Guild Wars 2

Which AvA could completely destroy our game mode. It won’t work without Extensive changes to our current system.
There are several reasons why:

1. It all boils down to numbers. It is impossible to fit all the WvW players onto four current maps. That is why we had serves to start with.

Solution A: Add mega servers with EoTM style play? At that point one has to wonder what would be the point? I can spend an hour putting up siege and scouting Hills and then someone says in TS. Hey we lost hills on BGBL. I am like huh? I am standing in it. And they respond with. On this instance/overflow we have.

Solution B: Rework all the maps and make more of them, since Anet has said they can’t do larger maps. This would mean potentially eight to twelve? I don’t even know if this would work for the number of people who play WvW.

2. Sever Pride: I don’t know everyone on my server by name. But I do recognize a friendly voice on TS when I have talked to them before. Alot of people like this. The sense of community and working with friends for a common goal. I don’t see any solutions need, because I don’t see pride in our accomplishments as the problem.

The current system has lead people to move around servers based on where they prefer to be. Populations will never be balanced. T1 isn’t nearly as laggy as people say it is, and I can’t swear but I am sure that the bottom ranking servers are not always tumbleweed infested ghost towns. People who like big fights moved up, people who wanted smaller ones moved down. Should we have the right to dictate where either of these groups end up?

Q. If Anet offered free Transfers to any server where would most people go?

Would it be T1 where all three servers are more or less balanced? Despite claims to the contrary, BG/TC/JQ are all more or less equally stacked. With one server or the other having stronger coverage at different times. I know this all too well. I play during one of my Servers weaker Timezones.

Or

Would they choose to stack a Silver Server like what happened before Season 2, because that would give a better chance of rewards? For some players Rewards and Winning matter. For alot of the rest of us they don’t. WvW will never give the Loot that is found in PvE, but it is very expensive when you consider how much in the way of resources go into the amount of siege that we throw down. We have to build a guild War Chest for a reason.

3. EoTM

Let us face it. It is not what it was meant to be. I recall before it came out talking with some guys late one night on TS. We pondered over how we could do anything with the map if the people we were put in with changed every week. Giving out TS information and what not. Due to the attacks on TS and the number of Spy accounts.

That aside,
Why did EoTM turn into that style of play? Sure rewards helped, but lots of instances and overflows were the real issue and random servers every week meant no TS for the servers to rally around so it turned into a huge karma train.

So it boils down to this:

Solution 1: Overflows which would suck for WvW and trying to hold or defend anything. This would just kill WvW, and many threads are asking for it.

Solution 2: We have several different alliance maps based on Tier, one gold one silver one bronze or whatever. But would that fit in with the populations that we have now?

Solution 3: A complete re-working of the WvW system, which would require alot of work on Anets part. And I think we all know how likely this would be

My thoughts though:
Megaservers/Overflows = Bad for WvW.

I thought the biggest problem with AvA was that it was bought out by Aeria Games?

It is impossible to all WvW players on 4 maps, this much is true, but it is not impossible to fit all WvW players across multiple versions of each map. This would not be an overflow because if it is done correctly (like many have stated), allow multiple instances of each map going at once. Then allow players to view exactly how many from each alliance (or color) are on each map.

It wouldn’t function anywhere even close to what EoTM is for 2 reasons:

1) The rewards in WvW aren’t as good, and it’s significantly more difficult to make any progress than it is in EoTM
2) You’d be able to see how many players from each alliance are on each map.

I think most people join EoTM for a couple reasons.. to level up and a champ box train. Unless there is a K-train going on in WvW, this idea would not function the same way EoTM does.

The advantages of this system:

- You’ll rarely see coverage disparities
- The enemy dynamics will never really be the same due to any player from any guild could theoretically be your enemy (even your own server)
- The matches will not be stale (though the maps themselves might) like they are now
- GvG is significantly easier because guilds can just organize on a low population map
- It’ll be far easier for guilds to set up map wide guild raids

The only cost to this system is, players have to abandon the idea of server pride, because your no longer fighting for your server; your now fighting for the sake of fighting.

Attach a mass amount of achievements to each alliance (or faction), and do not bind anyone to any faction; let players freely choose when they log on.

Lorelei.3918:

I thought the biggest problem with AvA was that it was bought out by Aeria Games?

touché

DeadlySynz.3471:

It is impossible to all WvW players on 4 maps, this much is true, but it is not impossible to fit all WvW players across multiple versions of each map. This would not be an overflow because if it is done correctly (like many have stated), allow multiple instances of each map going at once. Then allow players to view exactly how many from each alliance (or color) are on each map.

Regardless of what you call it, it is an overflow. The reason people didn’t defend things in EoTM is because there wasn’t a point in it, due to overflows just going away.

You can say that it will be multiple version of each map. But that just the same wording for Instance/overflow.

Unless you expect Anet to go through all the trouble of making six or seven copes of the of Every WvW map that we can all join with no randomness. None of this “will I end up in this instance or that instance.” I pick WvW Blue BL one for the win. Or Green BL instance two because it needs help

This just makes us have to worry about alot more ground to cover. I personally like having only three or four maps, so I can know where Siege is, and how much I am expected to cover.

DeadlySynz.3471:

- You’ll rarely see coverage disparities
- The enemy dynamics will never really be the same due to any player from any guild could theoretically be your enemy (even your own server)
- The matches will not be stale (though the maps themselves might) like they are now
- GvG is significantly easier because guilds can just organize on a low population map
- It’ll be far easier for guilds to set up map wide guild raids

Coverage disparities are everywhere. On any given day or night. It isn’t likely to change because we cram everyone into alliances. Because unless the maps adjust to the number of players on at that time, (this is overflows) It is still possible that there will not be enough players in an alliance to cover all the territory that we would be creating.

It is also not going to make it fun for those of us who have friends that are in different guilds.

The matches I play are never stale. But even if we assume that you have a point, this won’t provide anything new. The main reason is that the maps have not changed. There are no new features, no new places to put siege. No changes. We all know where to go and what to do. I doubt that a guild you have never heard of from another server is really going to bring anything more to the table, or shake things up that differently.

GvG Has the OS. That is what it is there for, and until Anet decides to do something more with it, I would rather my guild does what it does best.

Nothing stops a guild from doing a map raid now. Outside of guild leaderships. The maps are there.

Overflows = Bad for WvW

You seem to understand something completely different under AvA than I do.
Did I got you right, you think AvA is like EotM? I would call that mega server WvW and I find it bad as well.

