Guild Wars 2

Its funny how every mmorpg with realm vs realm combat has this problem of population imbalances……

Game developers seem to ignore human psychology in addressing this problem and actually seem to encourage it (Maybe they think its lucrative considering how much players spend in $$$ to transfer servers).

If ANET wished to create a more broad solution (creating more balance server populations/matchup variety) they could look at implementing a ranking system which rewards playing on undermanned servers. As of now players naturally want to stack on winning servers because of easy wins (who wants to play when you have no chance at competing?)

Why not create wvw rank skills that can only be gained while playing undermanned and losing in the PPT score by a certain margin? (This would prevent manipulating the system to gain said abilities on “Stacked” servers)

Skills much like the vitality stacks or bloodlust stacks that only become available when your server is losing the PPT battle by a large margin. (This would prevent abuse of said abilities through manipulation of playing populations).

This system would foster population shifts to weaker servers allowing them to compete better and give current players on an undermanned server a reason to fight a stronger opponent.

Mismatched sessions may become welcomed as its hastens the ability to gain said ranks.

These “rank” abilities should also be server bound and reset once a player transfers to another server (This would reward loyalty to a community and prevent stacking a server once said ranks were gained).

This is a suggestion and open to comment and further improvement……..

tbh it would be better with a matchmaking pool of all players so there will be a new rank system based on how good individuals are then
they will be put in respective servers.
but ofcourse we cant have that cuz #Server pride…
Another solution would be to merge servers but that wont be fair for those who dont want massive zergs all day.
anyway i dont expect it to ever be fixed.
I know i will play more when the new borderlands come.

The only games I’ve known that didn’t have light traffic were the ones that had global play 24/7. You can merge servers together but it may just give you more day time players and not really fix the light am hours.

Face it, somehow we need paired with people in another time zone to make one server. That is if WvW is to remain a 24 hour feature.

Jaytee.9513:

Its funny how every mmorpg with realm vs realm combat has this problem of population imbalances……

Game developers seem to ignore human psychology in addressing this problem and actually seem to encourage it (Maybe they think its lucrative considering how much players spend in $$$ to transfer servers).

If ANET wished to create a more broad solution (creating more balance server populations/matchup variety) they could look at implementing a ranking system which rewards playing on undermanned servers. As of now players naturally want to stack on winning servers because of easy wins (who wants to play when you have no chance at competing?)

Why not create wvw rank skills that can only be gained while playing undermanned and losing in the PPT score by a certain margin? (This would prevent manipulating the system to gain said abilities on “Stacked” servers)

Skills much like the vitality stacks or bloodlust stacks that only become available when your server is losing the PPT battle by a large margin. (This would prevent abuse of said abilities through manipulation of playing populations).

This system would foster population shifts to weaker servers allowing them to compete better and give current players on an undermanned server a reason to fight a stronger opponent.

Mismatched sessions may become welcomed as its hastens the ability to gain said ranks.

These “rank” abilities should also be server bound and reset once a player transfers to another server (This would reward loyalty to a community and prevent stacking a server once said ranks were gained).

This is a suggestion and open to comment and further improvement……..

I personally think A-net does not want to solve this issue cuz profit … But also that their programmers and system engineers are incapable of doing so.

I have actually been reading some job boards etc. from what I understand A-net is unwilling to pay decent hence low quality and not enough capable people.

So those are the actual 2 factors.

Actually, a-net should make your server name a label only for pve content; who cares outside of competitive play which server they represent? As long as your party, or super party up to 25 players (say) can play in the same area together.

Clearly, in the case of S.O.S. we need more competitive players for wvw to take on YB and FA. Clearly too strong for t3 and lacking coverage round the clock, but can hold our own during prime time – 2 v 1 times not withstanding.

This is one case where server population control is clearly restricting our server’s gaming experience.

It just my thought that players need reasons to play on an underdog server, I think we can all agree on this point.

Server pride will not cut it unless one is a Masochist who likes running from spawn point to action every few minutes.

