Guild Wars 2

Exactly nothing happened until this past April. :/

Actually I feel like it was May 26, 2016 that nothing of substance happened.

Until…World Linking became an official GW2 Feature.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-21-May-World-Linking-Closed/page/3#post6175461

World Linking was meant to appease the Majority while attempting to create a WvW Universe filled with Balanced & Fair Match-Ups.

The Long Term health of the WvW Ecosystem from that point on would depend upon ANet’s ability to skillfully manipulate Population & Score.

This illusion would completely be based on ANet’s skill & speed at Manipulating these variables.

This is not an easy task…so it’s probably going to be manually done until it can be automated…with many…many…mistakes along the way.

I still feel that it would be a better strategic move for ANet to re-design the Game Mode than it is to try & fix the flawed core design that has failed at addressing the 3 chronic problems since GW2 launched:

1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

It’s ok to make mistakes, but over time…make a better product…by not repeating mistakes.

Currently…ANet is killing off the WvW Ecosystems (server based communities) found in the Lower Tiers in order to feed the Upper Tier with fresh bodies for Zerging…imho

Yours truly,
Diku

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Diku.2546:

Snip 8<
WvW is the way it is…because the vision that would provide a compass & direction…is simply not there.

Using Polls to justify all these changes…just leads to a poor product when paired without a Concrete Vision of where WvW needs to be going.

That’s what the heck happened to WvW…imho

The use of Polls doesn’t really mean anything…they’re just tools.

What matters is that Polls can be used to make good or bad decisions.

The Illustrated Future & Life Cycle of WvW that it’s turning into.

Cannot wait for Desert BL to come back…soooo yummy!

Rink.6108:

- Do you have graphics for only kills and only caps as well? Better make two separate graphics instead of summarising variables that aren’t exactly equal signs of participation.

Yes I do. If you like I can dump the data in another thread. Neither is a precise measure of population which is why I combine them.

Rink.6108:

You don’t have enough weeks before the changes. Any reason for leaving them out?

Yes. These data include kills and caps. Prior to the start of this data set, kill data was broken in the API for a few months. I’m sorry if you feel it doesn’t adequately provide a good history. I only intended to show data over the recent changes, not the entire history of WvW activity. However, if you know some that has a complete history of WvW data taken in 5 minute snapshots I would be happy to process the data.

Rink.6108:

When I look at this graphics, the first thing you should do is make the axis start at zero istead of at 1500000. Why? Because it should you how marginal your “steep drops” truly are. At least if you want to be taken seriously by people that know something about statistics.

People who are familiar with statistics understand that they missing part of the y axis is still meaningful. Actual change can be be determined by comparing the values. Only people unfamiliar with statistics are likely to be fooled by the missing range on the y axis. But just so you know, this is a common space saving technique that many scientific journals use also. Maybe you would like to lecture them as well. What I provided was the default axis created by Excel. There was no intent to deceive. The numbers are clearly posted on the axis.

Rink.6108:

The only thing you can say from this graphics with any statistical reliability is that there was a rise in kills/caps after the wvw-chances following 4/9 and that there is a more or less stable kill/caps-sum after 5/21 on a higher level as before 4/9. Those small increases and decreases after 5/21 are in the margin of error and from a statistical view it is invalid to analyse them.

ok. I don’t recall hinging any argument on post 5/21 data. It was simply there to show a contrast from the peak data and the data prior to the changes. I have no interest in small oscillations. I was referring to the big hump. But just as we can say there is a statistically significantly increase after the changes we can say there is a significant decrease after ABL was reintroduced. You can speculate as to the causes and so can I. You want to say that everyone got bored of the new changes and linking right as ABL was released again, you can. and I can disagree.

Rink.6108:

Concetration of people has actually a negative impact on caps (defenders make it harder to cap, less objectives to take with linked servers) and there is no reason why it should have a higher impact on kills because two 2×2 fights in ds-bl would result in same death count as one 4×4 in alpine.

That is a reasonable argument. I can tell you that right now cap volume is about the same as it was before linking and changes. You can interpret that however you like.

Rink.6108:

I would say it shows that the new changes (not only the BL, but also tracks) brought a temporary increase in kills/caps and that this increase was partially temporary (completely normal for any change, players trying out the new stuff) and partially persisted since 5/21. So I would say this data hints us into the direction that the changes were good for wvw. We cannot separate the impact of the changes though, because the changes happened to close together and were additive, so we don’t know if it were the reward tracks or the alpine BL or both that participated to the higher stable level after 5/21.

