Guild Wars 2

Condition builds do damage over time and need bulk to survive to see thei damage done. However, Condition builds that melt foes in seconds with only one offensive stat are not particularly fair. A Condition build with no precision only needs to dish out sustained pressure. Burst is too much. If high damage Condition skills have their damage split between on crit traits and sigils, dire builds will actually have to sacrifce damage for their bulk (not relevant to sPvP right now, but it affects other bulky condition amulets with no precision). This makes condition builds slightly less painful to play against, because they can’t blow their opponent up if their crits don’t line up.

Removing paladin amulet hurts balance outside of sPvP, because balance for stat combos that don’t exist in PvP are generally not accounted for, which hurts wvw (dire and the hybrid amulet that was removed). Deleting the bruiser and hybrid fron the game is not the correct way to abalnce them.

This will help servers in the long run, because people who go into WvW to craft count towards the server population. This may make a small positive impact on WvW servers that are full, but empty.

T1 is a good place to learn about WvW tactics, but WvW would be a better place if t1 dispersed.

If you feel like WvW is dead, I reccomend transferring. Some servers are very lively and in need of top tier players that can improve them.

Dipdoo.4861:

Ehmry After Dark can’t even hope to stand up to the menagerie of CD and friends for a few reasons. Some of the biggest being tome-zone coverage of 4 servers being much better than that of 2, and the combined population being hilariously over-saturated for T4. I really hope ANet either manually messes with glicko to get that 4 headed Hydra (hail) out of T4 or rethinks the linking soon.tm.

I wouldn’t be surpised if it moves to t3 next week. Not sure how well it can do there. It has a really impressive ebg queue that went straight from na prime and into sea time without going away. However, the other maps are less fortunate, so it will be hard to say whether or not the Confederation For Exciting Battles (CFEB) will be able to win against jq.

The “Fantastic Four” will have a very hard time as it faces stronger servers. Organizing is difficult. We could also use a good pugmander. Haven’t seen a t1 quality tag yet

Eredon terrace is probably going to wake up in t4 on Friday night… Will everyone abandon ship, or will ET rise with its new population?

Hexinx.1872:

We have a 5 man team to work with atm, something of this scale would require much more headcount to support.

WvW deserves at least a 10 man team. It is 1/3 of this game’s appeal, and it is probably the one that makes the most loyal players.

Lightsbane.9012:

Aktium.9506:

Dire/Trailblazer with Perplexity or Nightmare runes is your best bet.

and by far the most obnoxious (not to mention unkillable if you play your cards right) of all the builds in existence for all classes. this is the build you use if trying is not your strong suit.

Unfortunately, not using it doesn’t stop people from running other cheese builds, and it might be your best bet against things that otherwise are incredibly hard to kill (warriors).

Hexinx.1872:

Famine.7915:

All this will also help propagate bandwagoning anyways… :/

^^ This. Basically, if you have any history with WvW …. the exact thing you are asking to have occur, is how the overstacking began. First it was HoD, then JQ, then BG & I think SoR… I was part of the Kaineng allegiance.

With any amount of planning, guilds can arrange to stack a server. I don’t see how resetting – and redistributing all accounts, and giving them 1 free transfer will entise someone to spread evenly. If anything it just gives everyone a 1 shot deal to arrange the next Server stacking.

The only way i see any chance at balancing is either through alliances (which I’m not a fan of) … it would basically be the same deal only with 3 colours across all servers, and diminishes server pride. Or somehow measuring the off prime hours activity and balancing that out.

I like where your going with this, it’s just a square peg with a round hole. We need to find the round peg solution.

Non-exploitable server caps, management of transfer traffic, and server pairings that aim to make equal numbers for each team should help with that a lot. Despite being a sandbox style game mode, WvW needs more than sandbox level management to stay competitive. These changes alone won’t mean anything if they are not maintained, because we will repeat the past and break WvW again. However, if Arenanet keeps a careful eye on the traffic between servers, they can prevent people from bandwagoning as much as they currently do, and without the huge size difference between servers marked as full, server-linking will properly balance out the populations in match-ups.