Its not really fun for the “Stacked” servers either because of the low competion factor, but I would assume players prefer to win all the time then get stomped all the time……thus player migration to servers who dominate their matches.

Giving underdog server players a reason to try and fight back (and gaining something from the effort) may help in creating a more competitive wvw model by creating a more balanced force not depending on player count ie. less player count equals more powerful players, offsetting the numbers advantage.

Its just human psychology that people want the least amount of effort for the greatest amount of reward……….Fix it so Effort = Reward and you may find people wanting to play on Underdog servers which in turn provides more competitive game play for all.

The op’s suggestion is quite logical, and has been suggested many times before, but anet went ahead and introduced the exact opposite with borderlands bloodlust.

Sube Dai.8496:

The op’s suggestion is quite logical, and has been suggested many times before, but anet went ahead and introduced the exact opposite with borderlands bloodlust.

When you do things like that you start to punishes ppl who do have server loyalty.

It something that you cant truly fix with out comply going away from RvR altogether and making int more of an open pvp zone. Its something you need to deal with if your world has dead time zones there is nothing you can do about it as a player. Just enjoy the game as you can and try to get past ppt.

I have suggested since launch that they need to do away with Sever based WvW and institute a system that groups people based on guilds and alliances between guilds with tiers based on population of said alliances.

If people cannot be bothered to maintain standards to stay in an alliance (they are controlled by guilds after all) then they are moved into a different pool that simply randomly selects players for each side.

This would more or less solve the number balance issues as well as create a much wider array of possible match ups and end up rewarding skill/coordination rather then mindlessly overwhelming your enemy as it is now.

As for transfers it would cost more to transfer to higher ranked alliances & cost more depending on the tier size.

Sadly Arena.net is unlikely to ever fix the numbers issues where WvW is concerned.

After all if your on a dead realm you have to pay to transfer which gives them more money & every season brings about mass transfers.

Jski.6180:

Sube Dai.8496:

The op’s suggestion is quite logical, and has been suggested many times before, but anet went ahead and introduced the exact opposite with borderlands bloodlust.

When you do things like that you start to punishes ppl who do have server loyalty.

It something that you cant truly fix with out comply going away from RvR altogether and making int more of an open pvp zone. Its something you need to deal with if your world has dead time zones there is nothing you can do about it as a player. Just enjoy the game as you can and try to get past ppt.

I would like to think this is something beyond PPT, it about enjoying competitive game play.

Would you like being forced on a team that has half the numbers of your opponent?

I think not, unless you have something to gain from such a matchup, which is something that I am suggesting to encourage more player participation in a mismatch.

Perhaps you feel FA (with a pretty large wvw player base) would not gain an advantage through such a system so you are against it. Its human nature to think like that and I can relate to your thoughts.

Do you have any constructive suggestions other than forced server mergers or population map caps that could help balance matchups?

I am trying to suggest possible solutions to this problem without forcing players to move if they don’t want to.

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

I don’t think you read the whole thing…..in order to get the buff two criteria had to be met.

1) you need to be undermanned on that map.
2) your server has to be losing in the point score.

Fairness is a relative term. The situation you described above is the same situation if an outmanned server player ran into the numerous gank squads of the “stacked” server. Is that fair? With the current system in place the outmanned players will face the situation far more than players on a stacked server thus discouraging participation. This buff system would even out the playing field and incentivize playing while undermanned as that is the only way to rank up those buffs.

I don’t know the ratios of when UM buff turns on but when it does it means you are severely outnumbered on that map. The players on the stacked server would have to adjust strategies (ie run more in larger groups etc.) to compensate because they have the resources to do so (more players on map). Outmanned servers cannot do so because they have limited numbers (thus the buff). See my point?

Jaytee.9513:

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

I don’t think you read the whole thing…..in order to get the buff two criteria had to be met.

1) you need to be undermanned on that map.
2) your server has to be losing in the point score.

Fairness is a relative term. The situation you described above is the same situation if an outmanned server player ran into the numerous gank squads of the “stacked” server. Is that fair?

