Guild Wars 2

In a 2 team match, only paired players from each team allowed entry and the rest are queued and a cap on the total population is set optimized with available resource to reduce lag. If a player leaves, Matched Entry system suspended until the population balanced again either after a player from another team leaves or a new player joins to balance the match.

With the 3 team matches, like WvW, three players from each team enter together and independent map choices. If one side runs out of players, the other 2 sides are queued. Similarly, if a player leaves, the Matched Entry system suspended until the population balanced again either after a player each from each other team leaves or a new player joins into to balance the match.

When queued, players are offered a choice to Eotm with placement in queue unaffected or just wait and do nothing. Of course they can choose Eotm to start with.

Use Matched Entry for Eotm and limit the size of Eotm to create multiple overflows.

Always randomly match a WvW games except assign different colors to the top populated servers so that Eotm population for each color is optimally balanced.

With a population balanced game, a match between a top server and lower servers, for example JQ vs IoJ vs ET, should be more of a game of skill and organization than the size of a zerg.

It would also encourage top servers to transfer to a lower server or stay in queue to create more overflows for EotM.

Not everyone like to K-train on Eotm and not everyone is ready for domination. Eotm would be really fun if one can play what one wants instead of following a commander who plays a different style. It was one of the best experience I had in the game. It is also a place to train commanders.

For a Eotm match, players should be able to choose the style of the game with choices of “Domination”, “K-train”, Mixed”, “GvG (private)”, “or “Just for Fun (Default)” either preset at entry (or advertized by commanders).

This Matched Entry system for WvW should be a better experience for all sides, neutral on transfer and gives commanders the challenges they seek.

I am from FA and I play an elementalist “Fire Water Air”.

— “Steam” should be part of Tempest

Problem is, easily exploited. If it’s a pure matched system, people will be limited from playing with friends, or pretty much completely limited from going on a map or maps. What fun if the enemy refuses to go in and you can’t get more than 1-4 people on an entire map? Then you have to put in safeguards that allow a minimum amount of people to get on a map when they don’t have ‘a match’ already in the map. Then you have to decide what that limit is, and I"m neglecting a lot of potential issues, but following this pattern to remove the severe limits will devolve into basically the current system.

And what fun would it really be for one side to like big battles, and only be able to field 5/10/or 15 in a borderland because the other side has no one coming in? And just think of the queues in those fights. No, there is nothing that can be done to have a NA t1 server fight a t8 in a 3 way WvWvW with current servers and it remotely be fair for anyone. you couldn’t fairly have a t4 server fight a t8, or a t1/2 fight a t4/5.

Maybe some of the T1 would transfer the lower servers. If they really like the challenge, they can push a lower server to the top with balanced matchs.

As for exploiting the system, one can work out a punishment that servers could not field more than say 5 players with no queue can only play Eotm on the next match.

As for the Queued players, Eotm could be really fun if your goal matches with commanders’, domination or K-train. It has massive zerg all the time if you commanders do not K-train only.

For this reason, it would be good to have more overflows in Eotm to choose from and players know what to expect before going to an overflow and less likely to be disappointed.

As for friends playing together, you can all transfer to a low population server and play together and be founders of a new beginning there.

If one day you found, with your success, you could not play together again, you could all transfer together again.

With each iteration, the servers would be more evenly populated and more and more players would be able to play together at the same time.

As to how much would it cost to transfer, ANet has to decide.

If it is priced right to transfer to a lower server, I think to servers would be balanced very quickly.

It should not be free all the time and it could be on sale.

Even if it is free from time to time, a bandwagon server would not sudden overpower other servers because the Matched Entry System would check the extras into queue.

Any purported solution to Coverage Wars that gives your enemy control over your map queue is very bad for the game. Map queues are a necessary evil to maintain server stability and discourage hyper-blobs, but creating situations where players should game them is a terrible idea.

On top of that, I’d much rather face an uphill battle in Coverage Wars than have an algorithm tell me I’m not allowed to play with my friends.

It also seems terrible for morale. However burned out I may get defending in an undermanned timezone, creating a game mode where “Get the hell out of the map, you scrub, because your mere presence is helping the enemy!” is a reasonable thing to think, like, all the time, is going to be much, much worse for player experience and server culture.

Lord of Rings.5371:

With a population balanced game, a match between a top server and lower servers, for example JQ vs IoJ vs ET, should be more of a game of skill and organization than the size of a zerg.