PariahX.6970:

I think both the original semi-leaked post HoT plan to address WvW population imbalance (some kind of alliance plan) and their “blow it up and start over” option probably held elements of this idea. I know a lot of us realm pride types were pretty upset over the idea of alliances and the resulting forum ruckus over the leak sent ANET back to the drawing board but what they came up with (world linking) isn’t really all the great for around 30% of the players anyways (low tiers) and given the poll on maintaining world linking came back pretty highly in favor of it, I am not sure if the forum reaction to the leaked alliance proposal wasn’t just another case of the vocal minority trying to inflict their will on the rest similar to the recent DBL removal vote debacle.

I would be a member of that vocal minority in this instance but would not be opposed to re-visiting some version of the alliance idea with more details. I fear that ship has sailed for now and we will be stuck with the “world-linking” solution for a while now. That should not stop people from making other suggestions however, who knows when that next re-iteration might come. After a few more rounds of world-linking I am not sure those players who were dead set against such proposals will still be around anyways.

World linking isn’t terrible, but the existing servers are terrible. Current world linking is just going to turn into a cash treadmill to get into t1 (stack linked t1 server, linked server drops to t4, abandon server and stack new t1 server). World linking is technically alliances between two servers, but it doesn’t feel good because of how servers are hugely disproportionate, and because one server is the “host” and the other one is completely obscured.

This is because they tend to buff big and nerf big then never turn back on changes (ride the lightning). Each class tends to only have a few sets of good options at a time, especially when they are on the back swing of the balance hammer.

Dashingsteel.3410:

I was hoping Jormag… if it is crystal desert I hope it’s not as bland looking as dry top and the silverwastes…… those are eyesores…..

I don’t care what they do so long as I get tengu and polearms. That is what I bought this game back in 2012 for, and I’m still waiting to live the dream.

Most of you know what I’m talking about. When you jump down into the lower Tarir area and the game lags so much that your glider fails and you splat. This seems to happen regardless of crowds.
Not game breaking, but it would be an appreciated fix.

Batman cape glider? That’s actually a super cool idea!

Some people just use these things next to the bank because they are cancerous to inventory space and not really fun anymore (same old stuff gets old). I may or may not be guilty of this.

I lucked out on charged quartz with the broken wintersday loot that one year (got 100 on day 1). However, I think it is unfair how unreasonably hard this is for everyone else to get. It deserves to at least be sellable.

Bubbles is not next. Arenanet has far too many things to face before they clean up underwater combat.

DeWolfe.2174:

scerevisiae.1972:

I really hate DBL but I voted to keep it for the sole reason that the wording strongly implied that no further BLs would be created if DBL were ditched. I suspect a large segment of the keep-DBL vote feels the same way.

This I find to be incredibly sad end to this.

That definitely influenced my vote. Dbl needs a lot of work to rise above being a grounded eotm.
1. Towers are too isolated and too big. These towers do not need major themes tied to them. They should be broken up into 2-4 standardized desert towers each that can interact with each other and the keeps and don’t need 3 scouts each.
2. Shrines are annoying. Cc turrets, selective walls, cripple machines, and sandstorm pit are not fun to play against. Immortal jumping < gliding (make snipers that enforce no fly zones).
3. The oasis is a waste of space. Stonemist is a good central objective. The ruins are bad. A lake is bad. Aetherblades are bad! Some brainstorming needs to he done for central objectives in the bls.
4. I’m sure I missed things that have been said before, but those are my 3 major points.

It’s really sad how d/d ele has died. I feel like the next set of specializations will make it or break it for this game.

Considering map cap hell if 18 servers were pitted against them, they could probably give them a run for their money, but all of bg would have to be there. Especially if the 18 servers were split into sets of 9

Phantom.8130:

Kano.3720:

Nice idea. Don’t worry too much about negative feedback, most people on the forums are arrogant/stubborn on their own ideas and just narrow minded. The only thing I yet to figure out is just a way to make people loyal to a server. people talk about bandwagon, its not a system problem, its a problem created by players themselves. Just need to add motivation to server loyalty and motivation to play wvw frequently.

