Guild Wars 2

But it will be the sum of WEXP, not the sum of ranks.
Which is a bit less than sum of ranks as low ranks required less WEXP.

Some NA server have to learn French and German first (I guess there are enough Spanish speaking in NA).

But let’s see how EotM will work. If I got it right matches there will be 24h and with ladder wide teams with unlimited overflow map capacity https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Thank-you-from-the-Edge-of-the-Mists-Team/3478428

Will give some Babylonian language mixture in EU already

The other interesting question of course will be:
How many will still play WvW when EotM goes live.
How will this affect server ranking?
Will the night-shifts continue to play PVD in WvW or will they be the first to go for fights in EotM?

Lol as soon as it scrolls out of page 1 the next ask this question

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/When-does-the-worlds-change-colors/3467650

Have a look at
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Only-a-WvW-player/1486806
As well

Zikory.6871:

The medals represent wins in tier 1.

No. With the introduction of the random roll in match making tier 1 and winning it lost it’s meaning. Millenium changed its medal-counter at that time from winning tier 1 to its current

Gold for each time you finished a week as EU/NA rank 1
Silver for each time you finished a week as EU/NA rank 2
Bronze for each time you finished a week as EU/NA rank 3

And Gandara has no medal, because rank 9 was its best rank so far.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/When-does-the-worlds-change-colors/3467650
As this is ask every second week have a look here

phys.7689:

azizul.8469:

reduce map cap and you can have balanced match up variance…… but of course ANET want large scale battle which favours stacked servers…

so, there you have it, unbalanced variance….

anet wants people to actually be able to participate, lowering caps = greater ques and less people able to play the mode

There are a lot Server without Queue.
Lowering cap = Stack and Queue OR spreadout and Play

And spread out will also result in more server able to compete, so more balanced varity

In EU the new matchmaking parameter work quite well.

NA are fewer server, with a larger Glicko-range (maybe partly the result of ANet last manual interaction, the infusion of points into T8) and much more imbalance. On EU the the national servers countered the concentration process. On NA it seem to be much worser.

I think there are only 2 ways for NA-ladder that could lead to more variance and balance:
- a different scoring system, i.e. less dominance of coverage and numbers (e.g. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage)
- a reduction of map-capacity, i.e. more queue on the over-stacked servers, easier to fill the maps for understacked servers.

And best before EotM takes the queue away

The other possibility of course is: Everyone will play EotM and no one cares about WvW (neither variance nor balance) when it appears.

Probably the quantities joining EoTM and leaving WvW will vary per server, in which case balance and therefore ladder will be reshuffled soon anyway.

Dawdler.8521:

Then of course we have the always ignored Australia and every other part of the world.

Ignored? How can you ignore someone that currently has a scoring multiplier of 10-20?
In fact they aren’t ignored, they are wanted in every recruitment thread.

I can repeat it for you:

Dayra.7405:

I play on a server that is currently second in EU-coverage. Still I find a game nonsense where the presence/absence of 50 off-time people decide a match and the quality of 1000 prime-time people has no influence on match-outcome.

I want that both player have a similar influence on the out-come. This does not punish off-time people, but of course it reduces their current imbalanced over-poweredness.

And do you really find it adequate that a few people on DB make nearly as many points in 4 hours than you make with many more in 20h? (time in the screenshoor is CET, but you can look at http://gw2score.com/server/Borlis-Pass yourself.)

That’s why proposals 1 and 2 are continuous based on the real number of players.
For simplicity of writing: Prime-time is when there are 695+ people in a WvW match (at least one player per objective point), off-time is when there are 694- people in a WvW match (more objective points than player)
Some matches may be prime-time 24/7, some matches may have several prime-times over the day.

NornBearPig.9814:

5) make a new map that isn’t PPT driven

oh wait

Yes, I am quite sure that the amount of off-time increases a lot when EotM comes, i.e. WvW will loose a lot of player to EotM.