No, its not fair. That was exactly my point. Its not fair in any scenario.

Getting a player buff would not change the PPT situation either – the enemy server outmanning would still be highly likely to win even if the outmanned server gets a buff on an outmanned border. It wont matter for the matchup. I still think that buffing players is the wrong way to go when its the PPT system that is flawed.

Dawdler.8521:

Jaytee.9513:

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

I don’t think you read the whole thing…..in order to get the buff two criteria had to be met.

1) you need to be undermanned on that map.
2) your server has to be losing in the point score.

Fairness is a relative term. The situation you described above is the same situation if an outmanned server player ran into the numerous gank squads of the “stacked” server. Is that fair?

No, its not fair. That was exactly my point. Its not fair in any scenario.

Getting a player buff would not change the PPT situation either – the enemy server outmanning would still be highly likely to win even if the outmanned server gets a buff on an outmanned border. It wont matter for the matchup. I still think that buffing players is the wrong way to go when its the PPT system that is flawed.

Look at it from this perspective…….The players on an “Under-Manned” server face this “unfair” situation at a higher probability rate that those on a “Stacked” server.

Giving a buff to those fighting a Stacked server would even out that probability, give an incentive to participate and achieve rewards for fighting against the odds and create a more competitive wvw experience for all servers.

Boosting PPT earnings does not mean competitive balance. The players on Under-manned servers will still get sent back to spwan at a much higher percentage than those on a stacked server. Is it fun getting rolled at every corner because you fight against overwhelming odds?

Winning through “Stacking” servers should be minimized and discouraged to create more entertaining and competitive matches. That’s the bottom line IMHO.

UnderManned servers need in system mechanic to encourage participation when fighting stronger opponents or wvw will die a slow painful death…..

Add guild alliances across servers and tie controlling the ruins in the BL’s to create temporary portals for alliance members to join that map. While it sounds hairy the idea is that the 2nd and 3rd place servers could pull in alliance members to fight the server in first place.

You can only be in one alliance. It is at the guild level. BL/Ruins start portal. 2nd and 3rd place are allowed to open. 1st place is not. Portal can be shut by opposing servers so it requires defensive and offensive posturing.

Allows some flexibility, brings more attention to ruins and BL maps. Also encourages some team work across servers and guilds. Easy enough to add an /alliance channel for chat and teamwork. Queues shouldn’t be an issue if the server opening portal (he/she who is asking for troops) because they are already under manned. You can add queues to those joining and/or passing through.

alliances while it sounds great has an obvious problem. Players can belong to multiple guilds. What if one guild you belong to wants to fight for Green, while another guild wants to fight for Red? It’s not going to work.

People still stack servers for easy wins?

People stack servers that are active. It’s not their fault anet refuses to accept that game populations always decline over time and servers need to be closed.

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

This seems to be getting closer to the biggest problem here. It’s disappointing to go through all the effort of upgrading a keep during prime time, only to have your realm lose it during the night and have to start all over again (though I think some people would be surprised at how well you can hold off a zerg with a couple of people on siege). Maybe if you were awarded bonus PPT for holding something while your population is below a certain percentage compared to the enemy servers. For instance, if you have 50% or less players, you earn 1.5x the PPT for objectives held. And maybe you get bonus PPT if you successfully defend something. Or maybe you don’t have to spend as much supply to upgrade things.