Loyalty rewards. Make it like a reward track, only over a much longer period of time, such as one level per week, up to 10 weeks, and have it give unique/WvW specific rewards. Things like WvW specific skins and minis, as well as fairly large boxes of superior blueprints, for example. To qualify, you’d have to complete one regular reward track per week. Then add a 2-4 week cooldown period post transfer, where a person couldn’t enter WvW at all, and you’d see a LOT less hopping around.

Bingo. Play an an hour a two in WvW a day. Get a reward. Play on a server for 10 weeks, get an ascended loot box.

Jayne.9251:

Cecilia.5179:

Suggestion: send the poll to people in game after they have been in WvW for 1 hour.

Um they already kind of do that. Do you not play?

I thought they did that (or that I just happened to always be in WvW when I received them), so now I don’t understand why the thread was complaining.

Suggestion: send the poll to people in game after they have been in WvW for 1 hour.

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

That is already the case. I don’t disagree with you since we’re basically on the same page, I’m just pointing out that servers already solely exist for WvW, and they wouldn’t be counted in a new system as active population, but they would still need to be evenly distributed. Externally selecting servers will mean that some servers will never receive a competitive population (ie Eredon Terrace) due to first a forgettable name, and then because individuals see a low population. I can see your system working if people put in requests to play WvW, and then they evenly distribute servers in the way that maps place you with friends and guildmates first so that every server has similar populations. However, this requires a lot more micromanaging than people talking and choosing which place to go to, and it has a far greater chance to cause errors. I will still say letting the players reunite on their own terms while watching server movement is the best way to go resource-wise while still effectively reducing the ratio of lopsided matchups.

If you removed players from servers all together, they would ALL need to choose a new WvW server. What I suggested was only active WvW players have a WvW server at all. Player choice is vital however, NO random placement. I do not know a single guild that would continue to play the game at all if they were randomly placed. i know mine would not. Players need to have control over where they play, who they play with. You do realize there are TON of players on this game that will not play it if forced to be on the same server with someone they have no desire to be on a server with don’t you?

Let’s see.. without using names but they know who they are.. Guy who had wife leave him for other guy on game and that guy is now living in his house? Guy beat the crap out of wife and she left him and she moved servers to hopefully never have to see him in game. Guy who gave girl place to live she moved in and sold everything he owned then left him without even leaving a note? Girl who was stalked by guy until she called police and got a restraining order? You think they will keep playing if stuck on the same server? You are dealing with actual people here, with lives and human interactions. You cannot just mindlessly place them like NPC’s.

If this happened to the WvW guild I’m in, I would ask “Where are we going, boss?” and maybe give some suggestions. Then, my boss would pick a server, and all of our dedicated members would go there. If a guild is split apart and has the free ability to transfer, they will get back together if they want to get back together.

That scenario you give is very specific and equally possible if they both unknowingly choose the same server. What I’m saying is place everybody on new servers evenly, then people have a one week window to rally to their guild commander at no cost to themselves. Arenanet needs to simply take some time processing transfers to prevent severe bandwagoning.
You seem to want the same thing, but instead of starting on a server, nobody starts on a server, which means some servers will never gain population.

There are still people in WvW who want to see the desert bls again. My only huge issues with them are that objectives hardly interact with each other and are too big for one person to scout effectively and the oasis is completely pointless. I actually wouldn’t mind the towers being broken up into four smaller towers that interact with each other and the nearest keep and a giant citadel being put where the oasis is so that this map can rotate with ebg and something else can rotate with alpine bl.

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

That is already the case. I don’t disagree with you since we’re basically on the same page, I’m just pointing out that servers already solely exist for WvW, and they wouldn’t be counted in a new system as active population, but they would still need to be evenly distributed. Externally selecting servers will mean that some servers will never receive a competitive population (ie Eredon Terrace) due to first a forgettable name, and then because individuals see a low population. I can see your system working if people put in requests to play WvW, and then they evenly distribute servers in the way that maps place you with friends and guildmates first so that every server has similar populations. However, this requires a lot more micromanaging than people talking and choosing which place to go to, and it has a far greater chance to cause errors. I will still say letting the players reunite on their own terms while watching server movement is the best way to go resource-wise while still effectively reducing the ratio of lopsided matchups.