Balance between servers is a different issue than balance of off- and prime-time player impact.

In fact I am against any balance methods of servers, it violates the idea of competition in a match. (However, things like: half the capacity of all WvW-maps would probably be good to counter the “concentration on a few servers”-process)

But prime-time and off-time aren’t in a competition (they cannot fight each other), they simply both exist, therefore I a prefer balanced set-up with respect to them.

Our keep get reseted every morning between 5-6am by 10+ golems. Should we send them to you for cleanup as well?

Sirendor.1394:

Imo they should break down the lousy ‘server vs. server’ system. Kill servers, make it alliances in one big kettle.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/suggestions/Separate-Casual-and-Ranking-WvW

Proposed and ignored (moved to general suggestions trash-can) long time ago
Refined and updated in the german CDI-thread on world-population as well:
https://forum-de.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Gemeinsame-Entwicklung-Euer-Thema-Welt-Bev-lkerung/334931

A ticker stop would be to much, as it would really discriminate the night-player.
But I do not want to discriminate them. I only want that the discriminatin of the prime-time players ends.

Therefore I am in favor of a correspondence of
No of people playing = no of objectives/score achievable
Such that effort is rewarded equally.

Have a look at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3467861

Different scoring methods may enable both:
More variance and more balance

Chris.3290:

Most of these proposals would unfairly punish our OCX and SEA.

Of course, there would be another interesting option:

We all know the current scoring/match system very well, and in 90% of matches (probably close to 100 if we knew all transfers) we are able to predict the outcome correctly before the match started (if you consider close race between A and B as a valid prediction as well).

No single proposal (nor the current system) would be equally fair to everyone.

How about having leagues (probably best swiss-tournament with all servers) with different proposals (and the current one) in rotation?

On https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/ is the WvW ranking that (more or less adequate) reflect the servers strength to win a match. Every friday evening the match finishes and the new one starts. The bottom of http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups predicts how it will look friday evening based on current performance in the match.

Originally (till June 2013) 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 in the ranking got green, 2, 5, … got blue, 3, 6, … got red. Now (since June 2013) there is also a random roll involved.
Every server rolls a dice that vary it’s rating by around +90 till -90.
Server get ordered by this modified rating and 1,4, get green … 2, 5, … get blue, 3, 6, .. get red.

If your server changed its place in the rating you increase your chance to get a different color. If the neighbor servers are close in rating you have a higher chance to vary color than when your neighbors are far away.

If your matches have more or less equal amounts of people all around the clock, the implementation of proposal 1 or 2 would not have much effect on you. It only would make a substantial difference in scoring when there are times with substantial differences in players, e.g. with proposal 2a) when your match has 695+ people in WvW (sum all three sides!) all around the clock there would be zero difference to today.

Sounds like in a time-sliced match system SoS could be fighting to be number 1 in the Pacific-Prime slice AND have interesting fights with other servers strong in that time.

In the current system they are doomed to PvD in their strong time and being overrun in their weaker time, because the current scoring and ranking only takes the average performance over time.

Israel.7056:

Well we’re kind of comparing apples and oranges here I think.

Not sure. If I look at blackgates score in the current match averaged per hour of the day
http://www.gw2score.com/server/Blackgate
It looks like your NA-afternoon/evening (is that your prime? Note that the time in the picture is my time i.e. CET, NYC is -6 and Seatle is -9) is loosing every advantage you gained over the other 16h (is that your off-time?).

And look at the 2nd screen, SoS is only competitive in T3 because of it’s 3am-6am (NYC) off-time advantage

Same picture in NA as in EU, you do not win as well because your prime-time is better, but because your off-time is better. In fact NA-prime-time seem to be as irrelevant for match-result as EU-prime-time is.

1st screen BG-SoR-JQ
2nd screen SoS-SI-YB

Sin.4130:

National servers are absolutely great idea. I see those matches Poland vs UK, Spanish vs Germany etc. absolutely brilliant.