I am on the bottom EU server – UW. Why do I stay?
About a month ago 2 large guides (maybe more) moved off our server. I dunno why it happened, some say a row, maybe they just wanted more coverage who knows. But the fact is people want different types of play. I tried for a while to go with the zerg (yes we have had one) but I don’t have fun in it. I tried it in PVE (world bosses and SW) and its just not for me. I like group play but not massive groups. I really feel that Anet just don’t seem to care about WvW and the problems it has. WvW is down as being casual but over the time I have played most people seem to play WvW as their main game mode except when they need to do other things (usually because WvW rewards so poorly). Maybe we need to face the fact that there should be server tiers with different levels of coverage? Some will always have loads of people on and some will sometimes be quiet or dead? And the fixes for each tier is different. ATM with us basically being steamrollered by BT as soon as they come into a map with their large group I leave as we are so out-manned we just get squished and after the first 10 times it gets dull. But then we just end up only taking things that mostly have no players so it becomes PVE and tbh thats no fun either. I like a nice prolonged fight wondering who will win and having to try different things – shame they lack so much. I think the problems will get worse with the auto upgrading thing as when we come in on the morning most things will be T3 and hard to take. I don’t know what the answers are and maybe some servers need different things to others but I wish something would be tried – trying to be positive about the golem thing but tbh …. I wonder if one of the problems is that you can move so easily and have nothing to loose except gold/gems/£ and people who farm and farm have that so can just move about it it fluxes things so much. In GW1 there was an effect for changing factions wasn’t there? Please show this game mode some love!

Nate.3927:

alliances while it sounds great has an obvious problem. Players can belong to multiple guilds. What if one guild you belong to wants to fight for Green, while another guild wants to fight for Red? It’s not going to work.

That is true. However, note I mentioned one alliance per player.

Bottom line is that this isn’t a new problem just that Arena Net is not being vocal on what they are or are not doing about it. Priority and money at the end of the day. Let us face it, while we do enjoy the format maybe GW2 isn’t the game for us to play in this format.

AmberUK.5380:

(usually because WvW rewards so poorly)

The two ton monster just fell in the room. Not only shiny objects or phat loot but also poor rewards for controlling ruins or defending towers, keeps, castle, camps, sentries, and events.

I personally prefer some type of Points bonuses and regulations. They could start at like 30k. For instance:

If a server is up by 30k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 15%
If a server is up by 31k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 16%
If a server is up by 32k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 17%
If a server is up by 50k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 35% plus it suffers +10% vulnerability per hit to all towers and keep walls + gates.

The system could scale up as the Points margin widens. Conversely the losing server/servers could gain bonuses at the same time.

If you are down by 30K points you gain a 15% wexp and kharma bonus
If you are down by 31k points you gain a 16% wexp and kharma bonus
and henceforth as illustrated above.

I am just using this as a very quick example…obviously you could input anything you want as a bonus and negative. Thus it can be used and implemented more easily with the outnumbered buff which could still remain.

This would get more people out until the bonus wears off and it is not as profitable for people to come out. Might get a few more people interested and get those out who would like to participate, but would never go to WvW due to being facerolled by a server they have no chance against. A least their is a real incentive to WvW.

Anyway, just thoughts off the top of my head without really putting much thought into it.

Deli.1302:

People still stack servers for easy wins?

People stack servers that are active. It’s not their fault anet refuses to accept that game populations always decline over time and servers need to be closed.

Look at the WVW tournements for an example about players stacking for the win.

A balanced match up will alway produce more active players than one that is a blow out, because its more competitive.

Being badly outnumbered in a match is not fun unless you like running your character from spawn to action every few minutes.

What I am pointing out in this suggestion is that players who play in this type of scenario should be rewarded (ie gaining rank points which buff you while you are outmanned and losing in point score). Why should players put in effort if they get nothing but stomped on for the enjoyment of a stacked population?

This may encourage more players to migrate to a Undermanned server to get stronger or gain achievements.

I am suggesting this as a means to promote activity while your server is Undermanned and losing badly.

I really can’t see the issue here with trying to implement this as a means to promote better gameplay in WvW.

wyther.8372:

I personally prefer some type of Points bonuses and regulations. They could start at like 30k. For instance:

If a server is up by 30k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 15%
If a server is up by 31k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 16%
If a server is up by 32k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 17%
If a server is up by 50k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 35% plus it suffers +10% vulnerability per hit to all towers and keep walls + gates.

The system could scale up as the Points margin widens. Conversely the losing server/servers could gain bonuses at the same time.

If you are down by 30K points you gain a 15% wexp and kharma bonus
If you are down by 31k points you gain a 16% wexp and kharma bonus
and henceforth as illustrated above.

