Guild Wars 2

So what does dragon brand do with its 300+ ocieanic players when there is only 100 people on between the other 2 servers?

Rambodacious.7495:

snip

Recruit moar Aussies.

Solved. :-)

Personally I think you are over complicating an issue that is inherently addressed by the systems already in place. Take my server for example, Blackgate. We have a high population of Oceanic players with a subpar population of North American players. Our Oceanic players quite literally carry us as the top T2 server. At the same time, although we often feel like we are out numbered, in reality we aren’t out numbered all that much. People often blow being out numbered out of proportion if they play on a server in their time zone.

Anet has already come out with an official announcement that there will be nothing done about “night capping”. Adapt, or move to a server that has a population during your play times that fits your play style.

Rambodacious.7495:

No more than a 20 player difference between either a given “attacking” team and the “defending” team. Meaning if there’s 23 defenders on at 3 A.M. USA time, then no more than 43 Oceanic players can invade.

Would you consider it fair if during US primetime you could only have 20 more players than the active oceanic population at midday?

’dat American sense of entitlement….

dont try to ‘balance’ WvWvW, you’ll ruin it if you do

Sorry but i love facing overwhelming odds. I’ve lost count of the number of times my 5-10 defenders farm 40+ zergs for hours on end when they try to siege our keeps and towers. 5 people can hold a keep/tower against 40 people for over 4 hours(providing they don’t start getting too smart), we’ve done it several times against the bigger servers due to their zerg mentality and lack of intelligent tactics.

Pick another team based game?
Eve Online
Pirates of the Burning Sea
Planetside
Warhammer Online

I don’t think the OP has ever played any other true persistant server pvp game.

Eve Online especially, pleanty of times we have entered a system with “10 people, look across the ‘system’ and see 138 ‘enemy’ people”
War was never meant to be fair.

Talking about Eve, its been going strong now for how many years? coming on 10 in 2013! And there is no balancing in 0.0 space.

Cant compare Eve to any other MMO. Eve is chess everything else is checkers at best. A few things they could do would be give hp buff to outmanned buff and give buff to any defensive structure on your home map if your outnumbered. I dont agree with this personally but its one possibility. If your outmanned attacking someone elses map no hp buff because thats just asking for trouble.

Course you can compare it to Eve.

Its like comparing your scores in a test to the top score of 100%. To achieve greatness, you should always aim for the top. Doesn’t mean any other game will get to that synergy level, but if you aim below the top you will never achieve greatness

(p.s. not an eve fanboy, just believe that they have true open world pvp down pat)

Funny part is Eve is guild wars and guild wars 2 isnt.

Remove caps on aoe, add more AOE CC…..problem solved. A smaller, more coordinated group can kill a larger group even at 1:10 odds in that situation.

But when we talk about mentality at looking at a persistant battlefield the same processes should be firing in our thoughts… There is no difference in regards to looking at numbers in any persistant game when you take into account the 24/7 nature of the game. The only dynamic is the battlefiled you are fighting over, and the rewards in tow.
GW2 add’s in a cap to try to eliviate some of the potential issues with being overmatched, that in its own should be looked at (purely at a numbers vs numbers) as a positive in offering to assist with the feeling of being outmanned. (though I suspect its more to do with server loads)

Any of the games mentioned have worked with numbers not always being equal, thats the nature of these styles of games, they promote the requirement to promote people to play, to form ‘guilds’, hence the name of the game we are playing, it promotes the requirement to socialise, create frameworks and work together.

but we are getting side tracked, to go back to the original poster, I’ve named some games that do exacly what you say games do not, and that have had heathly lives, perhaps its time to look at the game differently?

kylia.4813:

War was never meant to be fair.

Pretty much sums it up I think

Talking about Eve, its been going strong now for how many years? coming on 10 in 2013! And there is no balancing in 0.0 space.

There is perfect balance in 0.0. If you’re smart you live, if you’re smart and agressive you win. If you’re dumb you die.

I will agree that there’s nothing fair about gate bubble ganking.

Unless of course I’m flying my Covops. Actually, there’s nothing fair about that either. I’ve been guilty of decloacking just to taunt the opposition.

