Guild Wars 2

Just curious, but did you use your model or analyze the EU data to compare?

In light of this data, or in conjunction with it, visually comparing the NA v EU evolution ladders begs several questions.

1) In looking at the left edge of the data set, it is clear through initial variability in glicko
that, EU’s glicko fluctuated greatly for nearly 6 months, while NA’s seemed to settle in at 3 months, and then shake up around the 6 month mark too. So what happened roughly 26 weeks in?

I believe that in NA, free transfers (and cheap alt accounts) played the largest role as we began stacking servers around 3 months into it. Even then, differences in playstyles (GvG, PPT, fight, etc.) were becoming an issue for NA servers, and people began to choose sides through free transfers. Don’t know if EU had the same issues?

2) In looking at the right side of the data sets, it appears that NA is seeing variability really only in the lower tiers (lower right hand quadrant) while EU sees it’s highest variability occurring in the upper right hand quadrant. This seems to indicate that EU is stacking into the top HALF of its servers while NA has chosen to stack into it’s top 3-4 servers. It also does appear that even EU is having to transfer and stack over time, but I’ll let an EU person comment on that as they will know better what is happening.

To drive that point home, since 9 months into the game, NA has only had 4 servers in 4th place…FOUR!!! In 2.5 years!!! Now it’s worth mentioning that SF maintained #1 for an impressive (almost) 52 weeks in this timeframe, but they faced 6 opponents in that time, and Kodash was their longest at 12 weeks. NA’s 4th place has been stays of 30ish weeks.

3) Finally, the data would seem to indicate that glicko rewards more balanced servers through more variability. Currently, EU has 15 servers within 300pts of each other (1618 to 1902), NA has 7 (1820-2160). Similarly, NA has chosen to go with 4 “Very High” servers and 2 “High” servers, while EU went for 2 “Very High” and 11 “High”…(11…insane)!!!!!

just some thoughts

~psyco~

Thanks for the communication ANET. It’s appreciated.

1st bullet: I like the idea of no auto-upgrades, but is it really limited to only ‘Small Groups’? I mean that would be kind of fun if dolyaks just ran willy-nilly invincible when Large Groups run by.

2nd bullet: Thank YOU! So much nicer when 2 or 3 can build a guild or sup cata. Those multiple runs to solo build on empty towers were killing us.

3rd bullet: I like idea of ppk, please make sure ppk statistics are exportable to the community, at least until we have data to judge if its OP or not.

4th bullet: I’m not sure what this will do. I’ve been in huge battles where rezzing was important for keeping the battle going, but also to keep it fun. And if it’s single character rez, what is that determined by? Proximity? Death bar? Please be careful with this one.

~psyco~

Chaba.5410:

How has the current situation broken apart guilds and communities?

oh come on chaba, you had to be laughing as you typed that…anyone who’s been on a server that got bandwagonned for a season can attest to the damage open xfers creates.

threads are littered with people fed up with the current situation.

but here’s the real point…“[I] want to take away individual players’ choices.”
nah…i just want the individual to actually have a choice in wvw instead of a few who think they know what’s best.

and Reverence, i guess i don’t care about your one, singular, particular guild in this case…i suspect all our guilds have similar stories at this point. xfers have created this, and it is something that would have to be figured out…oh wait, like i said, give everyone a free xfer, just not right away.

Deli.1302:

What’s the difference between an alliance of guilds and a server of guilds?

^^

Jana.6831:

No offense but they just announced that they have a system, so I don’t really get why people think it would be a good time to make suggestions – it’s already settled.

i’m not sure the data they’ll get will be very useful at a finer scale. because top servers are stacked with users who have multiple accts, the numbers can be manipulated and likely will be. and briggah, i’m not sure what your point is about this. what you describe is exactly what we currently have and why locking xfers and reshuffling is important.

also…“destroy…the game” really…
that seems a bit extreme considering the other ideas out there like Alliances.

fine Syno, granted not everyone will want to be on their home server, so give everyone a 1 time use, free xfer token, but no vendor for at least 6 months and 1 season. collect some good data, and then make decisions about how to move forward.

i mean hears the thing, this idea is easily fixable compared to other ideas that have more permanent impacts. hell, they could do it while they write the code for Alliances or server mergers for crying out loud, and see what the data shows them. i’d be into it just to change up the stale, manipulated matches and give us something different to go with the new content.

