Guild Wars 2

How about implementing a queue to balance populations by time brackets? You join a server with a prime time closest to your play time. Queues are set to never allow a server to outnumber the lowest populated server in the match by 10% at any given time.

Give players information stats on play periods (ie full, medium, low) for each time period on servers so they can make a decision before joining.

Give one free transfer per player. Rank guilds by number of players and play time. Allow only so many guilds to transfer based on guild ranking per time slot. Allow guilds to move to selected servers first then base population ratings on that.

Server stacking is the main problem this game is facing and I think working out this will provide the most benefit for all players.

If this can be achieved then :
a) match variety will increase.
b) more competitive matches will occur.
c) player participation will increase because of the above.

How about give them their own league? Set servers according to player ip location…..then you can set up match ups according to server location. Sure players could try to spoof their ip but why pay the extra to do so? This would solve many problems with lag and “night capping”, players wouldn’t be complaining about my night is your day etc……….as every player within that league would be more or less playing in the same time zone.

Rallying from from kills should be a buff given to outmanned servers as well as increased supply carrying capabilities…..

How to determine who is an outmanned server?

Look at over all PPT scores apply accordingly. A server loosing by a large margin is definitely undermanned and should get this boost to try and even the odds, its funny how the developer has not instilled any population balancing system to create more even matches……

It to me is the main issue with this game and all other things would fall into place if they can get a grip on this issue.

The ideas I posted above is to try to curb “server stacking” as a means to get easy wins. If giving more teeth to the UM buff is not a satisfactory option then reducing what an undermanned server needs to protect allows those people playing on those servers to concentrate on offense and not get “PVD’ed” into a point deficit which can’t be overcome.

I Believe it would lead to more pvp action as weaker servers are not forced to spread so thin that they have no chance of winning, thus give up playing that week.

Server stacking would be discouraged by forcing those servers into defensive play only. Sure they may still win but the matches should be closer and Karma trains will be eliminated.

You could place a “lock” such as indefinite righteous indignation on tower, keep, supply camps on the servers fighting undermanned and change the scoring system a little.

For example, You can only score points for you own objectives you hold and defend not from other servers objectives. This would limit PPT gains to any single server to a maximum if they held all their properties. They can reduce opponents PPT by destroying (capturing) rival server objectives.

This would make defending your own property just as important as raiding.

When operating Undermanned certain objectives gain immunity from raiding making it easier for the less populated servers to defend their territories (no more PVD because of lack of coverage). Servers who have more players have more targets open to attack so must actively defend more or face losing more ppt.

The determining factor for objective immunities should be based on population counts and overall PPT score.

Lead score server gets no immunity.

2nd place server gets maximum of 50% objectives immune per map.

3rd place server gets maximum of 75% of objective immune per map.

Population differences based on all wvw maps (total player count) determine what percentage is given.

The resulting changes would ensure that the weakest server is not double teamed by the stronger ones and make defending much more important. (eg. you can’t gain more ppt by raiding the weaker server you can only win a match by hitting the leader while defending your territory.)

This will ensure that the strongest server is targeted the most while preventing PVD score blowouts.

P.s. In order for an objective to gain immunity it has to be “owned” by the Undermanned server (meaning you can’t abandon the maps as a server to recapture objectives without effort)

Jski.6180:

Jaytee.9513:

Jski.6180:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

All suggestions are bad the best thing ppl seem to be able to think of is simply give ppl more rewards and items that means nothing to pvp players.

There is simply no fix for population balancing for all worlds players will go where they want even if it cost them. This is the only true way to population balance its up to the players NOT anet.

Yes its true that players need to contribute to population balance, which is why I mentioned human psychology……its human nature to find the path of least effort for the largest gain. Not saying that all people think this way ( There are people who are altuistic who look for the benefit of the majority as a priority) but the average person will not put in alot of effort if there is no return of some kind (ie reward, which could be a variety of things to different people).

Compare the pros and cons of being on a stacked server against an unmanned server then tell me where you want to be?

Tell me is it fun to fight against an opponent which overwhelms you constantly with shear numbers?

What do you gain for putting all that effort when fighting another team at a disadvantage?

Perhaps if you can answer these questions honestly you can understand why players are getting frustrated and just out right quit playing (which is really bad for all players in any MMORPG).

Its what developers need to ask themselves when designing a game with PvP in mind.

Its not a pro or con issues its just what will happen.

Some times yes and ppl do move to the worlds where this happens. Though if the pvp is active on one world it tends to be active on the other 2 or will become active in time or some other world will replaces it.

A feeling of overcoming odds? This is wvw your not doing this for rewarded most ppl are not doing it for ppt even (beyond staying in that T). Its all for fun at the end of the day that what makes a pvp players over a pve player.

Unless your asking Anet to start focesing ppl to move and stay on worlds its not going to be up to Anet how the population balances out.

Let see how you like to play on undermanned server now? Server stacking is a big problem and Anet needs to address it to provide competitive matchups.

JaeleCt.3967:

how about no? forcing a 2v1 through some bullkitten mechanic is nonsense.

How about everyone playing on an Undermanned server just quit so stacked ones can go play with themselves?

Jski.6180:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Wow, there are some really terrible suggestions in this thread.

So many of these ideas would make it unreasonably difficult to play with friends or guildies. It is as if some of you prefer to destroy communities for personal convienances.

Not to mention one of the fact less accusatory assumptions here.

All suggestions are bad the best thing ppl seem to be able to think of is simply give ppl more rewards and items that means nothing to pvp players.

There is simply no fix for population balancing for all worlds players will go where they want even if it cost them. This is the only true way to population balance its up to the players NOT anet.