This has certain aspects in common with a previous comment I made on another thread about map population limits.
OK, I’m a european player, but I’ve had it this week that I’ve queued for 10-15 mins to get on Eternal Battlegrounds only to find that I have the Outmanned buff from the moment I got in there. There needs to be some mechanic in place to either stop this from happening on a full map, or to rebalance as quickly as possible.
I would suggest that there are two reasonable possible solutions to the issue I have mentioned here:
1) Have some form of map player cap by server as well total population (which may or may not help the OP)
and/or
2) Give priority to queued characters from outmanned servers when the map is full.

After all, should a server be able to win a map just beacuse they manage to overpopulate it or should there be some actual Attacker vs Defender combat involved?

kylia.4813:

Talking about Eve, its been going strong now for how many years? coming on 10 in 2013! And there is no balancing in 0.0 space.

The difference is any sovereignty or POS battles had things like reinforcement timers to purposefully counter “night capping” for want of a better word. You can also use local to determine numbers and if your 10 man gang isn’t scouting two or three systems out then you rightly deserve to be hit by 130 players especially if you’re fighting in a nullsec system with a jump bridge in place. CCP put conditions and rules in place because the game is 24/7.

What happens to people on a map when a large amount of players log off or leave the map? Kick people until the 20 difference is met?

Not to mention logistics and troop allocation is a HUGE part of winning. On BG, we have less NA players on average than our opponents during much of NA primetime because most of our players are West Coast based, but we manage to keep the score even or with us in the lead most of the time. What you are insinuating is that if no one from one server is in a map, no one can log in. I don’t know about others, but I don’t want a handicap given to my server during some times just like I don’t want one given to other servers during our strongest times. Obviously this is a sensationalist view, but it is an open world pvp gametype; there is nothing fair about it. If you bring 70 people to face against 5, you deserve to win, not be playing with a handicap. It’s like running a relay and having to wait for the other teams to get within 15 feet before you can start your next leg. Please, tell me how fun that would be for the people that bought the game.

If you love the concept of WvW but don’t have the stones to stick it out against poor odds, then you are likely not that married to your server anyway. People who want to WvW and their current situation doesn’t please them generally do a thing called transferring to a server that meets their needs as a player, not returning the game.

kylia.4813:

Pick another team based game?
Eve Online
Pirates of the Burning Sea
Planetside
Warhammer Online

I don’t think the OP has ever played any other true persistant server pvp game.

Eve Online especially, pleanty of times we have entered a system with “10 people, look across the ‘system’ and see 138 ‘enemy’ people”
War was never meant to be fair.

Talking about Eve, its been going strong now for how many years? coming on 10 in 2013! And there is no balancing in 0.0 space.

Ragnaron Online with Castle siege/conquer “War of the emperium 2.0” were 3k+ players fight to conquer castles. (i kinda miss the rules there)

“No other people should be online when I’m offline” -OP

So if we stack 1 server with EU players and the 3rd with Oceanic players, what happens then? WvW nothing happens, points stay the same, nobody moves up or down?

Those BG players were talking about certain timezones which is Aussie primetime throughout NA EST primetime. BG is outnumbered during those times and our PP always suffers because of it.

::::edited post because post I was referring to was deleted.

You know what the real compromise should be? Since the devs have stated that there is no difference in ping between servers for those not in america, get rid of the region specific ones and mix the populations. Boom, problem solved, coverage for all time zones almost guaranteed.

I don’t understand why this is so difficult for Anet to understand. It’s such a simple solution and easily implementable.

Since you’re on SoR, how about EST NA primetime, which is one of BG’s biggest coverage holes right now? Using your suggestion, you’d see SoR and TC EST primetime WvW queues skyrocket. Do you really want that? I know TW and a couple other guilds transferred from JQ to SoR because of queues and having a hard time playing together as a guild. What do you think would happen if they were suddenly faced with queues again?

Be careful what you wish for.

If you want to fix the coverage issue, then NA WvW and EU WvW servers need to merge, and im not talking about for PvE, just for WvW, it doesnt make sense if the TP is world based sPvP is world based but WvW isnt???