But under AvA I understand something completely different, namely that guilds (and maybe also individuals) form an alliance under an alliance leader that can also reject someone to be in an alliance, especially as alliance should be size limited. I.e. alliances should have a max size to avoid winning by numbers only. Here is an example how it could be done https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

Advantages over today:

• max size of people in an alliance limits the imbalance by numbers
• alliances cannot be flooded by bandwagoners and can easily handle (e.g. kick, if arguments don’t work) spies, hackers and grief players in their team without need to call ANet for support
• alliances should have an alliance chat (similar to guild chat) potentially visible everywhere in gw2 not just WvW.
• team proudness has more reason than with current worlds! where you have no influence who is in your team.

Dayra.7405:

You seem to understand something completely different under AvA than I do.
Did I got you right, you think AvA is like EotM? I would call that mega server WvW and I find it bad as well.

But under AvA I understand something completely different, namely that guilds (and maybe also individuals) form an alliance under an alliance leader that can also reject someone to be in an alliance, especially as alliance should be size limited. I.e. alliances should have a max size to avoid winning by numbers only. Here is an example how it could be done https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

Advantages over today:

• max size of people in an alliance limits the imbalance by numbers
• alliances cannot be flooded by bandwagoners and can easily handle (e.g. kick, if arguments don’t work) spies, hackers and grief players in their team without need to call ANet for support
• alliances should have an alliance chat (similar to guild chat) potentially visible everywhere in gw2 not just WvW.
• team proudness has more reason than with current worlds! where you have no influence who is in your team.

After reading this, you did something I did not think was possible. You gave me a system that would be worse then overflows in WvW.

I see so many problems:
1. So alliances as you see them is player controlled, Noob = Kick
2. We have 24 servers on NA currently for example, so we could only have 24 Alliances, Unless you expect Anet to make more servers so that each alliance could play as it wanted too.
3. Even with the current reporting systems we can’t do anything about hackers and grifers, so don’t see that changing. And how would you prevent an entire alliance from doing this?
4. If you allow people to reject or decide how and when people can join, then you open up all kinds of problems.
5. That would exclude the PvE population, which would keep Anet from doing any seasons ever again. So I don’t see that happening.
5. Not to mention someone new to WvW would have have to hunt up an alliance that would be willing to take on new players who had little or no experience and teach them builds and how to play, rather then just them learning by doing.

Ad 1) to play 24/7 WvW you probably need around 5000 – 10000 people. If an alliance start to kick interested people without more reason than being noob they end outmanned and loose. Especially as I proposed a 2 level system, the alliance leader can only kick whole guilds, only guild leader can kick individuals. And guild leaders can already kick you, but I haven’t heard of many guilds that kick people for being noobs.

Ad 2) I would expect maps running on virtual machines (or as different processes on the same machine). And running 5 maps a 100 people is very likely using LESS resources than 1 map with 500 as the (non-linear) interaction are reduced. So I don’t think your speculation about ANets server capacity is true.

Ad 3) in the end only ANet can adequately handle hacker, but an alliance/guild leader that take care can help already.

Ad 4) less problems than the current system of uncontrolled movement causes.

Ad 5) PvE population is called PvE population because it wanna play PvE. It can also play EotM and if you would have read my link, there are some random teams for them in my wvw proposal as well.

Ad 6) same as for 5), a lot alliances will probably underpopulated, trying to recruit people so there is always space for starters.

I fear this kind of alliance less than the Random Blue, Red, Green which most often comes up. Mostly because I think Anet is just too lazy to do all the work that would need to be done to change the system into this.

Any proposal for a fix to WvW has to take into account Anets track record. I do not see much support for what you are proposing, although it might be that I am just not looking at the right post. Most of what I see calls for the Red, Blue, Green or I think one was calling for alliances based on the Three orders. But it all amounted to arguments I listed in my initial post.

Ad 1) to play 24/7 WvW you probably need around 10000 people. If an alliance start to kick interested people without more reason than being noob they end outmanned and loose. Especially as I proposed a 2 level system, the alliance leader can only kick whole guilds, only guild leader can kick individuals. And guild leaders can already kick you, but I haven’t hearted of many guilds that kick people for being noobs.

I don’t know, 10000 people seems a little high. I mean I play on a pretty heavy server, figuring we have 100 people per map, over 4 maps, with a queue of 30-80 per map. It will be alot smaller than 10,000.

Figure that we have 100 per map x 4 maps 400
There are four major Time zones NA, EU, Oceanic and Sea about 400 each would be 1600, double that if you have 100 people in Que and maybe an extra 1000 if we have people who don’t play every day. Your numbers would be around 4200, and that, more like 5000 max. I suspect that most will have far fewer in number.

However given how organized some Server Leadership can be I would not be surprised if it couldn’t be made to work. However what I would see happening is that Each exisiting server, at least the more successful ones will pull in together to form up an alliance and the players who were from the smaller servers will not be as lucky. Mostly this would just change it from say the Blackgate Server or Jade Quarry Server to the Blackgate Alliance or Jade Quarry Alliance, and people would be calling for those alliances to be disbanded because of their better coverage.

Ad 2) I would expect maps running on virtual machines (or as different processes on the same machine). And running 5 maps a 100 people is very likely using LESS resources than 1 map with 500 as the (non-linear) interaction are reduced. So I don’t think your speculation about ANets server capacity is true.

Its not a speculation on Anets Server Capacity. Its more a speculation on the amount of work that Anet is willing to put into the system. Anet has always done the path of least resistance when it comes to any fixes. Mob AI vs Zerker nerf, or like with Reflects in the last update. It is unlikely to expect them to put a significant amount of work into Revamping WvW. I doubt they want to manage 50 or more servers just because we ended up with a significant number of smaller alliances then you anticipate. As I often notice every wants to be a leader, that is why we have so many smaller guilds, I think this could just as easy fall into an Alliance thing as well.

Ad 3) in the end only ANet can adequately handle hacker, but an alliance/guild leader that take care can help already.

Sorry, but I have never seen Anet handle this problem efficiently. No matter how many reports are put out. Thankfully its not as large of an Issue here in the US as it appears to be on the EU servers. While it could combat Spies and or Siege griefing, it would not change Hacking or exploits at all.

Ad 4) less problems than the current system of uncontrolled movement causes.

Potentially. But I have never been one to complain about movements in WvW. It has always been my opinion that people will move or play as they wish. I don’t always support the choices that players make, but I support the right for players to make them. I don’t feel anyone has the right to tell others where theys should play. I won’t advocate the destruction of any server from the highest or the lowest. People chose to move there for reason. Small fights vs Big fights.

Ad 5) PvE population is called PvE population because it wanna play PvE. It can also play EotM and if you would have read my link, there are some random teams for them in my wvw proposal as well.

As for this, I honestly couldn’t care where the PvE population ends up. However I felt obligated to point out that Anet Makes many of their choices based on this percentage of the game. We all know this. It think every WvW player has felt this. I can’t see them putting in a system which would make it harder for the PvE population to hop into WvW do there song and dance then leave until its time for the rewards.