Yes its true that players need to contribute to population balance, which is why I mentioned human psychology……its human nature to find the path of least effort for the largest gain. Not saying that all people think this way ( There are people who are altuistic who look for the benefit of the majority as a priority) but the average person will not put in alot of effort if there is no return of some kind (ie reward, which could be a variety of things to different people).

Compare the pros and cons of being on a stacked server against an unmanned server then tell me where you want to be?

Tell me is it fun to fight against an opponent which overwhelms you constantly with shear numbers?

What do you gain for putting all that effort when fighting another team at a disadvantage?

Perhaps if you can answer these questions honestly you can understand why players are getting frustrated and just out right quit playing (which is really bad for all players in any MMORPG).

Its what developers need to ask themselves when designing a game with PvP in mind.

Kamara.4187:

Not a bad idea, but sadly I’m sure someone will figure out a way to exploit it.

It maybe true that game mechanics could be exploited, but when posting suggestions I try to think how it could be exploited then adjust accordingly.

I feel you would need to place your server at a disadvantage in order to activate this mechanic (fall behind by a considerable score), only to catch up to have the 2v1 dissolve.

This mechanic I suggested is to keep the scores and gameplay more balanced. We may actually create a match up with more competition without radically changing programming code.

Its the same as my other post suggesting a rank buff earned while playing Undermanned.

People need a reward to participate while at a disadvantage or no one will play on an Undermanned server…..thus we have a serious problem with dying wvw servers.

Here is another suggestion to make matchups more competitive. Its a pretty simple one that may have been suggested before and it may even help spread player population.

Create a 2v1 scenario once lead server has created a gap in the PPT score.
The 2 weaker servers can only attack the strongest when there is a large gap in score.

The alliance will dissolve after scores become closer. The gap between scores could be set at 10K point difference to prevent blow-outs and create more competitive scores between servers.

Once that gap is achieved an alliance is made between the two weaker servers for a period of time to help them reclaim territory against the strongest. This will force an Undermanned situation on lead server giving the weaker servers a chance to “weaken” the structures on the strongest server.

wyther.8372:

I personally prefer some type of Points bonuses and regulations. They could start at like 30k. For instance:

If a server is up by 30k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 15%
If a server is up by 31k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 16%
If a server is up by 32k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 17%
If a server is up by 50k points it sees a reduction in wexp and kharma by 35% plus it suffers +10% vulnerability per hit to all towers and keep walls + gates.

The system could scale up as the Points margin widens. Conversely the losing server/servers could gain bonuses at the same time.

If you are down by 30K points you gain a 15% wexp and kharma bonus
If you are down by 31k points you gain a 16% wexp and kharma bonus
and henceforth as illustrated above.

I am just using this as a very quick example…obviously you could input anything you want as a bonus and negative. Thus it can be used and implemented more easily with the outnumbered buff which could still remain.

This would get more people out until the bonus wears off and it is not as profitable for people to come out. Might get a few more people interested and get those out who would like to participate, but would never go to WvW due to being facerolled by a server they have no chance against. A least their is a real incentive to WvW.

Anyway, just thoughts off the top of my head without really putting much thought into it.

If you call gaining Karma an incentive…….Its more like a joke. Any player can goto EOTM and gain karma way faster than in WvW. Most players I know don’t go to wvw to karma train objectives.

Deli.1302:

People still stack servers for easy wins?

People stack servers that are active. It’s not their fault anet refuses to accept that game populations always decline over time and servers need to be closed.

Look at the WVW tournements for an example about players stacking for the win.

A balanced match up will alway produce more active players than one that is a blow out, because its more competitive.

Being badly outnumbered in a match is not fun unless you like running your character from spawn to action every few minutes.

What I am pointing out in this suggestion is that players who play in this type of scenario should be rewarded (ie gaining rank points which buff you while you are outmanned and losing in point score). Why should players put in effort if they get nothing but stomped on for the enjoyment of a stacked population?

This may encourage more players to migrate to a Undermanned server to get stronger or gain achievements.

I am suggesting this as a means to promote activity while your server is Undermanned and losing badly.

I really can’t see the issue here with trying to implement this as a means to promote better gameplay in WvW.

Dawdler.8521:

Jaytee.9513:

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

I don’t think you read the whole thing…..in order to get the buff two criteria had to be met.

1) you need to be undermanned on that map.
2) your server has to be losing in the point score.

Fairness is a relative term. The situation you described above is the same situation if an outmanned server player ran into the numerous gank squads of the “stacked” server. Is that fair?

No, its not fair. That was exactly my point. Its not fair in any scenario.

Getting a player buff would not change the PPT situation either – the enemy server outmanning would still be highly likely to win even if the outmanned server gets a buff on an outmanned border. It wont matter for the matchup. I still think that buffing players is the wrong way to go when its the PPT system that is flawed.

Look at it from this perspective…….The players on an “Under-Manned” server face this “unfair” situation at a higher probability rate that those on a “Stacked” server.

Giving a buff to those fighting a Stacked server would even out that probability, give an incentive to participate and achieve rewards for fighting against the odds and create a more competitive wvw experience for all servers.

Boosting PPT earnings does not mean competitive balance. The players on Under-manned servers will still get sent back to spwan at a much higher percentage than those on a stacked server. Is it fun getting rolled at every corner because you fight against overwhelming odds?

Winning through “Stacking” servers should be minimized and discouraged to create more entertaining and competitive matches. That’s the bottom line IMHO.

UnderManned servers need in system mechanic to encourage participation when fighting stronger opponents or wvw will die a slow painful death…..

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with the OP suggestion is that it would be extremely unfair in a snapshot situation. If 2 buffed players (because the server is loosing badly) meet 1 unbuffed player (because he has the misfortune of being on the winning server) then that 1 player will be miffed. Because its unfair. He was outmanned, he didnt stand a chance with them buffed. Why should he be penalized?