German vs German (with the very rare highlight of German vs German vs German) was always much much better than anything else.

Btw. I heard that Blacktide is mostly polish, but looks like they only farm PvE, and do not play much WvW.

Belfagor Diabolos.1940:

@Sin.4130
U have to understand something:
a lot of servers have good community’s, and in this community’s U have EU, NA and OZ players who are integral part of them , so why after 1,5 year from game release U want to ban this players from playing with friends and to be a part of community’s what they help to build ? Just because they have different IP?

Integral part in the future or since 15hours or since 3 month, i.e. the time where FSP went up 6 ranks due to a NA night-shift?
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/recruitment/NUDE-A-NA-guild-on-an-EU-server/3464889

Ikaros.7812:

Two bad words in the topic title, “matchup” and “wishlist”. Don’t expect this to last very long.

Haha, WvW is about matchups, you can hardly ban that word, even if the fun of WvW is now badly reduced by forbidding to talk about specific matchups.
And probably wish list is something ANet likes in the title of a thread. It’s a clear indicator that they have to ignore it’s content.

My wishes for next week are:
Elona-Riverside-Kodash
Vizu-SFr-(Jade/Piken/Deso)

Ken, will you post your probabilities now in this thread?

Don’t ask me for details on NA, I play EU.

But the simple fact is: no challenge = no quality (at least no measure of quality).

And as prime-time is not required to do more than not loose everything that off-time acquired it is not really challenged.

And to give you an example from EU: Vizunah did not won a medal every week since the start of GW2, because they have such a good prime-time. In fact, anyone that played against Vizunah wondered how they can be that successful with such a bad prime-time. But it’s easy: they won because they went up at 4am (CET, most EU players are CET +/- 1), turned all the opponents into wood and them selfs into T3, such that even their bad prime-time was competitive.

Israel.7056:

I think the simpler solution would be for people to either transfer to servers with better coverage or try to recruit more people to shore up their server’s weak coverage spots.

This is part of the problem! The prime-time queue would be horrible btw. if anyone that plays WvW would transfer to a T1-server.

Israel.7056:

I’ve been playing on Blackgate for most of the time I’ve played GW2 and it’s nice to know that my contribution will be meaningful regardless of the timezone I choose to play in because my server has 24/7 coverage.

No, your prime-time does not matter et al currently, it’s the off-time that keep you in T1. Your prime-time is probably only mediocre as it is irrelevant for match outcome anyway.

If you day shift is superior your prime-time sits in T3 while the opponents sit in wood. Doesn’t require more than karma-train quality to not loose prime-time.

Only with time-sliced matches you would know how good your prime-time is.

ANet said that their Server-structure is unable to mix EU and NA population.

But I guess they should be able to count how many people are in WvW and implement a multiplication. And as they already have a save/restore map (neded for maintenance) time-sliced matches are also not a big deal.

But yes an Alliance vs Alliance ( with team-building neither restricted by server nor by ladder) instead of world vs world would probably be solution 5.

Reverence.6915:

It’s like OP wants to play in a T1/T2 server without having to transfer servers.

Wrong the OP is on a EU T1/T2 server. But he prefers to win according to a more meaningful criteria than no of people PVDing in off-time.

If they own the map, they get more score if they are on the map and do not hide btw.

My servers score has only a meaning relative to the opponents score. After the match it is translated to Glicko and it’s total amount does not matter. And the total amount does not matter for translation into Glicko, only the relative amount is important.

So if they reduce my (and the 3rd) servers score by 33% and at the same time reduce their own score to 0. Great for me, bad for them.

And I also wrote average number of players over the time-frame of a tick, if 3 players are in the match 5min of a tick each they count the same as 1 player being on the whole 15min. As soon as they show presence they count for the minutes they are on. Only if they do not show presence et al, they do not count. But in this case they also likely loose everything.

And hey why not. Unbelievable good organization I prefer as match win-factor over masses of unorganized PvD players in off-time.

