Guild Wars 2

Firebaall.5127:

I find it pretty silly that Anet merged so many servers, yet won’t touch the Stackgate server problem.

It’s REALLY annoying to get get paired up with servers that are under-performing, then get rematched/paired with servers you fought against. Anet’s “balancing” servers in WvW is a horrible joke. They have ruined any sense of server pride for those servers that are constantly paired up with others.

It’s clear the home server system is a failure in WvW.

Linking is in essence a soft merger to keep “server identity” as intact as possible. In reality, server identity is challenged. Devs understand very well that they can only reduce imbalance issue by consolidating populations but I believe the main problem is that community is not very supportive to any solutions that involve partial or total destruction of servers. This strong objections become a major obstacle to wvw balancing therefore limiting the number of approaches until there isn’t really any immediate approaches left to try.

Jayne.9251:

Pensadora.9478:

Jayne.9251:

Pensadora.9478:

And I would point out that not one person has yet to argue that this gamemode is balanced nor competitive in its current state.

You need to let this go. WvW was never meant to be balanced. The devs themselves have said this many times over the past four years.

I think what you think I mean by balanced is not what I mean by balance. I do NOT mean by balance: equal numbers on each side, as in soccer, football, baseball, etc.

Balanced, as far as I am concerned, is a multi-faceted measure. It is the summation of many factors, population being among them, that create fair and competitive fights.

So, ‘balance’ is not just population.

But, I can understand how you might think this is all that I mean, as currently the massive disparities in population and coverage, which we have been discussing here, show clearly that this gamemode is neither balanced nor competitive in its current state.

That’s all on the players though. Asking Anet to parent when it’s within their power to remedy is like herding cats.

Until the players, guilds, get their act together, no amount of blowing up and rebuilding will fix the issue.

That said, with the dev response, this thread should die lol. It’s academic at this point.

Academic is important, only when people are more informed of the issues then they will understand the limited amount of solutions and be supportive of any solutions that can be implemented to solve the issues. So far, there are more don’t-read than read, so, it is really hard.

Then again, you are also right, devs already explicitly state that we will always fall short in our perspectives due to limited access to the data thus all is pointless.

He’s joined the Jumpin Lumpin clan

SkyShroud.2865:

I pretty sure I repeated this numerous times to numerous people who simply refuse to read the thread.

Probably has something to do with your thread title which upon reading it just instantly invokes people to hate the idea before you even presented it and say no. Then not even bothering to read your thread properly, just dropping down their opinion that they don’t want deletion of any means.

If you want more people to read your thread seriously, then give it a proper title, like you know, Solution to server population imbalance or something.

Chinchilla.1785:

Kovu.7560:

atheria.2837:

Undo the links.

Undo the Megaserver.

Give us back our communities.

Give us back tournaments.

WvW, fixed.

Without megaserver pve would be a ghost town for most servers on all but the newest or most wealth producing maps. Communities, as they were and are in wvw, never existed in open world pve to begin with. There is no “world” chat.
Tournaments steer the flow of ppt even further towards the servers with higher population, better off-hour coverage and only serve to burn people out and cause drama.
Without links many servers are basically dead on most of the maps, and all servers have fewer opponents to fight.

How are any of those things a good idea?

~ Kovu

:(

The fact that players suggest tournaments would be a saving grace for WvW merely proves Raymond’s point that they lack crucial understanding of the game’s data. By ANET’s own admission, in this case, tournaments caused permanent burn out of many players that participated. Which even I could have predicted considering victory is by who plays longer…

I suspect in this case deleting servers just isn’t viable for this business especially considering the game is 5 years old now. It may awaken sleeper accounts, but it may not generate new players. It would be even worse if 1v1v1 and 24/7 persistence is kept after such deletion. Which are two variables that lead to poor game play (back capping emptiness, and coverage wars). At the end of the day, posting ideas on a forum is going to be far easier than executing the idea itself.

https://youtu.be/JKgEsuEBhqI?t=621

I lack crucial data?

An algorithm isn’t going to tell you what thousands of WvW’ers can.

The links are a failure.

The megaserver destroyed our communities – good ones.

There are now people from other countries other than “NA” and “EU” where they are being paid in real cash to play in guilds and blob the other two sides. That alone speaks volumes about how unhealthy WvW is right now.

There are people telling some in WvW that they are not welcome, they will not be able to understand the language for hours, for example Korean characters are blank space – you can’t tell what they are saying if:

1. You aren’t standing next to them to see the chat bubble – otherwise it is totally blank from across map or team chat. Communication is the crux of WvW – without it, without the ability to understand main forces, dozens of players or even any commander who might be on is a very serious and growing issue.

2. If you ask for English, one of three things will happen. 1. Silence because of no understanding of the request. 2. Griefing in English. 3. More blank pages as the laughter and derision becomes anti-WvW-anti-“outsider”.

There’s more than just one issue going on for WvW.

At the beginning, we had separate spaces called servers, we could call out to the main community on any map and only our forces would ‘hear’ us.

We had tournaments between tiers – not only for ‘tickets’ but, just like pvp, for bragging rights and a way to lure good players to our server.

Team chat is very abused by some, so while its addition was an amazing thing for inside WvW, it also gave real trolls the ability to do some real harm to the WvW community that now didn’t know its own players well as they started to shift from server to server or quit altogether.

WvW is a different kind of gaming mode , so as one who played it more than any other mode for the last five years, I can tell you the algorithm doesn’t tell anyone who manages it much except raw numbers – to be able to see what WvW is doing and needs, more of those who make it would have to play inside of it, daily.

We were supposed to be able to get to know our companions in WvW ‘well’ enough to trust anyone in it…

With the removal of the ability to call out, with the advent of the Megasevrer, the problems I outlined above and many more started right there and right then.

