Guild Wars 2

Yeah. I’ve never experienced it before, either. But, it was quite awhile before I could get another callout through map. I ended up using Team Chat – in order to get the word out.

Strider Pj.2193:

It will be a sweet day.

The QQ: OPEN MAG/JQ/BG/ALL SERVERS BECAUSE I HAVE TO PLAY WITH MY BROTHERS LONG LOST UNCLES NEPHEW’S SISTERS HUSBAND!!! It isn’t fair!!

Think they do it when PoF drops?

lol. It is surely an act of compassion every time it happens. How can we have a war when there is just so much compassion going around?

Here’s hoping my sister-in-law’s husband’s uncle and his step-son make it through the next time BG opens. Request has been sent.

How can we even rally the people on our map if we are suppressed for posting 1 message and then 12 minutes later… another? Both were callouts to defend our north camp with fast yaks working on upgrading our north towers.

Can anyone explain how two messages within 12 minutes deserves suppression?

First text: 12:36 AM: “n camp incoming”

Next text attempt: 12:48 AM: Your message was suppressed due to excessive messaging.

Anyone else noticing similar problem?

Reverence.6915:

There’s 10 full NA worlds and 11 full EU worlds with only 3 and 2 on Medium respectively.

I think it’s time to either expand the number of tiers,

Yes. De-link some of the link servers and let them regain their identity as Hosts if we aren’t going to balance with any other method.

or relax the population requirements to reach full on worlds a bit, especially with expac coming up

Please no. If anything, please lower the map caps to lessen the lag and discourage humongous, thoughtless ktraining, scourgeous blobs posing as combative groups.

Servers who are full, should remain full until the population spreads out to relieve the pain, or until increases of incoming new players from the Expac fill the existing OPEN servers.

Fixed that for you.

Panicbutton.9426:

MAS has turned out to be a great home for me, I joined back in May and haven’t looked back since. Great people, good structure, very competitive and a high standard of play.

It’s been awesome fun so far, can’t recommend the guild highly enough.

Thanks for posting, Panic! Glad to have you with us!

Sylvyn.4750:

Pensadora.9478:

1) Could we please not be re-linked with the same host this time around?

Many of us on linked servers are looking for a little variety – as having a truly, balanced matchup appears to be out of reach for WvW at the moment. Variety of allies and opponents seems the only thing remaining to keep WvW a little more interesting.

First I think you’d need to do a poll on whether those of us on linked servers truly want variety before you make the claim that “many” in fact do.

Yep. You’re right. Let me restate: Many of the people who are on linked servers, that I know or talked to before transferring to a linked server, and some of those posting about links here on the forum…..

Sylvyn.4750:

Second, while you might get some variety being linked with a new host, you’re still stuck with those on your own server unless you pay to transfer off. If you pay to transfer off, then that pretty much shows an unwillingness to work with what you have, as the grass is always greener on the other side.

One of the benefits we see in being on a link at the moment is new friendships and new challenges. Maybe you meant “host” rather than “link” as it refers to transferring off. If you are referring to MAS guild, we moved to get to an unlocked server and for the variety of the pairings?

Sylvyn.4750:

Finally, their are those of us who appreciate stability and the benefits they bring. For example, my guild on GoM has a well respected commander and we have even recruited players to our guild from the other linked servers. If the links change frequently, we end up with our members scattered to the winds or having to pay for transfers. We also have lost some continuity with our group composition and expertise. It essentially makes it harder to retain members and “git gud” with the lack of stability and the lack of server recognition, as the host gets all the credit.

You do realize that your server, GOM, is a link server? So, the reasons things are changing around you is because of the 2 month re-link. If you recruit players from the host you are linked with, and they choose not to transfer onto GOM, they will be separated from your guild at relink time. This is an issue with player choice or commitment to your guild, unless your server is locked down for transfers, and that is preventing them from transferring. As of this moment, GOM is still open for transfers.

As for the host server getting the recognition. I do see that point. However, most regular WvW players fully grasp that the Host server with link(s) in no way deserves all the credit for the win or the loss in any current pairing. So, focusing on your guild and your guild’s performance probably makes the most sense, as we now have very little control over our server, server links, server reputation, server population, etc., so no sense to stress over these things.

Norbe.7630:

glhf on the upcoming relinking !

And, to you as well!

Korgov.7645:

1) ANet has only N different ways to do the linking without creating huge population imbalances. I suspect that N is less than 1. ANet suggested to double the number of worlds, so that they would have more choice. But that suggestion was shot down fast by the players. In addition EU language specific worlds impose more limitations.

I’m thinking it’s probably time to put things back to a vote. We now have a more informed WvW population, that can clearly see the results of the link system.

Korgov.7645:

2) I bet they do consider the coverage. Unfortunately the players of similar time zones tend to flock on the same worlds. This is mission impossible without forced migrations. (linking is a form of forced migration itself)

I’m not convinced. Dragonbrand and Darkhaven have been linked multiple times in sequence. Both have substantial SEA representation, but not a lot in other timezones, as I recall.

Korgov.7645:

3) A solution would be to relink every week, but players wanted to have 2 months periods instead. There was a poll about it.

Actually, as per usual, the poll answers that ANet provided did not even have 2 months as an option for the players to select. It was a solution ANet decided on because the players were split between 2 other options.