Ad 6) same as for 5), a lot alliances will probably underpopulated, trying to recruit people so there is always space for starters.

Underpopulated alliances would just lead to complaints like we have right now about coverage. Because no matter how hard we try, there is not enough coverage for certain timezones. I find that many players in those smaller timezones flowed to the larger servers prior to Megaservers to have people to play with. Some servers are known for having larger populations of Oceanic, Sea or what have you. Swapping to a system like you propose won’t make more of these people appear out of no where.

Coverage will be an issues here just as much as it is with the current servers. I did go ahead and edit the topic of the post to make it more clear as to where most post was aimed so that it won’t be confused with what you are proposing.

Coverage is a different problem A worse one and an always ignored one. I do not have the possibility to count how many people (like to) play at which time, but given that there are more at one time and less at another time, the capacity of matches should adapt to that, e.g. if it turns out that at a specific time 4 times as many people like to play, than at another time, then the map-capacity should be only 25 per side and not 100 during that time. (or… or … see link in my signature)

Then a (overall size limited!) alliance that has to many player in a specific timezone, has them in queue at that time and misses people in other timezones.

Concerning, ANets effort: setting map-capacity is something they always experimented with, so is should be not much effort, extending the guild interface a bit to allow alliance formation and an NPC to register alliances, should be much less effort than they put into the dubious mega-server concept.

I think the main problem is that they still think WvW-players are happy with what they have, only the forum is dominated by a few negative people.

These objections have been brought up more than a few times already, but I’ll go over the arguments with you point by point for good measure. We can certainly agree that “overflow” technology is bad for WvW. However, to extrapolate from that that all forms of AvA are bad is overreaching.

Anyway, I’ll keep this as brief as I can.

Talyn.3295:

1. It all boils down to numbers. It is impossible to fit all the WvW players onto four current maps. That is why we had serves to start with.

Not exactly. The server infrastructure isn’t related to the number of maps in the map pool. The fact that we can’t squeeze all of the population into four maps isn’t the reason why we have servers, rather it’s the reason why we have more than four maps (as any functional AvA system would obviously have as well).

Talyn.3295:

2. Sever Pride

The term “server pride” is an oxymoron. Community pride is a more accurate description, and communities need not necessarily be based around servers. If we had alliances, it would be alliance pride instead.

You would be right to point out that, given that we would be implementing alliances after the fact, any AvA infrastructure would need the ability to keep existing communities intact to the extent that they themselves desire, but that’s easily done by letting them join the same alliance (cap permitting).

Talyn.3295:

3. EoTM

Agreed, EotM/megaserver technology won’t work for WvW. It will make it impossible to create and/or maintain communities. However, this is solely due to the RNG element of those designs. Remove the RNG and you end up with a system where, like now, the player is put in the driver’s seat. Of course I agree wholeheartedly that players should be allowed to make their own decisions about where they play, whom they play with, and which alliance (or server, as is the case now) they represent. That doesn’t make AvA systems impossible or even impractical, it simply means that RNG is bad for communities – and I’d wager the communities are the primary motivation for a lot of players out there, at least I know that’s true for myself.

You wouldn’t need to change anything except matchups. By that I mean who gets what color.

You wouldn’t need megaservers/overflows in their current in incarnation.

Open all current borderlands to all servers. Allow players to do what they do now and select what borderland to go to.

Instead of 3 maps to go to you would have 24.

Selecting a color to play for locks you into current match-thru -end of next match like now.

TS could be set up for battlegroups. 1-8,9-16,17-24
When someone needs help from another battlegroup, you send runners. Either they run to borderlands, run to ts server,
or
Anet gives each map a chat box that allows world chat like the team chat function was supposed to do. World chat would identify player/server/then message.

—No different than actual war when communication is limited.—

Smart servers would check all options to corroborate information and proceed to send available help from there.

Ideally what I would like is for each map to resemble what we get in the pve world instead of the identical borderlands we have now. Make it one big war.

But as is right now you would have 24 borderlands.
24 EB’s. Could probably knock EB down to like 10-12.
No overflows or new maps being generated.

You would have what you have now cept more choices in where to go and over stacking servers would be less of an issue than it is currently.

Sidenote: I feel that the only reason EotM has turned into what it is now is because it means nothing. Sure the rewards sponsor no pvp, but ultimately, if the map mattered ppl would care. Perhaps if they had something like favor of the gods and HA from the first game. Winners get keys. Keys open some sort of mega chest for some EotM weapon/armor set.

WvW in a new system could have something similar. 1st, 2nd and 3rd would actually mean something week to week and could reward accordingly.

The question that needs to be asked is why are people looking for server alliances? Is it coverage, number of players, variety. For the most part, WvW is the only thing that defines a server now. I think that lends itself to WvW players associating themselves to a server even more than before. But that doesn’t mean RvBvG system couldn’t work in tandem with the current structure. I know EoTM was meant as a distraction aka overflow while you waited for your maps, but at this point its pretty populated for its own sake. So why not tie it into WvW weekly scoring? There are details to be worked out (PPT point values division, disparate populations,…), but what are peoples biggest issue with tieing it in? That would allow for the people that are pure borderland people and people that want a mix to still be fighting for the same goal, albeit in different ways. Good hunting!

How about instead of WvWvW we add another vW to it? 4 servers. Add another generic map like we all get, modify EB to accommodate or even make multiple EB maps. Pick a color then as well. Probably Yellow.

Dayra.7405:

Coverage is a different problem A worse one and an always ignored one. I do not have the possibility to count how many people (like to) play at which time, but given that there are more at one time and less at another time, the capacity of matches should adapt to that, e.g. if it turns out that at a specific time 4 times as many people like to play, than at another time, then the map-capacity should be only 25 per side and not 100 during that time. (or… or … see link in my signature)

I have read your ideas on this before. Sadly its not ever gonna be something I agree with. Simply because one server can’t put out the numbers it needs to, the players from the other two are restricted from playing. Even when we are outnumbered and floating for three maps I still wouldn’t support it.

ManaCraft.5630:

However, to extrapolate from that that all forms of AvA are bad is overreaching.

Perhaps, but I don’t see alot of options that present a good way of doing it that actually fixes anything. Either we have a massive change like overflows which destroys things, or we go with something else like what was presented here. When I read through it, I didn’t actually see that anything would change to help fix problems people are asking for.

Akari Storm.6809:

Instead of 3 maps to go to you would have 24.

Selecting a color to play for locks you into current match-thru -end of next match like now.

Sorry, but I don’t see this working at all. The issue is that we don’t have enough players now to cover all the servers now that the game has started to die out. I don’t want to have to worry about floating down to cover down for BP for example because it is in the Red alliance when we are having enough trouble dealing with our own Borderlands.