WvW was a community.

Now it is mercenary heavy, commander poor and expertise in mechanics as seen on many servers and many commanders quitting in sheer frustration as 25-40 people can’t even stay on a tag as like numbers or more roll over them like they aren’t even there.

Callouts are called into question or not responded to, dozens of people log out in the middle of NA Prime Time many times a month. I’ve seen it , many have.

Trust is lost in most of WvW. Not all, I said most.

How amazing it would have been for Anet to know its game so well that it had guilds that had training in them to show the best of the best gear and mechanics, mitigations and techniques?

sigh sadface

Kylden Ar.3724:

He’s going on this crusade, using ad homien attacks against you and others, and he’s missing the point. You’re right. Even if they delete the servers and make all new ones, BlackGate will just re-stack on whatever server they choose, and the cycle will repeat.

Depends how they handle the player caps on new servers and they would presumably have less servers.

Jayne.9251:

That’s all on the players though. Asking Anet to parent when it’s within their power to remedy is like herding cats.

Been over this before, human behaviour is essentially selfish on the whole, its up to the game design to mitigate against it and the design of WvW doesn’t. Alternatives have been proposed that do mitigate against it better

SkyShroud.2865:

Linking is in essence a soft merger to keep “server identity” as intact as possible.

Problem with this is anet did not put anything to promote keeping server identity alive and in fact links ended up killing it anyway. It really is quite laughable how anet didn’t go with the more radical proposal because they were afraid of how the population would react and of killing off the emotional attachment to the mode, yet their solution did it anyway because they didn’t actively try to preserve server identity.

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

That’s all on the players though. Asking Anet to parent when it’s within their power to remedy is like herding cats.

Been over this before, human behaviour is essentially selfish on the whole, its up to the game design to mitigate against it and the design of WvW doesn’t. Alternatives have been proposed that do mitigate against it better

Yep.

But I did with this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Elastic-servers/first#post6703028

And yet nobody wants to talk about it because it could impact their stacked server lol.

I think it’s worth testing for a couple of months to see if it does indeed spread out the population.

My other idea is to charge $150 per transfer.

The game is called Guild Wars. So reallocate the guilds evenly across servers.

First create a guild type that is WvW only.

Do not allow people to rep a WvW guild if they are not on the same server. Limit WvW guild sizes, 50 max is probably best. Have everyone choose ahead of the reallocation which WvW guild they want to be their primary. Accounts can only rep 1 WvW guild, but rep other guilds just like before.

Those that don’t choose a primary WvW guild will be reallocated randomly based on the amount of time they spend in WvW. It doesn’t matter what server you are on if you just PvE / PvP. Get rid of world linking. It won’t be needed once the WvW population has been evenly divided.

Then lock all servers except the lowest tiers from transfers. Keep all transfers limited and monitor balance more closely. Allow WvW guilds to apply for transfer as a group, but it must be approved by a dev.

After a small amount of transfers happen, lock the open server and monitor balance before opening again. Also permanently lock tier 1 and 2 servers from new accounts. Make the penalty for transfers at least a month long. Penalties will be no pips or reward track advancement, etc.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s fairly simple and it would bring back a semblance of world pride. By locking T1 / T2 servers from transfers and new accounts, gradual attrition will ensure that lower tier servers will eventually move up.

RvR devs for ALL games have to realize that the only way to create a competitive environment is strict transfer and account creation rules. Otherwise the players will destroy balance. That has been proven in EVERY MMO that has any sort of RvR.

edited for clarity.

Grim West.3194:

The game is called Guild Wars. So reallocate the guilds evenly across servers.

Have everyone choose ahead of time which guild they want to be their primary WvW guild. Get rid of world linking. It won’t be needed once the WvW population has been evenly divided.

Those that don’t choose a primary WvW guild will be reallocated based on the guild they are representing when the shuffle happens.

Then lock all servers from transfers for 3 months. And also lock tier 1 servers from new accounts. At the end of 3 months open up limited transfers to under performing WvW servers only. After a small amount of transfers happen, lock all servers for 3 months again. Make the penalty for transfers at least a month long. Penalties will be no pips or reward track advancement, etc.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s fairly simple and it would bring back a semblance of world pride. By locking T1 servers from transfers and new accounts, gradual attrition will ensure that lower tier server will eventually move up.

RvR devs for ALL games have to realize that the only way to create a competitive environment is strict transfer and account creation rules. Otherwise the players will destroy balance. That has been proven in EVERY MMO that has any sort of RvR.

Too many people don’t identify with a guild. Or use two depending on the timezone they are playing in.

But most importantly, what is to stop a server, one who has been very effective at gaming the system, from starting a guild for all of their players, then do you break up a guild?

How do you siding that?

Strider Pj.2193:

Too many people don’t identify with a guild. Or use two depending on the timezone they are playing in.

But most importantly, what is to stop a server, one who has been very effective at gaming the system, from starting a guild for all of their players, then do you break up a guild?

How do you siding that?

If you don’t identify with a WvW guild then you will be randomly distributed based on WvW time.

Limit WvW guild size. The devs can determine what the optimal size is. I would think 50 players in a WvW guild is plenty.

Again, the game is called Guild Wars. The devs should remember that.

Grim West.3194:

Strider Pj.2193:

Too many people don’t identify with a guild. Or use two depending on the timezone they are playing in.

But most importantly, what is to stop a server, one who has been very effective at gaming the system, from starting a guild for all of their players, then do you break up a guild?

How do you siding that?

If you don’t identify with a WvW guild then you will be moved with the guild you are representing.

Limit WvW guild size. The devs can determine what the optimal size is.

Again, the game is called Guild Wars. The devs should remember that.

You do know there are people who don’t reply guilds at all?

And, you do know the lore behind guild wars’ name?