It was one of the biggest stuff ups on ANet’s behalf when they decided last second to split them

until that is done there are always going to be issues with coverage when one server recruits more off peak coverage than another

I can see what the OP is trying to accomplish and honestly I am on the fence about it.

I could definitely see how this would create balance in WvW. The people who disagree are merely getting upset that this will affect their servers. I think I saw a Blackgate posting against this suggestion? Lol. No offense, your server is awesome (I use to be on it) but your server is probably the direct focus of this suggestion considering your overnight presence out mans your NA presence.

How would this create balance? Obvious really.

- There will be no more Blackgate overnight populations of 100+ vs 15 defenders on a Borderland (exaggerated, yes I know). This gives the other servers a fighting chance rather than no chance at all. The heavy overnight servers will still have their precious advantage of out numbering their opponents 2:1. But it will come down to more about who has more skill rather than who got lucky with their oceanic/asia/europe/assusie transfers.

Here is where it gets a little sticky for me though….

So you implemenet a static ratio between invaders and defenders. Again, this will make it come down to who has more skill (strategically and per player) rather than sheer numbers. But do servers with higher WvW populations deserve to be “punished”? I mean, the current system obviously favors the amount coverage along with numbers rather than actual skill involved. But should high WvW population servers be stuck fighting in tier 9 all because tier 9’s skill level is higher than what that WvW server can field?

Also, another point that I don’t has been mentioned (sorry didn’t read all the posts, just skimmed and saw the usual “recruit more EU! Problem Solved” fail posts). Since hardcore WvW guilds won’t be able to field as many numbers than people may begin to start shifting servers again. Everyone begins shifting servers causing the WvW populations to completely balance out so those who want to play in WvW can because the servers they will be playing will be on par WvW population wise with the other two servers? Does that make sense? Than it will definitely come down to who has more skill/strategical players on each server rather than who has better coverage.

On the fence about it but it would be interesting for Anet to throw it on the white board.

Valik Shin.9027:

So what does dragon brand do with its 300+ ocieanic players when there is only 100 people on between the other 2 servers?

Transfer to SoR and we move to tier 1?

Just move to a server that suits your playtime (not necessarily your own time zone) its why they opened free transfers. They want people to move around and find a server that fits them. No need to make it complicated.

Someone said it in a similar thread topic but, say you retake 90% of a map, the best defense would be to keep 5 people in the zone as the enemy could bring what….10?

And what happens if a server gets demoralized because they are a far 3rd place and quit showing up to WvW? Should the other two servers get punished just because the 3rd server quit halfway in the week? Then that gets in their way when they have NO control over that third server…attempting to police this will not work :P

DivineBeing.2086:

I think I saw a Blackgate posting against this suggestion? Lol. No offense, your server is awesome (I use to be on it) but your server is probably the direct focus of this suggestion considering your overnight presence out mans your NA presence.

Just clarify, BG’s overnight presence is smaller than their NA presence. However, what matters is who you are competing with, and BG has a really big hole in coverage during the EST primetime zone, which is when SoR has it’s largest numbers. From 6pm EST to around 10pm EST BG is outnumbered by SoR (and now TC as well) and has to focus on one map (sometime two) until BG’s largest NA contingent, West Coast PST players get online.

I’m a West Coast PST player with a family and kids and often don’t even get on until 9pm PST. A large chunk of SoR has gone to bed by this time during the week. I’ve often seen a large SoR force totally vanish around this time and shift to outmanned, while I still have 3 to 4 hours of playtime in front of me. And I’m a NA player!

Again, I’ll just say this …. setting player ratios will only create queues, particularly for servers facing opponents with weaker coverage in that time slot. Again using the BG/SoR/TC matchup as an example, SoR and TC queues would be massive during the EST primetime period I listed above, and queues are not good.

Everything about the OP ends up creating a worse situation than the one it purports to fix.

Rambodacious.7495:

So, I read the sticky thread up top when I first purchased the game a month or so ago and thought to myself, ya, that makes sense. Aussies should be able to cap stuff and what not during the night. They paid for the game and that’s fair.

However, after playing the game and WvWing quite a bit, I’m wondering why no >compromise< is being made and not just for Oceanic players.