Korgov.7645:

What can be done then? I’d say end world linking since it does so much harm to the game mode. ANet promised to rebalance the world populations before adding any meaningful rewards for winning a matchup, but that seems forgotten.

I would only support this if they get to making some adjustments to how population is managed.

I would much rather see relinks every week. Would permit adjustment for material changes in population. When material changes in population occur AFTER the relink, the situation would last for only 1 week, rather than for 7 weeks. Much less negative impact on opponent servers that didn’t get a material increase in population.

Two months, in my opinion, is way too long to suffer either the false sense of ‘winning’, or the agony of continued defeat, solely because your server didn’t win the “Luck of the Link”.

Check this wiki page

Links are supposed to be in Beta, an attempt at resolving massive out of balance matchups between existing worlds. Low population worlds are linked to Host servers, which do not have enough population to be competitive.

Problem is, without the true management of population – both active and potentially active of each server – imbalance continues and is a part of the issue of why WvW is not considered fair, balanced or competitive.

Read the following referenced thread for discussion and suggestions for the whys and ways to get populations reset in WvW, with some Dev response to suggestions made.

This post (<- click there) is a summation of the ideas put forward by Skyshroud, which I support in whole. Others have made suggestions that would require less dramatic change, which also have merit. The Dev response follows shortly after the summary.

Serenity.6135:

Every account is tied to a server, therefore such an idea could potentially affect every account.

And I must say I am puzzled as to why any guild leader, especially a wvw focused one would ever support an idea that would remove people from their server, while they post threads on the forum about population imbalances, and players going to other servers…

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ve clearly stated my reasons for wanting balance and fairness in competition in WvW.

As to the appeal to me as a guild leader, let me help you understand. I lead a guild that is WvW-focused. It’s what we do. It’s where we spend our time together.

Regularly, our guild releases players when they are no longer active in WvW. We send them a nice note and invite them to rejoin us when they get back to playing. Some may eventually reactivate, but find they are on a different server from us, and then make the choice to transfer to join us, or not.

This is exactly what I support we recommend to ANet related to inactive or dead accounts. So, being a guild leader has clearly helped me see the reasonableness of this approach.

Because MAS is a growing fight team, this also influences much of my desire to see things less like EOTM with mindless blobs, ktrains and guaranteed wins each week, but more based on team, coordination and skill.

In the end, it’s just common sense to think that a competitive gamemode would actually try to maintain a balanced, fair and competitive playing field.

Jayne.9251:

Pensadora.9478:

And I would point out that not one person has yet to argue that this gamemode is balanced nor competitive in its current state.

You need to let this go. WvW was never meant to be balanced. The devs themselves have said this many times over the past four years.

I think what you think I mean by balanced is not what I mean by balance. I do NOT mean by balance: equal numbers on each side, as in soccer, football, baseball, etc.

Balanced, as far as I am concerned, is a multi-faceted measure. It is the summation of many factors, population being among them, that create fair and competitive fights.

So, ‘balance’ is not just population.

But, I can understand how you might think this is all that I mean, as currently the massive disparities in population and coverage, which we have been discussing here, show clearly that this gamemode is neither balanced nor competitive in its current state.

Serenity.6135:

… snipped to make more readible

This is essentially what is wrong with your idea. It could affect every single account but you take no consideration whatsoever. Do you not understand, devs look at how changes and features affect the ENTIRE player base not individual servers or players.

By ‘every single account’ and “ENTIRE” are you referring to ALL the accounts ever established in GW2?

Do you mean ALL the accounts ever established and have played WvW at some point, any point no matter how long ago, or how dead the account?

Do you mean ALL the ACTIVE accounts in the game or in WvW currently? If so, how do you define and measure ACTIVE?

Exactly what is the composition of the ENTIRE playerbase of accounts that you think ANET is concerned with when analyzing which fixes will be applied to WvW?

Because I’m pretty sure you and I don’t know. Because, as you’ve reminded us – they have data we don’t have. So, how can you or I know which accounts they concern themselves with when they make decisions about changes to a gamemode?

This thread demonstrates how committed a playerbase this part of the game has, and how much we care about it surviving and thriving, that we are all working to identify changes that will get it to being a balanced and competitive game.

And I would point out that not one person has yet to argue that this gamemode is balanced or competitive in its current state.

ANet expects the Expansion to reactivate inactive player accounts. It is doing that, from what I can see. Whether truly committed WvWers return and stay, is a whole other measure they will likely be looking at, as well.

But, I cannot see any smart company, or any smart group of people placing more value on their inactive customers – those that no longer use or recommend their product – than they place on those who do. That would be foolishness. And, I don’t consider ANet to be either stupid or foolish.

So, the suggestion that we address several WvW problems by the release of inactive players from the server, who then are invited to re-select their WvW server IF and WHEN they return to the game, is not unreasonable, impossible, nor improbable. I’d bet good money it’s being considered.

morrolan.9608:

Pensadora.9478:

LetoII.3782:

DeadlySynz.3471:

It’s not a player created problem, it’s an Anet created problem, and it’s a problem centered almost exclusively around BG, and to a lesser extent JQ. Anet never should have opened these servers up. I’ve seen a good chunk of others servers field similar active numbers whereas the fights are relatively even. The problem arises when other servers end up in T1 showing the true issue of the population disparity. No server can field the same numbers as JQ, and JQ themselves can’t field the numbers against BG.

