separation between ultracompetitive play and casual while simultaneously providing a clearer progression towards competitive play.
• It provides better integration of the EOTM/regular WvW formats
• It allows increasing the overall rewards for WvW as a carrot to increase participation levels without worrying about hitting the absolute map cap of WvW (9600 in NA) causing queues which tear large holes in zerg busting guild’s formations and overall C3
• It allows for matches where guilds from an entire region are much more likely to interact with each other, as allies or enemies (group queue)
• Guilds can get better individual recognition because Alliance glicko rating will only reflect their efforts instead of an entire server.
• The Challenge mode establishes the basic framework for different styles of play that portions of the player base have expressed quite a bit of interest in.
• Its more economical for Anet because only as many maps as needed will be created.

Cons:

• The servers at the extreme ends of the spectrum (Tiers 1 and 8 ) will have issues forming the Guild Alliances. The Tier 1 because basically they would need multiple Guild Alliances which will inevitably cause community disruption and the Tier 8 because there just might not be enough organized guilds to form an effective alliance.
• There will be far less opportunity for off hours players to form Alliances, meaning that there will be fewer of them and hence less depth in Alliance play during off hours.
• I spoke with our guild’s resident A-net Dev and he said I shouldn’t expect that anything like this could be implemented quickly, it would require some pretty major changes. Please note this caveat: he made clear this was his own feel about the situation and in no way whatsoever represented an official company stance.

Comments? Questions?

Boreal.9826:

Re: Server Alliances

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

(#1 + #24) vs (#2 + #23) vs (#3 + #22)

Yeah something like that can work .
We can put the #24 / #23 / #22 . in one of the 4 WvWvW maps and let them fight each other .
And the #1 /#2 /#3 , can fight in the rest of the other 3 maps .

Theres a limit how many pppl from #1 /#2 /#3 group can go in the 4th-lesser map .
If the #24 is loosing too much ground from the other 2 lesser servers , then some extra spots will open for their #1 Friends .

Each server can still have their own WvWvW score (so we can have some competition , even among friends) .

Every1 can get from Keep Lords or Dolyaks/Mining-Chopping woods/Killing players some artcifacts that can be excange for some copper (But the lesser servers can excange them from some WvWvW score points
(capped amount-per 15 min) (So the lesser server will benefit more in roaming – they will be our 1v1 roamers across the 4 maps).
The jajor server with their huge population and the Orb of Powers will get their Points , each time they ’’Finish’’ an opponent .

Objectives in the smaller map where the #24 / #23 / #22 are fighting , goes under only those server control and not in the bigger servers, regadles of how many ppl from the #1 /#2 /#3 are there .

The lesser team can offer 1 free-istant stractural upgrade in their friends objectives (that way they will get too the WvWvW score points every 15 min) .
While the #1 /#2 /#3 , they have to manually pay to do an upgrade on the lesser map objective , to get the WvWvW points (goldsink) .

If Blackgate is fighting vs (#2 + #23) vs (#3 + #22) , then they wont have a lesser server to offer them a free stractural upgrade (rewards servers that dont stack) .

Edit: A moronic drunk idea is that we could implant a ‘’Judgment scale’’ , with the word ’’Frenzy’’ and the ’’Wisdom’’ in each side .
If a server captures a Keep-Castle in less than 20 min from the previous captures, they get they ’’Frenzy’’ buff stack that increase damage done to mobs/Veterans by 3% , up to 15% .
A normal server will get the ’’Wisdom’’ stack , that they bring forth the Eye of Sauouron to lazer beam their opponents !!!!
The dominant team , can ’’slow’’ down their conquer to summon him too !

A looser team , as long as they keep loosing-dont capure any worthy-big objectives the ’’’’Wisdom’’ stack icon , grows even more like a talent tree ,offering them more sommons !!!!!

Edit2: Trolls will leave half-unfinished cannons-oils objectives

I would like to echo something else that has come up a couple of times in this thread about the necessity of changing EotM. When it came out, EotM was intended as the ‘overflow’ map. In this day and age of 0 overflow, what purpose does EotM serve exactly?