Personally I still believe WvW is in dire need of some sort of PPT equalizer system instead to balance it. We see many servers that has insane PPT during nights or when there are no players on a border, then the same servers get absolutely roflstomped in primetime (or at the very least fought on equal terms). Problem is, the other servers will have zero chance to reach them in PPT. 7 nights of PPT >>>>> 3 hours of PPT. Simple.

Its not the nightcap on its own that’s the bad thing, its purely a matter of PPT difference. It need to be capped somehow – both low and high. Equalized.

I don’t think you read the whole thing…..in order to get the buff two criteria had to be met.

1) you need to be undermanned on that map.
2) your server has to be losing in the point score.

Fairness is a relative term. The situation you described above is the same situation if an outmanned server player ran into the numerous gank squads of the “stacked” server. Is that fair? With the current system in place the outmanned players will face the situation far more than players on a stacked server thus discouraging participation. This buff system would even out the playing field and incentivize playing while undermanned as that is the only way to rank up those buffs.

I don’t know the ratios of when UM buff turns on but when it does it means you are severely outnumbered on that map. The players on the stacked server would have to adjust strategies (ie run more in larger groups etc.) to compensate because they have the resources to do so (more players on map). Outmanned servers cannot do so because they have limited numbers (thus the buff). See my point?

Jski.6180:

Sube Dai.8496:

The op’s suggestion is quite logical, and has been suggested many times before, but anet went ahead and introduced the exact opposite with borderlands bloodlust.

When you do things like that you start to punishes ppl who do have server loyalty.

It something that you cant truly fix with out comply going away from RvR altogether and making int more of an open pvp zone. Its something you need to deal with if your world has dead time zones there is nothing you can do about it as a player. Just enjoy the game as you can and try to get past ppt.

I would like to think this is something beyond PPT, it about enjoying competitive game play.

Would you like being forced on a team that has half the numbers of your opponent?

I think not, unless you have something to gain from such a matchup, which is something that I am suggesting to encourage more player participation in a mismatch.

Perhaps you feel FA (with a pretty large wvw player base) would not gain an advantage through such a system so you are against it. Its human nature to think like that and I can relate to your thoughts.

Do you have any constructive suggestions other than forced server mergers or population map caps that could help balance matchups?

I am trying to suggest possible solutions to this problem without forcing players to move if they don’t want to.

It just my thought that players need reasons to play on an underdog server, I think we can all agree on this point.

Server pride will not cut it unless one is a Masochist who likes running from spawn point to action every few minutes.

Its not really fun for the “Stacked” servers either because of the low competion factor, but I would assume players prefer to win all the time then get stomped all the time……thus player migration to servers who dominate their matches.

Giving underdog server players a reason to try and fight back (and gaining something from the effort) may help in creating a more competitive wvw model by creating a more balanced force not depending on player count ie. less player count equals more powerful players, offsetting the numbers advantage.

Its just human psychology that people want the least amount of effort for the greatest amount of reward……….Fix it so Effort = Reward and you may find people wanting to play on Underdog servers which in turn provides more competitive game play for all.

Its funny how every mmorpg with realm vs realm combat has this problem of population imbalances……

Game developers seem to ignore human psychology in addressing this problem and actually seem to encourage it (Maybe they think its lucrative considering how much players spend in $$$ to transfer servers).

If ANET wished to create a more broad solution (creating more balance server populations/matchup variety) they could look at implementing a ranking system which rewards playing on undermanned servers. As of now players naturally want to stack on winning servers because of easy wins (who wants to play when you have no chance at competing?)

Why not create wvw rank skills that can only be gained while playing undermanned and losing in the PPT score by a certain margin? (This would prevent manipulating the system to gain said abilities on “Stacked” servers)

Skills much like the vitality stacks or bloodlust stacks that only become available when your server is losing the PPT battle by a large margin. (This would prevent abuse of said abilities through manipulation of playing populations).

This system would foster population shifts to weaker servers allowing them to compete better and give current players on an undermanned server a reason to fight a stronger opponent.

Mismatched sessions may become welcomed as its hastens the ability to gain said ranks.

These “rank” abilities should also be server bound and reset once a player transfers to another server (This would reward loyalty to a community and prevent stacking a server once said ranks were gained).

This is a suggestion and open to comment and further improvement……..

They should tie in the speed of " auto upgrades " to the wvw scores making it very quick to upgrade objectives for servers being decimated on the score board. For example for every 10000 pt lead a server gains over its competition they slow down upgrades by 10% (1st place) while the others gain a +10% increase in upgrade speeds. This may help slow down a dominating server while bolstering the weaker servers leading to a more closer match up. When the point spread between servers decreases below a certain threshold the benefit stops.

You could also make being undermanned and being behind in points a pre-requisite for this buff if the above is deemed to unfair.

Helping the weaker servers is what ANET should be addressing not “helping” servers who are dominating their opponents. This is what game mechanics should do automatically. Balancing mechanics are too few this game where population numbers reign supreme………….

Remember what people were saying about Class balance? Gw2 is not meant to be played 1v1……….

Its why people tend to group up because certain classes are OP in 1v1 and ANET refuses to address these imbalances.

People who cry against zerging probably play cheese builds, without counter play in 1v1 battles……..

To prevent server manipulation of triggering buff or bounty a minimum participation level (objectives captured, hrs played in matchup, players killed etc) could be instilled so only players that meet them would gain the benefits…..

Or you could base bonuses or bounties based on each individuals effort (more objectives taken/players killed, higher bonus/bounty).

These buffs only apply to individual players when differences between warscore begin to rise.

I’m only looking to reward players who play on underpopulated servers during a match up. More effort should receive more rewards and playing underdog is extremely tiresome in my opinion.