Honestly, the best possible case scenario at this point is to drastically lower the population on each map.. like literally cut them by 50%. It won’t affect any other server that much, but it will hit the top 2 quite hard. Send their map ques through the roof so they sit for 2-4 hours in a que. At some point if they hope to play regularly, they’ll need to move. It might even help diminishing the ongoing lag issue as well.

This is really the most practical answer. Solves lag issues, keeps transfer revenue for Anet and provides players with a more balanced set of matches at primetime
What it won’t address is off hours imbalance, the communities driving score disparity are simply too small to ever be dispersed across all matches.

It will also discourage large map blobs if set low enough – another need in WvW – to discourage the mindless ktrain and send it to EOTM where it belongs.

Otherwise, I’d agree with this step. Easy to do. Motivates destacking. Discourages further bandwagoning.

Yes I think assuming anet will keep the servers as they are this is the only solution, plus accounts being purged from servers after a specific period of inactivity.

I agree. The base, inactive populations need to be released from a server after a reasonable period of inactivity. This is sensible, justifiable and easy to explain to players. Those same inactive players were also likely kicked from their WvW guilds for the same reason.

I’d also like to see server selection by new players held off until that player actually decides to play WvW. Why have players making uninformed decisions on entering the game and before the thought has even entered their mind to engage in WvW play?

Serenity.6135:

Now, you were on HoD which was also closed for some time, and recently opened up correct? If there were mass transfers to HoD which completely threw off the matchups would you still be saying the same thing?

If a Host or Link receives a material increase in population, such that it exceeds the threshold of ‘competitive’ and becomes ‘overstacked’ then… YES… absolutely YES… I would argue that the link be reassigned to another Host that needs the link in order to be competitive.

I am advocating for a fair fight, a challenging fight, more than a Guaranteed Win whether T1 or T4.

Yes, MAS was on HOD just like we were on Blackgate for 3 years – our original server home. We have left the gated community in T1 and we’re out living free among the people on Sorrow’s Furnace. We now have both the perspective from T1 and the perspective from T3/T4 informing our opinions on this matter.

In the interest of full disclosure, please do share from which server your perspective is derived.

LetoII.3782:

DeadlySynz.3471:

It’s not a player created problem, it’s an Anet created problem, and it’s a problem centered almost exclusively around BG, and to a lesser extent JQ. Anet never should have opened these servers up. I’ve seen a good chunk of others servers field similar active numbers whereas the fights are relatively even. The problem arises when other servers end up in T1 showing the true issue of the population disparity. No server can field the same numbers as JQ, and JQ themselves can’t field the numbers against BG.

Honestly, the best possible case scenario at this point is to drastically lower the population on each map.. like literally cut them by 50%. It won’t affect any other server that much, but it will hit the top 2 quite hard. Send their map ques through the roof so they sit for 2-4 hours in a que. At some point if they hope to play regularly, they’ll need to move. It might even help diminishing the ongoing lag issue as well.

This is really the most practical answer. Solves lag issues, keeps transfer revenue for Anet and provides players with a more balanced set of matches at primetime
What it won’t address is off hours imbalance, the communities driving score disparity are simply too small to ever be dispersed across all matches.

It will also discourage large map blobs if set low enough – another need in WvW – to discourage the mindless ktrain and send it to EOTM where it belongs.

Otherwise, I’d agree with this step. Easy to do. Motivates destacking. Discourages further bandwagoning.

Swamurabi.7890:

I think that the real problem with WvW population is that the players want and expect a competitive match week after week and day after day but that is not high enough on Anet’s Wvw manifesto.

I think that many players just want a sense that what they are doing matters, or could matter and doesn’t come down to whether or not they are paired against a server which already owns the win 15 minutes after reset on Friday, with an advantage provided them due to population imbalance – not skill or effort, and/or by the “Luck of the Link(s)” – not skill or effort – which is maintained for 2 months by a ‘system’ that doesn’t adjust when material shifts in population occur.

WvWvW not LUCK+World vwvw, not POP+World vwvw

Jski.6180:

As long as your ok with your world being deleted and made into a new one sure but if your just asking others to bare this burden then no.

I am no longer asking for worlds to be deleted, as ANet has told us this will not meet their requirements for a change to balance WvW population (save you that troublesome task of reading the thoughtful discussions that preceded your post).

I will point out, however, that whether or not you see it now, and ask for these problems to be fixed, they ARE coming to a neighborhood near you. There is no escape – except on one server in T1.

No world is immune. T1 and T4 seeing it long-term now. It will eventually spread. Left unfixed, it is just a matter of time and the “Luck of the Link” or “Links” , if you’re lucky enough to get two.

Swamurabi.7890:

I think that the real problem with WvW population is that the players want and expect a competitive match week after week and day after day but that is not high enough on Anet’s Wvw manifesto.

Thought I made a typo but in T1 and T4 it’s not WvWvW, it’s more like Wvwvw

Yep and lol to the Wvwvw.

snipped for 6k limit

Serenity.6135:

This has been explained to you multiple times in multiple threads and you seem to keep ignoring the answers. You keep asking for clarity but then go on to throw out statements that are not based on facts but rather opinion…basically this server did not need to be open because etc etc.