Not to mention, we have had enough attacks on our TS in the past, that giving out the information to a random server every week would be bad.

Besides that we saw the extent in which players will go to win. What would likely happen is all the Big coverage servers would pull into one color and dominate everything if they ever had another season. Just being realistic on how most players are, we have alot of bandwagoners and fairweathers and those who just want rewards.

TheGrimm.5624:

The question that needs to be asked is why are people looking for server alliances? Is it coverage, number of players, variety. For the most part, WvW is the only thing that defines a server now. I think that lends itself to WvW players associating themselves to a server even more than before. But that doesn’t mean RvBvG system couldn’t work in tandem with the current structure.

I don’t see it working together well at all. To coordinate anything you need to have a TS setup. Otherwise it is hard to run effective.There is nothing there to hold people together. I would dread seeing a PPT attached to what happens in EoTM, but that could just be me.

Cara.8749:

How about instead of WvWvW we add another vW to it? 4 servers. Add another generic map like we all get, modify EB to accommodate or even make multiple EB maps. Pick a color then as well. Probably Yellow.

Been discussed before. I am not directly opposed to it. But I don’t know if Anet would really be willing to put any time into doing it anymore then they would anything else. I could just lead to more issues like we had in Season 2. Or it could be a balancing force. It does have potential gains that I would consider, if implemented correctly.

Thanks for the Responses and the discussion guys.

Dayra.7405:

that can also reject someone to be in an alliance…

Not signed. EXTREMELY bad idea… for so many reasons I don’t know where to start Holy moly, that idea might even be worse than the current system for ‘balancing’ teams in EotM.

Speaking of EotM… teams don’t matter at all there. It’s just a train. One which might actually be more enjoyable if zerg v. zerg fights were promoted… by, say, a system of random assignment, regardless of server, as you join EotM. Three perfectly equal sides would be WAY better than that catastrophe of a system in place now.

Cheers.

Grym.4295:

Dayra.7405:

that can also reject someone to be in an alliance…

Not signed. EXTREMELY bad idea… for so many reasons I don’t know where to start .

Your Guild may refuse to accept you and can kick you at any time. The owner of your WvW TS can kick and ban you at any time. But no one worries about that. Why? Because it’s rare, happens only with good reasons and the by far most common reason is inactivity. And if it happens it’s not a problem, there are many other guilds and even new ones to found. And remember that in gw2 you can be in several guilds, e.g. at Elona we have several WvW player collection guilds, where WvW-interested people can join (additionally to their normal guild) without many effort (make a + in wvw-chat to get an invitation). So if your normal guild has not much interest to play WvW, but you do, join such a WvW-collection guild that is part of the alliance you like.

I expect that alliances ill be much more interested in gaining people than in excluding people. Additionally I put a two stage process in place, the alliance leader can accept or kick only complete guilds, so for individual player the problem is the same as today: will this guild accept me or my guild leader kick me?
Most alliances will search guilds to get max manpower, and only while at max manpower
they are able to exclude people.

So yeah, they main exclusion will be that of the wtj. The top alliances will be full. But this is urgently needed, especially for tournaments. There is no competition, if winning only means, I spend transfer costs to the winning team.

But I think ANet should introduce a max player limit for any WvW team in any case, it’s the only way to reach balanced matches.

PS: as long as you do not give any of your good reason, I can only believe that you are a hacker or grief player that fear exclusion by the community or a wtj that sees a wall around the greener grass.

Dayra.7405:

PS: as long as you do not give any of your good reason, I can only believe that you are a hacker or grief player that fear exclusion by the community or a wtj that sees a wall around the greener grass.

Reason number 47: socially inept keyboard commandos should NEVER be allowed to decide who may or may not join any given team. Thanks for proving that point…

Grym.4295:

Dayra.7405:

PS: as long as you do not give any of your good reason, I can only believe that you are a hacker or grief player that fear exclusion by the community or a wtj that sees a wall around the greener grass.

Reason number 47: socially inept keyboard commandos should NEVER be allowed to decide who may or may not join any given team. Thanks for proving that point…

Still only trolling and no argument. Yeah, I see your worries.

Talyn.3295:

Perhaps, but I don’t see alot of options that present a good way of doing it that actually fixes anything. Either we have a massive change like overflows which destroys things, or we go with something else like what was presented here. When I read through it, I didn’t actually see that anything would change to help fix problems people are asking for.

We’ll walk through this from the beginning then.

I’ve written this elsewhere already, but the difference between a system that eliminates population imbalances and one that merely mitigates them is choice. In other words, the ideal solution in this case, the “magic bullet” as it were, would be true randomization. With that you could pretty much eliminate population imbalances (both in absolute terms and across time zones) with a single mechanism. Randomize the players so that each time a player joins that player is added to the team where (s)he is needed to even out the numbers. And just to hedge your bets you could redistribute players (i.e. autobalancing), even across multiple map instances, if/when imbalances still occur.

However, since we seem to agree that randomization has unacceptable drawbacks (i.e. costs to player communities), we are left with no choice but to forego the mechanic that would otherwise be ideal for the job. The dilemma is not unlike that which societies face when dealing with security. You can impose on people’s freedoms to such a degree that you can virtually eliminate security concerns, but no one wants to live in an Orwellian police state. The perfect solution carries costs that are simply too high. So in recognition of the fact that we cannot eliminate the problem entirely, we are then left with the task of finding suitable ways to mitigate it. That in turn means tackling the problem by introducing a layer of safeguards that, while imperfect in and of themselves, mitigate the problem to a satisfactory degree when taken as a whole. It is, in fact, precisely how security systems work: redundancy upon redundancy upon redundancy.

Moving back to game design, this is why larger population units (alliances) are better than smaller ones (servers) – because they enable more redundancies. They permit the (rough) balancing of total populations against one another, they are highly resilient to population fluctuations, and they impose no restrictions on the map pool. By contrast, a multitude of smaller population units offers no mechanism for balancing populations (no, server population caps are not a viable control mechanism), are much more volatile, and restrict use of the map pool to specific player segments.

One last point. Before you respond with “alliances don’t address [insert problem here]”, do remember that all of our redundancies are inherently imperfect. Alliances are not meant to compensate for every conceivable issue. Larger population units enable some of the redundancies needed to produce a more balanced PUvPU format (chief among which is a way to balance populations), but they are not the magic bullet. Some problems, like time zones, will likely be addressed by other mechanics such as time slices. Other problems will be addressed by the map pool, and still others will be addressed by the PPT system. It’s very easy to pick apart any given redundancy by pointing out its imperfections, but that’s precisely the reason why we’re building a system with layers of multiple redundancies. What one redundancy cannot address, another will. Returning to the security analogy for a moment, asking why alliances can’t do this or that or the other is not unlike asking why the police can’t put out the fire in your house. The answer is it’s a job for the fire department.