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

This is no better that the OP’s idea. It’s a forced move, breaking up communities. And it doesn’t prevent stacking in the future.

Sorry, but to quote the games name without understanding where it comes from is.. well, Not accurate. That’s the nicest thing I could say.

It’s also why we don’t have organized GvG. If it was truly supposed to be a war of guilds, it would have GvG.

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

That will go well for your servers defense. Most of the guys building siege, scouting maps and doing the selfless grunt work are unguilded.

You’re saying this defense network is inconsequential and can be assigned randomly, when this network is the most integrated part of wvw.

Sure if you want pve champ train maps and no resistance. Because your idea would essentially wipe out every scout and defender you have.

Strider Pj.2193:

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

This is no better that the OP’s idea. It’s a forced move, breaking up communities. And it doesn’t prevent stacking in the future.

Sorry, but to quote the games name without understanding where it comes from is.. well, Not accurate. That’s the nicest thing I could say.

It’s also why we don’t have organized GvG. If it was truly supposed to be a war of guilds, it would have GvG.

The community line is BS. Free transfers and paid transfers destroyed them long ago. And by limiting transfers / new accounts to lower tiers only, the stacking issue goes away. Especially if you limit the amount of transfers to a trickle.

Again, most people don’t care about the lore. This is about RvR, not lore.

I’m all for organized GvG.

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

That will go well for your servers defense. Most of the guys building siege, scouting maps and doing the selfless grunt work are unguilded.

You’re saying this defense network is inconsequential and can be assigned randomly, when this network is the most integrated part of wvw.

Sure if you want pve champ train maps and no resistance. Because your idea would essentially wipe out every scout and defender you have.

What is to prevent them from scouting / defending for their new server? Servers that will be much more balanced than now. Your argument makes no sense.

Grim West.3194:

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

That will go well for your servers defense. Most of the guys building siege, scouting maps and doing the selfless grunt work are unguilded.

You’re saying this defense network is inconsequential and can be assigned randomly, when this network is the most integrated part of wvw.

Sure if you want pve champ train maps and no resistance. Because your idea would essentially wipe out every scout and defender you have.

What is to prevent them from scouting / defending for their new server? Servers that will be much more balanced than now. Your argument makes no sense.

No, it shows that you don’t actively do this yourself when you play — because otherwise you’d understand why this is a dumb idea.

Go scout, go do the grunt work, for a month. Do it every day. Then you’ll understand why these unguilded networks are the backbone of your server; and are built up because of cooperation and community.

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

That will go well for your servers defense. Most of the guys building siege, scouting maps and doing the selfless grunt work are unguilded.

You’re saying this defense network is inconsequential and can be assigned randomly, when this network is the most integrated part of wvw.

Sure if you want pve champ train maps and no resistance. Because your idea would essentially wipe out every scout and defender you have.

What is to prevent them from scouting / defending for their new server? Servers that will be much more balanced than now. Your argument makes no sense.

No, it shows that you don’t actively do this yourself when you play — because otherwise you’d understand why this is a dumb idea.

Go scout, go do the grunt work, for a month. Do it every day. Then you’ll understand why these unguilded networks are the backbone of your server; and are built up because of cooperation and community.

Lol. Then create a WvW guild for scouts / defenders on your server. If you can’t bothered to do that then you really are not part of any network.

Grim West.3194:

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

Jayne.9251:

Grim West.3194:

If you don’t rep then you will be randomly distributed. Pick a side.

Most people don’t know the lore and don’t care. They bought a game called Guild Wars.

That will go well for your servers defense. Most of the guys building siege, scouting maps and doing the selfless grunt work are unguilded.

You’re saying this defense network is inconsequential and can be assigned randomly, when this network is the most integrated part of wvw.

Sure if you want pve champ train maps and no resistance. Because your idea would essentially wipe out every scout and defender you have.

What is to prevent them from scouting / defending for their new server? Servers that will be much more balanced than now. Your argument makes no sense.

No, it shows that you don’t actively do this yourself when you play — because otherwise you’d understand why this is a dumb idea.

Go scout, go do the grunt work, for a month. Do it every day. Then you’ll understand why these unguilded networks are the backbone of your server; and are built up because of cooperation and community.

Lol. Then create a WvW guild for scouts / defenders on your server. If you can’t bothered to do that then you really are not part of any network.

So unwilling to even explore how other aspects work on wvw maps, sacrificing a months time to learn.

You can see how this makes your idea even less founded?

Hah. You are reaching. My guild came to this game for the RvR back when it launched. We did every type of WvW gameplay extensively. Most of us have played almost every RvR game ever created, starting with DAoC. We know the gig.

Sadly, most of my guild doesn’t play GW2 anymore. We moved on to other games that have real tactical squad / group play. To them GW2 is a pathetically cheesy zergfest. I still enjoy GW2 and WvW but understand their reasons, and they are right.

Jayne.9251:

Yep.

But I did with this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Elastic-servers/first#post6703028

And yet nobody wants to talk about it because it could impact their stacked server lol.

I think it’s worth testing for a couple of months to see if it does indeed spread out the population.

My other idea is to charge $150 per transfer.

You would charge more for a transfer than even a collectors edition of the game?
When they could just you know buy the brand new game for 1/3 of the cost and just transfer gold and stuff over. Sure it won’t have all other account bound stuff and wvw ranks, but it isn’t really worth paying $100 for a wvw’er to keep, not when they could be playing on two servers now for 1/3 of that cost, or buy 3 accounts and be on 4 servers.

No one wants to talk about “elastic servers” because well.. it’s elastic map caps you talk about, and well it’s been talked about before as dynamic map caps, not going to dig up my previous posts on this.

Forcing players into queues so you can make them transfer and spread out doesn’t exactly work either, when players don’t even know what server they could go to without running into queues again, not without actual server population counts.