Once again, servers are opened when they fall below a certain threshold that Anet has set for ALL servers, whether or not you like or agree with it is irrelevant, as it is a different issue. You do not have the statistics that the devs do but you continue to push this narrative that X server should not have been opened but then ask for clarity, it does not work that way. We already know the basics of how it works, but the devs cannot and will not give us all the details, nor should they. Now please stop beating a dead horse.

I continue to refer to the opening of Blackgate in June as an example of how NOT fixing the population imbalance ‘system’ has resulted in problematic decisions to open servers and make worse the overall problem.

I acknowledge that I have read and understand the explanation for how the algorithm is being used to open servers for more transfers to move on. It is precisely because of the way population measuring and balancing is being done, that the situation in image 1 (below) now exists. This we can see without the internal ANet data.

I have also attached results for the T4 matchups for the past two weeks (second & third images below), reflecting the same kind of imbalance that is a result of the linked alliances, where a Host server with two link servers, has dominated their matchup opposing the two Hosts with only one link. These demonstrate how the current link system and underlying population control algorithm are insufficient to the task.

I have yet to see anyone refute the point that these are imbalances that make matchups insurmountable and uncompetitive.

They result from the algorithm that you accuse me of ignoring. I am not ignoring the algorithm. I am examining the matchups that have resulted from its use and making a case that we are not experiencing a WvW as intended, precisely because of the way populations are being balanced, currently.

However, at the end of the text you quoted, I summarized again the logical questions that remain after also acknowledging that ANet has told us we don’t know enough to suggest solutions to them.

I will restate my focus questions so that they do not get lost in other arguments:

These questions remain: What is the plan for balancing populations and matchups in WvW? How long, how many more weeks does ANet have planned for us to endure these already long-term, incredibly out of balance, unfair and non-competitive matchups? When will WvW be fair for all?

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

Thats how you see duels but thats not the mindset of a duelist out to duel at that time. I have seen them fight and get upset about interference literally outside a waypointed keep where the enemy player contest it while they are dueling.

And that’s how you see it yourself and are grossly generalizing attitudes.

I’m a scout, but I consider myself duellist.

Being a duellist doesn’t mean what you’ve indicated. It’s typically your server’s scouts/roamers who are fine-tuning their craft so that they don’t get insta ganked when they’re out defending territory or alerting the team to invading servers.

Nobody here has any authority to tell another how to play. That’s the bottom line. We all paid the same price for the game.

Give respect to others and you’ll get it in return.

Let people play how they like.

Exactly. Some days I steer wide with my group. Other days, we clear them off. Less to pick at our tail. It’s all good.

Serenity.6135:

atheria.2837:

Pensadora.9478:

Serenity.6135:

You cannot have actual population balance in a game mode that is based on having 24/7 matches, it is not hard to understand.
…..
There will always be imbalance because it is the nature of this content, plain and simple.

I would love for a Dev to clarify here. Is the below picture what we should always expect and satisfy ourselves with? Is this the best that ANet plans to do for WvW going forward, as Serenity has stated above, and Raymond may have intimated here:

Raymond Lukes.6305:

At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our requirements for a change to be made.

At some time, you have to stop driving on that flat tire and change it, or it creates even more problems. Fixing the flat tire with a spare tire may not be the ‘best of the best’ of tire solutions, but at least it gets you back on the road, moving toward a next step – new or repaired tire. Not fixing it puts you out, on the side of the road, with no way to move forward.

It appears that you are telling us we’ll be driving on this crummy spare tire until….? Cause, by the looks of things, the tire isn’t holding up very well and the road is pretty potholed and bumpy.

The scores ALONE should be telling the devs that WvW is in dire condition and that many servers are being devastated by three, four, and five times their numbers at all times of the day and night.

Scores are not accurate enough to determine population. Some servers will intentionally tank for whatever reason, it does not mean their population is low, but if you only use scores as a basis for determining population you might think it is.

Scores determining population was not the point.

Scores indicating, visually, easily, objectively that there is a serious malfunction in WvW that hasn’t been addressed, is what the comment was about.

It should be easy for anyone to look at the score variance in this week’s T1 matchup – a mere 4 days into the week (first image below) – and see that things are entirely out of control and out of balance. Notice also that one server has total coverage, around the clock, every day.

It is even more telling when you look at this same scenario played out over months as shown in the historical matchups (second image below).

Yet this behemoth server was opened in June for more guilds and more people to transfer on to it. Why? We don’t have an answer for that question.

It certainly appears that this server was not, in any possible stretch of the imagination, in need of more population or coverage. So, I for one, am incredibly interested to know what data we don’t have, that Anet has that convinced them that BG needed to be opened for even more players to move there.

I’d like to understand what could possibly be preventing a correction to the out of balance population problems, while at the same time NOT preventing decisions that make it worse.

We have been told we haven’t suggested the right solution. Well, then I continue to ask….what is the plan? How long will these already long-term, incredibly out of balance, unfair and non-competitive situations continue?

atheria.2837:

I never see you playing on HoD…

lol. I run with TIME and Skyshroud often. Shoutout to my TIME friends!! Favorite part of Saturday mornings when MAS isn’t out doing stuff together. They are a different timezone from NA, so wonder if that may explain it for you?

Serenity.6135:

You cannot have actual population balance in a game mode that is based on having 24/7 matches, it is not hard to understand.
…..
There will always be imbalance because it is the nature of this content, plain and simple.