The rewards are 10x better than the rewards in WvW, and it has absolutely nothing to do with WvW, has no connection to servers, and does nothing to promote defense or tactics.

At this point we need a funnel to get more people in to WvW . . not another extraneous game mode to suck them out.

yeah.. shutting down EotM will save 2 game modes i.e. WvW and PvE. those EotM karma trainer will have to go either WvW, or do that in PvE which also now seems to be lacking the number of players.

Dont like Guild Alliances idea, still Think the easiest and best way is to weigh the Points the server gets with how many is playing at that time.

Like any work space if they at day have 1000works and night 10, the night time will not produce as much.

Lowering the population cap is a terrible idea, as it is guilds cannot even get on a map due to ques, and all that will do is send guilds to other games rather than continue to play at all.

If they really want to solve the wvw issues and keep it competitive, they need to change the mechanics of it. They very well could make portals you enter into to join sides and keep the sides balanced until the population is full to start a game, rather than using servers at all and have the games run daily in shorter periods. Honestly the way this is set up, you do not need a whole week to see who is going to win, usually you know pretty quickly who is going to win and the rest of the week is spent running up the score rather than providing a competitive environment. The current mechanics are terribly broken, and the only way to resolve them as far as I can see is to change the server vs server aspect and instead create new factions, shorter games, and allow players to choose a side before the game starts. Otherwise we are just going to continue the " transfer to the top tiers" game, top tiers get bored of fighting the same people, they leave game all together and allow more to transfer to the top tiers until the game dies due to the population transferring up then leaving.

To devs:
The solution is really simple, how to do that?
Just change “tick score” system to “gain points” system – that’s all!
For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35
As usual, but only once, so server which does pvd (player vs door) will get only max 695 points for all night for example, not like now that one or two nights with pvd and match is over.
Feel free to modify this system in anyway.
Benefits?:
- no more blob style, which will be extremely not effective with gain point system,
- no more zombies blob all day long,
- overpopulated servers will split naturally, because insane coverage factor will be crushed and not one way to win.

BTW:
For WvW community health I suggest to separate pvp servers, u can change names of that servers, because in one mega server time, PvE players just killing WvW in lower tiers, they rise transfer costs, and don’t participle in WvW. Make transfer to lower tiers cheaper and you will gain balance pretty soon.

Sin.4130:

To devs:
The solution is really simple, how to do that?
Just change “tick score” system to “gain points” system – that’s all!
For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35

Very BAD idea.

• Defense become totally worthless, EotM-style play rules
• two sides can make a win-win agreement to trade an objective between them to both get ahead of the third
• If there is no such agreement: Match is irrelevant till last day – final outcome is who controls how much of the map at match-end.

If you want activity based scoring then conquest must not the only activity that count (e.g. look at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3895144)

Vercinorix.3021:

(con’t)

SUMMARY/RATIONALE FOR THIS PROPOSAL

Current WvW is plagued by many limitations and issues inherent to its current form. If it is intended as the ‘3rd Pillar’ of the game alongside PVE and sPvP those limitations cripple the format’s potential to fill that role.
The structure of matches into a competitive format of glicko rated servers with wildly variable actual WvW populations semi-randomly matched against each other in a 24/7 scored matchup usually produces situations where one server has a clear advantage early in the matchup, creating a positive reinforcement loop for participation by that server’s members and a negative one for the other two. This means, in effect, that the only time the match is competitive may be on reset night… making the remaining 160ish hours of the week pointless and pretty boring for all sides.

<snip for message body length>

So, what does the Guild Alliance proposal do?