You have to appreciate the big picture.

ManaCraft.5630:

Moving back to game design, this is why larger population units (alliances) are better than smaller ones (servers) – because they enable more redundancies. They permit the (rough) balancing of total populations against one another, they are highly resilient to population fluctuations, and they impose no restrictions on the map pool. By contrast, a multitude of smaller population units offers no mechanism for balancing populations (no, server population caps are not a viable control mechanism), are much more volatile, and restrict use of the map pool to specific player segments.
You have to appreciate the big picture.

It isn’t that I don’t appreciate what your saying. Or that I lack understanding of the big picture. But we as players have very limited influence over the content of the game. It rest with Anet to make any kind of meaningful change to the system in which we enjoy.

That said, what we get from them has to be worth the effort they would put into it. As from what I have seen when it comes to Alliance ideas, I don’t see that we get enough from them to benefit from the amount of work Anet would have to put into making the change.

The RvBvG Overflows are bad, and this would be as you said the extreme way of balancing. But besides killing off any sense of community we would have it could become just tedious. Why invest anything in defense if the overflow can and will disappear based on the populations at the time? This was I think in part why we don’t have upgrade options for EoTM. Both upgrades and Superior Siege cost money.

Otherwise, what you are doing is setting up and environment where Defense becomes even more trivial then it already is. That is the first step to the Karma train mentality. When Defense stops, and all three sides go full on offense, just going through the motions.

Other alliance ideas would destroy existing servers to merge them into other [insert term here] grouping of players. It does not matter what you call these new groupings. You have at this point taken away the players choice. By making someone who might wish to play on a low pop server or moved there due to a older computer now being forced into this kind of an alliance setting. We are in a sense making an assumption that Our form of play is more important then their form of play, or that larger populations which alliances would make would be the answer for everyone. I don’t believe this would be the case, given the feed back from many players on smaller servers.

For any solution to be acceptable, hence justify the work that Anet would have to put into the game and the change to the player experience it would have to actually accomplish something. By pointing out which things it would have no effect on, hence any statement where “alliances don’t address [insert problem here]” has to be made because at the end of the day, if the new system you want of alliances doesn’t address enough of the problems we have, or create more problems, hence ruining the game experience of the players then they are not worth it.

The over all fact is that the WvW population has declined, along with the entire GW2 population. There are not enough players to properly man every server in terms of play. Despite this, I would never advocate the destruction of any server, from the largest to the smallest. People choose their home. Who am I to destroy it? Anet has said they have no intention of moving away from Named Servers in WvW. We only have their word on this. It is my firm hope that they stick to it.

Talyn.3295:

TheGrimm.5624:

The question that needs to be asked is why are people looking for server alliances? Is it coverage, number of players, variety. For the most part, WvW is the only thing that defines a server now. I think that lends itself to WvW players associating themselves to a server even more than before. But that doesn’t mean RvBvG system couldn’t work in tandem with the current structure.

I don’t see it working together well at all. To coordinate anything you need to have a TS setup. Otherwise it is hard to run effective.There is nothing there to hold people together. I would dread seeing a PPT attached to what happens in EoTM, but that could just be me.

Not having voice in EoTM is what actually makes it a good training grounds for commanders in case they don’t have everyone on voice in their normal maps. Understand the reluctance but what I am picturing is PPT that is divided among the servers on that instance, therefore the regular BLs would still be the money makers. At the same time it would give people looking for RvBvG options but still keep them part of the WvW family in regards to supporting their server. 2 cents. Good hunting!

Edit: Corrected quoting.

Alliances was a good idea before Eotm and cleaning the border of K-trainers.

Now we have EotM and the population on most servers together with the matchup system sort of balanced the population (until seasons that was)
I would rather see WvW servers slowly merging from the bottom up after the progress that was made.

I think we’ve been over the whole randomization thing enough that I don’t need to address those parts of your post further, so I’ll just offer a few comments on some of the other points you raised.

Talyn.3295:

As from what I have seen when it comes to Alliance ideas, I don’t see that we get enough from them to benefit from the amount of work Anet would have to put into making the change.

Most of the work required is a matter of bathing the resulting three alliances in a sufficient amount of lore so that players will accept them (i.e. a storytelling job). There is some work related to system itself as well, but not as much as you would expect.

Talyn.3295:

By making someone who might wish to play on a low pop server or moved there due to a older computer now being forced into this kind of an alliance setting.

Alliance systems can offer as wide a variety of experiences as you care to implement, it is only a matter of applying suitable population caps to the maps. I’m well aware that different players have different preferences. I’m also aware that an alliance system has no problem accommodating those preferences.

Talyn.3295:

By pointing out which things it would have no effect on, hence any statement where “alliances don’t address [insert problem here]” has to be made because at the end of the day, if the new system you want of alliances doesn’t address enough of the problems we have, or create more problems, hence ruining the game experience of the players then they are not worth it.

Constructive criticism is fine. I don’t know if this needs to be made clear, but my previous statement was not meant as an attempt to immunize myself from criticism. Rather, I simply urge that people who would debate the issue apply a healthy dose of interpretive grace, as many of the “problems” with alliance systems that people continually bring up tend to be the result of incorrect assumptions. Hence why I spent a great deal of time specifying precisely what alliances are meant for and which problems they can and cannot solve, because it saves us all the trouble of having to tip-toe around unnecessary strawmen.

Talyn.3295:

I would never advocate the destruction of any server, from the largest to the smallest.

I agree with the general sentiment to a certain extent. I will say, though, that the picture many people tend to paint of alliance systems as the “destroyer of communities” is greatly exaggerated. As we already talked about, players will still play with the same guildies and friends as they always have (i.e. well-established groups will simply join the same alliance), and they will be in full control of where, when, and how they play, as they are now. The real issue is whether people are willing to replace [insert server name here] with [insert alliance name here]. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for you as far as that goes, because it’s an emotional argument, and there is no reliable way to quantify those. My interest as far as this discussion goes is primarily in how the system would function. Once we move beyond discussing the actual merits of the system itself, my interest in the discussion wanes. Not because I feel other arguments are invalid, but because they’re difficult to say anything reliable about.

I will say that I feel fairly confident that larger population units will outperform smaller ones hands down, and by a considerable margin. I think that if you intend to argue against the actual merits of larger populations, you will lose the debate, and you will lose it badly. And I’m happy to walk you through various problems that are related to the implementation and discuss which mechanics make for good solutions. Those are (relatively) objective issues that I expect we can reach some form of consensus on. In other words, we can establish with some certainty what the tradeoff between different systems is. However, whether people are willing to accept the tradeoff is a matter of personal opinion.