I would love for a Dev to clarify here. Is the below picture what we should always expect and satisfy ourselves with? Is this the best that ANet plans to do for WvW going forward, as Serenity has stated above, and Raymond may have intimated here:

Raymond Lukes.6305:

At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our requirements for a change to be made.

At some time, you have to stop driving on that flat tire and change it, or it creates even more problems. Fixing the flat tire with a spare tire may not be the ‘best of the best’ of tire solutions, but at least it gets you back on the road, moving toward a next step – new or repaired tire. Not fixing it puts you out, on the side of the road, with no way to move forward.

It appears that you are telling us we’ll be driving on this crummy spare tire until….? Cause, by the looks of things, the tire isn’t holding up very well and the road is pretty potholed and bumpy.

Rangerdeity.5847:

transfer servers bro. most servers dont have that problem plus some of them even have the mythical +5 pips for outnumbered buffs.

No myth, can confirm.

SkyShroud.2865:

Summary

I gonna try summarize the main points which means it gonna skip most logical thinking explanations and if you are not an logical thinker, I suggest you to read the wall of texts.

What are major issues with current WvW servers now

• WvW Populations vs Base Populations
  • Base populations make up of not only wvwers but also pvers, pvpers and inactive accounts
  • WvW populations can never be more than the base populations thus bigger base is likely to have bigger wvw
  • Base populations aren’t equal between servers
    • Server full threshold wasn’t base on WvW population for first 2.5 years
    • Anet is known to increase individual server’s threshold during then
    • Megaserver didn’t exist at start, free transfer was open for first few months. Many players stacked at a selected few servers, not just wvwers.
• Fixed Full Threshold
  • What’s the problems with it?
    • Imagine WvW as a glass of water. This glass is 10% filled and if we want to fill it, we need find water from somewhere, we can take it from other glasses. That’s how fixed threshold permits stacking.
• Fixed Full Threshold vs Base Populations
  • Fxed full threshold only stops people from joining or transferring in. It doesn’t stop the people from its very own server to join WvW thus pushing wvw populations way over the threshold.
• WvW Status Algorithm (History)
  • First wvw algorithm was implemented after 2.5 years when both DB and DH hit full status due to their huge non-wvw populations.
  • WvWalgorithm is changed again about 6 months ago to include play hours as part of the mathematical formula, due to JQ and some EU servers being full because of their casual populations.
• WvW Status Algorithm (Play hours) vs Fixed Full Threshold
  • Using a really simple logic. If the formula is “Players*Hours” then “1000*1=1000” and “500*2=1000”. If the threshold is set at 1000, both are considered full. What happen if the 1000 players decided to put in an play an hour more?
  • Using the same simple logic. “250*4=1000”. 250vs1000 people. 4 map queues?
  • Refer to the post I have made 6 months ago @ https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-WvW-Pop-Algorithm
• Coverage
  • Coverage means just how many hours out of the 24 hours the servers can cover with decent amount of populations
  • What’s the problems with it?
    • Coverage between servers are not equal. Some servers have more PST, OCX, SEA, EU or Early NA
  • What was done to lesser impact of the unequal coverage?
    • Warscore is equalized via skirmish point system but does nothing to coverage imbalance
• Coverage vs Fixed Full Threshold
  • Fixed Full Threshold is an overall threshold, it does not consider the coverage differences between servers thus as long as the overall count exceed the threshold, it will mark the server full.
• Inflow of new players vs Numerous servers
  • New players are to choose an open servers at the start of the game
  • Do we have enough new players for 24 NA and 27 EU servers?
• Inflow of new players vs Fixed Full Threshold vs Base Populations
  • Closed servers lose players over time due to attrition
  • Servers with huge base populations will not “feel” that attrition immediately but borderline full servers will.
  • Borderline full servers will suffer defeats against huge full servers, demoralization lead to discontents lead to loss of players or more complains
  • New players will choose non-full servers. These servers will eventually fill up and become full but still won’t able to match huge full servers’ numbers.

What can we do to solve the issues?

• Deleting all servers
• Remaking the worlds while cutting down the number of worlds
• Redesign the threshold, change fixed to dynamic
  • Dynanmic check for disparity between servers, servers will grow and shrink comparable equally.
• Eliminate server base population design, adapt megaserver base population design
• Maintain server wvw population design, eliminate non-wvw active accounts from wvw populations periodically
• Improve transfer system, provide incentive to move from full to open server, like discount in transfer cost
• Timing to introduce the system is extremely critical, servers will be filled on first come first basis. Thus, should be implemented during NA prime.
• Additional safety net for coverage balance would be categorising players base on their playing time, personalising capping system.

I don’t want servers to be deleted! There are alternative! You are stupid! I hate you!

• This isn’t personal, it is extremely objective. It is only considered because I fail to find any possible logical steps to solve while keeping them.
• Can you fix the current imbalance with current servers?
• Does making servers all open for free transfer now helps?
• Will people be willing to unstack their servers? How many?
• Does having a dynamic threshold and evenly spread populations to 24 NA or 27 EU servers help?
• Will you be willing to break your community up due to spreading of population? (Affect the Full or Very High servers)
• Do we have enough off hours to spread to 24 NA or 27 EU servers?
• Do you want a immediate fix or a slow fix extending to many years by waiting for people to quit?

snip – 6K body length limit

This is well thought out. Addresses our major problems. Suggests a way to maintain population balance over the long term. Is fair to all in its implementation.