I am just using this as a very quick example…obviously you could input anything you want as a bonus and negative. Thus it can be used and implemented more easily with the outnumbered buff which could still remain.

This would get more people out until the bonus wears off and it is not as profitable for people to come out. Might get a few more people interested and get those out who would like to participate, but would never go to WvW due to being facerolled by a server they have no chance against. A least their is a real incentive to WvW.

Anyway, just thoughts off the top of my head without really putting much thought into it.

If you call gaining Karma an incentive…….Its more like a joke. Any player can goto EOTM and gain karma way faster than in WvW. Most players I know don’t go to wvw to karma train objectives.

I still really think they need to close the bottom 3 servers entirely, and spread their population into T7 servers. Alliances would most likely end up with what we have in EotM, and that would be catastrophic.

At some point things become untenable, and that seems to be where we’re at with T8.

At this point, the best thing Anet should do is to improve both the quantity and uniqueness of WvW reward. Make the outnumbered buff 10 times better.

What is to stop stacking again?

Exciton.8942:

At this point, the best thing Anet should do is to improve both the quantity and uniqueness of WvW reward. Make the outnumbered buff 10 times better.

+33% Experience
+20% Magic find
+25% World Experience
Take no armor damage on death

While I think it could be interesting running around with a group of uplevels while outnumbered for the +330% xp (even for killing raptors outside spawn), it doesn’t really fix the problems of being outnumbered. Unfortunately

(Btw, when are they going to remove the no armor damage from outnumbered, since it is free to repair anyways? Or just remove armor damage, though I find it kind of funny)

200% magic find could be interesting, but with wvw’s low chances to begin with, I suspect we would still be way under pve.

Skyline.1283:

Actually, a-net should make your server name a label only for pve content; who cares outside of competitive play which server they represent? As long as your party, or super party up to 25 players (say) can play in the same area together.

Clearly, in the case of S.O.S. we need more competitive players for wvw to take on YB and FA. Clearly too strong for t3 and lacking coverage round the clock, but can hold our own during prime time – 2 v 1 times not withstanding.

This is one case where server population control is clearly restricting our server’s gaming experience.

I truly do wish we could just drop to T3, just to shed the stupid GVGs if for no other reason, let them all transfer out and kitten up someone eelses float teams and other BLs.

I also disagree with you about our primetime, we have far less people at prime time in T2 then T8 used to have (though that is the case no longer as entire WvW population took a huge sink). And that is bad, also, the community kinda bites, its too guild focused, not enough server focus and its just getting worse.

Playing last reset, 2 days ago felt like doing only half of what I used to do in T8. Both from map / fight stand point and the duration. Everyone just bailed within 2-3 hours with nothing but a handful of us left.

Jaytee.9513:

If you call gaining Karma an incentive…….Its more like a joke. Any player can goto EOTM and gain karma way faster than in WvW. Most players I know don’t go to wvw to karma train objectives.

Hahahaha…

Yeah. Right.

Anything that is an incentive to play WvW – karma included – is a good thing for WvW. Because it brings the players. Without players, we wouldnt have anything to fight. WvW is already widely regarded as having poor rewards compared to PvE.

You get rewards to playing WvW? Since when?

Deli.1302:

People still stack servers for easy wins?

People stack servers that are active. It’s not their fault anet refuses to accept that game populations always decline over time and servers need to be closed.

Holy crap! someone who gets it.

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

All suggestions are bad the best thing ppl seem to be able to think of is simply give ppl more rewards and items that means nothing to pvp players.

There is simply no fix for population balancing for all worlds players will go where they want even if it cost them. This is the only true way to population balance its up to the players NOT anet.

Jski.6180:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

All suggestions are bad the best thing ppl seem to be able to think of is simply give ppl more rewards and items that means nothing to pvp players.

There is simply no fix for population balancing for all worlds players will go where they want even if it cost them. This is the only true way to population balance its up to the players NOT anet.