LOL, this must be a bad joke…..Rewarding a stacked server even more?

Read my suggestions in “Outnumbered” serves no WvW benefits" post and tell me if that would help balance out disparities.

I believe we need to encourage the players on lower populated servers with reasons to put in an effort fighting against the odds………..

Even just placing a bounty (bonus on higher scored server’s objectives and player kills) can really help balance play between servers with mis-matched population, as weaker servers are encouraged to double team the lead nation.

Bounties can be in the form of wxp, drops, gold, and wvw scoreboard points with different amounts depending on how far ahead lead nation is in comparison to other servers. Lowest scoring server’s objectives should give only standard rewards to those who capture them.

Actually a buff given based on how far ahead a server is ahead of the others is more of a population balancing mechanism.

Once one server is ahead of the others by 10K ppt or more Undermanned buffs kick in to help the weaker servers even the match. Its tiresome to play a match that cannot be won, and it demoralizes players to see that its impossible to catch up.

Here’s an example of how these buffs would work……

Stage 1 (5k ahead)
RI camp and tower buffs for lead nation vanishes while RI duration increases for captured camps from Undermanned servers (length of increase is up to debate).
+33% more wxp
+33% more drops
+33% more rare magic drops
All kills (players and npc’s ) made upon leading servers count as ppt.
Capturing towers and keeps on lead nation gives bonus pts upon capture (50 for camp, 300 per tower, 500 per keep. Capturing upgraded objectives grants more per level of upgrade).

Stage 2 (10k-20k)
Double the buffs above.
Increase RI duration a little(on lowest scoring server).
2x pts for killing lead nation players
Double bonus points for capture objectives on leading servers.

Stage 3 (20k+)
+5 supply carry for lowest scoring server.
5 x pts for killing lead server players.
Triple bonus points for capturing objectives on leading servers.

This would help slow down a stacked server because it would force more to defend on that server, while encouraging more participation on the undermanned ones because effort to take objectives and fight lead server actually show on the scoreboard.

This buffs are only applied when point score leads reaches those thresholds and can be given to any server.

It would help prevent blow outs and the constant k-training of the weakest server in the match up while encouraging a team up on the lead nation.

Now, these suggestions don’t affect population advantages in combat but it does mitigate blow outs while rewarding players who participate in wvw on low pop servers.

what if you only got 5 people on every map?

Maybe they should tie-in WP with being the losing servers in the match up? Allowing servers who are being dominated an easier way to defend or attack?

Differences in PPT greater than 100-200 triggers a loss of WP ‘s for dominating side and WP’s being given to the losing servers. This forces the stacked server to spread forces around to defend bl’s and eternal.

Not complaining but just pointing that nothing is being done with addressing population stacking of servers GW2. People playing on Outmanned servers are not being treated fair imho because they have to work that much harder to gain wxp and ranks.

I feel this is wrong because of the stacked servers ability to dominate and gain wxp at a greater rate than those under-populated.

Note that some players have accumulated over 2000 levels (probably on some blob heavy karma training server) while others who play similar hours on undermanned servers gain far less.

Is this fair? ANET needs to address this disparity or players will just migrate to the servers who can dominate their tier……

Want to talk about power creep?

Well when you account bound WXP you exacerbate the problem and power differences become far greater……..

Just pointing out some issues that no one seemed to notice…….and you wonder why server stacking occurs and game population starts to dwindle?

I would like to see revealed being given whenever you spend initiative from a stealthed state…..Doesn’t it make sense?

No More self sustaining stealth blast finishers. If a thief wants longer stealth they need to blow a utility/heal in tandem with a stealth weapon skill. They could use it to escape but not constantly reset fights, which I feel is the major problem players are dealing with.

The elementalist described in burnfall’s post dies in1 sec vs most burst builds. Something that he apparently left out of the discussion, lol.

Zikory.6871:

Hi Charak,

You have a interesting complaint. If you would use your link and take a look at the SoR/BG/Mag match, as you can tell BG is winning, at times ticking 300-400+ most the match. While mag doesn’t have the population to win, Mags guilds and players are out there fighting hard. Just a few moments before this post, Mag had BG pushed back to Vally in EBG (while our map is queued)

Your problem is expecting you can win the PPT game, with out coverage, you can not. You bring up balance? Both Anet and any WvW player will tell you, WvW is not balanced and won’t be any time soon. It’s up to you to make it fun, you say you’re a commander? Rally 20-30 regular people, train them, get better together. Get out there and fight, drop the “we can win the match” mentality because its (As SpehssMehreen said) a defeatist attitude.

Good luck

Says the player on the dominating server……….I really think its kinda disgusting that people tell others to enjoy a game they cannot win. For me its a has to be balance between effort and rewards……playing for fights but getting overwhelmed at every turn is NOT my idea of enjoyment, especially since those OP servers are getting more rewards for less effort.

Really the devs should take a stance and face this problem before the competition comes out or they will lose many players who feel they have been ignored and spitted on with this lack of empathy.

To all those players who feel playing a game when you have NO chance of winning is fun, don’t demean those vocal enough to say something is wrong with the game mode. Games are meant to be competitive where each match should not be determined before-hand and that would be the fun factor that most of us are looking for.

The more I look at this the more it screams just place a dynamic population cap on all the maps.

Total population of each server should be within a certain percentage of each other period. If one server starts having more players, queue starts and players get placed into queues if they switch maps. This way players can get moved out of wvw at the Undermanned servers whim (Undermanned server’s zerg moves map OP server has to move to defend) and balance the population.

Make transfers free for a while to let players move to a server they feel wont have queues.

A dynamic cap should have been in place at the start-up of the game to prevent this debacle we are now facing.

Perhaps they can build this into an OverManned debuff which prevents dead (not downed) from being rezzed. This would certainly help the outmanned servers greatly.