Lets take another look at what maintaining the status quo is doing for WvW right now:

(credits: images taken from this site: WvWstats.com)

fieraviolet.3160:

sounds like a community problem. As a commander I personally let anyone in my squad ( as do the majority of comms on my server provided they are not doing a closed/guild raid). And the only way i’m kicking you is if your offline, on another map and not scouting for a really really long time (cause well i’m commanding and don’t have time to worry about that). Or you’ve constantly been no where near my tag, so your doing nothing but throwing my sup count off by being in squad. I personally do not require ts, although I would appreciate it if you join. Some of our currently linked servers comms don’t even use ts at all. And another one has their own ts, which although I haven’t joined this time around, I’ve never been denied entry to a squad because of it. Nor would I deny any of them entry to mine because they refused to use ts.

Sounds like the perfect place for you: @Jumpin Lumpix.6108 and @Eater of Peeps.9062. Transfer to that server and make a new start.

Cerby.1069:

Honestly its alot more doable with territories in place. Easy to apply buffs based on numbers within the territory.

ANet now has a mechanism that could be used to do player caps and micro changes to outnumbered within territories. Something that will discourage or disadvantage the mindless map blob meta would be very nice.

Player cap the zones. Make it impossible to run into a territory with over 25/30. Not unlike when gliding terminates as you move into an opponent controlled zone – get warning you are overstacked for the territory and your squad mates will auto-die if they continue to move into that zone with too large of numbers. I’d love to see this especially for the first couple of days – just sit on the other side of the territory line and watch the uninformed players drop.

Something must be done to end the dominance by map blobs, especially those that also carry dragon banners to be sure they (the 50 man blob) can kill their 10 opponents. Those should just die on entry – in totality, and a BM tag be placed on their characters for the next 10 minutes that both allies and opponents can see.

Cerby.1069:

Waiting for a chilling fog that is poison instead of chill tbh.

omg. yes. more condis! /s

Dianekas.4359:

When are the servers getting relinked? Should be soon right?

This Friday – last Friday of even months.

1) Could we please not be re-linked with the same host this time around?

Many of us on linked servers are looking for a little variety – as having a truly, balanced matchup appears to be out of reach for WvW at the moment. Variety of allies and opponents seems the only thing remaining to keep WvW a little more interesting.

2) Could we please have the pairing of links to hosts that considers timezone strengths and weakenesses?

For example – When pairing a heavy SEA timezone host server with a heavy SEA timezone link server, it makes for a really overpowered timezone, and not a lot of fun for anyone. This lasts for two months. Is it possible to avoid stacking timezones when links are re-paired?

3) Could we please have adjustments to links when material changes occur to populations that are linked?

For example – A Host server with two links bulks up due to movement onto 1 or more of the links, or the host goes to full status. Can we adjust for material changes that occur rather than having a disproportionately out of balance situation last until the next relink? It affects very little to relink based on material changes to populations, and would go further to creating better matchups overall if adjustments were made to links due to material population changes that occur AFTER the relink.

Thank you for considering.

I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer a focused team that works well together and a great community for making friends. We’re open for new and returning players who are interested in our style of play, and offer training and development as a part of what we do. PM with questions or for more details. Check us out here:

Our post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Website in signature below.

For your WvW play, I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer a structured team that works well together and a great community for making friends. We’re looking for competitive players who enjoy working together in teams. Think about joining us in WvW.

Our post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Our website in the signature.

Time to spread out. Plenty of room on existing servers. No need for more maps, just less bandwagonning.

First night of test weekend in WvW was a blast! Check us out and join the fun!

For your WvW play, I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer a focused team that works well together and a great community for making friends. PM with questions or for more details. We’ve just started a standing raid team for our off nights, but WvW is what we focus and do. Think about using one of your guild slots to join us in WvW.

Our post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Link to our website is in the signature below.

Solstace.2514:

Numbers does play a huge role. But organization is just as important. I’ve seen guild groups easily trash larger zergs of pugs. There certainly are tactics and strategy to large scale battles.

I would agree that organization is important. But it is available to both sides. And, if both sides are organized, it yet again devolves to a greater numbers v lesser numbers issue.

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Yes it really is about numbers, this Is why BG wins every week. It’s also evident when one server faces a 2v1, which is a situation that is unwinnable, due to the combined servers superior numbers.

Numbers over all timezones = coverage – the basis for your win, superior coverage = guaranteed win

Numbers advantage in your timezone = your blob outnumbers opponents during your timezone, opponents do not have the numbers to face yours. PvDoor, no risk play. Blob server wins skirmishes covering your timezone.

KDR = not necessarily a measure of skill, but rather tracks with the out of balance population of your timezone/server versus your opponents. Easy kills when 2x the opponents squads. And can also be attributed to skill. Mostly, it’s numbers. KDR in outnumbered matchups reflects the willingness of players to throw their bodies at, or get caught by the unbeatable blob force. Good players don’t. New players, think they can or think they should.

Morale – Being the large blob, and largely unopposed group feeds the morale of your map blob and keeps the blob intact. Taking T3 structures your opponents worked for hours to upgrade, in just a few minutes with smaller groups attempting to defend your 3 guild-organized groups, feels good, but isn’t a reflection of ‘good’. Opposite is true for your opponents. Morale drops when a significant structure is lost and the server was unable to muster a reasonable defense. This feeds sense of hopelessness for those players. Facing this day after day results in less player support, less play and transfers off that server.