I named my ranger pets Imprinting Accident and Hamburger Meat.

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

lil devils x.6071:

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting.

Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

I like this idea much more than a reset that randomly throws everyone around and then letting them transfer again.

It’s a good alternative to disconnect the original servers from wvw, and try to place players in a more even fashion onto new servers or factions if they wanted to do that. They wouldn’t even need to run this permanently at first, if they wanted they could do it as a week event once a month to see how it works out, like a cough tournament.

Let players sign up a week ahead for a side, and then make sure the system keeps it even, set signup caps until all 3 sides meet it then raise it again until the cut off time, so set it to 100 and when 100 have signed up on all 3 sides, raise it to 200 and so on. Or as you say show the numbers and caps so large guilds can pick emptier servers to place their guild in.

There is almost the exact same way to reset WvW. However, this way does completely remove the idea of being loyal to one server for people who like that. I agree that arenanet should carefully manage the process of transferring to shut down any large bandwagoning patterns and make an effort to keep all 4 matchups relatively even.

The current Server communities have Teamspeak servers and websites that were paid for in advance and much time and money invested in their servers, It think it would be wrong to them to just disregard that entirely. By allowing them to keep their current servers as PvE servers, they can keep their communities in tact and still have a “home base” to play from. Creating separate WvW servers allows WvW servers to be reset as needed AND allows for the current server community structures and bonds to remain in tact.

This is a really good point. I actually didn’t consider the websites and other paid stuff that would be obsoleted by this. However, servers don’t really mean anything in pve anymore because of megaservers, so these websites exist mostly for WvW and will be wiped out or deprived of traffic either way.

As for elegancy, this is comparing kicking everybody out and giving them a random home to kicking everybody out and making them choose a new home while they have no home. Either way works equally well and has similar chances of people getting separated depending on how carefully the massive traffic on the first week is managed.

Famine.7915:

All this will also help propagate bandwagoning anyways… :/

Bandwagoning is a choice of the players. People what to log in to a server that is active whenever they are. Even with management, it will exist in some form.
However, management is essential. If arenanet limits transfers to one week monthly or quarterly, they will be able to carefully manage the flow of people, limit the number of guilds who can transfer onto a server, keep guilds together, and lock servers that are recieving too much attention.

Xenesis.6389:

lil devils x.6071:

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting.

Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

I like this idea much more than a reset that randomly throws everyone around and then letting them transfer again.

It’s a good alternative to disconnect the original servers from wvw, and try to place players in a more even fashion onto new servers or factions if they wanted to do that. They wouldn’t even need to run this permanently at first, if they wanted they could do it as a week event once a month to see how it works out, like a cough tournament.

Let players sign up a week ahead for a side, and then make sure the system keeps it even, set signup caps until all 3 sides meet it then raise it again until the cut off time, so set it to 100 and when 100 have signed up on all 3 sides, raise it to 200 and so on. Or as you say show the numbers and caps so large guilds can pick emptier servers to place their guild in.

There is almost the exact same way to reset WvW. However, this way does completely remove the idea of being loyal to one server for people who like that. I agree that arenanet should carefully manage the process of transferring to shut down any large bandwagoning patterns and make an effort to keep all 4 matchups relatively even.

T1 roaming is good because zergs don’t chase as much and fights are easier to find, but going alone may prove brutal.
T2 roaming sucks. Zergs will chase you and there aren’t as many good fights. You also will have a hard time running alone.
T3 roaming was eh last time I was there (a long time ago). Better odds if you’re alone, but zergs will chase you

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

I disagree, they should give one free transfer every 3 months and leave transfer costs the same. Instead, create new WvW servers every 3 months, show population caps and current server populations on the server selection menu so people know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time. Everyone chooses a new WvW server to play on every 3 months and then it will destack all servers, stop stale matchups and give every server a fighting chance again while maintaining the current server communities as “PvE servers” leaving their communities intact that coordinate where they go every 3 months. ( Current servers = PvE servers WvW servers= Amount created is determined by WvW population every 3 months and you choose a new one every 3 months to keep it fresh.)

That won’t work either.