I did NOT put any balance issues in!!! And I did not put any event-scoring in as well!

It’s only coverage!
With my proposals: 1 player may score maximally 1 point (if his side also controls the necessary amount of objective).

Today 1 prime-time player can score 0.7 points per player (695 objective for around 1000 player),
1 off-time play can score around 14 points per player
(assuming 50 people are in the match at this off-time, if 100 are on, then he can score 7 points per player)

nikitnq.7143:

Dayra.7405:

That ANet is unable to handle trolls we all know.
Trolls can build siege where it is useless, they can start the wrong upgrades in times where the supplies are needed, they party the opponent to show position of zergs to the enemy, …., their simple presence on the map blocks slots needed by others.

Yes we would need troll handling too, but this is a different story.

It isn’t just about the spies.

If scoring is based on the population, all the winning server needs is a team of scouts in each BL and on VOIP. By pulling their forces into say, OS or EOTM, the remaining servers will be scoring low as long as important assets like certain towers or keeps are defended when required.

This means the mean scoring method in your proposal actually promote bursts play and then non-participation in order to secure wins. Hence, on the flipside, punishes players that want to just play.

PS: I should explain further on the scouts. Leaving minimum players on the map means as soon as an enemy force ports into the map, the undermanned buff will already give that away. Loads of lead time to counter.

Edit:
From Aberrant.6749, if the population mean method is applied with a hard minimum, it could work, but I think this value will differ from match-ups and could be hard to balance according to tiers.

You have a nice fantasy, but why is this now different than today? If you manage to fake a force away you take their keep and the rest and score with it.
Anyhow the most effective trolling (also possible already) is:
send a large force to one of the opponents server.
They take all slots in prime-time and they help your home-force to crush the 3rd server

nikitnq.7143:

Dayra.7405:

That’s why I made sure that never a single servers amount of players limits anything.
But the total sum of all three servers.

If not one from any of the three servers is in the game (on a specific map) why should it generate a score?

As soon as there are any people from any side (sum up over all sides) the score start.

They only thing you reach with a boycott of a map is: you will loose it.

The server that owns it can get score for it if he maintains his people there.

Borderhopping and scouts.

What’s with borderhopping and scouts? They have zero influence in 1) and 2a) as both build the total of all sides over all maps and only use this a the total limit/factor.

They have an intended influence in 2b) 2c) and 2d) you may like this (I do) or you may not. That’s why they are possible alternatives to choose from.

That ANet is unable to handle trolls we all know.
Trolls can build siege where it is useless, they can start the wrong upgrades in times where the supplies are needed, they party the opponent to show position of zergs to the enemy, …., their simple presence on the map blocks slots needed by others.

Yes we would need troll handling too, but this is a different story.

nikitnq.7143:

Scoring by participants or opposing force has been struck off over and over and I’m beginning to sound like a broken record. It’s too easy to exploit by an organized server. What is stopping a server from taking a healthy lead and simply pull their forces from a BL? This applies to any limit and/or multipliers applied on scoring based on population.

That’s why I made sure that never a single servers amount of players limits anything.
But the total sum of all three servers.

If not one from any of the three servers is in the game (on a specific map) why should it generate a score?

As soon as there are any people from any side (sum up over all sides) the score start.

They only thing you reach with a boycott of a map is: you will loose it.

The server that owns it can get score for it if he maintains his people there.

A single side can field up to around 400 people. If both other server boycott, this server scores 400:0:0, If only one server boycott, they can reach any maximum set by the available objectives easily, e.g. 350:350:0 or even 695:0:0 if the second server plays bad.

It’s a discrimination of prime-time players.

Rather sooner (EotM) than later (TESO): Change it or you play it alone.

Where do you take the penalty in my proposals?

Anything they cannot do anymore in WvW? NO

Less decisive than now, YES, thats the goal!