Yep, largely about the numbers.

And, why I continue to ask for clarity for what the go forward plan is to create some semblance of population balance and a mechanism which does not revolve around “Luck of the Link” manual pairings and is responsive to material shifts in populations.

See post discussion here

Jayne.9251:

Pensadora.9478:

Jayne.9251:

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

Charge $150 real dollars PER transfer, not anything you can grind in game, and it’d fix it

It’s got to be more than the $, as I think there are some deep pockets in these games, and a true desire to do anything to win those E-Trophies.

I’ve seen some very interesting ideas in this thread:

Vote to Delete Servers

Oh even deep pockets would think twice if they’re getting dinged $150 for each whimsical bandwagon. It would certainly put a dent in the movement and subsequently create stability. Or attrition.

As for the other thread, not even going to bother. Two factions: guilds vs unguilded do not even try to understand the others point of view, and without the understanding, or a solution that doesn’t favour one over the other, it’s impasse.

The $ penalty may discourage transfer, but it doesn’t solve the current imbalances between servers that make for non-competitive, imbalanced matchups in WvW currently.

What is the plan going forward?

How will we get the servers and matchups balanced?

The linking system obviously has not created balanced matchups.

Currently, each matchup alliance is subject to : “Luck of the Link” – the manual process that makes Kings or Peasants for the next two months, based on some historical activity levels that are never adjusted as a result of current material shifts in population.

And then of course, we have to look at T1, the massiveness of Blackgate, and ask – How will that be fixed/resolved?

Once the new Expansion is released, I’m hoping we’ll all be calling for more clarity on how we get WvW to what we want it to be:

a balanced, fair competitive gamemode that has an automated system and rules for keeping itself in balance, once put into balance by some other ‘method’ which we’ll all be told about and get to discuss.

For your WvW play, I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer an 18+, focused team that works well together, along with a great community for making friends. We’re active on Discord throughout the day and use it for our closed raids in WvW.

We work with new and returning players and are deliberate in how we onboard new team members. We’re committed to helping new members who commit to the team and our form of WvW play.

We’re a guild with experienced players for raids, fractals and PvE content. But, WvW is where we spend most of our time as a group – either in fight squad or roaming groups.

Our recruit post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Link to our website is in the signature below.

For your WvW play, I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer an 18+, focused team that works well together, along with a great community for making friends. We’re active on Discord throughout the day and use it for our closed raids in WvW.

We work with new and returning players and are deliberate in how we onboard new team members. We’re committed to helping new members who commit to the team.

We’re a guild with experienced players for raids, fractals and PvE content. But, WvW is where we spend most of our time as a group – either in fight squad or roaming groups.

Think about using one of your guild slots to join us in WvW. PM me with questions. Happy to help.

Our recruit post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Link to our website is in the signature below.

QuickRain.4735:

Best Guilds? Other then BoRP and KeK no ones else stands out and the rest should just be labels as best by servers

NA -

BG – RISE
FA – DIE BOMB
YB – BOO ROLL TDS
MAG – KEK VR (TIE I guess they are making a comeback?)
SBI – Hate CCCP DOC KRTA CoSA (AoEs but they are basically done now)
DB – TBT
JQ – SF BoRP
CD – VII VP (BMO I thought they died again)
SoS – IV
TC – ?
HoD – DEF MaS

Top Tier
Borp KeK

Mid Tier
TDS BOO OnS VR SF DIE RISE

Low Tier
Everyone Else

Bottom
DEF

Obv not perfect but toppish guilds by server

*MAS on link – Sorrow’s Furnace – hoping for more variety and to test ourselves in your neighborhood soon!

*Add DUI – GOM – they are late NA, fun fights

Jayne.9251:

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

Charge $150 real dollars PER transfer, not anything you can grind in game, and it’d fix it

It’s got to be more than the $, as I think there are some deep pockets in these games, and a true desire to do anything to win those E-Trophies.

I’ve seen some very interesting ideas in this thread:

Vote to Delete Servers

Serenity.6135:

Just because you do not like this or that server, or believe they should not be opened does not mean you have the data that the dev’s do.

I have no axe to grind for or against a particular server.
Full disclosure: I am on a link – Sorrow’s Furnace. Please do share your reference point.

Blackgate was the server my guild formed up on, and we were there, as a positive, contributing member of the ‘server team’ for 3 years. We left on good terms, not wishing any ill to Blackgate. And this post is not about ill feelings toward Blackgate, or causing Blackgate any harm.

It is about getting the playing field leveled so that it is fun and balanced for ALL.

That image reflecting the current state of play in T1, shows that there are serious problems in the population and the linking ‘method’ being used. And, the previous opening of Blackgate for mass transfers in, that result in the kind of matchup we see in the image of this week’s T1 matchup, call to question ANet’s commitment to provide a balanced and fair playing ground for ALL. Hence, my request for clarity.

Serenity.6135:

Links are assigned due to the information devs have, not you, not me. Obviously it can cause a big swing in matchups as a result. Either you call for changes in the linking system like shortening the time it takes to reassign links, or you call for it to come to an end.

I’ve asked for clarity around what ANet actually does have as data, because even without ANet’s data we can all clearly SEE that “Houston, we have a problem.” Look at the graphs. Better yet, visit the website and look at the background, timezone imbalances and think about how much fun those matchups are for the servers that are not winning, or don’t have the population to counter what they are facing in their matchup.