• People will form “alliances” and stack certain servers at the beginning of every 3 month period. Just like they did at the beginning of the game.
• People from large servers like BG will stack onto one server. And then complain when they can’t get all their people on it because it has a smaller cap.
• You can’t divide servers simply by numbers and expect it to be balanced.
  • You can’t tell what time of day the player plays.
  • You can’t tell how much they play. Some play 5 days a week. Some only on reset or the weekend.
  • Some only come in rarely. Or for their dailies.

We and Anet need to accept the fact that nothing they do will prevent players from stacking. And nothing they do will balance populations across 24/7 gameplay.

Arenanet has the power to see when players log on, where they log on to, and where they go.
A complete reset will spread people out for a time and weaken bandwagoning. At that point, Arenanet will have time to work on making other parts of WvW stronger without worrying as match about the matchups costing players. They can even choose to only have a one week transfer window where they can monitor patters and decide whether or not to allow addtional transfers to a specific server (aka process transfers, so you request to go somewhere then wait an hour or two for arenanet to decide if you moving there is part of a trend)

Swedemon.4670:

The hidden secret is that transfers generate a ton of revenue for Anet. Whatever they do they are not going throw away that money. It is a business after all with salaries to pay. Transfers benefit all aspects of the game.

Therefore bandwagoning will always exist you can only hope it is not too extreme.

Arenanet has to face that their source of “revenue” costs them players and makes rebalancing WvW impossible. WvWers are already high profit because we can’t afford nice things without farming PvE or throwing koney at the screen (reward tracks help, but ascended gear is often 100g a piece).

That poem is bae. I wish I could +1 it

Locking servers just creates the Berlin wall. It exists to keep the low tier servers from leaving, but nobody from the other side is going to move

DeceiverX.8361:

Cecilia.5179:

Jayne.9251:

Until they resolve bandwaggoning, there is no “fix” for uneven matches. All the OPs suggestion would do is delay the inevitable and cause mass chaos in the process.

The best fix for bandwagoning is to disperse the overcongested top tier severs that double what the current population cap is. So long as population isn’t exploited again, bandwagoning will never be as bad as it currently is.

DeceiverX.8361:

The biggest problem about opening up matchmaking to players, especially if free or cheap, is that it creates incentive to stack more. But then if you drive up prices, it makes it harder for smaller groups to even begin trying to assemble.

A wipe would only work by randomly allocating every player as an individual to a random server, but this would obviously destroy guilds and many sub-communities, which would also drop participation from WvW in general.

The only way to fix the problem is to link servers very frequently to a point where the only reliable allies are your server-mates (to increase server loyalty/community cohesion), and to allocate servers into mixed pools to balance the matches as best as possible, based on player data such as activity per time (AKA coverage), total combatants, number of fights, number of structure flips and their corresponding times, etc., even if this means doing something like having five low-tier servers allied together on one side versus two from T2 versus one from T1.

Without this kind of system, stagnation and stacking and/or the massive destruction of WvW and its communities is guaranteed.

Limiting WvW to one set of maps would drastically increase queues, and having 12 identical maps in one matchup is redundant. Splitting up every guild and community isn’t important when you can arrange with friends to pick a server you like the sound of. Wiping out the existence of the existing tiers, if only until top guilds form alliances, will make matches more competitive. Even if guild alliances exist, it comes down to player interaction and politics, which is more interesting than a giant of cluster of people stuck on the same server forever.

I don’t think you understand my proposal.

It’s not all-in-one or split evenly at all.

The number of tiers themselves would become volatile based on data-driven analysis using some kind of AI to automate the process, with some initial degree of RNG as to prevent stagnant matchups.

The entire concept of tiers is removed up until matchmaking is decided.

So one week the matchups may look like they are now with several sets of servers linked in pairs, whereas another week there might be a “T1” server matched against two other links consisting of several lower effective-tier/ranked servers each.

If things like population considerations and coverage are minded by the system (lots of data processing through a genetic neural net), there also won’t be drastically increased queues, either.

This random pairing and high volatility of the pairings which then are based on previous play-data prevents stacking in all forms, prevents tier-plummeting, and balances matchups dynamically week-to-week, overall decreasing runaway matches and stagnation/“Tier lock” while enforcing server communities to band together for their own personal ranks, and such communities would be the only things consistent through matchups.