I don’t think you need to be concerned with a.net going back on their word though. Like I said, the primary argument being mounted against alliances is not one against its merits, but rather an emotional one. And much like good politicians, good gaming companies don’t reverse themselves on emotionally loaded issues because they know they’ll burn a LOT of bridges if they do. The backlash would be something fierce.

What some people fail to understand, is the AvA or color vs color (faction vs faction) are not overflow maps if done correctly. For the sake of argument, lets say if this idea was implemented and there were 5 instances of each map. Currently, we have 8 matches going on in NA, there are 8 instances of each map. I personally think 5 is the sweet spot that will ensure even coverage 24/7 with little to no que times.

Using the sweet spot of 5 of each map gives us 20 maps overall. When you log on, you can clearly see all 20 maps and how many players from each alliance are on each map at any given time, then you pick and choose from there where you wan’t to go, simple as that. It’s difficult to call any of them an overflow when your choosing who you wan’t to fight for and where. This is nothing like an overflow or EoTM

This doesn’t have to be a system of “us against them” or “we’re better than you”; it’s a system of going out there and fighting against other players in even numbers in a PPT system that ultimately does not matter or holds any merit. All this would be is large scale PvP in an even playing field.

Right now, the only merit the current PPT system holds is showing which server had superior coverage that particular week. This is ultimately one of the reasons why WvW is growing stale.

While I agree new maps are needed, in all honesty, they aren’t needed at the same time because the current population doesn’t support a need for them. Even in T1 (outside of reset night), all 4 maps are never qued. I imagine when you go down in servers the coverage dissipates even further. There is a reason that servers with baron coverage tend to only congregate on their own BL. Now why would a new WvW map be needed in this case?

Talyn.3295:

I would never advocate the destruction of any server, from the largest to the smallest.

This sums it up, in a sense.. server pride. The elimination of a community or whatever you want to call it. Ironically, it’s this very thing which will ultimately cause the destruction WvW.

One has to think, when you start meeting people from other servers and teaming up with them, the community aspect will probably expand, not shrink.

RvBvG random matchups is only one way it could play out, and not the only. But I have seen it advocated for more then I would wish to. Hence the entire reason for my post. I discussed in my initial post on the different ways that our matches would have to change in order for the RvBvG to be effective including how the maps would have to be changed. I do not believe that the befits of the system would out way or justify the changes.

 As for the “Us vs them.” That is WvW, at its core its my server vs the other two. And if we want to win, we have to be more dedicated and put in the work to defend or take objects, play map politics and push only as far as our manpower is able to hold.

Server pride is the only thing holding the WvW community together right now. Ultimately it might cause problems or drive away players who refuse to transfer to a larger server. However if you  destroy the communities, you put a bullet in the head of WvW right now.

I think it would be obvious that a larger population would out perform a smaller one when it comes to the WvW game mode. I prefer the larger population and the fights that come along with it. However, there are many many players who have stated that they do not prefer this. I do not argue in hopes to win any logical debate on it, only to point out that it is one of the reasons that players do not want this kind of change.

Yes, I know the population isn’t there anymore. I have said that previously. But if we made maps, just 5 copies of all four maps, that anyone can join. How would this be controlled? We would have to make sure every server who had access to those maps would be the same every week. If it is going to be organized. I think this is assumed to be the case or any such change would be useless.

Also given how the population is for WvW during my timezones it is not uncommon for there to be a small number of people playing even in T1. The idea that we would not only have our own maps but to have to cover all the territory of the other alliance maps makes the game more work then fun. Given that the problem right now that people complain about is the lack of coverage on their own servers. This coverage isn’t going to magically appear.If we make enough maps for the NA players to be able to play and not be over burdened in Ques. Then we are going to create a lot of territory for smaller forces in other timezones to cover. Alliances will not fix this.

I am not insecure in enough to crush any suggestions that oppose my views. Although I do hold that my view is correct and seems the more popular view regarding WvW at this time.

Talyn.3295:

Server pride

We’ve covered that ground already, so I won’t address this part of your post further.

Talyn.3295:

I prefer the larger population and the fights that come along with it. However, there are many many players who have stated that they do not prefer this.

Okay, I already commented on this issue once, and gave you the whole speech on strawmen, so I’ll be a little less courteous with you this time in order to get the point across.

The claim that alliance systems promote large scale combat (i.e. blobbing) at the expense of small scale combat is entirely a strawman of your own making. The argument has no validity whatsoever. In fact, alliance systems outperform server systems in this regard precisely because they have larger populations to draw upon, which enables them to offer a palette of different experiences to the player base while still ensuring that there are enough people to make each of those experiences meaningful (that is, you will incur fewer, if any, dead maps).

I’ll elaborate for good measure. Assuming alliances were implemented, that means populations are no longer “attached” to specific maps as they are under a server system (where you can only join the same four maps). Instead, what would happen is that you would have one global map pool, consisting of many maps, and everyone would have access to all maps. This is a tremendous benefit, for one specific reason:

You can customize the map pool in any way you wish.

So you’re not happy that there are no maps left for those who prefer smaller fights? Then make some! You can easily insert a copy of the maps into the map pool that have a lower population limit – say, 30 per side? 40? Whatever floats your boat, you can have it. Of course, the more maps you introduce, the larger populations you will need to fill them – which is precisely why alliance systems are better performers when it comes to catering to different kinds of players. They have the population to fill many maps. If you were to offer up an array of different maps to cater to different preferences on a server system, you wouldn’t have the necessary population to fill all (or even a few) of them.

An AvA system is bound by no restrictions. It is, for almost all intents and purposes, the God of Maps. There can be as many or as few maps in the map pool as you wish, they can have whatever population limits imposed on them that you care to implement, and those limits can vary from map to map any way you like. You are bound by nothing but your imagination. AvA gives you the power to customize the map pool to fit the needs, desires, and overall size of your player base at any given time. And this is all working with the elements that already exist in the current infrastructure (so much for all the extra work for a.net). We haven’t even begun talking about introducing new elements (i.e. new maps with other mechanics).

Talyn.3295:

I do hold that my view is correct and seems the more popular view regarding WvW at this time.

Probably. It is the easiest thing in the world to acquire upvotes on forums like this one because people are predisposed to voting with their hearts instead of their heads. Write a post about the endangerment of player communities, insert some overblown bullet-to-the-head rhetoric, and you’ve got yourself a “thumbs up” post. It is an age-old recipe that generations of politicians have followed to a tee. Take [insert issue here], make people afraid of it, then tell them who’s to blame for it. Mind you I’m fine with people voicing their opinion, they have every right to do so. But when the rhetoric becomes too bloated, you’re in danger of going from arguing your case into fearmongering.

You will win no popularity contests if you argue for balance. You will just have to settle for being right on the merits.

