Guild Wars 2

I think a better system would be to introduce some way to have a large portion of the points, come from what happens when every side has a large population online and playing.

So for example you could make a supply came worth 1 point, but if everyone on the map was at max population it could be worth 5 or maybe 10.

Or if that negatively impacts a light night population too much, you could try something else. Like an event that only activates when large populations are fighting and this event would give a large amount of points.

Benjamin.6235:

Eliteseraph.4970:

Or if you absolutely can’t tear yourself away from the game, spend the rest of the week talking to your server and getting ready for next time. Look at the situation and ask yourself and your server: “How do we get better for next time?”

We get better by waiting for ArenaNet to match us up against a server that doesn’t have at least five times our numbers at night and still more numbers during the day.

Man, I can’t even begin to quote the rest of your post. You are horribly naive if you think this isn’t just about numbers. People don’t mind losing games where they at least had a chance. These numbers at night? There is absolutely zero chance, and you either have no experience with it or you’re lying to say otherwise.

I dont even think losing is the issue. If you have played an MMO with this type of PvP before you should have had SOME experience in losing because you were outnumbered.

The problem is that a server who dominates another server when they are on, can get destroyed in points just because they dont have an around the clock population. It just kind of makes points meaningless which makes WvW kind of meaningless, since it already lacks a final objective.

Eliteseraph.4970:

Technically “winning” in WvW comes down to which serve can maximize their strengths and exploit the weaknesses of the other two. In this particular instance(and on several other servers) that means using their off hours population effectively to exploit the lack of resistance.

If server A has a zerg of 40 people, they can choose to send it off to find another zerg of 40 people. This would be fair, right? Or they can choose to find a spot with 5 people, and utterly destroy them, then move on. Which do you think is more likely to result in a win for server A?

Server B only has 5 people to work with. They can choose to send it off to fight a zerg of 40 people. This would be stupid and pointless, right? Or they can choose to get out of the way of the 40 man zerg and attack somewhere useful, like back area camps or the jumping puzzle where they’re more likely to encounter equal numbers.

Server A is going to try to put themselves in the situation to smash the 5 people as often as possible. Server B is going to try to avoid that as much as possible. The ‘skill’ comes down to who’s better at getting what they want.

Server B’s five people aren’t going to be able to hold the map against the kinds of odds people are describing when they’re matched against such a huge night crew, no matter what they do. That’s a given. But that doesn’t mean they can’t do anything at all. They’re still fighting to give their day crew as much assistance as possible, and to hold on to as much score as possible despite the odds.

Maybe they’re successful and they hold on to a bit more than expected. Maybe they’re not and the day crew logs on to find they’ve lost everything. But you know what? That’s warfare, not warfair.

And yes, the proper response is to get your own night crew organized to maximize as much of situation B as you can. Recruiting people from other servers is one option. Getting your existing night people as massively geared and coordinated is another.

Either that or resign yourself to the fact that you were up against a superior server, and save your strength and effort for the next week when you’re matched against servers closer to your own. That’s a hard pill to swallow, I know. But in the long run it will serve you and your server better than complaining on the forums.

Maybe it isn’t fun for some people to fight a losing battle. No one likes to “lose”. But where is it written that every aspect of the game must be fun for every single person every hour of the day? Or that every single WvW match must be absolutely perfectly matched? Once you get past the idea of thinking and complaining about how it should be, you can start thinking about maximizing the situation you do have. And if you don’t want to deal with it at all, then sPVP is actually a lot of fun too, you know!

Furthermore, the matchups are only a week long. But people are acting like losing this way is the end of their gaming career for all time. That their server and their fun are ruined forever, never to be regained.

Good god, people. It’s a week! Go outside, play some PVE, try a different game, watch a movie. Or if you absolutely can’t tear yourself away from the game, spend the rest of the week talking to your server and getting ready for next time. Look at the situation and ask yourself and your server: “How do we get better for next time?”

And do yourself a favor and think in terms of your entire server, not just the few hours of the day that you personally play.

Technically winning is who ever has the highest score at the end of a match up. If this is heavilly influenced by a server who has people on when other servers dont, its bad game design. If its not a factor, there is no problem.

