Guild Wars 2

(Disclaimer: This is NOT a matchup thread. This is an idea thread that is using an example of a current matchup to suggest ideas and solutions.)

The Problem:

• The attached image shows a recent matchup that is easily described with a list of negative terms: ridiculous, laughable, insane. None of the descriptors, however, really tells the story of what it is like to be one of the other two servers, and not the RED team, in this matchup. These improper matchups drive away the players of the other two servers and make for a boring matchup for the red team.

• The graph – image #1 – clearly shows that the conditions depicted in image #3 not only could have, but actually did exist for the ENTIRE week.

• The implications for the players on the two other servers is severe, resulting in what amounts to a DoS for them. The majority of the WvW population of these servers goes somewhere else – if not temporarily, then permanently, with the potential that we lose more players from WvW and/or GW2. This is NOT a good thing for anyone who enjoys and supports this gamemode.

• Since we cannot control, evidently, when these type of matchups occur, or the behavior and choices of the players on the dominating server, we can implement solutions which address and provide temporarily relief for them. Hence, the:

Refugee Resettlement Initiative:

In any matchup where an extreme imbalance occurs as a result of matchmaking, the Refugee Resettlement Initiative would be activated. When scores between the top scoring server and the 2nd server exceed [XX] points, the Initiative would trigger.

• The Initiative would provide a temporary resettlement visa (server transfer) to any and all members of the unbalanced matchup to other servers with room for them.

• The Office of WvW Resettlement (ANet) would provide visas for each server, which are limited in number according to the current population caps for each server.

• Refugee resettlement would be temporary – lasting until the next reset.

• Refugee resettlement would be optional – allowing the players to either remain in their war-torn matchup, or flee the devastation to another server for the week.

• ALL players of all three servers will have the option of accepting temporary resettlement, as this kind of unbalanced matchup is not that much fun for anyone.

• The office of WvW Refugee Resettlement (ANet) will provide these visas free of charge because they accept responsibility for having permitted such a devastating war to occur in the first place. They will understand that compassion and a sense of responsibility for the innocent victims of such a matchup makes the implementation of the Refugee Resettlement Initiative the right thing to do. (some sarcasm, but not entirely.)

Pro

• Players who desire to continue playing WvW will have an option – other than NOT playing at all, playing less, or leaving the game – to continue to play on another server for the week. Refugees could at least flee WITHIN the boundaries of WvW rather than leaving it.

• Players who accept temporary resettlement will have the benefit of experiencing WvW play in a new ‘country’ with new friends, and in a different tier from their current matchup, with the goal being that they find a place to be able to continue to play for the week.

• Depending on the design and implementation of scoring and Skirmish rewards, the temporary resettlement may make rewards accessible to players of this matchup, which otherwise may have been unachievable.

Con:

• Entire guilds may not be able to resettle onto the same server. However, given that members of these guilds may otherwise be sitting out the week, this seems a small drawback. And, given that this is an optional resettlement, guilds who are concerned can choose not to resettle.

• The implications toward the next week’s matchup will have to be addressed. This is the case, regardless, as this matchup screams that there are underlying challenges that have to be addressed.

Thoughts?

Current base game mode mechanics encourages & fosters…what I’ll term 800 pound Gorilla in the room effect.

We need to change the base game mode mechanics to directly fix this issue.

Implementing a Refugee Resettlement Initiative only re-creates the 800 pound Gorilla somewhere else & the cycle repeats.

WvW Communities are slated for dysfunction unless they’re on the 800 pound Gorilla world.

We really need the right vision & developer guiding us to a future that encourages & fosters Long Term Communities & Healthy Competitive game play…instead of what we have now…imho

There’s a better vision available…imho

just have fun
#muchrespectforfellowyellowasians

Maybe HoD should just get better. That AIR guild with RD Q a map. Our text pugs farm them. It’s a learn to play issue.

There is an alternate forum for posts like these @jamesdolla. This thread is for discussion of possible solutions to situations like the one discussed.

Please don’t railroad this thread when an outlet for that type of post already exists. Thanks!

I wouldn’t mind this idea since it would give us more fights. It does not help the server getting beat though. They just become dependent on a bail out. Too carebear. It’s like me saying pve raids are too hard send help!

Pensadora.9478:

There is an alternate forum for posts like these @jamesdolla. This thread is for discussion of possible solutions to situations like the one discussed.

Please don’t railroad this thread when an outlet for that type of post already exists. Thanks!

So you want an overly complex server guesting program that draws players from individual servers, which hurts their servers btw, to play on other servers?

You really need to see the flaws in your thinking here.

@ Swagger.1459 – Actually, I would just like population balance and non-trollable matchmaking, but yea… probably seriously flawed from that aspect!

As for hurting other servers, how is this so? During the initiated refugee program, other servers would benefit by an influx of refugees, and they would not be able to overstay their visas.

Pensadora.9478:

As for hurting other servers, how is this so? During the initiated refugee program, other servers would benefit by an influx of refugees, and they would not be able to overstay their visas.

I can’t tell if you are trying to troll here or not. Beyond the fair weathering, with links the servers don’t really have massive population differences. Even in T1 beyond reset there isn’t often more than one map queued.

If you dump a bunch of new people onto a server you’ll queue the natives off the map.

If anything they should offer a guild upgrade that allows the winning server to fight for the last place server for a night, that way it is more likely to restore the moral rather than have a group who can’t maintain their own server show up

Pensadora.9478:

@ Swagger.1459 – Actually, I would just like population balance and non-trollable matchmaking, but yea… probably seriously flawed from that aspect!

As for hurting other servers, how is this so? During the initiated refugee program, other servers would benefit by an influx of refugees, and they would not be able to overstay their visas.

If players fight for different servers they are not helping their own server right?

key words from you… “other servers would benefit”… not the players home servers.