So, yep… I’d truly like to see what ANet is looking at and get some clarity as to what they are committing to in regards to improving the game mode we know as WvW, especially as we examine the history of decisions to open overstacked servers and retain a system of links that isn’t generating the results they previously said they were aiming for.

The stats reflected in the images, are just that… non-emotional, objective results based on the way servers are linked or stacked …. either through opening them for transfers when they were already overstacked (See that impressive T1 situation) OR… through a “Luck of the Link” that results in your server alliance being overstacked in comparison to those you oppose.

Either way, it is readily apparent that it is NOT doing what it was intended to do: which was to keep all servers in some level of competitive balance.

If this is supposed to be a way to achieve balance….

AND
IT
ISN’T doing that….

Then, it is reasonable and logical to ask for some clarification …. as to when, where, and how… we’re going to see an improved process.

atheria.2837:

It’s not over – the links are a TOTAL FAILURE.

Not sure what it is, but it surely is a mess.

Why I continue to ask for clarity… What is the plan for making this a competitive game mode that is balanced and fair for ALL?

What do we call this process that has:

*Stacked Server @ T1 <- literally impossible to beat
*FULL Servers with Links
*VERY HIGH servers with TWO Links

against VERY HIGH servers with ONE link. And, then have this setup last for TWO FULL months?

It’s silly, ridiculous, and certainly embarrassing to even try to use the adjectives: ‘competitive’, ‘fair’, or ‘balanced’ when speaking about World v World v World in its current state.

And who would mind if we JUST had some kind of communication about HOW and WHEN these obvious, glaring and incredibly unfair situations are going to be corrected or ‘balanced’?

Edit: Correct T2 image updated.

Credits: Matchup info from this site: wvwstats.com

If you don’t find what you’re looking for on Dragonbrand, hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer a focused team that works well together and a great community for making friends. Willing to work with committed returning players.

Our post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Link to our website is in the signature below.

So much context missing here. Size guild runs, whether also holding hands with zerg and calling themselves ‘fight’ , or will fight alone, timezone, whether they will work with new and returning players, server, server status, contact information.

For new and returning players, please visit the Recruitment/LFG section of these forums and peruse the postings there. You’ll find actively recruiting guilds have taken the time to post information you’ll need there.

Ask in Map chat what decent guilds are on your current server, or link. The players know which they’d recommend as standup fight squads that have a good reputation on your server.

Check them all out. Run in their comms and evaluate both their community and their claims.

Good luck and welcome to WvW!

NA, with current linking to NSP, is a blobfest. No counter numbers. Easy ktrain, if that’s what you’re looking for.

For your WvW play, I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer an 18+, focused team that works well together, along with a great community for making friends.

We’ve just started a standing raid team for our off nights, but WvW is what we focus on. Think about using one of your guild slots to join us in WvW.

Our post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Link to our website is in the signature below.

For your WvW play, I hope you’ll check us out: MAS guild, a WvW-focused, competitive team on Sorrow’s Furnace. We offer a focused team that works well together and a great community for making friends. PM with questions or for more details. We’ve just started a standing raid team for our off nights, but WvW is what we focus and do. Think about using one of your guild slots to join us in WvW.

Our post in these forums: MAS Recruit Post

Link to our website is in the signature below.

With new server linkings about to happen in a couple of weeks, I’d like to suggest that the WvW Community provide some guidance to the Devs who do the linking.

We’ve seen that the goal for server linking is to pair links with hosts in such a way as to balance overall population/activity at the macro level only. No attention is being paid to the imbalances created by timezone when pairing for macro level ‘balance’ only.

This results in imbalanced pairings during specific timezones, that make for terrible matchups for two months at a time, and serve to encourage rather than discourage ktrains and blobbing over opponents during those wildly imbalanced timezones.

An example, as I recall, is that Dragonbrand and Darkhaven have been paired together repeatedly, with the result that they end up extremely overstacked for SEA timezone, and lacking in others. I’m sure others can provide different examples of how not considering timezones when linking can skew matchups for the months going forward.

Let’s provide some information that will assist with making better links – those that will actually provide more well-rounded timezone coverage, rather than bulking up a couple of timezones to the size that no one can face them.

If you are willing to, please provide for your Host & Link server, an overview of which timezones are strongest and not in need of additional population, and those priority timezones that need more active WvW players in order to truly make your server more competitive.

Obviously, the current linked server populations affect each of the timezone rankings on sites like wvwstats.com, so I’m asking for those on HOST & LINKED servers, who know their resident guilds & populations, provide their assessment of their server by timezone.

I’ll try to summarize what is shared in a separate reply, so that the information is consolidated in one place. Obviously, Hosts that are so full that they do not require a link need not be included here.


EXAMPLES:

NA Host Server X

Need More: NA EST, NA PST
Fine: OCX, EU
High: SEA

NA Linked Server Y

Need More: NA EST, NA PST, SEA
Fine: OCX, EU

With this summary, and with WvW activity information by timezone and server available to the Devs, we could then ask that some care be taken in pairings to try to avoid creating timezone Monsters, and instead create pairings that provide a more level playing field and more fun for all.

Appreciate your help with this. Please do suggest ways to improve it.

We’re on Sorrow’s Furnace.