Dont quote me and then act like I am overreacting to the situation. I dont lose a moments sleep over bad games, its you who are sensationalizing peoples comments.

I understand they its not an easy fix. People want to be able to play the game whenever they are on, so you cant really dumb down there experience just to fit into the schedule of people who dont play as much.

I can think of a few games systems off the top of my head that would solve this problem and I dont get paid to do that. These people do, so they either did or should have seen this coming. At this point its not really realistic to implement something new so people will either have to deal with it or move on.

Its POSSIBLE with match making that this will eventually become a non-issue. I dont think it will go away but its possible. All of that said, whenever a win or loss comes down to just having people on when the other team doesnt, its bad game design. Do with that information what you will.

Their solution is to match servers with similar population with each other. Which if they succeed, might make the game enjoyable for most servers. However it doesnt really fix the problem that this shouldnt be the deciding factor.

They should find some way to base the majority of scoring around some type of event that occurs when all servers have max populations. Like big open field battles or keep takes with more than 20 people defending, stuff like that.

Hix.8925:

What kills a game faster than anything is when a game stops being fun. This game stopped being fun when the sole determining factor for success turned out to be “how many Aussies are on your server.” It’s not players’ job to give Anet time to fix their game (especially when the last official post on this issue was that this situation is working as intended). It’s Anet’s job to give us a game that’s worth playing.

This is pretty much it. The players responsibility is to play the game if they enjoy it. They can give the designers the courtesy of telling them the games faults. Then its really up to the designers what they do with that information. What they do will determine the success of the game.

If they do nothing the game may lose lots of people. If they decide to fix it, but take their time, they will lose however many people they lose.

Players have no obligation to play a game they dont enjoy because the designers havent provided them with a game they dont think is fun.

mangocheesecake.1487:

I think the main reason for the unbalance is theres 4 top servers yet the matchups are in a group of 3… so the one left over ultimately goes to beat up another 2 servers really badly, and so on. If you take one of the top 4 out of the equation, the match ups would suddenly get a lot more balanced.

by points, so you can see where exactly the gaps are:

2141.559 Henge of Denravi
———-108
2033.824 Stormbluff Isle
———-57
1976.901 Jade Quarry
———-53
1923.441 Eredon Terrace
———-206
1717.738 Isle of Janthir
—-——5
1712.107 Sea of Sorrows
—-——21
1696.698 Crystal Desert
———-53
1643.959 Gate of Madness
———-8
1635.193 Blackgate
———-9
1626.448 Dragonbrand
———-49
1577.574 Tarnished Coast
———-57
1520.354 Maguuma
———-10
1510.545 Fort Aspenwood
———-46
1464.862 Sorrow’s Furnace
———-30
1434.666 Sanctum of Rall
———-20
1414.552 Darkhaven
—-——3
1411.704 Yak’s Bend
—-——12
1399.474 Anvil Rock
———-19
1380.043 Ehmry Bay
—-——276
1104.276 Borlis Pass
———-24
1080.276 Ferguson’s Crossing
———-6
1074.472 Northern Shiverpeaks
———-241
833.028 Devona’s Rest
———-199
634.207 Kaineng

Maybe ANet could try having HoD fight DR and Kaineng for a week, just to see if that suddenly makes the rest of the matchups more balanced.

Ultimately I think either 2 more servers will emerge as strong WvW servers, so we have 6 servers closer to each other in the top 2 tiers… or one server in the top 4 will dismantle and there will be 3 top servers in the top tier.

I dont really know where you are getting your information, but total points ever isnt going to provide good match ups.

For instance, Yaks Bend is crushing Darkhaven and Anvil and it has a lot to do with the fact they have a more round the clock population.

If off peak hours are the deciding factor thats how they should be matching servers up, but like I said that doesnt really fix the fact that its bad game design to have that be the deciding factor.

mcl.9240:

What kills games faster than anything is a bunch of impatient people running around saying the game is dying simply because they don’t want to wait for the matchmaking system to play out as intended.