Basing this on totally population ratios (all 4 maps) would prevent manipulation.

Solstice.1097:

I’ve had several ideas and read all 20 pages of this post and here is my FINAL SOLUTION if it were up to me:

Phase I

Transfer system is the best place to start since it will be the easiest to fix, immediately making stacking less desirable and offering an incentive to de-stack.

Transfer fee = (9 – tier) x 300 gems. Transferring to tier 5 or lower comes with a “rebate” upon transfer. Rebate = (tier – 4) x 300 gems. Rebates can only be received by accounts active more than 90 days with no rebates in the previous 90 days, and only when transferring “down” one or more tiers. Transferring to tier 1 comes with a probation period where some WvW functionality is restricted for a period of time. It also comes with an option to undo the transfer and receive 50% of your gems back. Transfers, including “undo’s” take effect until the weekly reset following your transfer.

Phase II

Scoring change – no longer do you receive points for holding enemy structures. You only earn points for holding what is naturally yours. You win by capping enemy structures to deny their points, while holding your own. The game becomes more strategic and scores become visually closer. You still earn points for stomps, dolyaks, and sentry caps and these become a much bigger factor in the overall score. Currently they can be up to 30% or more of the score, under this system they would likely make up 50% or more. Bloodlust and dolyaks become potential game changers.

Phase III

Actual changes to the game mechanics.

Waypoint contesting mechanic is revised to allow 1 player every 12 seconds to use waypoints that are contested, however the waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the event ends, meaning there will not be a “split second” for everyone to spam in during a continuous siege. This allows people to slowly WP in and starting sieging up to try to slow down the enemy while the main force runs there. Previously you could wait 2.5 minutes and spam a 50-man zerg in. Now in 2.5 minutes you’ll have 12-13 people inside with the rest on the way.

Outmanned buff now allows you to see enemy players on your mini map within X range.

Zergs of 40+ even when not in combat create an orange troop icon on the map showing their location.

Other possible good ideas here!

I think your WP change favors the larger populations. The amount allowed in should be proportional to population difference. If defenders have a larger population at the time, less people have accesses to WP. However if defenders are UM they should have instant access to WP.

Batercus.6257:

TooBz.3065:

Batercus.6257:

DB I understand you want EB to take second, but do you really need 60+ to kill 20 people?

Honestly, 60+ to kill 20 has been going on since WvW began. Also, while I think I’ve seen DB ignore EB to take out CD, you can’t be sure. It could be that the close match up rallied EB’s defenses.

I’ve certainly been more anxious about it.

Well the fact that DB is leaving EB targets alone would point to the obvious. DB has no one on EBBL and has 70+ in ours with nothing to really take left. EB has suckled DB’s teet this whole matchup. This is just how this matchup has felt the whole week.

Sure, were you playing wednesday when ebay was ticking like 80-100 ppt?

With cd and db double teaming us? How do you think you overtook us on points?

Lol, they really need to change the game mechanics to force a double team on lead server when the point difference becomes too great, but thats another topic.

Morelia.6835:

Belorn.2659:

Morelia.6835:

Do not directly compare different classes.

Then how should different classes be compared for balance purposes?

Count the number of Elementalists in tournaments?

Count the number of times Elementalists is request in LFG by dungeon groups?

Count the number of Elementalists in wvw?

Count the number of Elementalists playing in sPvP?

Count the number of newly created Elementalists each month?

Count the number of Elementalists that finish high-end living story such as The Queen’s Gauntlet?

Doing so, the conclusion would be obvious. Consistently Buff every aspect of Elementalists until the point where Elementalists popularity reaches the average class, and then nerf every aspect of every other class until they too reach average popularty.

Thats the only way to no directly compare different classes traits and skills.

The point is that if you’re going to compare classes directly you might as well go “warriors have more base armor and health than elementalist regardless of builds, therefore they are clearly the better class in every possible respect”, which obviously isn’t true at all.
Elementalists may have issues in sPvP, but another class having a slightly better version of a similar trait is not likely to be the reason for that.

I think OP is comparing the amount of trait points needed and that fact that a adept level trait has more benefits than a master leveled one.

Probably bringing up the point because of the devs are using trait “level” as a reference to how powerful they should be……..

Sure it must have been mentioned but this must be a joke, Lol.

Grand Master minor trait Arcane Precision.

Skills have a chance to apply a condition on critical hits.
Chance on critical hit: 10%

Fire Attunement: Burning 1 s (328 damage)
Water Attunement: Vulnerability 10 s
Air Attunement: Weakness 3 s
Earth Attunement: Bleeding 5 s (213 damage)

Maybe they made a mistake and it supposed to be 10% chance per attack…….sounds pretty weak for a grand master minor.

With 50% crit chance it would process 5 times every 100 attacks.

Conncept.7638:

Raven.9603:

Conncept.7638:

Has to be grandmaster, not because the trait itself is powerful, but because Powerful Auras and Tempest Defense is such a good combo that it must require that rigid point investment. And Tempest Defense may be getting a buff on its ICD in december, which will only make Powerful Auras placement even more necessary.

explain? its not like ele’s are in a constant state of getting stunned/knocked/feared that tempest defense is really going to trigger often. its basically an extra shocking aura proc, which is hardly game changing.

A lot of PvP builds open with a stun. A bunker ele is going to be a frontrunner, most likely to be stunned at the opening, almost certain to be some time in the fight.

When that stun happens, that four second aura procs on five people. It causes two one second stuns per enemy if they attack, that’s up to ten seconds of enemy DPS gone. And the ICD is per enemy, so each enemy can proc a 1 second stun per ally they hit. In a five versus five, that’s fifty seconds of DPS lost. If he has a dagger and therefore a second SA, that’s up to 1:40 of DPS lost. And that’s a best-of situation for the enemy, if they see the aura pop, and don’t attack, they’re actually losing more DPS. If any members of the team are slotting +stun duration, they’re also losing more DPS.