But still with any proposal they are more or at least equally important.
They generate the same score and not the 20 times as high score per player with proposal 1 and 2. As a bonus they turn the map to your sides color.

And for proposal 4. They play independently from prime-time. They have their own match. They can win it, they can loose it, they can be higher-ranked than the prime-time or lower-ranked, it all depends on them. They just do not influence prime-time any longer, nor does prime-time influence them.

nirvana.8245:

Proposals 1, 2 and 4 are all extremely exploitable.

I know the exploit-proposals for 1 and 2, but they only lead to loss of the exploiter not to win of the exploiter. (Boycott you probably mean, but if one or even both sides boycott the match, you still score with the amount of your people and easily control the whole map, so score is yourpeople:0:0, which is a sure loss for the boycotter).

But how can you exploit 4? I am really curious to learn that!

Chris.3290:

Why should a player in Austrailia or in Europe make less of an impact on an NA server than other members?

This is not the question. The question is:
- Why did ANet made Australians/Pacifics and Europeans be more important than Americans on NA servers?
- Why did ANet made an Australians/Pacifics and Americans be more important than Europeans on EU servers?

And why should Americans on NA servers and European on EU-servers be satisfied with that decision, that discriminate them?

It’s match off-time if only 50 people are in WvW in this match instead of over 1000 (all maps full). Who has day, night or evening in that period doesn’t matter me. And yes more respect for the efforts of 1000 at the cost of reducing the importance of 50 down to EQUALITY is the goal. No one said that their time and effort should be made unimportant. It has to be stopped that their importance is 20 times higher.

My loss is that an otherwise quite good (for my taste) game-design is disturbed due to that choice. Who knows, if and when something perfect comes out.

But yes, since summer I played much less than before. I head a peak again now at Xmas, but probably it will drop again, if this boring way to decide matches is not improved.

Probably this number would be smaller if every match would run for 10’080 minutes instead of 90

Still it’s a matter of good or bad game design how influential this is.
And if it is badly designed so far, it can be improved
And it should be improved before people run away, they will not come back once they are gone.

Coverage wise Gunners Hold makes no point vs Elona (where I am). In prime-time you may be competitive. But hard to say, we only played once against each other in Week 39 2012

We are currently second in EU-coverage. Still I find a game nonsense where
the presence/absence of 50 off-time people decide a match and the quality of 1000 prime-time people has no influence on match-outcome.

I want that both player have a similar influence on the out-come. This does not punish off-time people, but of course it reduces their current imbalanced over-poweredness.

Reverence.6915:

@OP: You’re playing in the wrong game mode if you’re complaining about coverage in a 24/7 battleground. Either that, or you’re playing with the wrong motivations.

Was to much text for you to read and comment more than the title?

I already detailed why I think that the current 24/7 is broken and how a better 24/7 could look, i.e. one where prime-time and off-time are balanced in their importance (or separated).

If you want to compare WvW to soccer:

Current WvW is like captains roll 7 dice (dice are differently good based on amount of money spend to buy them) in the match-break and add that to the goal-score, i.e. matches aren’t decided in play-time but in break-time.

It’s not really surprising that this opposition is from servers like Jade Quary or Blackgate
i.e. server that fear competition (that they may loose) by such a change.

Chiolas.1326:

Anet did not care in the past year and they won’t care now.

With the end of the league they lost players due to this. That may wake them up.
And with the current “I don’t care” mood in WvW they will loose a lot players to ESO. (If ESO will be able to keep them is again another story)

Because of balance, better (especially broader) competition (more servers can compete in NA-prime, than in NA-night), and a preference that the same person can pick-up were it leaves 16hours ago.

They aren’t excluded, every server play 24/7. Just in different matches, where each slice has it’s own balanced opponent selection (i.e. each slice has it’s own Gicko and or league).

E.g. Blackgate may face (and be beaten by) Henge of Dengerai in NA-Prime, but during NA-Night Blackgate faces JQ and HoD face GoM (I am EU, don’t take the examples to serious)