Pros:

• Population imbalances are no longer an issue
• Coverage is no longer an issue
• Stale matches are no longer an issue
• Matches become much more competitive at any time
• Players have more flexibility in how they play the game
• Players are much more likely to be able to find fights that fit their style of play
• Players can choose Alliances that fit their playstyle
• Alliances actually will have control of their lineup instead of being subjected to the whims of the queue.
• Trolls can be easily dealt with by /alliancekick
• It allows both better separation between ultracompetitive play and casual while simultaneously providing a clearer progression towards competitive play.
• It provides better integration of the EOTM/regular WvW formats
• It allows increasing the overall rewards for WvW as a carrot to increase participation levels without worrying about hitting the absolute map cap of WvW (9600 in NA) causing queues which tear large holes in zerg busting guild’s formations and overall C3
• It allows for matches where guilds from an entire region are much more likely to interact with each other, as allies or enemies (group queue)
• Guilds can get better individual recognition because Alliance glicko rating will only reflect their efforts instead of an entire server.
• The Challenge mode establishes the basic framework for different styles of play that portions of the player base have expressed quite a bit of interest in.
• Its more economical for Anet because only as many maps as needed will be created.

Cons:

• The servers at the extreme ends of the spectrum (Tiers 1 and 8 ) will have issues forming the Guild Alliances. The Tier 1 because basically they would need multiple Guild Alliances which will inevitably cause community disruption and the Tier 8 because there just might not be enough organized guilds to form an effective alliance.
• There will be far less opportunity for off hours players to form Alliances, meaning that there will be fewer of them and hence less depth in Alliance play during off hours.
• I spoke with our guild’s resident A-net Dev and he said I shouldn’t expect that anything like this could be implemented quickly, it would require some pretty major changes. Please note this caveat: he made clear this was his own feel about the situation and in no way whatsoever represented an official company stance.

Comments? Questions?

(Just quoting the last page so people know what I’m talking about. If people haven’t read it above, there are 3 pages preceding the one I quoted).

Personally I think this is a great idea. It would probably keep me in the game longer. And might even draw back PvP people who have left since GW2 is free and they still have their accounts.

The biggest positive is that this actually would achieve population balance. None of the other proposals would really succeed – they would only make it somewhat better, and even that’s questionable.

Perhaps something to add:

• Instead of just a Solo (Low Pop) queue, have a Group (Low Pop) queue too. And they would both queue into the same maps. I’m not sure if solo roamers would actually enjoy just running around on a map finding 1 v 1’s without the other aspects of the game going on. Maybe they would but how many?

However, I can see some criticisms.

• The major one is that it would no longer be WvW (RvR) – a 24 hour battle for a week. (Personally I wouldn’t be upset by the dissolution of the 24/7 format. But there are those who would.)

• T1 servers would be vociferously against it.

• It would take Anet years to implement. As mentioned this is not a quick fix (or even a “soon” fix).

To fix the issue of it no longer being RvR, they could alternate this method with WvW. One week WvW, next week this. In fact that would be awesome.

Dayra.7405:

Sin.4130:

To devs:
The solution is really simple, how to do that?
Just change “tick score” system to “gain points” system – that’s all!
For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35

Very BAD idea.

• Defense become totally worthless, EotM-style play rules
• two sides can make a win-win agreement to trade an objective between them to both get ahead of the third
• If there is no such agreement: Match is irrelevant till last day – final outcome is who controls how much of the map at match-end.

If you want activity based scoring then conquest must not the only activity that count (e.g. look at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3895144)

If u can defend your objects, opponents will not score it!

Now 2 servers can also make agreements.

Sin.4130:

Dayra.7405:

Sin.4130:

To devs:
The solution is really simple, how to do that?
Just change “tick score” system to “gain points” system – that’s all!
For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35

Very BAD idea.

• Defense become totally worthless, EotM-style play rules
• two sides can make a win-win agreement to trade an objective between them to both get ahead of the third
• If there is no such agreement: Match is irrelevant till last day – final outcome is who controls how much of the map at match-end.

If you want activity based scoring then conquest must not the only activity that count (e.g. look at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3895144)

If u can defend your objects, opponents will not score it!

Now 2 servers can also make agreements.

If the opponent does not take it, you cannot score as well.

Assume 5 ppl each from two sides sitting together in a tower, do not attacking each other turning it every 5min, defending it together against the third server, both server get ahead of the 3rd server in your scoring.

My solution. Removes coverage complaints, solves population imbalance:

Step 1: Bring back Guild Alliances
Step 2: WvWvW morphs in to Guild Alliance vs Guild Alliance vs Guild Alliance.