Allowing matchmaking to be decided by the players reduces competitiveness long-term and reduces the number of active players in WvW as a whole. This has occurred many times throughout WvW history, and has all culminated in the same effect: a net loss of players, fractured communities, lower net competition, and overall increased bandwagoning and guild monopoly. Guilds are not fighting for resources and therefore have little stake in fighting each other aside from doing it for fun. As we’ve seen many, many times, once-competing guilds will often bandwagon to another server/alliance together to dominate the scene once bored of fighting each other and going nowhere in terms of match volatility. Loyalty to fight a dedicated enemy is nonexistent in this game, and thus player-driven matchups would encourage sprawling alliances and similar matchup deadlock.

That’s somewhat similar to what I suggested, except you don’t trust players to not create a bg 2.0. I don’t either, however, with populations and servers reset, bandwagoning won’t even result in a massive server. The biggest server also will get paired with a smaller server. I don’t think pitting 6 servers against the current bg will work. It will increase the challenge for bg depending on how strong those 6 servers are, or bg will crush them with superior coverage and trained pugs from off-duty fighting guilds. This also leaves every other matchup lopsisded and may even remove an entire matchup.
If the community desires to make their WvW experience boring and easy to the point where they try to turn an entire system on its head not once, but twice, there will be no systemthat can save WvW.
Arenanet is fully capable of micromanaging a new system by:
-Locking severs that people are moving to in droves
-asking guilds to switch servers and offer them bribes to do so.
Therefore, we should be able to handle servers that aren’t already completely screwed on server population with some effort.

Cerby.1069:

Cecilia.5179:

Currently, this issue can’t be fixed because no server can gain a large enough population to beat the biggest servers, and few want to leave those servers because winning is fun.
Thoughts?

multiply the ppk by 10-20x and see what happens.

Dont think about it…dont rationalize why it might be bad for the smaller servers…just do it and seeee what happens, haters WILL be surprised by the change in points at the end of a week.

Blood-crazed frenzy to kill every individual for the glory of Balthazar.

The problem here is the definition of full. t1 servers are more full than t2 servers, which are still more full than any t3 server ever will be. They fixed an exploit for getting onto servers that were already full too late, and the consequence is that those servers will be forever way bigger than they should be.

Jayne.9251:

Cecilia.5179:

Jayne.9251:

Cecilia.5179:

Jayne.9251:

Until they resolve bandwaggoning, there is no “fix” for uneven matches. All the OPs suggestion would do is delay the inevitable and cause mass chaos in the process.

The best fix for bandwagoning is to disperse the overcongested top tier severs that double what the current population cap is. So long as population isn’t exploited again, bandwagoning will never be as bad as it currently is.

DeceiverX.8361:

The biggest problem about opening up matchmaking to players, especially if free or cheap, is that it creates incentive to stack more. But then if you drive up prices, it makes it harder for smaller groups to even begin trying to assemble.

A wipe would only work by randomly allocating every player as an individual to a random server, but this would obviously destroy guilds and many sub-communities, which would also drop participation from WvW in general.

The only way to fix the problem is to link servers very frequently to a point where the only reliable allies are your server-mates (to increase server loyalty/community cohesion), and to allocate servers into mixed pools to balance the matches as best as possible, based on player data such as activity per time (AKA coverage), total combatants, number of fights, number of structure flips and their corresponding times, etc., even if this means doing something like having five low-tier servers allied together on one side versus two from T2 versus one from T1.

Without this kind of system, stagnation and stacking and/or the massive destruction of WvW and its communities is guaranteed.

Limiting WvW to one set of maps would drastically increase queues, and having 12 identical maps in one matchup is redundant. Splitting up every guild and community isn’t important when you can arrange with friends to pick a server you like the sound of. Wiping out the existence of the existing tiers, if only until top guilds form alliances, will make matches more competitive. Even if guild alliances exist, it comes down to player interaction and politics, which is more interesting than a giant of cluster of people stuck on the same server forever.

Once the population is “dispersed” how will you prevent people from switching servers?