These dynamic map caps will hit every tier not just tier one because it just relies on the lowest side map count, including tier 4 where nsp and henge could be forced into queues because of tc, everyones only choice is to move to tc?
_______________

Now back to waiting on the report for derailing thread.

XenesisII.1540:

Jayne.9251:

Yep.

But I did with this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Elastic-servers/first#post6703028

And yet nobody wants to talk about it because it could impact their stacked server lol.

I think it’s worth testing for a couple of months to see if it does indeed spread out the population.

My other idea is to charge $150 per transfer.

You would charge more for a transfer than even a collectors edition of the game?
When they could just you know buy the brand new game for 1/3 of the cost and just transfer gold and stuff over. Sure it won’t have all other account bound stuff and wvw ranks, but it isn’t really worth paying $100 for a wvw’er to keep, not when they could be playing on two servers now for 1/3 of that cost, or buy 3 accounts and be on 4 servers.

No one wants to talk about “elastic servers” because well.. it’s elastic map caps you talk about, and well it’s been talked about before as dynamic map caps, not going to dig up my previous posts on this.

Forcing players into queues so you can make them transfer and spread out doesn’t exactly work either, when players don’t even know what server they could go to without running into queues again, not without actual server population counts.

These dynamic map caps will hit every tier not just tier one because it just relies on the lowest side map count, including tier 4 where nsp and henge could be forced into queues because of tc, everyones only choice is to move to tc?
_______________

Now back to waiting on the report for derailing thread.

How is that derailing the thread? It was in response to a query made above?

As for your argument, yep $150. You can buy new accounts, but you won’t have the same toon without a lot of effort. Make it steep, disincentivize the bandwaggoners,

And players know exactly which servers to go to, to avoid queues, that’s a silly statement. If you read that thread you’ll see someone made a great suggestion to counter issues.

Jayne.9251:

How is that derailing the thread?

I meant my post, anet always seems to tag me for derailing post, even some serious ones, hence my sig.

Edit:
LoL I can’t even post in your thread Jayne, telling me it’s over 7 days old, lol oh well time to derail this thread more, thanks anet awaiting derailing infraction warning.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Is-there-no-close-matchups-anymore/first#post6566889

XenesisII.1540:

Dynamic map caps has been suggested many times, but forcing players to leave maps to eotm for a magic find buff? won’t go over well with players sorry, especially if a commander is one of those that are randomly ported lol. 10 people logging out of wvw to boot 20 enemies would be some nice trolling.

If you want to do the cap you have to set it to middle population currently on, setting it to the lowest might be too low, and then that triggers the queue for the highest population. You don’t kick people out of maps, you just don’t let anymore in on the highest side until they get under the cap or the other sides come up. There should still always be a minimum to the map cap before the queue kicks in of like 20, so that a decent sized guild can jump in.

But that other person wanted to just boot people off the maps to eotm to maintain an even map cap.

Jayne.9251:

As for your argument, yep $150. You can buy new accounts, but you won’t have the same toon without a lot of effort. Make it steep, disincentivize the bandwaggoners,

Only thing that would hurt is wvw levels and gem purchases, but frankly you can get by without them, it’ll be easy to fill in the needed ones. You get a free level 80 boost and can transfer gold and other stuff from your main account, you would still have your main account to play on.

Jayne.9251:

And players know exactly which servers to go to, to avoid queues, that’s a silly statement. If you read that thread you’ll see someone made a great suggestion to counter issues.

A 3rd place team with no queues one week would end up in a tier below them with 1u1d and could be the biggest server in that tier then, and they would get the queues going by that system. So how do you pick a server to get away from queues and not get slammed with queues still, it’s kinda pointless to move unless you’re BG and facing queues 24/7, and JQ laughing since the queues will be based around them. If you also add the jacked up transfer cost there would be no incentive to move either.

99% people i know, start on population servers because it’s nice to play with a lot of people.(99% newb dont know about world server on PvE etc..)

my idea is make 4free to transfer to Medium and Low population servers.

I do not talk much here, but I work on a fairly famous ARPG game,
and if we did an MMO, it sure would be like this, to encourage moving on low-ppl servers.

Right NOW, the bg im fighting is with Maguuma+Devona Rest(70%) vs CD+BP vs DH+Storm.
I do not know exactly what algorithm they are using to assemble this, but what I see is encouragement to go on large population server like Maguuma, Black Gate, Jady, quarry etc …
Or be massacred having to face them.

I’m not longer holding out hope.

Blow them up. Do something anet!

XenesisII.1540:

SkyShroud.2865:

I pretty sure I repeated this numerous times to numerous people who simply refuse to read the thread.

Probably has something to do with your thread title which upon reading it just instantly invokes people to hate the idea before you even presented it and say no. Then not even bothering to read your thread properly, just dropping down their opinion that they don’t want deletion of any means.

If you want more people to read your thread seriously, then give it a proper title, like you know, Solution to server population imbalance or something.

Initially it was just “Vote to Delete Servers!!”. Then I added in “Make new worlds”. If I were to change it to something completely different, some people might not be able to find the topic. I guess is too late for it =(

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

Linking is in essence a soft merger to keep “server identity” as intact as possible.

Problem with this is anet did not put anything to promote keeping server identity alive and in fact links ended up killing it anyway. It really is quite laughable how anet didn’t go with the more radical proposal because they were afraid of how the population would react and of killing off the emotional attachment to the mode, yet their solution did it anyway because they didn’t actively try to preserve server identity.

IKR! I am always up for radical changes but meh, a lot of people will just downright go against it without even trying to understand the issues to begin with. As I’ve mentioned previously, many of such people will only truly bothered to start understanding the issues when the issues really affects them. Of course, by then I wonder how many already quit the game.