And that is going from a 60s ICD down to 25 come December.

Ever heard of stability? Warriors and guardians have high stability access making this useless against them. Sure the auras may process but they won’t stun no one in a zerg with shout guardians. And warrior have 2 utilities with stability with both being stun breakers.

Almost every group will have guardians and warriors, lol.

Every elementalist needs easy access to protection given the low HP pool/Light armor. EA gave substantial uptime so if its almost necessary for most build hoping to last more than a few seconds in a fight.

If nerfs are still warranted, I feel buffing auras is one way to diversify builds. Maybe adding weakness/missile absorption counter for all auras would help surviabilty. Shocking aura is easily countered with stability and does nothing for projectiles, magnetic aura offers no protection from melee classes, fire aura is a joke in regards to defense, frost aura again no projectile protection.

This is why they should apply “revealed” whenever initiative is spent. No more perma stealthing………

Here are my thoughts:

Reasoning behind nerfing perma vigor: too many buffs based on dodging. Its like getting free boons with 1 key stroke with no cast time on a low cd.

Perma-stealth should be stopped by giving revealed everytime initiative is spent. No self-stacking. Thieves may utilize multiple utilities/heal that give stealth to stack but not use their own blast finisher to do so. This would definately stop the abuse of using stealth to reset fights (I strongly feel this is unfair to other classes). They may use it to run and escape but not continually harass.

I was wishing for having weapons assigned to attunement, having 3-4 weapons to choose from (1 two-handed/2 one-handed) or (2 sets of one-handed ones) then assigning each set to an attunement. When you switch attunement u switch weapon set.

Either that or conjure weapon utility which allow you to conjure a weapon according to your attunement.

These would help solve our ranged-lock skill set which hampers our combat.

style.6173:

Jaytee.9513:

Cactus.2710:

Solstice.1097:

style.6173:

Titan.3472:

Remove everyone from every servers. Rename 24 global servers (no more NA or EU but GLOBAL): make everyone choose a server after these change : implement a lower cap on population on every of these server. Start leagues. Here you have 24 random servers that have all equals chances. Next season repeat the same: remove everyone from servers, rename them all, etc…

This^^ With the exception of keeping NA and EU separate for lag reasons.

Remember, this is a thread about “World Population”. It needs to be even across servers. Right now it is not.

actually, this thread is less about fixing population imbalance, and more about addressing the problems it causes.

Then in my opinion this thread will be a waste of time. Just about every proposal I’ve seen to simply address the score imbalance caused by population imbalance would either be ineffective or could easily be abused. If we aren’t going to see some serious effort from ANet to equalize match populations then WvW is doomed and I will go find something else to do until EOS or some more intelligently crafted game comes out. You can equalize the score without fixing the population balance, but you can’t equalize the scope and entertainment value of the match without it. It’s that simple.

You need to look at the reasoning why people bandwagon or stack populations. If you don’t address those it will just re-occur. Look at my above post to see the problems a “faction” system could produce.

I feel for your frustration at unbalanced matchups ( I face them on a regular basis as well —-—>ehmry bay is my server) but Anet is trying to not alienate the large player base on tier 1 servers with longer queues (which I feel is the players own fault).

At least they are acknowledging the concerns and asking for feedback.

Wrong. Without touching world population (that would be a convenient name for a collaboration discussion), we are just putting a band aid on the problem. The only solution to keep servers balanced is to separate PvE server from WvW server. This way they can actively manage the cap of players on each server. That will force even numbers.

Without a “World Population” fix or discussion, people will always navigate to the winning server. That’s also the answer to why people bandwagon.

Not if rewards for steamrolling opponents are way less………

Nuzt.7894:

Jaytee.9513:

Cactus.2710:

Nuzt.7894:

The people who keep suggesting a handicap system or giving ppt bonuses are not gettingit. The score means nothing if your not having fun, getting steam rolled constantly by far superior numbers to the point where logging off is more enjoyable than playing is what needs to be fixed. Don’t kid yourselves you didn’t win because the ppt was tweaked, you still got your kitten handed to you by 2-5 X the number of players. Would it really make people happy to say " we were spawn camped for 7 days, but we won because the numbers up top said we did".

^this^ … and it discourages me immensely that so few posters here seem to get it. If the PPT and score adjustment advocates got their way WvW would still suck and they’d be back here again in a month to complain about how this server or that was manipulating their populations to affect the PPT, or how the score adjustments didn’t account for something, or some other such bullkitten. The ONLY way this game gets back to its premise of a large scale open world strategy-based PvP mode where the winner is determined by team work, communication, strategy, guile, cleverness, and skill is if ANet is willing to implement some scheme that balances the actual player populations during the majority of the match.

I have rather little hope that ANet will have the conviction to fix this, but even less so given the number of misdirected posts focusing on PPT bandaids instead of the surgery that’s really needed.

Not to sound argumentative but what are your suggestions for addressing the situation?

You have been pretty adamant about being against ppt adjustment saying that it could be manipulated (How if its based on a running average each hour?) or how its doesn’t change game play (You are still outnumbered….etc.).

The people making these suggestions are not looking for instant answers but long term solutions. Read my post above with an objective view and make points to why its bad or good, this is what this discussion is for: Idea generation and player input on suggested fixes.

Every suggestion will have positives and negatives to it.

Please remember that major changes require major re-work in coding (eg. may take months to implement) which I feel is too long to let slide but that is just my opinion.