I’ve already argued this topic on last CDI about wvwvw.
I repropose my idea of solution:
allow server guesting by color, give color (read in this contexts as alliance) some point system and put rewards based on server + color performance for the week.

ManaCraft.5630:

Talyn.3295:

Server pride

We’ve covered that ground already, so I won’t address this part of your post further.

No offense Manacraft but my entire post was not directed at you. But this one will be. Anytime you don’t feel like debating a logical point I won’t hold it against you.

ManaCraft.5630:

Okay, I already commented on this issue once, and gave you the whole speech on strawmen, so I’ll be a little less courteous with you this time in order to get the point across.

I care little for how you respond or how courteous you think you are. Others make points and I don’t always break my post down to address each person as an individual simply because I would rather be playing then debating the same points on this thread. However, if you want to start being condescending I can simply stop replying to your post if that makes you feel like you won some kind of moral victory.

ManaCraft.5630:

The claim that alliance systems promote large scale combat (i.e. blobbing) at the expense of small scale combat is entirely a strawman of your own making. The argument has no validity whatsoever. In fact, alliance systems outperform server systems in this regard precisely because they have larger populations to draw upon, which enables them to offer a palette of different experiences to the player base while still ensuring that there are enough people to make each of those experiences meaningful (that is, you will incur fewer, if any, dead maps)..

“A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.”

I have done nothing but stick to the topic that I feel that RvBvG is not good for WvW. So here I am just confused.

ManaCraft.5630:

“An AvA system is bound by no restrictions. It is, for almost all intents and purposes, the God of Maps. There can be as many or as few maps in the map pool as you wish, they can have whatever population limits imposed on them that you care to implement, and those limits can vary from map to map any way you like. You are bound by nothing but your imagination. AvA gives you the power to customize the map pool to fit the needs, desires, and overall size of your player base at any given time. And this is all working with the elements that already exist in the current infrastructure (so much for all the extra work for a.net).”

Funny this just sounds like a lot of fancy words for the one big one “overflows.” I even touched on the way this could be done, (even if I didn’t agree with it in my initial post) without the use of overflows, if that is what you were trying to say there.

ManaCraft.5630:

We haven’t even begun talking about introducing new elements (i.e. new maps with other mechanics).

I am all for new maps or new mechanics. However I don’t see what this has to do with any kind of move to an alliance based system.

Talyn.3295:

I do hold that my view is correct and seems the more popular view regarding WvW at this time.

ManaCraft.5630:

Probably. It is the easiest thing in the world to acquire upvotes on forums like this one because people are predisposed to voting with their hearts instead of their heads.

I won’t debate this as a popularity contest. I simply stated a fact. I believe the vast majority of the WvW population agrees with me. I have yet to see more then the three people I expected to object to what I had to say in my post here, based on previous discussions. However if the majority of the population here on these forms were to join in this discussion on your side I would concede the point.

I also won’t debate the heart vs head. Because I feel your the one who is putting your heart out there, working for your ideal of what you think WvW should be. Not the reality of what we have. Or even the reality of what most of the population wants.

Is a change that the majority of the population objects to a good change? No, I really do not believe that it is.

GvBvR is a way to have more balanced matches than the current T1 only balance NA has.

There are too many Tx.5 servers in NA.

When you do find an balanced match like what’s in T4 YB/SbI/BP, you don’t know if it’s because of population balance or if it’s an inbalance in coverage that leads to scoring balance.

As someone from BG, if you’ve been with them from the beginning you must remember the T5 days, eventually becoming the T1.5 server.

Which was more fun for you, the T1.5 days where you rolled over TC/FA every week?
Was it Season 1 where you got the transfers to dominate JQ/SoR?
Was it post season 1 where you faced JQ/SoR and eventually JQ/TC in mostly equal matches?
Was it season 2 where you got 2v1 by JQ/TC?

Most of the other NA tiers resemble the T1.5 match, where one team dominates every week.

Talyn.3295:

my entire post was not directed at you.

Heh, no worries. Whenever I see the same talking points persisting despite already having addressed them, I usually mention why I don’t reply to those parts of a post if I feel they’re important enough. It’s mostly just intended as a way to move the debate forward, since it does us no good to keep going in circles on the same talking points if we’ve reached an impasse.

Talyn.3295:

I have done nothing but stick to the topic that I feel that RvBvG is not good for WvW. So here I am just confused.

That particular point was one I raised because your post implied that the scale of the fights you get are a function of the size of the population units you work with. They aren’t. Larger population units do not result in larger battles for all, it comes down to how you design the system.

Talyn.3295:

Funny this just sounds like a lot of fancy words for the one big one “overflows.”

The crucial difference between overflows and simply having X maps to play on is, as we’ve already been over, the power of choice. The strength of a properly designed AvA system is precisely that the overflow element is removed from the system. You decide where you play, the system doesn’t – same as now.

Talyn.3295:

I won’t debate this as a popularity contest. I simply stated a fact. I believe the vast majority of the WvW population agrees with me. I have yet to see more then the three people I expected to object to what I had to say in my post here, based on previous discussions. However if the majority of the population here on these forms were to join in this discussion on your side I would concede the point.

Well, I think we’ve probably had too many threads dealing with this issue to expect people, regardless of which side of the fence they’re on, to come rushing in. I’m sure you’ve noticed that new RvGvB threads keep popping up regularly, and most of them haven’t even moved beyond the overflow concept yet. I very much share your frustration here, overflow systems receive far too much attention and it is incredibly difficult to move the debate forward – a point that I think even our conversation reflects to a certain extent. In any case, that tendency tells you something about the perception people have of alliance systems. Most people don’t have full information, or even close to it, and no informed decision is possible either way. I agree with DeadlySynz in that it seems to me that most people just don’t realize that proper AvA systems are not overflows. Like it or not, that’s the level of the debate right now. But all that notwithstanding, these forums are themselves the minority to begin with. Most players, according to a.net, simply don’t post here.

Lastly, I’ll take a few moments to clarify my own position on alliances since your post brought it up. As of now, I’m fairly indifferent – although a.net’s tendency to arrange WvW tournaments despite the problems we have does bother me, but that’s another topic entirely. Overall I’m very happy with the server I’m on, and with each passing day the alliance issue becomes less relevant anyway due to the natural attrition of the game. As people move on to other things, populations dwindle – and the end result will, oddly enough, be much like an alliance system. I think eventually we’ll see most of the population concentrated on the servers at the top, while the rest will have but a few WvW players left. It’s a process that is already fairly well underway, and the most likely outcome by far is that a.net will simply let this process play itself out.

Swamurabi.7890:

GvBvR is a way to have more balanced matches than the current T1 only balance NA has.

There are too many Tx.5 servers in NA.