Grim West.3194

Multi quotes

But this isn’t pvp mmorpg. I know what pvp mmorpg is like, I played them a lot and even ran a leading guild part of a leading alliance before. There are pvp mmorpgs that are way more organised than gw2 wvw community will ever become. So organised in a way that there can be multiple squad commanders like gw2 but above that, there is also supreme commander commanding all the commanders. Overall, this supreme commander, usually the leaders of the leading alliance, will command directly or indirectly up to hundreds of online players for battles. Likewise, in pvp mmorpg, people will leave raid and dungeons to help defend, something you will not see in gw2. Well, initially, gw2 did have guilds like that which came from pvp mmorpg but all of those guilds have left gw2 already.

Naturally, balancing in pvp mmorpg is so very important such that players, if wanted to, can destroy it and I did seen some pvp mmorpg where players knowingly destroy the balance, believing they can force the publisher to merge but in the end publisher shut the game down.

Anyway, main point is gw2 isn’t pvp focused mmorpg.

Strider Pj.2193:

This is no better that the OP’s idea. It’s a forced move, breaking up communities.

Correction, force disperse with freedom to choose new destination. Naturally, this freedom include freedom to reform communities in the new destination as long the limit allows.

Pewbezlol.2470:

99% people i know, start on population servers because it’s nice to play with a lot of people.(99% newb dont know about world server on PvE etc..)

my idea is make 4free to transfer to Medium and Low population servers.

I do not talk much here, but I work on a fairly famous ARPG game,
and if we did an MMO, it sure would be like this, to encourage moving on low-ppl servers.

Right NOW, the bg im fighting is with Maguuma+Devona Rest(70%) vs CD+BP vs DH+Storm.
I do not know exactly what algorithm they are using to assemble this, but what I see is encouragement to go on large population server like Maguuma, Black Gate, Jady, quarry etc …
Or be massacred having to face them.

I have made similar suggestion more than an year ago. Allow free transfer to medium servers or bottom 3 servers. Of course, since I have made that suggestion that long ago, the result of that suggestion is obvious since we don’t have any free transfer yet.

SkyShroud. Not sure where you think I am asking for a PvP mmorpg, since I never alluded to that. The post you are probably referirng to was in response to the one above, by Jayne.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading other peoples posts and less time typing.

My suggestions are only about balancing the servers with minimal changes to existing mechanics and systems. Keeping it simple is what the devs are more likely to do rather than costly coding and restructuring.

But it really doesn’t matter what we suggest. The devs have no intention of fixing the server balance issues that have existed since launch.

I was editing my post so it got out of order.

It’s about balancing servers. Reread until you get it.

Grim West.3194:

SkyShroud. Not sure where you think I am asking for a PvP mmorpg, since I never alluded to that. The post you are probably referirng to was in response to the one above, by Jayne.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading other peoples posts and less time typing.

My suggestions are only about balancing the servers with minimal changes to existing mechanics and systems. Keeping it simple is what the devs are more likely to do rather than costly coding and restructuring.

But it really doesn’t matter what we suggest. The devs have no intention of fixing the server balance issues that have existed since launch.

Grim West.3194:

I was editing my post so it got out of order.

It’s about balancing servers. Reread until you get it.

Your suggestion involve explicitly declaring a guild as a specific type and limit that guild to a specific size. In PvP mmorpg, a guild cap is around 100 and naturally, people are of the same server. Here, you are suggesting something of even lesser which is 50. Then, follow by a condition that you can only rep wvw guild of same server.

These two conditions alone exclude many guilds out there that do wvw. Your suggestion is not thoughtful enough despite the wall of texts you have made.

Why isn’t thoughtful because your balance is base on guilds, specific type of guilds and that naturally exclude a lot of guilds. We have many type of guilds that do wvw here and every guild have their own environment made possible due specific reasons. Now, you put your limit at 50, I will even give you a generous 100, it will still exclude tons of guilds out there. Base on this limitation, you are telling these guilds (that exceed 100) to make choice to cut it down to 50 or 100 or be split up by the system.

As for rep, you are using rep as a way to identify main wvw guild and can only rep if same server as that guild specified. You seem to have forgotten that in this game we have more than WvW guild, we also have PvX guilds that actually do wvw. You are excluding all of those guilds out and you are telling them you PvE/PvP people who joined after the allocation you cannot rep those guilds. Also, PvX guild easily exceed 100 people.

I am quite surprised that people who attack my ideas (despite not reading it) as disrespecting and splitting guilds up and kept quiet completely about your suggestion when you literally made suggestions that will make all the works that these guilds have put in all disappear like smoke.

Wall of text? Kettle meet black.

You will still be able to rep a non WvW guild. The WvW guild is a new type that allows for players to declare what guild they are representing when balancing happens. And it can’t be a regular guild because they are too big.

Balancing means moving people around. Without some sort of declaration by the player then there is no way to maintain guild / server relationships since regular guild types are cross server.

Again this is about balancing servers. Btw, I never attacked your ideas. Paranoid much?

You told me to re-read it so I gave you a thorough explanations. Here, I need you to read it carefully because you already miss the points.

As for attack, I am not referring to you, well, if you have been in this thread since the start, you will know who I am referring to.

Your explanations just mean you didn’t get it. It’s about balancing, that is all.

ANET cannot work with the existing guild structure and balance servers effectively. They would have to split the big guilds up. That would cause a lot of issues for people who want to stay with other regulars but instead get stuck on different servers with guildies who haven’t logged in for years.

You do get what I am saying but you decided it isn’t important. You advocate for splitting guilds up, not that much different from destroying guilds, that even worse than my suggestion of redistribute populations as a whole because at least my redistribution allow guilds the freedom to be together.