I have posted my suggestion, I’ve put up the video to my suggestion and while it may not be what everyone wants it does address all the issues in WvW and doesn’t mess with PPT at all. Sure its not what everyone wants, the suggestion everyone agrees with will never happen. I think my part of his quote was pretty clear, PPT does not make unbalanced matches fun for the server(s) getting steam rolled. PPT is just a number at the top of your screen, it doesn’t make fights more enjoyable, it doesn’t make all sides even, it doesn’t prevent 1-2 servers dominating the actual battles/fun factor. Your entitled to your suggestion I just don’t see how it will fix the real issue, which is the lack of enjoyment that comes with 1-2 servers preventing another server from doing much more then killing yaks do to population.

I’m not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to point out the flaw in tweaking the PPT, which does not change anything when it comes to enjoying your playtime.

I guess some people might enjoy dying every couple minutes to a huge zerg that they cannot pull enough numbers on the map to compete with as long as the score tells them they won.

I think I saw a video explaining the three faction system. This suggestion does have merits but consider these following issues…….

How do you stop Organized guilds from stacking on one faction with such a system?

How do you prevent/deal with spying, griefing, trolling on such a system when the population pools become so large?

How do you organize VOIP (Teamspeak, Ventrillo, Mumble) systems when match ups change weekly?

How do you organize command structure (guild, commanders, pugs-militia) when match up are more like instances (imagine having 20 commander tags on the map)?

Is the playerbase willing to wait a few months before change can be implemented (look at how long it took for PVE guesting to be implemented)?

Not saying its a bad idea but the above needs to be worked for it to be successful.

Samhayn.2385:

you can’t make server population even, not with out a huge up heavly from players.
you can’t handicap scores, makeing one teams prime time less then someone elses or making people upset when you have people show up just doesnt work.

so like i said before. you move to a point system that rewards you for capping, defending and killing.

1) keeps/towers/road guards/supply camps will be worth points when capped. the longer the point has been held the more it will be worth.

2) defending an objective will give points over time based on the amount of attackers. this will be the only ticking point score. at a determined amount of time the defenders will gain points for there realm depedent on the amount of people attacking the keep. to keep people from pulling off the keep before tick to fool the system. the number of attackers will randomly be selected between ticks.

3) player kills will add to ppt, you will get bonus points for a stomp when under bloodlust.

4) yaks are already worth points and can stay the same.

this will keep points to being accrued at there peak during the most active average time for all servers in the match up. the server that has the best off peak coverage will accrue a bump in points when the can cap maps uncontested. this could be off set by the outmanned servers taking and holding a tower and defending what they took.

is this perfect? no and no suggestion ever will be. yet i see no other way to keep games close and fun. this does not punish people and no suggestion ever should. we want wvw to be fun and the most fun people have is when a match is close and people keep showing up. if you can keep the points from becoming too huge a gap to ever be closed you will see less people phoneing it in by tuesday.

Sorry but I don’t think this system addresses population imbalances….I think you are assuming primetime differs for each server so when one has many an opponent has less and they can make up the differences when they are the OP server.

Look at it this way, a stacked server can have round the clock coverage meaning at NO time will they not have a sizable force. How can a server with only NA prime coverage compete?

Every tried defending a keep or tower when you are heavily outmanned? How long do you think it takes to capture an unfortified objective with no supply and few defenders. Defenders probably won’t last long enough to collect on the “Defense PPT”….

Now ever tried attacking a defended tower while undermanned…..OP server zerg swoops in and wipes you a lot of the times before you can take the objective, meaning they accrue “defense PPT” and points for killing your group while you the Undermanned force gets nothing.

Once everything is paper on the outmanned side there is no coming back with this system.

Not to sound sarcastic, but I heard there was very few to no elementalists on the top teams during the last major spvp tournament……….which I take as a serious implication that elementalist is not performing well in comparison to other classes.

sPVP is even more balanced than WvW so add that to the equation and ele’s look like they are really in a bad spot at the moment.

Cactus.2710:

Nuzt.7894:

The people who keep suggesting a handicap system or giving ppt bonuses are not gettingit. The score means nothing if your not having fun, getting steam rolled constantly by far superior numbers to the point where logging off is more enjoyable than playing is what needs to be fixed. Don’t kid yourselves you didn’t win because the ppt was tweaked, you still got your kitten handed to you by 2-5 X the number of players. Would it really make people happy to say " we were spawn camped for 7 days, but we won because the numbers up top said we did".

^this^ … and it discourages me immensely that so few posters here seem to get it. If the PPT and score adjustment advocates got their way WvW would still suck and they’d be back here again in a month to complain about how this server or that was manipulating their populations to affect the PPT, or how the score adjustments didn’t account for something, or some other such bullkitten. The ONLY way this game gets back to its premise of a large scale open world strategy-based PvP mode where the winner is determined by team work, communication, strategy, guile, cleverness, and skill is if ANet is willing to implement some scheme that balances the actual player populations during the majority of the match.

I have rather little hope that ANet will have the conviction to fix this, but even less so given the number of misdirected posts focusing on PPT bandaids instead of the surgery that’s really needed.

Not to sound argumentative but what are your suggestions for addressing the situation?

You have been pretty adamant about being against ppt adjustment saying that it could be manipulated (How if its based on a running average each hour?) or how its doesn’t change game play (You are still outnumbered….etc.).

The people making these suggestions are not looking for instant answers but long term solutions. Read my post above with an objective view and make points to why its bad or good, this is what this discussion is for: Idea generation and player input on suggested fixes.

Every suggestion will have positives and negatives to it.

Please remember that major changes require major re-work in coding (eg. may take months to implement) which I feel is too long to let slide but that is just my opinion.