Vermillion.4061:

So break apart every guild/community? lol

look, straight up…are you gonna pretend that the current situation HASN’T “broken apart guilds and communities” already, and doesn’t continue to? plz

honestly just stick everyone back at homeworld. if you don’t like it, buy another acct. most have multiples anyway.

release HoT, xfer everyone to their home server at first login after release, lock xfers.

then you can start monitoring server data and make smart decisions about server/pop #s anet, and better hassess (really…can’t spell it without the h) the need for the terrible idea that is alliances.

if HoT is supposed to draw pve/x-ers into wvw, then let’s reset everything and make server pride matter again, and see what happens.

gvg-ers can go to the new gvg area, pvp-ers to the pvp area, and maybe we can finally play wvw without the 1%-ers who post on gw2wvw in the T1/T2 threads screwing things up for the rest of us.

one problem solved

~psyco~

My 2 cents…the individual who mentioned ecology hit the nail on the head.

Wall of text incoming…first para is the gist of it…

Utilize resource scaling (supply, camps, yaks, nodes/gathered items, and rewards) to influence population movement, at the same time as you provide a system for incentivizing different server “strategies” or reason to care about PPT. Basically, and very generally, scale the amount of resources available based on population size, give us more to spend resources and guild influence on so we can play wvw with more strategy and reason while still providing “great fights”. Finally, I think I agree with the idea of an “expansion” or something to bring some new and old players into GW2, otherwise server migration and/or alliances may be unavoidable.

Remove supply caps from map objectives and allow us to move supply from/to anywhere we want…let us decide where we want to hide our stash. Basically, if a server wants to grab a supply camp and move all the supply to a tower in order to upgrade the tower, we should be allowed to…or hide it all in garri…whatever so that we can implement our own map strategy instead of the extremely rigid one we have to play with…

Implement a resource scaling system that is based on server, wvw, and map population such that each pop metric influences options and strategies the server can use to play different styles. Make sure this system employs diminishing returns for population size (or inversely, diminishing support for the lack thereof). Bascially, supply flow is lowest for highest pop server, highest wvw pop server, and as a function of the map status. HomeBL is 100% and fully upgraded = very slow supply generated by the BL (EotM still drops). HomeBL and you own 1 camp, supply comes quickly.

Implement incentive system that acts as supply, guild influence, and gathered item sink scaled based on pop statistics. If Server A is the biggest server and has homebl 100%, then options to add another supply camp (since supply flow is limited), or build a watchtower, or extra wall (like close off the wurm gate cannon at bay). Or if Server C is the smallest server and has homebl 100%, then options to build a Legendary Omega in enemy BL, or option for a crate of 20 Wall Smasher Hammers to drop in enemy BL so now you can beat the wall down like you always wanted too. The scale of these, and options for new content are endless, but they should be random in occurrence and based on the pop metrics identified above.

Finally, must include instances in wvw to really spice things up. Random, event and pop based instances that activate for commanders, or “pop up” like siegerazer. Something like, a commander is defending garri, suddenly a wild instance pops up and offers the commander to take the fight into the “Keep Dungeon”. The cost is x,xxx gathered items, xx,xxx guild influence, and/or x,xxx supply, and X guilds have to participate. Or a commander shows up on an enemy bl with a group and there is a spy at spawn willing to get the group into one of the northern towers to “Ransack” supply. Again these are random and based on the pop metrics above.

Oh, and really finally…since we are saying pop imbalance exists, we must assume that the current T1 and T8 are the extremes, and should not be supported, if you will, by this new system. So design and implement this such that these servers can do nothing under this new system (hence the diminishing returns). I guess that would look like any T2 or even T3 server should have an easier time beating a T1 server than the other way around. Similarly, the current T8 servers should not benefit from this system against a T7 or T6 server, basically forcing them to try to get more population.

Thanks, it’s just a rough idea people, and I feel better now

~psyco~

check out Mr. Prometheous’ videos (can’t find link atm)…helped tons

i LUV my mez!

early on I decided on the Condition Damage approach. i put traits into Domination, Chaos, and Illusions. start with Illusions…the more you can pop up the better. later, max your condition dmg (illusions cause x, y, or z when they die, +X% for condition dmg, etc).

as GamerKoutotsu said, get gear that max’s your thing (condition dmg) as you lvl. you can make it yourself if you want (blues work fine until you can afford a full green or yellow set).

i prefer the Staff and Sword/Focus setup over others. if its 1 enemy, i can run up and hit 2 and 3, and lay into someone with CD and get boons back…are you kidding me
if its multiple, i run in…target the first 3 with clones and phantasms, and then clean it up…just don’t forget to move…hehe

know the difference between clones and phantasms…clones distract…phantasms cause dmg…whatever build and weps you use, max your use of phantasms for dmg.

I can pop the Warlock, switch weps and pop the Warden in a heartbeat for dmg, and then run in with my Blurred Frenzy and lay waste. I can pop clones for distraction, then Mind Wreck em for dmg, and do it all again quickly…

main thing to do is max the number of ethereal fields so you can max the number of Chaos Armors you get. this will destroy close combat enemies. also remember that close combat enemies fall to casting and far away enemies fall to the sword.

well, you can proly tell i LUV my mez!! It can be alot of fun in pve and pvp