A WvW guild of max size 50 or even 100 hundred is plenty. Any size larger than that is just another potential exploit for the players to destroy balance.

Guilds over a hundred in size are not efficient, unless you divide them up into subgroups. That’s fine for pve, but for WvW it’s an exploit, and it destroys competitive balance. Alliances between guilds are much more efficient.

Pewbezlol.2470:

99% people i know, start on population servers because it’s nice to play with a lot of people.(99% newb dont know about world server on PvE etc..)

my idea is make 4free to transfer to Medium and Low population servers.

I do not talk much here, but I work on a fairly famous ARPG game,
and if we did an MMO, it sure would be like this, to encourage moving on low-ppl servers.

Right NOW, the bg im fighting is with Maguuma+Devona Rest(70%) vs CD+BP vs DH+Storm.
I do not know exactly what algorithm they are using to assemble this, but what I see is encouragement to go on large population server like Maguuma, Black Gate, Jady, quarry etc …
Or be massacred having to face them.

Maguuma itself isn’t that large, we faced SBI a couple of weeks ago without a link and they had a link and they clearly had a bigger pop overall. We get linked with DR and it makes a huge difference.

Just remove the home world limits. Problem solved.

Lets be real here. Anet is not going to do anything about population problems or server stacking. Anet made transferring servers a monetary service. They aren’t going to hazard the crap storm of players that paid $20 to unbalance WvW by breaking up the sponge pit.

Now, what should happen, is that ALL servers should be opened up for paid transfers, no matter how many play WvW there. No “full” servers any more. This will make stacking the winning home servers useless. Map queues bloat to the point where the undermanned servers become more attractive due to not being able to play on the bandwagon servers. It also confounds those bandwagon guilds by limiting their access to WvW as a team (while playing there).

Allow free transfers to lower tiered ones, but let everybody wanting to stackgate, pay that $20…

Firebaall.5127:

Just remove the home world limits. Problem solved.

Lets be real here. Anet is not going to do anything about population problems or server stacking. Anet made transferring servers a monetary service. They aren’t going to hazard the crap storm of players that paid $20 to unbalance WvW by breaking up the sponge pit.

Now, what should happen, is that ALL servers should be opened up for paid transfers, no matter how many play WvW there. No “full” servers any more. This will make stacking the winning home servers useless. Map queues bloat to the point where the undermanned servers become more attractive due to not being able to play on the bandwagon servers. It also confounds those bandwagon guilds by limiting their access to WvW as a team (while playing there).

Allow free transfers to lower tiered ones, but let everybody wanting to stackgate, pay that $20…

Wow this is a interesting idea. Instead of preventing server stacking. Your idea does not hurt ANet’s business model. But at the same time after some time. Will punish server stacking with it self. Making people depopulated on their. Thus potentially having players pay two server transfers for trying to be kitten bags towards other players.

Very nice round about way towards accomplishing like minded goals. While not hurting ANet’s WvW bottom line.

Everyone needs to +1 you.

Grim West.3194:

A WvW guild of max size 50 or even 100 hundred is plenty. Any size larger than that is just another potential exploit for the players to destroy balance.

Guilds over a hundred in size are not efficient, unless you divide them up into subgroups. That’s fine for pve, but for WvW it’s an exploit, and it destroys competitive balance. Alliances between guilds are much more efficient.

Which is why I say this isn’t pvp oriented mmorpg. You are superimposing a specific game design part into part of gw2 design. You are fundamentally changing the designs without a single care how much impact it will cause to numerous guilds. It is thoughtless and not only that, it will never implemented because of how it change the game fundamentally.

Firebaall.5127:

Just remove the home world limits. Problem solved.

Lets be real here. Anet is not going to do anything about population problems or server stacking. Anet made transferring servers a monetary service. They aren’t going to hazard the crap storm of players that paid $20 to unbalance WvW by breaking up the sponge pit.

Now, what should happen, is that ALL servers should be opened up for paid transfers, no matter how many play WvW there. No “full” servers any more. This will make stacking the winning home servers useless. Map queues bloat to the point where the undermanned servers become more attractive due to not being able to play on the bandwagon servers. It also confounds those bandwagon guilds by limiting their access to WvW as a team (while playing there).

Allow free transfers to lower tiered ones, but let everybody wanting to stackgate, pay that $20…

Yep, this has been suggested before, let map caps govern population rather than artificial server limits. Funny thing is it would actually make anet more money.

SkyShroud.2865:

Grim West.3194:

A WvW guild of max size 50 or even 100 hundred is plenty. Any size larger than that is just another potential exploit for the players to destroy balance.

Guilds over a hundred in size are not efficient, unless you divide them up into subgroups. That’s fine for pve, but for WvW it’s an exploit, and it destroys competitive balance. Alliances between guilds are much more efficient.

Which is why I say this isn’t pvp oriented mmorpg. You are superimposing a specific game design part into part of gw2 design. You are fundamentally changing the designs without a single care how much impact it will cause to numerous guilds. It is thoughtless and not only that, it will never implemented because of how it change the game fundamentally.

Yeah, you hyperbole a lot and refuse to look at the bigger picture. Now I see why people think your ideas are junk.

The WvW guild idea is just a tool to allow the ANET devs to rebalance the servers. There are very very few guilds that actually field over 100 regular WvW players, or even 50, and you know it. Any guild over that size fielding that many players is part of the balance problem, and again, you know it. Time for you to admit that you are part of the problem.
.

But finally, it doesn’t matter. ANET will never fix this issue. THEY DON’T CARE.

ANET only cares about suckering more people into giving them even more transfer money for the latest server of the week.

Another way they can address this is by changing the scoring and participation mechanics as to create a heavy incentive for players to manually even themselves out.