Bloodstealer.5978:

@Jaytee.9513 I hear what your saying and the idea to me has some merit, except for A few gaping flaws…
WvW ranks might make you feel stonger when your sitting on your rams with full mastery, but on an outmanned server when the 50+ zerg train comes howling down on you it counts for diddly squat. There is nothing in the rankings that can possibly make any real difference in regards to population imbalance imo.
Gear progression has no great effect because there isn’t much in the way of gear progression, its cosmetics not stats. The main difference on gear is how you choose to mix your stats in your build. Sure up levels might benefit in havine a better yellow on them or maybe if their lucky get their first exo on them but when you reach 80 the gear progression all but ceases until the next tier is released into game… which ok ascended might be it but now ascended is craftable and dropping ingame it wont be long before every man and their sheep dog has that as well.. so coin and gear progression are all but irrelevant in wvw as well.

But as I say your idea has merit, perhaps the devs can play around with rewards and make changes somewhere because I think you are right in thinking players will often hive to where the rewards are best, dungeon running should of told ANET this already but asking them to look at game trends is like pulling teeth otherwise they would of already seen the upsurge in Warriors across the game.. it simply has no meaning to ANET and therefore there is no issue.

Look at dungeons like you said, the easiest dungeons get the most participation because effort to reward is greater. Hard dungeons get little attention because the reward difference is too small…… Apply this thinking to WvW mode and what do you get? Stacked servers because its easier to get rewards.

Regarding gear progression, it does make a big difference especially armor and trinkets.

I’ve been running mostly green trinkets because WvW gives a poor return for time invested and badges are hard to come by on undermanned servers don’t you agree?

Compared to some players on stacked servers my kill count and wvw rank levels are low even if I surpassed them on hours played. This is exactly my POINT, by staying on an undermanned server you get punished…….

Which is why a lot of players transfer up to a dominant server (it doesn’t have to be top tier to dominate but for example top dog in a tier) which allows them to farm the weaker servers to their hearts content.

This is why I am asking for a population ratio co-efficient to regulate rewards/ppt……..It may incentivize moving to lower populated servers.

MORE EFFORT = MORE REWARDS

Let me ask you guys a question…..if rewards were more being on a stacked server than a weaker one which would you choose?

Simple question right? And that is your answer……..players stack population because its easier to get more rewards.

Anet needs to address these facts that its easier to win, get more loot, and get more wxp on higher populated servers……

If winning on a stacked server netted you 10 copper and 20 wxp per objective compared to 10 silver and 500 wxp on an undermanned one which would you choose?

If I was fighting at a ratio of 2 to 1 I feel I should get more rewards if I succeed, is that considered fair? Now why would I feel I should get more?

Well, more effort was placed to succeed, because the odds are against me.

If I see other servers having an easier time to get the same rewards why shouldn’t I join them?

Currently there are no incentives other than no wait time to enter wvw and the queues don’t seem to be enough of a deterrent to stop stacking. If you adjust the amount of rewards based on population ratios, some players who like challenges (but want to get rewarded for effort) may decide to choose a lesser populated server thus creating a shift in population. Players on lowest populated servers who play against highest should receive great amounts of WXP, karma and currency for their efforts.

Sure you get defeated a lot….but each victory should reward you way more, making your character stronger through wvw ranking and gear progression.

The point is it shouldn’t be easier to level up your characters and get loot on a stacked server, it should be harder because of the less effort required to achieve objectives. Make this a factor and you may see the population start balancing on its own as players on lower populated servers gain more levels quicker and get gear quicker etc.

Creating a positive incentive to move to a lower populated server is what is needed in combination with a smaller player cap so the disparity becomes less (and skill lag becomes more manageable).

Actually it would be loss of weak spot….not a great trait but still losing a cover condition (60% chance vulnerability on crit).

Aomine.5012:

My only concern with diamond skin is that when pair with Ether Renewal, it can be too powerful against classes that rely on condition as their main source of damage.

Ether Renewal is already a very powerful healing skill that remove a total of 8 conditions every 15 seconds. When pair with diamond skin, it not only cleanse all the remaining condition on the ele, it also constantly heal ele so it can maintain above 90% hp when channeling, so a total of 4 seconds immunity to condition every 15 seconds.

This would be very unfair in 1 on 1 situation to necro and engineer who rely almost entirely on condition damage as their main source of damage.

You mean how its now unfair with elementalists marked as free kills by condition builds if they don’t fully spec into cleanses?

With healing as our only sustain (said goodbye to mobility with RTL nerf) poison hard counters heals…..guess who has lots of access to poison or boon corruption? 1v1 any ele has very little chance against a necro (large hp difference+death shroud).

Name a single class an elementalist considers a free kill vs how many classes targets ele’s as free loot?

FrownyClown.8402:

Prism.5649:

The niche for Ele (and the biggest reason ANet is having such a hard time balancing it) is versatility.

With access to 20 different abilities per weapon Eles are, in theory, able to seamlessly switch from good offensive capabilities to good defensive capabilities to good healing capabilities to good control abilities. Notice I say “good” here and not “excellent”. Eles were never meant to do as much damage as Thieves or Warriors, they were never supposed to be as defensive as Guardians, etc.

Instead Eles are supposed to be able to adapt to different situations and be a Jack of all Trades. Now whether or not ANet has succeeded in giving Eles the proper tools to be able to competently do this job depends on who you ask. Most players love to jump on the bandwagon that Eles are underpowered and not viable in many areas of the game. Many other players argue that Eles are quite strong and simply require a high level of skill to play (high skill level was also intentional by ANet).

I personally am a member of the latter belief in that when played properly an Ele can be a perfectly competitive (perhaps not the best but definitely not the worst) class. That’s just my opinion though.

This is well said. This is the most unbiased answer you will get in the ele forums. It takes many months to be good.

So playing a character with high skill nets you an average win ratio? Where is the logic in that, lol. Sounds like a balancing issue……….