We cannot tease apart the impact of the changes because they happen in fast succession. But here is what I can say, that capture volume is about where it was prior to the linking and the changes and kills up are about 25%. I attribute the increase in kills to population density, you may of course disagree.

There was a widely held belief among DBL haters that somehow ABL was going to rescue the participation problem. There is no evidence of that and if anything the opposite is true. Although likely its a wash and the post hump activity is simply a result of population density.

You can say the data are insufficient, or have to many confounding factors or don’’t reflect the in game reality. You can conclude whatever you like.

I provided data and my interpretation of it. You can spin it how you like. People will agree with whichever one of us confirms their existing biases.

Nice to see I was quoted by the OP.

Shortly before Alpine came back, the DBL’s went through an “upgrade” (for lack of a better term) where some land features were replaced with less constricting terrain. This was most notable around the south west corner of the map near Fire Keep. The new more open terrain made for some great battles in that area, and the new terrain features were nice to use during a fight, weather for blocking, hiding, or climbing on to jump off. They were also used by some to set up siege to hit the south part of the Keep. This was actually a great place for siege because it was easy to defend.

I’m looking forward to the DBL coning back for the red team. I hope that some of the structures are moved closer so we have the same strategic options as we do in the ABL’s, like the northern towers being close enough to treb Garrison. I AM wondering, though, about the shrines/ruins- will the red BL be able to get bloodlust? With Anet’s track record of forgetting about this in the past with daily achievements I’ll wager it won’t be “fixed” at the introduction of DBL and we’ll have to wait for a patch befor red can get bloodlust. I REALLY hope I’m wrong though.

@TorquedSoul
The problem with not having enough data before the change (like 2-3 months of data) is that you cannot really compare before and after the change with enough reliability as a few weeks do not show a trend (so for example if the trend was downwards even BEFORE the updates and if so how much).

About the missing Y-axis data. This is a no-go in any “scientific” publication in the fields I have worked in. But it is of course true, that for example news-media uses this kind of style to make small changes more dramatic. But I didn’t wanted to say that you use this to manipulate the opinion of others, just that the steep drops look differently when you use the whole axis on it.

So, let me get that right: you have the hypothesis, that the changes caused a drop in activity in wvw. You define your variables for participation as kills and capture points. And then you find an average raise after the changes, so data that CONFLICTS your hypothesis. But instead of accepting that the data points in the opposite direction of your wishes and expectations you make excuses to why the data shouldn’t be accepted as it is and at the same time bring NO new data to the table that points in the direction of your statements.
1. Capture points: if those are the same as before the change with at the same time A LOT less matchups, this means every capture point has a vastly increased activity on it. If there is as you say a higher “density” on the servers then this means there is higher density of defenders as well, what makes it harder to capture stuff compared to the dead matchups some servers had before the change or what we can see as “night caps”. So this data points at an increase of activity not a loss.
2. Kills: we see 25% more kills. You may say that it is because of density but you fail to show how density causes more kills if the total number of players stays the same. And if it was density that caused more kills, how do you know the effect is that huge, that it can cause 25%+ more kills than before? It’s a raise of activity no matter what your excuses are.

Yes, I see that the variables and the data aren’t great. But I don’t see any data that points in the direction of your hypothesis. None at all, sorry.

Rink.6108:

So, let me get that right: you have the hypothesis, that the changes caused a drop in activity in wvw. You define your variables for participation as kills and capture points. And then you find an average raise after the changes, so data that CONFLICTS your hypothesis. But instead of accepting that the data points in the opposite direction of your wishes and expectations you make excuses to why the data shouldn’t be accepted as it is and at the same time bring NO new data to the table that points in the direction of your statements.

I don’t ever recall saying that the “changes” as a whole have reduced activity. Only that they reintroduction of ABL didn’t spur the return of population and if anything resulted in a drop of activity.

As far as the my suggestion that population density contributed to the increased kills, I base this on linking. There was a spike in kills directly after linking was introduced. I have said that I believe that is due to population density mostly in regards to kill counts. One of the complaints prior to the linking was that many squads complained that they had difficulty finding people to fight because the maps were too empty. Putting more people in the same space resulted in more encounters which means more fights which means higher kill counts. You are allowed to disagree.

As far as capture points go, the global capture rate is far lower than the maximum capture rate possible. An objective is available for capture every 5 minutes. If every objective was being captured every 5 minutes minutes then capture capacity would be a limiting factor. But it is not. I checked prior to linking and the capture rate was 8-10% of total capacity. I think we can agree that after linking that they are still not capturing the maximum.

Your argument is that because the groups must larger due to linking that capture rate should be weighted more in terms of population. this assumes that every group that captures an asset is significantly larger on average then it was before the linking.