Simply put, only add scoring the following ways:

- Killing other players (except if siege touches them, the player is worth no points)
- Taking over a structure
- Multiply score based on standings (1st,2nd,3rd during the match). 1st is baseline, 2nd multiplied by 2, and 3rd multiplied by 3.

That’s it. No longer add scoring to ticks, but instead add some copper per tick with up to silver (if fully upgraded) for each structure you own on the map you are on.

Then participation:

3rd place – No participation decay and earns participation as we see it now
2nd place – Minor participation decay and earns participation the same way minus say siege damage
1st place – same participation decay as we see now, but only earns it through taking structures and killing other players.

The idea is, that said stacked server(s) continually blob and roll over people, have nothing to take = no score. If enemies decide they’ve had enough of their blobbing and deny them fights = no score. No score, nothing to do, no participation, WvW = dead zone for them, they must transfer.

We all know when the numbers are even, structures flip continuously and players are killed on both sides of the fight. There is no issue, score adds up and participation gained. The problem arises when one server drastically outnumbers the other server leaving them with nothing to do; that’s when they suffer.

The ideal situation is having relatively even numbers at any given time per day, otherwise the score and participation gain for the population heavy server will be non-existent.

Grim West.3194:

SkyShroud.2865:

Grim West.3194:

A WvW guild of max size 50 or even 100 hundred is plenty. Any size larger than that is just another potential exploit for the players to destroy balance.

Guilds over a hundred in size are not efficient, unless you divide them up into subgroups. That’s fine for pve, but for WvW it’s an exploit, and it destroys competitive balance. Alliances between guilds are much more efficient.

Which is why I say this isn’t pvp oriented mmorpg. You are superimposing a specific game design part into part of gw2 design. You are fundamentally changing the designs without a single care how much impact it will cause to numerous guilds. It is thoughtless and not only that, it will never implemented because of how it change the game fundamentally.

Yeah, you hyperbole a lot and refuse to look at the bigger picture. Now I see why people think your ideas are junk.

The WvW guild idea is just a tool to allow the ANET devs to rebalance the servers. There are very very few guilds that actually field over 100 regular WvW players, or even 50, and you know it. Any guild over that size fielding that many players is part of the balance problem, and again, you know it. Time for you to admit that you are part of the problem.
.

But finally, it doesn’t matter. ANET will never fix this issue. THEY DON’T CARE.

ANET only cares about suckering more people into giving them even more transfer money for the latest server of the week.

Hyperbole? Not able to see bigger picture? You know, you are the one asking me to re-read when I already know what you are talking about but you behaving in this condescending way that you think I am not. You refuse to accept the fact that you are changing the fundamental design of the game, affecting numerous guilds, forcing the way these guilds functions especially they already doing that for 5 whole years.

Btw, half of the people posting here didn’t even read the first three posts anyway from the fact they are posting things that already clarified in the first three posts show that.

My issue is this;
(let me be clear I don;t really know there is any fair resolution to this. )
- When you do this linked server stuff you get Servers that are T8 that get teamed up with T1, 2 , 3 Servers. The issue is this cause players to get beat down by overstacked servers that are rightfully in T1.
- Secondly it does nothing for the T8 server
- Third The old problem is that T8 servers were ghost towns, the problem now is T8 servers wont fight and only have players trying to do PvE and leave as soon as they lose once. Effectively creating a ghost town, and making it effectively that these T8 servers not participating.
- Fourth the old way had t8 and maybe T7 fighting each other, and people complained it was a ghost town, which is no different from how it is now, since the Linked crappy server never gains any benefit, so what motivations do they need.
- fifth Lower end servers are generally treated like garbage by the higher end server, which causes the lower end server to not come out. ( I am looking at Yaks bend).

So whats my suggestion?

Not sure cause on one hand Black gate has worked hard to get where they are, but at the same time we come to a stale moment when you only ever have one server at the top for how long now.

But I believe that all the servers should be deleted, I think that ANet needs to get a rough estimated players in all servers and then make X amount of servers that would make it even across all servers. Yes this means that the 80 guilds on Blackgate will be separated. even if there is a way to allow X amount of population that would leave the bottom 3 servers with in 5% population of the top 3 this will help keep servers moving in and out of the top 3 spots. if BG is split between the top 3 new servers in this suggestion than means good guild in the second and thrid place server will be pushed into lower end servers and so on so it would create an Equal Opportunity of the ability to do, Rather than creating a equal opportunity of Outcome; which I have seen people call for.

I don’t know the right answer and I am sure no matter what happens people are going to be mad. but right now you are linking servers that are T8 T7 with servers that are t 1 t 2 and they are just getting steam rolled, that creates an un enjoyable atmosphere which then creates toxicity, which then creates people that run from fights, even though they have a Blackgate guild that transferred to them to help them. I don’t think it is fair to have ghost servers fro WvW cause PvE refuse to do it, but it isn’t fair to demoralize low end servers by pitting them against top end.

My last suggestion is
if you insist that linking is the only way to fix it ( which so many people hate )
than link the following servers with each other
T8 – T7
Erodon Terrance – kaening
Anvil Rock – Sanctum of Rall
Isle of Janthir – Gates of Madness
Let them duke it out T5 and T6 servers linking them together also
T6 – T5
Devonas Rest – Ferguson Crossing
Borlis Pass – Sarrows furnace
Darkhaven – Ehmery Bay

Than the top 12 servers can float between their perspective places. The Linked servers split the points earned, and the Link is reset every month. The stronger servers will rise to the top while the weaker ones stay lower, if they break through to the upper 12 that means one of the upper goes down. It may work out to where the lower 12 are always the lower 12 and only ever fight the same over and over. Yes that may get boring but letting a low end server get stomped with no remorse is chasing away WvW players. I can tell you that IoJ and SoS 80% of the time are out manned on 1 to 3 maps. while ( last weeks match up ) Dragin Brand were fielding two some days 3 50 + man blobs, and FA was fielding 2 to 3 40+ man blobs, where IoJ has been beat down so much that they are lucky to put out 60 across all maps, and SoS thus far is lucky in NA prime to put out 60 them selves for a few hours. I am sur other servers that are on the low end have the same problem.

