Use Server Population To Solve Balance Issues
There’s a much simpler fix: Just divide all rewards between the number of people who hit the target/captured the objective.
Suddenly you’ll see many small havoc groups rather than the current zerg karma trains, and people will actually want to move to low pop servers for the increased reward opportunities.
Server populations are irrelevant. NSP has a very high server population. Our WvW population is one of the lowest around. Pretty much outmanned most of the time.
For this to work you would need to track how many players enter W3 everyday at what times, and then also track how long they stay in W3. That is possible, and it would give a better accounting of a server’s strength. That way you could set a quota to be met for each server involved in the match.
Now this data will be skewed atm due to the achievement and reward hunters that have flooded the borderlands looking to get their season 1 key for the rewards lol. I would think that after a cooldown period though the numbers will normalize, and then you can datamine the necessary numbers to get a better picture.
Here’s the MAJOR issue. There are servers that are so stacked atm that it won’t matter who you match them up with. For instance: BG, JQ, and to an extent SoR and TC are too big for any other servers to compete with. They need to incentivize destacking somehow. For the record I am on BG. We know the issue exists, and really have been locked in a death’s embrace with JQ and SoR for so long that this is the reality of T1. The matchup with Maguuma and SoS highlighted it. Here’s the deal though. Until ANet makes it worthwhile to destack there will always be stacked and gutted servers. The problem is that no one wants to play on a server that has no chance to win, and right now there is too big a discrepancy in the haves and have nots.
There’s a much simpler fix: Just divide all rewards between the number of people who hit the target/captured the objective.
Suddenly you’ll see many small havoc groups rather than the current zerg karma trains, and people will actually want to move to low pop servers for the increased reward opportunities.
This is the solution I like the most too, also makes it so when bigger groups roll over a smaller ones the small group can actually scrounge out more wxp if they can take a few of the bigger group out first.
@Dinks and Kaiser:
You guys are both alluding to the same basic issue – a discrepancy between total server population and WvW population. However, I believe that sort of thing can and will eventually will be sorted out by the players themselves if the right incentives are put in place. Eventually leaders on high population, low WvW turnout servers will rise up, or perhaps even hop in, to rally the server’s forces. As long as the overall population is there, the potential to be competitive is there.
Sever population is not equal to WvW population and hardcoreness.
Many of the balance issues in WvW are directly caused by a disparity in server populations. To remedy the issues caused by these disparities, A.Net should do the follow:
1. Determine divisions based on server population rather than previous performance.
2. Completely separate ranking for divisions. Being the winner in the division with the highest server populations should be no more prestigious than being the winner in the division with the lowest server populations.
3. Set a population quota based on the population of the most populated server in a division at the time of season announcement. Once those quotas are met (immediately for the most populated server), new server transfers will be ineligible for that season’s reward. People can flock to the strongest server in a given division if they like, during the season, but doing so will prevent them from claiming that season’s reward. They will then be eligible for the next season’s rewards, though enough server jumpers may push that server into the next division.
4. In relation to point 3, once the divisions have been announced, make information regarding the current population status of a server readily available to anyone considering a server change.
These simple changes will solve the following issues:
1. Coverage disparities: If servers have similar population sizes, they should be able to field similar numbers of players. One server won’t be able to steamroll the other two just because they can field as many people on all four maps as the other two servers can field on one.
2. Time disparities: If servers have similar population sizes, then regardless of which times they play, they should be fielding similar sized armies for similar proportions of the day. If their timing is similar, then they’ll be fielding those armies at the same time, contesting the map at the same time. If not, they should have control of the map during their play times, balancing each other out.
3. Jumping ship to the largest server in a division: With server rewards locked once divisions are announced and server populations are equalized, and no guarantee that a server will remain in the division for the following season, there is no longer incentive to server hop to the leading servers within a division.
4. Intentionally losing to become the big fish in a smaller pond: If server population rather than previous performance determine division, this is no longer an issue what so ever.
By implementing these changes A.Net can go a long way in improving the WvW experience.
Simple question: If the applicable rules above had been in effect for season 1, which matchups would have changed for the better?
I can think of some examples of servers that might have moved up or down a league based on wvw population, but the change would not have been for the better.
I.e., if performance is so completely tied to coverage, then the performance metric should be at least as good as a coverage metric, thus the current performance metric is likely better than a population metric.
As an alternative, how about:
1) To be qualified to play on a server during league play, you need to have been on the server for a month before league play starts. This is so the results of the “qualifying rounds” actually reflect the players on the servers being ranked for the league.
2) To qualify for league play, individual players should have to pass a “mini-meta” each of the four weeks prior to league play. The problem I’m trying to address here is the issue of servers sandbagging to get into lower divisions. I don’t think this is a great solution, as it’s still possible to game the system, but at least people would have to show up (not be completely absent), and accomplish some goals.
3) If you qualify for league play, but change servers, you’re either ineligible for that season, or alternatively, if you enter wvw, you do it for the server on which you qualified. I’d lean towards the former option.
Edit:
Another idea. In addition, have wvw league and “regular” wvw instances running simultaneously. People who don’t qualify for league play, or don’t want to participate in league play, can play in the regular wvw instances. A server without sufficient population interested in league play need not participate in league play at all in a given season.
(edited by dadada.1306)