This is not a match up thread. I won’t touch on any point that specifically talks about my server, who we fight or how those matches went. I understand there are balance issues. I know there is alot of frustration from players who are losing matches due to this.

I don’t however see the ideas dealing with RvBvG as any kind of solution to the problem. I see them as a quick way of killing any interest left in the WvW game mode.

WvW is unbalanced. Anet hasn’t done us any favors on trying to help with its balance at all. Yet For a game mode that wasn’t supposed to be balanced they try to hold seasons which has lead to futher unblance.

Coverage is a main talking point, as is numbers. Hard fact, GW2 has lost players just like Every game does. We no longer have the population to support every matchup.

Easiest solution is to start slowly merging lower population servers based on their strongest time zones. However as I have early stated I do not advocate the destruction of any ones server simply to create balance.

ManaCraft.5630:

Well, I think we’ve probably had too many threads dealing with this issue to expect people, regardless of which side of the fence they’re on, to come rushing in.
these forums are themselves the minority to begin with. Most players, according to a.net, simply don’t post here.

All to true. We only get the views of the small minority of players. Unless I have myself started a tread I seldom bother with the forms anymore.

ManaCraft.5630:

although a.net’s tendency to arrange WvW tournaments despite the problems we have does bother me, but that’s another topic entirely.

Yes it is, and on this point I am in agreement with you

ManaCraft.5630:

It’s a process that is already fairly well underway, and the most likely outcome by far is that a.net will simply let this process play itself out.

I am sure anet is well aware of the problems, whither they will actually do anything or just ignore it to death is another problem all together. I don’t expect that we will see any Red on this thread. And I didn’t actually expect a large amount of people to post on it either. I know the RvBvG pops up way to often. My only hope in making this was that people would start to think about more then "We lost, we were steamrolled, if we were in an alliance this wouldn’t’ have happened. "

Dayra debated a different theme on alliances all together. Which I am still not a fan of, but would be a much better chance then the RvBvG stuff.

For anything more then that I think we have pretty much tackled all the two of us can, and we will simply have to agree to disagree on the rest of the points.

Talyn.3295:

I am sure anet is well aware of the problems, whither they will actually do anything or just ignore it to death is another problem all together. I don’t expect that we will see any Red on this thread. And I didn’t actually expect a large amount of people to post on it either. I know the RvBvG pops up way to often. My only hope in making this was that people would start to think about more then "We lost, we were steamrolled, if we were in an alliance this wouldn’t’ have happened. "

There’s no doubt people will still get steamrolled regardless of whether we have alliances or not. What I can promise you, however, is that with alliances, whether you win or lose an engagement will be a more accurate reflection of skill than it is today. Alliances (or factions, or colors, or whatever you wanna call them) are really just an exercise in mitigating institutional bias. And in terms of system design, they do an excellent job. The answer to any objection to the actual system itself will just about always fall into one of two categories, namely 1) alliances enable mechanics that make them perform just as well or better than servers or 2) another mechanic will address that objection for us. I’m kind of curious as to why you seem to think the system itself wouldn’t perform properly, as it’s not immediately apparent from any of your posts, but you’re right that we’ve covered more than enough territory for now, so we’ll save that for some other time.

On the other hand, non-system related objections are all over these forums – probably because the same old threads advocating EotM/megaserver technology (i.e. randomized, overflow-based AvA) keep popping up all the time, and so we keep going in circles and beating the same dead horse. But regardless of content, that type of argument is subjective and based almost purely on personal opinions, and I agree that this makes it exceedingly difficult to make any more headway than we already have. Here, simply agreeing to disagree is precisely the right move.

So, with that said, I thank you for playing ball.

It’s easier to balance three sides than it is to balance 24 NA or 27 EU.

If you remember GW1, there was a time that Jade Quarry and especially Fort Aspenwood, had problems just getting players to play, and that’s with just trying to balance two sides.

Eventually Anet solved the problem by allowing players to play on either side. That’s what needs to happen with WvW to keep the game going.

Allow the players to choose which side they want to play on

Instead of having 24 or 27 sides to choose from, make it three. There will be better matches because of it.

It’s obvious after 2 years that the players won’t balance themselves. It’s also obvious that Anet’s attempt to entice players to move with free transfers (HoD) works, but only for a short time.

Even if you played around with 3,4,6,8,12 hour matches or even weekend/weekday matches you still have the problem of coverage balance that has plagued WvW from the beginning.

One of the first stickied threads was “Night Capping and You”. The first WvW CDI was about “Balance”. The other big complaint players had with matches was that they got tired of facing the same servers for months. If you force balance by merging servers you are also forcing match stagnation. At least with a GvBvR setup, you have the possibility of going up against guilds from multiple servers so that you can face a different guild each day.

3 sides only?

I liked boss-runs in the morning, with 2-10 people it was fun! Now with mega-server you always have 100 people even at 5am, I stopped playing boss-runs.

If you put everyone into these 3 sides in WvW you will get EotM, i.e. anonymous masses (in EU: that are not even able to talk to each other as they speak different languages) running in circles, and I will stop playing GW2 completely till each sides manpower (i.e. complete WvW) is reduced to at least to what is on a single T3-server currently. Which I guess will not need very long.

Swamurabi.7890:

It’s easier to balance three sides than it is to balance 24 NA or 27 EU.

If you remember GW1, there was a time that Jade Quarry and especially Fort Aspenwood, had problems just getting players to play, and that’s with just trying to balance two sides.

Eventually Anet solved the problem by allowing players to play on either side. That’s what needs to happen with WvW to keep the game going.

Allow the players to choose which side they want to play on

Instead of having 24 or 27 sides to choose from, make it three. There will be better matches because of it.

It’s obvious after 2 years that the players won’t balance themselves. It’s also obvious that Anet’s attempt to entice players to move with free transfers (HoD) works, but only for a short time.

Even if you played around with 3,4,6,8,12 hour matches or even weekend/weekday matches you still have the problem of coverage balance that has plagued WvW from the beginning.

One of the first stickied threads was “Night Capping and You”. The first WvW CDI was about “Balance”. The other big complaint players had with matches was that they got tired of facing the same servers for months. If you force balance by merging servers you are also forcing match stagnation. At least with a GvBvR setup, you have the possibility of going up against guilds from multiple servers so that you can face a different guild each day.

Nothing good would come out of this. The only way your way would work is with overflows. I have debated this with several others in this thread, who are in favor of alliances, and even they agree that overflows would be horrible.

You could forget server wide TS where you could talk or get along with whatever commander was running the map. Forget about any kind of defense, no one is gonna waste Superior siege on a keep that might not even be there in a few hours if people log off.

All the RvBvG with overflows brings is a quick painful death to WvW as we know it and the expansion of the Karma train to all of WvW.