Why shouldn’t people switch servers? People shouldn’t be trapped on the server they move to. The only things that need to be done is to keep the populations at a reasonable cap, so that bg or tc 2.0 doesn’t happen and put a timegate on how often somebody can transfer. The movement of people will be a major part of what prevents stagnation.

I think you’re missing the point.

You’re talking about guilds abandoning servers? That’s a thing even now, but when your paired server is matched according to your strength and changes very often, a dying server will still have lots of support from a higher or equal population server depending on how big they are, and because transfers are easier, there is a much better chance of guilds moving in to make the server better.

This is not a fix all solution to everything wrong with WvW. It deals with population imbalance across all servers effectively and gives players more freedom to make their matchups better instead of complaining that they can’t win in top WvW if they aren’t on bg because it is so much bigger and they can’t bring a t3 server up because it is so much smaller than the currently full servers. This change cannot fix the meta, it does not make dbl better, and it won’t make every guild return (some will), but it isn’t trying to do that. This system will give the players an opportunity to eliminate concrete match ups by deciding where they want to fight and still cycling enemies for people who stay (loyalty rewards?).

Same thing in t2. Same thing in t1. Matchups are stagnant.

There is no way to remove fair-weather syndrome, it is part of the human mind, and a small unorganized group will always have a disadvantage against a large unorganized group (smaller blob vs bigger blob). WvW needs more dedicated commanders to rally and organize small groups and prevent this. This is why WvW oriented guilds are the heart of WvW. They are generally more steadfast than a group of strangers.

Ben K.6238:

This is going to be really unpopular.

Best way to solve population problems is to find a solution in which players will choose to spread out. That means the benefits of doing so must outweigh the benefits of bandwagoning, which isn’t going to be achieved long-term by reshuffling the deck.

People are not going to willingly move in the current system. The only way for the current system to fix itself would be for large amounts of t1 and t2 to transfer by themselves, and I would love to hear an amazing plan that makes everyone in WvW want to pay arenanet to play WvW elsewhere, but I doubt that one exists.
As for reshuffling, gw2 transfers have changed since launch. People cannot easily sneak onto full servers anymore by waiting for an off hour, so bandwagoning can never reach the same level it at is right now.

Xenesis.6389:

Basically the plan is..
1. Lower server population hard cap.
2. Shuffle players randomly.
3. Leave transfers open so players who got thrown around(basically everyone)can move around to go back to their guilds provided that would even be available, with lower caps they can’t super stack a server.
4. Breaks BG and maybe TC’s overstacking at the moment.

There’s still problems with the proposed system, what if half a guild gets stuck on the revamped BG and the other half on all the other servers, and the server is already at it’s limit. You expect those players not with their guild to just say bye and reform into something else? Because you’ll more than likely just kitten off those players into quitting. Even free transfers is not going to matter then.

Players are stuck as a giant cluster because they choose to do so. Like I said you need to have more consideration for the players who have been playing this game for 3 years and have relationships in game with friends, guilds, alliances, server communities. Throwing them into the wind just for the sake of new politics is reckless and may result in players seeing that as the last straw to leave.

BG’s size is a problem, but that doesn’t mean you should blow up the rest of wvw because of them. A simpler solution would be just lower the caps, and offer free transfers for anyone on BG to whatever T3/4 server, then let’s see how many move.

There will be far less “getting stuck” in this system. Everyone in t1/t2 is stuck right now. With the option to transfer monthly, a guild doesn’t need to stay on a full server. Also, all of the servers will be evenly distributed among active WvWers, so none of the servers would be full during the time that active guilds pick their new homes. The population cap as is will probably be fine, so there will be ample room to transfer with everybody on 18 equal servers. Advance notice will be needed so that players who are not actively playing still have a chance to find their guild sooner than later.

You could try offering free transfers to BG, but begging players to move from the most reputable server that will permanently lose them is not too convincing. People like winning. The problem is that the other two servers hate constantly losing, and server pairing has no impact in matches because the shuffling of 3 little servers in t1 doesn’t matter when the population imbalance is so huge.

If a guild somehow does get cut off mid transfer, the simply need to wait a month and move elsewhere or wait for a guild to move off of the other server and open a spot for them.