There’s basically two options for the “JQ” server in this situation:

1. Everyone who wants to play queues up and you end up with a random collection of folks. Your guild group that has spent months training together has a hard time even getting more than half of their members in anywhere; might as well cancel their raid nights for the week.

2. You enforce discipline and basically tell 80% of the server to sit it out. Your population advantage allows you to cherrypick the ideal players while the “ET” server in the matchup is stuck with whatever they’ve got, so your best fight guilds and havoc teams absolutely trash the average enemy anyway.

So, yeah, it’s a test of “organization,” but it’s unfun for a ton of your players, and the way you win is just a different kind of stacking.

Random matchup does not have to be institute at the introduction of the Matched Entry System for all servers.

Matches can still be arranged like today with the same opponents JQ vs TC vs BG, FA vs YB vs SOS, etc.

But with the infrastructure build, WvW could have fair matches to shake things up.

Of course Top vs Bottom was used an extreme example.

A more likely case can be tried out with

JQ vs FA vs BG

or

BG vs YB vs FA

using the Matched Entry System which would give more balanced fights and fresh opponents that have not met for a long time.

And it could also help to balance out the lower servers amount their matches.

As for all the chance not all the players from a guild could get in at the same time, commanders just have plan ahead and work out backups.

A little unexpected randomness can only make game play more fun and exciting.

ASP, the irony here made me laugh, and I don’t think there is much point in trying to explain the risks and issues that would occur.

Lord of Rings.5371:

Random matchup does not have to be institute at the introduction of the Matched Entry System for all servers.

Matches can still be arranged like today with the same opponents JQ vs TC vs BG, FA vs YB vs SOS, etc.

But with the infrastructure build, WvW could have fair matches to shake things up.

Of course Top vs Bottom was used an extreme example.

A more likely case can be tried out with

JQ vs FA vs BG

or

BG vs YB vs FA

using the Matched Entry System which would give more balanced fights and fresh opponents that have not met for a long time.

And it could also help to balance out the lower servers amount their matches.

You have a very “strange” opinion of what a fair match up is, in my opinion.

In no way would I call it a fair mathup, if i am locked out of the WvW simply because opposing servers do not have players logging in, when I am logged in.

This bad suggestion could literally lock me out of WvW for a player like me who may only have 3 hours to play on a particular day. If the opposing servers have less players, I would be in queue the entire duration of my play time. This suggestion, is a terrible idea for many reasons. This is just one of them.

I reiterate.

This idea that can be boiled down to:

• Let your enemies control your map queue!
• The game is better if you aren’t allowed to play it!

That’s a non-starter, pure and simple.

No one can make everyone on a server not to show up and any attempts are just strategies to lose a game on purpose.

“Let your enemies control your map queue!”
That’s a non-starter, pure and simple.

Transfers, GvG Eotm Domination .. and more balanced servers .. new opponents ..

“The game is better if you aren’t allowed to play it!”

That’s another non-starter, pure and simple.

Please refer back to the original post for the main idea.

This was based on my in game experience and observation of the conversation on this forum.

I am happy that I could contribute to this community by my voicing my ideas.

Whether or not it will be adopted, it is up to people at Anet who have a better view of the whole picture.

And thanks for all the comments.

The issue I see here, is that posters point t out the glaring flaws to the suggestion, and instead of aknowleding them, and adjusting your idea or perspective, you continue arguing for your idea.

Doesn’t it seem wiser to try to adjust your concept to eliminate the glaring issues, rather the arguing to justify them?

No one will be locked out.

There could be queues, but there has always been queue.

But this system will balance servers out and resulting shorter queue for all servers.

This would also solve the problem of seeing your upgrades been wiped by other K-trainers overnight because the matches would be more or less balanced all the time under the Matched Entry System.

As for Night crews who love to K-train during this Night time, They can K-train in Eotm all they want.

Finally, there is the transfer if you really want to play on border land maps.

The transfer balances the servers out.

It could be revenue neutral or positive for Anet depending how is the transfer priced.

It is a win-win-win for everyone.

I do not see how this would lock anyone out.

And I only have certain amount of time to play as like most of you.

Another the advantage for this the that this is technically simply to implement.

The coding would be very easy and Anet can save resources in backing testing and experimenting the cap size of each week’s match.

Moreover it is sustainable because of most of transfer would lead for more balanced servers not like currently which is leading to extreme everyday.