Here’s the thing, picture yourself playing another team based game. Pick one. Any team based competitive game. You walk to the store (or download it after purchase), come home, install it, load it up, jump into a game, look around at your team of say 10 people, look across the map and see 138 people. How many people would return the game? Yep, everyone. You’d tell all your friends how dumb it was and most likely vow never to purchase a game made by them ever again.

So, please tell me why there aren’t limits to population imbalances? I’M NOT SAYING THEY SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO PLAY WvW(I’ll lead with this so people don’t get uppity), I am saying that there needs to be limits placed on the Borderlands. An example would be:

No more than a 20 player difference between either a given “attacking” team and the “defending” team. Meaning if there’s 23 defenders on at 3 A.M. USA time, then no more than 43 Oceanic players can invade. Now, firstly, this certainly allows the Oceanic crowd to get in there, have the population imbalance still be present, and take the points they want to capture, but it also gives the defenders a fighting chance. Also, let’s say a Borderlands has zero defenders, you’d still be able to take in 20 players that can take points. Plenty to zerg a map in 30-45 minutes.

Furthermore, the Eternal Battlegrounds would NOT be subject to this balancing. That way, if Oceanic players can’t get into a certain BL, they can still easily go zerg the hell out of EB and push their server’s points upward.

What this change does is >compromise< between two extremes to keep servers balanced and allow PLAYER SKILL and not RANDOM OCEANIC CHANCE to win hard-fought WvW battles. Thank you for reading.

- Muke Muscleshell
- Sanctum of Rall
- Potluck Massacre

this is quite an ironic post. the last time GOM faced SoR, they so vastly outnumbered us we gave up early in the week. enjoy our spot in the upper tiers for now, we’ll see you soon.

Dinas Dragonbane.2978:

Someone said it in a similar thread topic but, say you retake 90% of a map, the best defense would be to keep 5 people in the zone as the enemy could bring what….10?

And what happens if a server gets demoralized because they are a far 3rd place and quit showing up to WvW? Should the other two servers get punished just because the 3rd server quit halfway in the week? Then that gets in their way when they have NO control over that third server…attempting to police this will not work :P

This would be a valid argument if we lived in a perfect world where all the PUGs followed the order to a T to not zone into the home borderland. But as you know that is near impossible.

Plus with a ratio of say, 2:1 that’s a zerg of 10 to 20 that could easily cause some damage. Not to mention if you throw in the idea that if everyone from a home borderland logged out of the zone it WOULD NOT kick the opponents out but rather restrict them from coming in. So that 40 man zerg you just pushed back to spawn can easily wipe your 5 defenders off the map.

Liquid.9672:

Again, I’ll just say this …. setting player ratios will only create queues, particularly for servers facing opponents with weaker coverage in that time slot. Again using the BG/SoR/TC matchup as an example, SoR and TC queues would be massive during the EST primetime period I listed above, and queues are not good.

Yes, at first it would create queues. These queues wil cause frustration. This will result in people transferring to different servers, which results in what? Balanced WvW populations. So instead of it coming down to who has better coverage, it’ll come down to which server has better skill/strategy.

HAHA! You can move your great guild to a server that competes against others that have mostly NA player and win till you move up and play against 24/7 servers and lose to a ghost. Or you can play top 24/7 servers and lose to a ghost. I have no ideas.

DivineBeing.2086:

Liquid.9672:

Again, I’ll just say this …. setting player ratios will only create queues, particularly for servers facing opponents with weaker coverage in that time slot. Again using the BG/SoR/TC matchup as an example, SoR and TC queues would be massive during the EST primetime period I listed above, and queues are not good.

Yes, at first it would create queues. These queues wil cause frustration. This will result in people transferring to different servers, which results in what? Balanced WvW populations. So instead of it coming down to who has better coverage, it’ll come down to which server has better skill/strategy.

No it wouldn’t, it would result in frustrated players leaving because they are being punished for their server better representing itself in WvW. You know what you can do to fix WvW population imbalances? Recruit more people to WvW on your server.

whoops resurrected a death thread, my bad folks. my bad.