Oh snap, the fiero of front liners. That is… a burn! rofl
Why not cleanse on swap so it procs on both?

What if they made axe 2 like the guardian scepter skill and gave it a 1s immob to guarantee some good hits?

Jayne.9251:

Cecilia.5179:

Jayne.9251:

Until they resolve bandwaggoning, there is no “fix” for uneven matches. All the OPs suggestion would do is delay the inevitable and cause mass chaos in the process.

The best fix for bandwagoning is to disperse the overcongested top tier severs that double what the current population cap is. So long as population isn’t exploited again, bandwagoning will never be as bad as it currently is.

DeceiverX.8361:

The biggest problem about opening up matchmaking to players, especially if free or cheap, is that it creates incentive to stack more. But then if you drive up prices, it makes it harder for smaller groups to even begin trying to assemble.

A wipe would only work by randomly allocating every player as an individual to a random server, but this would obviously destroy guilds and many sub-communities, which would also drop participation from WvW in general.

The only way to fix the problem is to link servers very frequently to a point where the only reliable allies are your server-mates (to increase server loyalty/community cohesion), and to allocate servers into mixed pools to balance the matches as best as possible, based on player data such as activity per time (AKA coverage), total combatants, number of fights, number of structure flips and their corresponding times, etc., even if this means doing something like having five low-tier servers allied together on one side versus two from T2 versus one from T1.

Without this kind of system, stagnation and stacking and/or the massive destruction of WvW and its communities is guaranteed.

Limiting WvW to one set of maps would drastically increase queues, and having 12 identical maps in one matchup is redundant. Splitting up every guild and community isn’t important when you can arrange with friends to pick a server you like the sound of. Wiping out the existence of the existing tiers, if only until top guilds form alliances, will make matches more competitive. Even if guild alliances exist, it comes down to player interaction and politics, which is more interesting than a giant of cluster of people stuck on the same server forever.

Once the population is “dispersed” how will you prevent people from switching servers?

Why shouldn’t people switch servers? People shouldn’t be trapped on the server they move to. The only things that need to be done is to keep the populations at a reasonable cap, so that bg or tc 2.0 doesn’t happen and put a timegate on how often somebody can transfer. The movement of people will be a major part of what prevents stagnation.

Jayne.9251:

Until they resolve bandwaggoning, there is no “fix” for uneven matches. All the OPs suggestion would do is delay the inevitable and cause mass chaos in the process.

The best fix for bandwagoning is to disperse the overcongested top tier severs that double what the current population cap is. So long as population isn’t exploited again, bandwagoning will never be as bad as it currently is.

DeceiverX.8361:

The biggest problem about opening up matchmaking to players, especially if free or cheap, is that it creates incentive to stack more. But then if you drive up prices, it makes it harder for smaller groups to even begin trying to assemble.

A wipe would only work by randomly allocating every player as an individual to a random server, but this would obviously destroy guilds and many sub-communities, which would also drop participation from WvW in general.

The only way to fix the problem is to link servers very frequently to a point where the only reliable allies are your server-mates (to increase server loyalty/community cohesion), and to allocate servers into mixed pools to balance the matches as best as possible, based on player data such as activity per time (AKA coverage), total combatants, number of fights, number of structure flips and their corresponding times, etc., even if this means doing something like having five low-tier servers allied together on one side versus two from T2 versus one from T1.

Without this kind of system, stagnation and stacking and/or the massive destruction of WvW and its communities is guaranteed.

Limiting WvW to one set of maps would drastically increase queues, and having 12 identical maps in one matchup is redundant. Splitting up every guild and community isn’t important when you can arrange with friends to pick a server you like the sound of. Wiping out the existence of the existing tiers, if only until top guilds form alliances, will make matches more competitive. Even if guild alliances exist, it comes down to player interaction and politics, which is more interesting than a giant of cluster of people stuck on the same server forever.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Cecilia.5179:

The ranger can’t shoot you past 1500

Want to bet?

Well if he were to shoot you when you’re in a group but he was too far to proc outnumbered, it won’t benefit him. If he shot you from a group you would only be downed either way.