WvW would not be healthy with a “free for all” server guesting design.

Getting discouraged over ppt in 2017??

To think we could farm you so badly that you literally want to seek refuge in another server LMAO.

Anet plz ignore this thread.

I’m having difficulty taking this thread seriously with terms like Visas and Refugees flying about. Also, why is this in Q&A format?

That said, I think your proposal would have a detrimental effect by validating server stacking instead of taking steps to prevent it in the first place.

Swagger.1459:

If players fight for different servers they are not helping their own server right?

key words from you… “other servers would benefit”… not the players home servers.

WvW would not be healthy with a “free for all” server guesting design.

Yep. It was a long post. I’ll give you that. But at the top, a mere three bullet points down, I note the fact that these matchups result in players NOT playing AT ALL, much less for their home server. So, if the refugee is able to visit another zone for some WvW play, at least they are playing, and playing WvW.

To make it really easy, I added some pictures as well. Please refer to image #3, which shows clearly how much the players are playing for their home servers in this matchup.

Not sure where the idea came from that I was suggesting a “free for all” server guesting design, but then I wasn’t able to provide pictures for every point, so at some point it is required to actually read the proposal.

expandas.7051:

I’m having difficulty taking this thread seriously with terms like Visas and Refugees flying about..

Fair enough. I tend to look for other real life parallels for solutions to challenges, because they can oftentimes point to a solution. The way the world community addresses untenable situations created by civil wars, and the resulting fleeing of conflict to shelter in bordering countries, had me thinking about these incredibly unbalanced matchups in a similar way.

Also, why is this in Q&A format?

The post is in question format because I’m asking for thoughts about this proposal. And ends with a question: “Thoughts?” Because I am asking those reading these forums to engage in a discussion of this problem and suggested alternative(s).

That said, I think your proposal would have a detrimental effect by validating server stacking instead of taking steps to prevent it in the first place.

If I could have my preference, these kinds of matchups would never occur. However, we do know that they have occurred prior to this example matchup and they are likely to reoccur again. I’m suggesting the implementation of a fallback option that would give players some different alternatives than these:

• don’t play for the week, or play less
• be a bag farm for the dominant server while being told to ‘getgudder’
• try to overcome the situation – please refer to the image attached.

And, we have yet to see what the implications will be to improved ‘rewards for Skirmishes’ when they become available.

If an unreasonably balanced matchup, like this one, occurs again, why would we accept as reasonable that the players on 2 servers should be forced out of play in WvW, and the players on the dominant server be so bored with their competition that they resort to using open field siege, trebs, and dragon banners- all very demeaning to their skill level. In fact, why let their skills lie dormant for an entire week?

Why not provide an alternative to all the players to have some form of fun, WvW play that has a semblance of reasonableness for that week? This is what my proposal is suggesting – an alternative which may also help some other servers in a future unfortunate matchup, which has a higher chance of recurring than that of prevention of server stacking.

Pensadora.9478:

Swagger.1459:

If players fight for different servers they are not helping their own server right?

key words from you… “other servers would benefit”… not the players home servers.

WvW would not be healthy with a “free for all” server guesting design.

Yep. It was a long post. I’ll give you that. But at the top, a mere three bullet points down, I note the fact that these matchups result in players NOT playing AT ALL, much less for their home server. So, if the refugee is able to visit another zone for some WvW play, at least they are playing, and playing WvW.

To make it really easy, I added some pictures as well. Please refer to image #3, which shows clearly how much the players are playing for their home servers in this matchup.

Not sure where the idea came from that I was suggesting a “free for all” server guesting design, but then I wasn’t able to provide pictures for every point, so at some point it is required to actually read the proposal.

I understand what you are requesting. My simplified points still stand.

Nothing you are suggesting fixes any of the core population problems and gets more players playing this game mode. Understand?

I think you may be on to something, but have it all backward. Instead of having free refuge passes for the outmanned servers, you should have “mercenary” passes so that people in stale matchups could get a chance at fun fights. That way certain guilds wouldn’t end up in EotM in total boredom. I know this wouldn’t give you the “out” you wanted, but perhaps the mercenaries you get might help you to find your fighting spirit again.

Well, don’t like the suggestion as it stands, as the net effect is that the match-up ends up with a pile of servers on server “leading”, and no players on servers “losing”. So you’ll end up with an entire server that is winning also wanting to move around.

Basically you’re saying that they should effectively shut down one entire Tier for a week. And the effect they might have on another tier, could potentially shut down another Tier as well.

Using the same idea, but trying to minimize the number of people thrown around, ends me up at a request I’ve seen thrown around the forum several times in the past:

Combine the Queue system and match the numbers of the teams.

If Server A has 50, B has 40, and C has 20. Set limit to 40 (B). Throw anyone else trying to join A into Queue, and let them click a button to guest at a random other server that is losing (and a slight volunteer bonus).

Effect: Server A+B will have roughly same number of players on the map, and anyone stuck in the Queue, can play mercenaries on other servers that needs the help.

People are still going to be ticked off that they can’t get into THEIR server, as per usual. But at this stage I’m starting to wonder if WvW players aren’t just permanently ticked in the first place, so might not make a difference.

Personally I don’t think the server structure will ever work, but it is too much work and resources for them to change it. So we’re stuck with what we got.

@Ann Jay, that’s a great twist. Like it! And, if it’s only for a week – why not?
Could mix things up a bit, with the Committees on Refugee setting boundaries on movements.

@joneirikb.7506 Yep. Interesting proposal. Thanks for sharing that.

I have seen this before and with some stubborn commander and a good group, you can take back your EB corner in few hours – especially if you have some contacts in the other server being ‘occupied’ and coordinate the attacks at the same time.

It’s a challenge.