Under the current system T-1 servers can only fight among themselves and many are queued and not necessary happy because of resource constrains on lag.

Almost no one wants to transfer lower because the odd winning is small when outnumbered.

When a match is balanced, transfer to a lower would give a much better chance for they to fight to the top.

It really is a Win Win Win for everyone.

It is also a perfect time for this discussion because Anet is working on HoT and this can be release with HoT.

And we have increased attention by Anet at the forum with the new moderators, congratulations by the way, the present of GM ProHeals and others, so glad to see you, it is likely to be heard by Anet.

I am presenting this idea to Anet and hopefully it can be useful because it can solve so many issues.

Finally the current population distribution would make the direction of transfer fairly predictable, hence revenue estimates from the transfers.

Just read

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-is-so-fun/first#post5147775

Jana.6831:

It’s not really about who’s first now, just that I don’t think anyone expected it.

And it does not have to be always like this.

When a smaller server has control over the over all size of the match, it could counterbalance the dominate server and give them a fighting chance, a real “Out Numbered” Buff.

As people transfer, the size of the a smaller server would grow and more friends can play together because players do not have to go to the most stacked server to win which leaves room for friends to play together.

Again the Matched Entry System does not have start with the Top vs bottom servers. It can be started with the matches as they are ranked now, JQ vs TC vs BG, Gandara vs SFR vs PS, FA vs YB vs SoS, etc.

Players would go to smaller servers when they have a fighting chance.

And WvW can again be a competitive fight for the Top.

I’m going to say this clearly.

You are proposing to replace the current system with a worse system that would solve nothing. Worse, you are even now proposing to use it to deny another server from even going in WvW. You keep replying just pretty much to bump your thread. I’m only replying to reiterate that it is a worse idea than the current system, would introduce more problems, including systemic trolling between people on the same server, as well as between servers just by not going in WvW even just for a bit. Although I think I’m wasting my time, so gl.

The Matched Entry would also probably make players staying in WvW longer each day and play more often each week.

Because whoever starting leaving WvW first without a queue would be out numbered by the others who stayed.

Moreover since an “over stacked” Night Crew are likely to be checking into a queue, upgrades are likely to survive and this gives each match a sense of progression as time moves from weekends toward reset.

Again, you show your bias by promoting just how terribly your system harms the playtime of those with different free playtime then yourself. The selfish motives in themselves are harmful as it is. The fact that you flaunt your motives as justification to harm the game as a whole is even worse.

This idea is very bad. Nothing you claim, justifies artificially locking out players, simply because others have a different schedule.

I thought I have explained that no one will be locked out. Please refer back.

Nevertheless, I am willing to reconsider yours situation as an example.

I do not know you schedule except 3 hours a day to play. Could you be more specific? I will explain it again specifically for you.

As your claim of my playtime, it is premature because I doubt you know it.

“With a population balanced game, a match between a top server and lower servers, for example JQ vs IoJ vs ET, should be more of a game of skill and organization than the size of a zerg.”

So I will cherry pick this, as it’s the simplest way to show you bad your idea actually is.

With your idea here, the vast majority of OC, SEA, and EU players on JQ would be stuck in a queue all night long, waiting to get in but won’t because the other servers don’t have the coverage of JQ. Most would never see any wvw play time due to the opponents not having the numbers to match.

There is a reason the a large majority of OC, SEA, and EU players look for the “T1” servers over others, it’s because they get people to play with and against, your proposal would mean they don’t get people to play with / against because they are always in a queue, and no EOTM is not a viable suggestion, since guild groups like to know who they are up against, with out going there and running over a full zerg of up levels.

While yes on paper your idea looks like a decent idea for those playing in the NA time zones, it’s when you look out side of NA time zones, and move off out into the wide spaces of other time zones around the world, that see’s your idea fall apart.

So, cap everything on the map, then all leave. As there is no one on the map, you cannot have anyone enter (I assume your system kicks out players from maps to even things up?), and we rack up endless points while you cannot even enter your own B/L to retake anything?

Try again.

Lord of Rings.5371:

Again the Matched Entry System does not have start with the Top vs bottom servers. It can be started with the matches as they are ranked now, JQ vs TC vs BG, Gandara vs SFR vs PS, FA vs YB vs SoS, etc.

Players would go to smaller servers when they have a fighting chance.

And WvW can again be a competitive fight for the Top.