Yes its true that players need to contribute to population balance, which is why I mentioned human psychology……its human nature to find the path of least effort for the largest gain. Not saying that all people think this way ( There are people who are altuistic who look for the benefit of the majority as a priority) but the average person will not put in alot of effort if there is no return of some kind (ie reward, which could be a variety of things to different people).

Compare the pros and cons of being on a stacked server against an unmanned server then tell me where you want to be?

Tell me is it fun to fight against an opponent which overwhelms you constantly with shear numbers?

What do you gain for putting all that effort when fighting another team at a disadvantage?

Perhaps if you can answer these questions honestly you can understand why players are getting frustrated and just out right quit playing (which is really bad for all players in any MMORPG).

Its what developers need to ask themselves when designing a game with PvP in mind.

Jaytee.9513:

Jski.6180:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

All suggestions are bad the best thing ppl seem to be able to think of is simply give ppl more rewards and items that means nothing to pvp players.

There is simply no fix for population balancing for all worlds players will go where they want even if it cost them. This is the only true way to population balance its up to the players NOT anet.

Yes its true that players need to contribute to population balance, which is why I mentioned human psychology……its human nature to find the path of least effort for the largest gain. Not saying that all people think this way ( There are people who are altuistic who look for the benefit of the majority as a priority) but the average person will not put in alot of effort if there is no return of some kind (ie reward, which could be a variety of things to different people).

Compare the pros and cons of being on a stacked server against an unmanned server then tell me where you want to be?

Tell me is it fun to fight against an opponent which overwhelms you constantly with shear numbers?

What do you gain for putting all that effort when fighting another team at a disadvantage?

Perhaps if you can answer these questions honestly you can understand why players are getting frustrated and just out right quit playing (which is really bad for all players in any MMORPG).

Its what developers need to ask themselves when designing a game with PvP in mind.

Its not a pro or con issues its just what will happen.

Some times yes and ppl do move to the worlds where this happens. Though if the pvp is active on one world it tends to be active on the other 2 or will become active in time or some other world will replaces it.

A feeling of overcoming odds? This is wvw your not doing this for rewarded most ppl are not doing it for ppt even (beyond staying in that T). Its all for fun at the end of the day that what makes a pvp players over a pve player.

Unless your asking Anet to start focesing ppl to move and stay on worlds its not going to be up to Anet how the population balances out.

Jski.6180:

Jaytee.9513:

Jski.6180:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

All suggestions are bad the best thing ppl seem to be able to think of is simply give ppl more rewards and items that means nothing to pvp players.

There is simply no fix for population balancing for all worlds players will go where they want even if it cost them. This is the only true way to population balance its up to the players NOT anet.

Yes its true that players need to contribute to population balance, which is why I mentioned human psychology……its human nature to find the path of least effort for the largest gain. Not saying that all people think this way ( There are people who are altuistic who look for the benefit of the majority as a priority) but the average person will not put in alot of effort if there is no return of some kind (ie reward, which could be a variety of things to different people).

Compare the pros and cons of being on a stacked server against an unmanned server then tell me where you want to be?

Tell me is it fun to fight against an opponent which overwhelms you constantly with shear numbers?

What do you gain for putting all that effort when fighting another team at a disadvantage?

Perhaps if you can answer these questions honestly you can understand why players are getting frustrated and just out right quit playing (which is really bad for all players in any MMORPG).

Its what developers need to ask themselves when designing a game with PvP in mind.

Its not a pro or con issues its just what will happen.

Some times yes and ppl do move to the worlds where this happens. Though if the pvp is active on one world it tends to be active on the other 2 or will become active in time or some other world will replaces it.

A feeling of overcoming odds? This is wvw your not doing this for rewarded most ppl are not doing it for ppt even (beyond staying in that T). Its all for fun at the end of the day that what makes a pvp players over a pve player.

Unless your asking Anet to start focesing ppl to move and stay on worlds its not going to be up to Anet how the population balances out.

Let see how you like to play on undermanned server now? Server stacking is a big problem and Anet needs to address it to provide competitive matchups.