Guild Wars 2

Arcuss.6457:

My idea is to make it so no server can have more than 10 players more than the lowest server of the three (in one area, not worldwide). fix the queue so it’s first come first serve, and don’t post the match-ups so no one knows who they will fight next.

Example:
Server A – 60 players
Server B – 60 players
Server C – 50 players

If 1 person from server C leaves, then 1 person (whoever has been playing the longest) gets kicked from servers A and B. This will keep the coverage even, and in theory would make people transfer to lower servers to be able to play. I don’t know how this would work in practice, but it sounds good in my head.

That’s horrible, imagine playing (after some long duration of waiting) just to get kicked, because some other guy is annoyed of losing! DCs are bad enough, don’t implement designed kicks.

AND: Somewhere in the CDI-thread (regarding a similar suggestion) ANet said they won’t implement ideas which include blocking players from playing. I said it already and I’ll say it again: No one should be forced to change a server, there must be other ways to balance populations.

There are too many options to exploit this system.

One scenario:
Server A has more active players than the other two servers, so A is able to cap the most objectives of the map. Then the majority of server A logs out and now all three Servers have approximately the same numbers. But B and C still aren’t able to recap the objectives fast enough to create an equal PPT, because A still has some defenders => Server A wins because the majority of their players went to bed, after capping the entire map.

I posted another suggestions in the CDI-Topic, no idea if someone’s seen it, therefore I’ll post it here again:

Multiply the points per tick by a factor representing the number of all players of all three servers during one tick. So if each server has all four maps filled, there should be something about 1,000 players. Therefore the points per tick would be multiplied by (let’s say) 10 and if one server is roaming against 20 defenders with 80 karma trainers the PPT would be multiplied by 1 (1,000 / 100 =10 and 100 / 100 = 1).

This would make the primetime more important, but won’t give servers more points only because they’ve less players.

Yes, outnumbered servers will still loose, but i think, that’s fair. The point here is, that servers, which are able to compete during prime time, will have it easier to compete during the whole match.

BUT: The most important thing is balancing wvw-populations, because different calculation of points won’t really help with imbalanced match-ups. In my opinion (and I think in ANets opinion) it’s not fair to press players to join other servers, if they don’t want to. Therefore it should be easy to join to servers with lower wvw population.

One suggestion if ANet is willing to let the primetime have a bigger impact on the score:
Multiply the points per tick by a factor representing the number of all players of all three servers during one tick. So if each server has all four maps filled, there should be something about 1,000 players. Therefore the points per tick would be multiplied by (let’s say) 10 and if one server is roaming against 20 defenders with 80 karma trainers the PPT would be multiplied by 1 (1,000 / 100 =10 and 100 / 100 = 1).

This would make the primetime more important, but won’t give servers more points only because they’ve less players.