Like GvG and PvP in GuildWars 1, alliance battles are voluntary and based on a match system. The more you play/destroy the higher your score in ladder rankings etc.

Guild Alliances memberships can be locked for tournies, but during open season they can morph.

Sin.4130:

To devs:
The solution is really simple, how to do that?
Just change “tick score” system to “gain points” system – that’s all!
For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35
As usual, but only once, so server which does pvd (player vs door) will get only max 695 points for all night for example, not like now that one or two nights with pvd and match is over.
Feel free to modify this system in anyway.
Benefits?:
- no more blob style, which will be extremely not effective with gain point system,
- no more zombies blob all day long,
- overpopulated servers will split naturally, because insane coverage factor will be crushed and not one way to win.

BTW:
For WvW community health I suggest to separate pvp servers, u can change names of that servers, because in one mega server time, PvE players just killing WvW in lower tiers, they rise transfer costs, and don’t participle in WvW. Make transfer to lower tiers cheaper and you will gain balance pretty soon.

Got a funny feeling that people wouldnt cap their stuff back until last day to avoid it being flipped again for more points.

I would probably say in regards to scoring:

Only get points per stomp – but your stomps are worth more the depending on what structures (keeps/towers) you hold.

at least this way night capping wouldn’t score any points unless they had enemies to stomp. Yes they could still turn things to paper and make stomps worth more, but without the actual stomps it wouldn’t affect the score.

Sin.4130:

For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35
As usual, but only once, so server which does pvd (player vs door) will get only max 695 points for all night for example, not like now that one or two nights with pvd and match is over.
Feel free to modify this system in anyway.

Overall, I think this is a bad idea (it essentially makes all of the objectives into the equivalent of sentry checkpoints, which have a minimal effect on the score since any points you get from taking one are matched when your opponent takes them back).

Better might be to base the points per tick of an objective based on how upgraded it is, so objectives only tick off big points when they are upgraded:

Camp – 1 point + 1 point per upgrade (1-5 points)
Tower – 3 points + 1 point per upgrade (3-15 points)
Keep – 6 points + 2 points per upgrade (6-30 points)
Castle – 9 points + 3 points per upgrade (9-45 points)

If an attacker that runs around an enemy borderland off-hours flipping objectives, they wouldn’t get that many points unless they put an effort into upgrading them. The potential problem there is that it will only make it harder for a weak server to get their stuff back if their opponents do upgrade it.

Twinny.9304:

Sin.4130:

To devs:
The solution is really simple, how to do that?
Just change “tick score” system to “gain points” system – that’s all!
For claiming every object server gets points once.
Camp- 5
Tower -1 0
Keep – 25
SM – 35
As usual, but only once, so server which does pvd (player vs door) will get only max 695 points for all night for example, not like now that one or two nights with pvd and match is over.
Feel free to modify this system in anyway.
Benefits?:
- no more blob style, which will be extremely not effective with gain point system,
- no more zombies blob all day long,
- overpopulated servers will split naturally, because insane coverage factor will be crushed and not one way to win.

BTW:
For WvW community health I suggest to separate pvp servers, u can change names of that servers, because in one mega server time, PvE players just killing WvW in lower tiers, they rise transfer costs, and don’t participle in WvW. Make transfer to lower tiers cheaper and you will gain balance pretty soon.

Got a funny feeling that people wouldnt cap their stuff back until last day to avoid it being flipped again for more points.

I would probably say in regards to scoring:

Only get points per stomp – but your stomps are worth more the depending on what structures (keeps/towers) you hold.

at least this way night capping wouldn’t score any points unless they had enemies to stomp. Yes they could still turn things to paper and make stomps worth more, but without the actual stomps it wouldn’t affect the score.

These would be countered with objectives taking on a neutral state after a period of time. This way it limits the night crews ability to earn points, but not make it a total snooze fest. Also keeps people from “not playing” to save point loss.

They should just go all the way and making points per kill, with bloodlust giving extra.

Some more info about what you took home to ANet as insight from this thread would be nice