Lord of Rings.5371:

whoever starting leaving WvW first without a queue would be out numbered by the others who stayed.

Lord of Rings.5371:

..assign different colors to the top populated servers so that Eotm population for each color is optimally balanced.

Lord of Rings.5371:

Maybe some of the T1 would transfer the lower servers. If they really like the challenge, they can push a lower server to the top with balanced matches.
…

As for the Queued players, Eotm could be really fun if your goal matches with commanders’, domination or K-train. It has massive zerg all the time if you commanders do not K-train only.

For this reason, it would be good to have more overflows in Eotm to choose from and players know what to expect before going to an overflow and less likely to be disappointed.

As for friends playing together, you can all transfer to a low population server and play together and be founders of a new beginning there.

If one day you found, with your success, you could not play together again, you could all transfer together again.

With each iteration, the servers would be more evenly populated and more and more players would be able to play together at the same time.

sorry I have to repeat. I thought I have covered your concerns.

Baldrick.8967:

..(I assume your system kicks out players from maps to even things up?),
…

It does not kick anyone out unless they are inactive like today with warnings.

So we log in at 3am, joining some friends from Asia, and now can’t enter any map because there is no one from the enemy team there (and they own the entire map).

It gets to 3pm, and we still can’t enter as enemy won’t enter their own map when it’s all theirs, they have no one q’ing for it, so the matched entry system says we can’t enter as they have no one waiting to enter…and they win the match by not being there.

Baldrick.8967:

So we log in at 3am… there is no one from the enemy team there (and they own the entire map).
…

If your server has someone stayed they can start to take everything back.

Baldrick.8967:

.. 3pm, … they have no one q’ing for it …

If you stayed could take over the map and win by then.

If no one from your served stayed and

they own the entire map

How would this happen? If the game started with Matched Entry, it should not happen really quickly unless your server some how been outplayed.

If they have outplayed and outlasted. They deserve to win.

Baldrick.8967:

..we still can’t enter as enemy .. they have no one q’ing for it.

You can all play on Eotm to get loot/WvW rank for the next match.

If you want to play border land maps, you can wait for the next match with a different opponents or transfer.

Currently, any imbalance would occur if players leave without queue.

I was also considering whehter or not allowing a smaller number of, say 5, players from each side entering without a queue when the total number of players for that side is less than that number, like a spark to initiate a stalled game. For example if there are only 3 players on the map, 2 more can enter before queue starts. And I would call this condition, Spark, for easier reference in the future and the threshold number Spark limit.

As long as the number of players from a server is above its Spark limit, Spark condition would not occur. And the Spark limit can be chosen to minimize Spark condition based on the distribution of player time. It is mostly to be zero in the long run even if it starts out not because the Match Entry would gradually spread players more evenly.

Would this relieve of your concerns?

juicifruitz.6251:

…
There is a reason the a large majority of OC, SEA, and EU players look for the “T1” servers over others, it’s because they get people to play with and against

…

The transition from the current system the Match Entry system can be very smooth by simply assign matches according to the current Tier system, T1 are still matched against each other.

In fact, I think it is better to start in a Non-disruptive way so that transfers can be in both direction. It would be easier to identify coverage holes and BG, TC and JQ all can receive new members to fill their coverage holes.

However, the Match Entry system (+Spark) would institute a mechanism by giving smaller servers a leveled playing field and a chance to be disruptive after matches became stale with the same opponents all the time.

Baldrick.8967:

..
So we log in at 3am, joining some friends from Asia, and now can’t enter any map because there is no one from the enemy team there (and they own the entire map).
..

I doubt the situation you describe would really occur because it can be easily countered.

Anyone who pulls out of a match entirely is running a very risky strategy even if they have taken over the whole map. As long as some players from the remaining 2 servers stayed, these objectives can be retaken, and they can not outnumber you after their return.

Travelling, so a little late on this as I was catching up on the forum this morning and found this regarding the WvW beta a few days ago.

According the post, “Unbalancing makes it not fun”,
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuvtest/Unbalancing-makes-it-not-fun/first#post5271574
one server was stacked after wiping the others during the beta and it evolved into a PVE K-train event.

Just wondering what would it be if the Matched Entry was used for the beta.

My expectation is that there would be a lot more fight and interaction between the servers even after the wipes because the losing sides would just have the learn the game and fight back or wait in queue after a transfer.