I don’t doubt that there are more blobs on the maps. But those blobs tend to represent prime time activity. During the off hours the groups are smaller. Capture rates tend to be higher during prime time (particularly weekends). Meaning higher population tends to increase capture rates. this effect is more exaggerated on low population servers but even on high population servers you see an uptick in capture rates during prime time. Is that uptick proportional the the population on the map. not likely. But since prime time represents at best a 6th of the total playing time, I doubt that increasing population density is having the dramatic skewing on population/capture relationship that you claim. What we see with the linking is that the off hours capping has risen relative to the prime time capping.

Arguing that increasing population density without increasing global population would reduce capture rates ignores the impact of off hours capping where rates have gone up significantly because of competition and perpetual backcapping.

I’ve attached the charts you requested with zero y-axis so that you don’t get confused by them. Capture rates are more stable, but kills show a dramatic increase after linking. Kills show a 45% increase after linking. I think we can confidently say population density directly impacted kills. If I were to remove that 45% gain from the current kill count, it would be 15% lower than the kills on 4/9.

Feel free to reach your own conclusions.

Jana.6831:

And in case you want to know what killed wvw:
Free transfers
Ferocity Patch (reason: condis were OP and being tanky didn’t really help afterwards)
Stability changes
Players locking tiers on NA /scoring in general
June 23th Patch
HoT- Elites
Desert Borderlands
Linking

It might appear to you that recent changes made people quit but in fact it’s a long line of poor and/or risky decisions.

To your DBL: I’m still usually a solo roamer and I really hated that map – also there’s solo roamers/havoc groups/zergs/blobs why trying to force people to play only one of it? DBL is only suited for havoc groups.

-Free transfers were left open far to long at launch, allowing massive stacking which crippled WvW right out of the gates

-No. Power has always been the dominant build-style in WvW. Since launch.

-No. These changes were much needed and shouldve happend much sooner. They were needed to break up the very boring, very exclusive Hammertrain meta that has been bleeding players for a good year and a half.
The changes to infinite-CC skills shouldve also happend much sooner. A single skill should not have infinite power. It seems like it was bad because every and their dog rerolled Warrior/Guardian and was upset they weren’t the apex profession anymore by a country mile.

-More a side effect of the initial stacking that has persisted all throughout GW2.

-June 23th did kitten up a lot, yes.

-Yes, HoT really damaged WvW. The new elite specs are broken and unbalanced. I used to have so many different chars i played, with their own build and playstyle. Some may be better than the other, but they were fun and atleast viable. Since HoT and it’s Elite specs the number of viable builds has dropped and the chasm between builds has widened.
If i could i’d delete all Elite specs.

-The Desert borderline in and of itself was not a problem. It was all the unwanted, pve bullcrap, that was slapped on it. Who thought a giant GateBuster laser that the winning side would almost always claim was a good idea needs a good slap.
With all that crap stripped out, after the rework, the DBL was much better and quite enjoyable to play.

The problem was ANet not listening to the mountains of feedback they got, and letting WvW die a slow death. For to long as the emphasis been on PvE, which makes sense as it was/is the main activity, but also on pvp because of an e-sport pipe dream. WvW had to suck it up and saw very little (positive) development over the 3 years that lead up to HoT, and HoT with it’s DBL/Elite specs just stomped on WvW’s neck.

It’s sad that it took this long for anet to finally see it.

@TorquedSoul

Those graphs represent that basic nature of what I’ve heard from my friends who have continued playing over the last six months. There was renewed interest initially with ABL coming back. That fizzled out over time due to a number of factors.

It would be interesting tracking the data since release just to see if there is a seasonality influence. But of course with so many contributing factors over the course of the game (including competitive influence) its almost impossible to trace any of this to one cause.

I wonder too how much of an intervening factor we see in guilds moving around. Opponents have shifted to some degree which might have an overall contributing factor to the kill ratio. If server linking had a factor in more forces being available across all time zones, which then affects the number of available fights, that could also increase the number of kills. I find it fascinating and appreciate the data!

TorquedSoul.8097:

Aurika.6751:

With that context, your numbers make sense and it has nothing to do with people preferring the DBL.

First, guilds and players moving from one server to the next impacts the rankings but doesn’t necessarily impact the activity. Moving activity from one server to the next doesn’t lower activity. So that three paragraphs of guild shuffling you describe is pretty much irrelevant to global activity volume.

Second, Full guilds coming back and then remembering why they left isn’t much of an endorsement for the importance of the ABL maps. If DBL were such a major contributor to the population loss, I would have expected more players to stick around. What is clear is that this all important group of guilds/players isn’t interested in playing the game unless they get 100% of what they want. I am guessing that even if they are given what they want, they will want something else anyway. It seems to be a theme.