If you don’t want to wait for the matchmaking system to settle into a stable configuration of server groupings, then suggest a viable alternative that allows arenanet to accurately determine reasonable groupings. Provide support above and beyond, “I think this will work”. This support should entail a fair bit of math (as that’s what went into deciding on the existing matchmaking system).

And since you’re worried that protracted annealing will drive people away from the game, your solution should be a one-shot fix.

If they pay me I will tell them exactly how to fix their problem and take responsibility for it. Until then I will point it out just in case they arent sure.

The idea that matchmaking will solve anything, is a story they concocted for obedient rubes like yourself. Even if it did make a more enjoyable experience for everyone it would do anything to fix any underlying problems.

If you posses any amount of congnitive ability, it should not be hard for you to deduce problems with a game without the game designers telling you what they are. You can agree with me or disagree with me and support yourself all you want, but dont tell me we are incapable of knowing what the real problems are. Thats a BS argument that might work for you, but people who actually enjoy thinking may not be satisfied by it.

As far as games dying, it isnt really important if people are right or wrong for deciding not to play any more. What should be important is identifying the reasons and doing what you can to rectify them. That is, if you want a healthy population playing your game.

There are 2 issues that stem from this “problem”.

The first is the progress thats made during off peak hours. The problem is there is no end, the point of WvW is just to hold everything. If there were some end result you could aim for, once achieved, you could consider reseting all of the objectives to start over. Thats a different system though, with the way things are there is no real fix.

The second is that scoring is based off of holding things. If you have a large team on with no real opposition it is very easy to hold more for longer. This could be fixed in the current system. You would need to find a way to have the majority of scoring come from some type of event that happens during peak hours.

So with the way the game is designed the OP is right, there isnt much you can do to fix the bad system. But the problem is easily pointed out, “winning” in WvW comes down to which side is better during off peak hours.

Matching up servers with more active populations seems like a band aid for a bigger problem.

“Over the coming months” “But some people are too impatient” A game can lose a lot of people and possibly die in that amount of time.

But thats not really my point, since I dont even know if there is a possible fix. We dont need data to see that worlds with more people are doing better than worlds with less.

The issue is that scoring and progress are easy when you have people on and another side doesnt. I dont think you can fix progress, how can you stop people from taking objectives without anyone on? But you might be able to fix scoring by somehow incentivizing things that would take place during peak hours.

If a good amount are I dont know if thats designer or what a solution would be. It just seems like a glairing design flaw.

I dont think you are ever going to get constant match ups with worlds that are equally as active all of the time. I think a fix needs to come in the form of 1 server sleeping while another is awake doesnt make all of the difference.

Obviously balance is a big issue in any game and it is easier said then done. I just dont know how well a game will do, when worlds are being competitive during peak hours only to come back the next day and literally lost everything.

People that have had bad luck with their gearing being dependant on RNG might prefer token based system of gearing.

If the rate at which you gear doesnt matter to you, or you have had good luck with RNG, you might not like it as much.

Its not rocket science.

I had to switch from a staff to a GS on a Mesmer.

The flaws are exacerbated for me by the fact that I have had the TA tokens vanishing from my inventory little by little.

I have done TA exp 3 times and yesterday I had 75 Deadly Blooms. Today I logged on and only had 20. After wondering what happened for a while I started questioning how I had 75 after doing the whole thing 3 times anyway.

I have purchased nothing and this only happens to my Deadly Blooms, every other dungeon I have lost no tokens.

Dungeons are fine(except for my vanishing tokens?). However I have a problem with the downed state in every aspect of the game outside of WvW.

Specifically to dungeons, I think its horrible that killing gets you up. In TA you just have to kill one of those poison plants and you are back up and fighting.

Was the dungeon designed with that in mind? If so its really bad if you ask me, because it makes the whole thing trivial.

8 days until dungeons that work I suppose.

I had 75 Blooms when I logged out earlier and now I have 20. I have done TA on explorer 3 times, so when I think about it, should I have had 90?

I have bought nothing and never had this problem with any other dungeon token.

Anyone else experienced this or have any insight on whats happening?

I run the same weapons about 80% of the time in WvW. The Warden is a little too stationary for small group engagements though, I prefer a pistol.