No one likes to be beat down over and over and over and over again, eventually people just stop playing, or take weeks worth of breaks or come out die once and log off. The stupid way it is done now isn’t creating a way for lower end servers to enjoy wvw it is doing the exact opposite, I know the Dev said the WvW team are reading the forums, but i am thinking they don’t and if they do they don’t care. about the lower end servers , which in that case give everyone a free server transfer and allow us to populate any server of our choice locked or not with in the top 2 that way people who actually want to play WvW and not get out manned and can do nothing and usally get pushed into their spawn cause the opposing forces can field 3 times your numbers with out thinking while your begging people to come out.

Something has to be done and if your truly watching the forums transfer your own character down to IoJ and look at thier ridiculous lets not log on for a week match up
SoS with IoJ [T1 & T8] Which last week SoS wasn’t even around minus Jinx
vs
Yaks Bend with SoR [ T1 – T7 ] That is Ego’s and cancer with Yaks, and my understanding SoR does nothing in WvW after a certain someone destroyed that server.
vs
Blackgate [1st place for 90% of the existence of this game I know I came from BG ]

Lets say that SoS wins this week, it does nothing for the lower end server, therefore it offers no one anything to join the server bringing it out of bottom, yet Last week was won By IoJ guilds that moved to IoJ to help bring it up and Jinx and their other guild tag they use. we gained a few points from last week but SoS got a tone more.

anyhow I am sure everything I am saying is meaneless rambling at this point

TL;DR Anet your system sucks pitting Low end against top end only ruins Lower end WvW playing…. then again you would know that if you were forced to be on those servers and not jumping on board the top end servers for the wins

Anet needs to take some kind of action. Wvw is a mess. I’ve been in pve for 3 weeks now – that should tell you how bad the situation is.

Crappy matches week after week, and server links are making it worse. I am ready for them to either blow up the current servers, unlink servers, or just merge them already.

I don’t care anymore what server I’m on. I will always defend and scout the home BL. Please make wvw fun again.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, guys.

I hope more people be willing to speak up how bad linking is.
I also hope more people will accept the idea of blowing up servers for the greater good.

We actually had a conflict with our own linked server the other day. The commanders from the smaller, linked server refused to cooperate with our server, effectively meaning we had a split and non cooperative force on a borderland. Usually the smaller server falls into line with the larger, but it was only a matter of time before we ran into a smaller server with a strong identity and it has caused a lot of tension and ill feeling.

I have a lot of sympathy for their stance, as smaller linked servers are losing their identity and its about time one of them fought back and tried to keep it. Unfortunately it hurts our matchup and is not going down well for anyone.

Hey SkyShroud, let me say this, I applaud your effort to put so much thought and explanation into how to fix WvW!

Anet is generally so secretive and close doored, that people really have no idea what to expect down the road from them. I understand that from a PvE content perspective, no spoilers. But I also think structurally, systemically the WvW side of Arenanet must change.

Its needs more dialogue, it needs more openness with the community. Even the president said that the community dictates the direction, and yet changes keep coming out without community input.

Until they change their policies, until they change their development structure, we are just going to be kept in the dark and the game is just going to keep stagnating.

chronometria.3708:

We actually had a conflict with our own linked server the other day. The commanders from the smaller, linked server refused to cooperate with our server, effectively meaning we had a split and non cooperative force on a borderland. Usually the smaller server falls into line with the larger, but it was only a matter of time before we ran into a smaller server with a strong identity and it has caused a lot of tension and ill feeling.

I have a lot of sympathy for their stance, as smaller linked servers are losing their identity and its about time one of them fought back and tried to keep it. Unfortunately it hurts our matchup and is not going down well for anyone.

This is an issue, just because your a larger server doesn’t give that server the automatic right to brow beat and put down the smaller server. Automatically assuming that your in charge and deaming the lower server has created demoralized servers. So far in my experience Yaks Bend is the worst for doing this. They show Zero respect, and expect all the respect.

I don’t think blowing up the servers is the right answer, maybe start merging servers and shorten up the list, or split it in two divisions.

Right now the issue stands like this.
1.
back in the day lower end servers had nobody playing WvW and the few that did couldn’t do anything ergo creating a ghost town.

2.
Now you have LOW END servers paired with TOP end servers and low end servers getting rolled over cause they stand no chance,
E.G. SoS is a rank 7 server and they are fighting a Rank 1 and Rank 3 server.
This demoralizes the people on the low end server that is Rank 23 to not even play all week which means SoS takes a hard loss. End result is WvW becomes less active and more like a ghost town.

The issue is both ways have created the same results.
I don’t know a 100% fix and I am not really sure nuking every server is the way either, cause the BG community will just re stack again and nothing will change. The match ups have to change to where a rank 23 server isn’t fighting a rank 3 and 1, chasing players away.

Right now no one on our server has really played WvW, to start with someone siege locked up in one night, BG ( which surprised me since I never noticed it when I was on BG for 5 years ) had a thief Exploiting, by teleportning into our BL Garrison walls and taping keep and being under the map killing lord and caping it.

ANet is going to have to do something fast. WvW is the only thing that brings people in, cause lets face it PvE is good but nothign you can’t get in other places, and Raids are nice but are way better in other games. The Xpac is only going to increase playership for the next month or so after the launch and they will drop back down. right now WvW Match Up’s are very one sided to low end servers so either merge them permanently or fix it so rank 23 servers are not fighting rank 1 servers