Makes me wonder how much of the player population is being lost trying to satisfy those who will never be satisfied. Its like these people are intentionally trying to sabotage WvW for their own entertainment. Have the trolls be elevated from the forums to the game design itself?

Anet seriously needs to STOP listening to its players and design a game that is actually entertaining. They need to work within the technical limitations and produce something that is appealing from a gameplay perspective.

The biggest problem with WvW is that Anet itself has no vision of the game mode. Its turning into a poll generated catastrophe.

That guild shuffling had a large impact on activity. that is not even debatable. When those guilds moved there was a threat of a tier shakeup, and both BG and JQ started to wake up. Anyone that is familiar with T1 trends for 3+ years now knows BG hibernates when their place is secure in T1. When a server (TC in this case) is pushing to move up, BG will play hard again to secure their T1 spot. In T2, both TC and BG started playing hard. TC to try getting to T1 and DB to stop them.

When T1 and T2 see a huge uptick in people out there fighting it will impact overall activity.

Your numbers are great and I believe there is a lot of value to be found, but there also needs to be interpretation based on what is actually happening in the game world. In the past you though BG was a dead server ready to fall out of T1. People told you they were hibernating and you did not believe them because of your numbers. In the end, your interpretation of the situation was incorrect and the people who said BG was sleeping were right. TC pushed for T1, BG woke up and dominated the T1 match-up, and YB was pushed out of T1 and T2 in the aftermath because as everyone said, only YB cared about PPT until there was a reason to care.

Yes GW2 is getting older…yes alot of the better players who still play jumped ship to join a gold guild / server.
I do not think that a stupid borderland is responsible for people leaving.

The only reason I quit playing WvW is because of the Condition Meta.
I got sick of watching a zergs being wiped by condi bombs.
What happened to old days when you actually had to work for your kills?

Just my opinion, but the way I see it is that most newer people who come to WvW quickly leave because their builds or class are not suited to condi.
Hell, I have been in many zergs that will not add certain classes because those classes are not front liners and have no condi cleans.
And…what is the point of spending hundreds of gold to build a set of gear that is useless everywhere else in the game?

It is sad to see WvW come to this where only 2 or 3 classes / builds are deemed acceptable.
What a waste of code.
I blame Anet for seeing the problem but doing nothing to correct it.

Aurika.6751:

In the past you though BG was a dead server ready to fall out of T1. People told you they were hibernating and you did not believe them because of your numbers. In the end, your interpretation of the situation was incorrect and the people who said BG was sleeping were right.

I think your are confusing provocation with hypothesis. I also told them to put up or shut up, did you miss that exchange? And I criticized them for their obsession with blob fighting and tournaments. Maybe you forget but I also accused them of only playing hard enough to stay in tier 1 so as to keep their population low enough to continue recruiting. All this is to prepare for the “tournament” of population supremacy which BG will of course win because they have been stacking for years while waiting. If Anet every seriously moved to fix the population problem with something like a hardcap, this behavior would stop. Who knows, maybe BG is doing this to punish Anet for having such a broken population metric.

As I have said time and time again, you can interpret the data any way you like. And anyone can form whatever hypotheses they like. They can only be tested when Anet makes a change related to that hypothesis. For example, the argument that bringing back ABL was going to result in a return of the some significant portion of the population. That turned out to be false. At best ABL resulted in no appreciable change, at worse, it resulted in a small drop of population.

The stability changeand new trait systems are what changed the flow of the gameplay the most.

It used to be possible for a group of 15 to beat a group of 50.
Now only numbers matter since if you have more numbers you have more cc and smaller groups can’t rely on stability.

Basically WvW used to be about skill, now it’s only about having the biggest blob.
Anet did exactly the opposite of what they said they would do in regards to blobbing.

They even buffed boon rip.

Xillllix.3485:

The stability changeand new trait systems are what changed the flow of the gameplay the most.

It used to be possible for a group of 15 to beat a group of 50.
Now only numbers matter since if you have more numbers you have more cc and smaller groups can’t rely on stability.

Basically WvW used to be about skill, now it’s only about having the biggest blob.
Anet did exactly the opposite of what they said they would do in regards to blobbing.

They even buffed boon rip.

That was what I meant (@ TorquedSoul) : If only numbers matter, then you will want to transfer up to some bigger server. Those who are left are even fewer and quit eventually. Then merge and the same thing happens again and again. That’s a big reason why wvw is bleeding players – and it’s actually a logical consequence of bigger = better.