Guild Wars 2

a t s e.9614:

I didint say the build was overpowered or had no counter. I said its a build that requires you to only press 1 button from 1500 range with no risk , no positioning whatsoever.

Please read the thread before commenting . Im not gonna repeat the same thing over and over.

Hate to break it to you but you are just flat out wrong. For the damage everyone is complaining about, the risk is being extremely glassy and having next to no condi removal.

The only way a glass cannon ranger can survive is by positioning themselves well and using well timed CC’s to keep distance between themselves and their opponents.

Please read every other thread on this same topic because everyone that actually knows the ranger class and their vulnerabilities is tired of repeating the same thing over and over.

So by “burst rotation comparison” what you really meant was… Wah?

Can I get you a wamburger and french cries, oh and you want me to call whine one one and have them bring the wambulance!?

Seriously, how many thread do these walking target golems need to make?

Here I found a video on how to counter these super, mega, impossible to beat rangers for you. Just remember the 5 D’s

http://youtu.be/18ASBsQfXnw

McWolfy.5924:

Personaly i think in wvw the aspect or spirit mode as you call is the only sollution for wvw players

Would be handy in dungeons as well if anyone still does those. Oh and probably world bosses too.

For all you warriors complaining
http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fJAQNAp8umUJSXIEALQQH4xBVBB-TFBQgAcK/AU/JZ/hVlgkCQPhRA-w
That is about 17 seconds, not counting dodges, where a longbow can not hurt you. In fact the majority of it is either reflecting the shots or healing you.

T raw.4658:

obviously you didn’t watch videos…he blew up warriors/guardians

[/quote]
What class can’t do that to glass warriors and guardians if they get the drop on them?
You can find these highly edited videos that only show wins for every single profession.

T raw.4658:

Zenos Osgorma.2936:

T raw.4658:

Xtinct.7031:

As a theif main, I am actually enjoying the new rapid fire change. One good dodge and I negate like 80% of their burst, than gap close and melt em. Were it used to be I had to double dodge to negate 70% of it, leaving me open for a follow up knock back.

You play a P/D condi thief……

Yeah we’re just gonna let you ride off into the sunset after this one fella.

lol constructive much , Nit picking much , much win Fail comment.
do us a favour and stop whining for a while.

I can appreciate self preservation mode that you are sporting.

That being said obviously the concept of balance risk vs reward are foreign to you. So I will spell it out:

As it currently stands now LB ranger is easier to play than ANY warrior build pre-nerfs.

You are kidding right? Before this update a warrior could build to out heal a longbow ranger. They could literally just ignore the ranger because rangers didn’t have a burst to kill them.

If a warrior is halfway decent and creates his build to deal with ranged players the warrior will have the advantage. Before you say you shouldn’t have to build to deal with ranged damage you need to keep in mind the ranger has chosen a build that leaves him considerably weak against condi’s and anyone getting in melee range. It only works as long as the rangers controls the battlefield, I would argue staying in control of terrain and timing your CC’s requires a lot more skill than pressing 7 than 5 than F1, or whatever it is you people think makes your classes complicated.

That is why this build is high risk high reward, and that is where the player skill comes from.

Rimmy.9217:

Sir Arthur.8905:

As it is now, nobody cares about WvW outside of T1, blobs make the game unplayable for many, and the massive overpopulation makes lower pops not even care about trying. Even if the imbalance could be solved without a cap, I would STILL be in favor of it because more servers blobbing is just as lame.

Speak for yourself, please. We have servers full of people, on all tiers, that care about WvW very much. This isn’t a T1 thread, either.

Sorry Rimmy but T1 is fine with their matchups, nevermind the fact they went 16 weeks in a row without seeing another server before the tournament. It’s not stale because they payed good money for their winning positions. Clearly everything is great, if it wasn’t the 1st page of WvW discussion might be littered with threads like this..
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/So-Swiss-style-tournament/first#post4449375
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/This-weeks-match-ups-are-a-joke/page/2#post4446735
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/You-have-got-to-be-kidding-me/first#post4449314
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Matchup-Feedback-merged/first
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/WvW-matchmaking-needs-work
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/How-did-DAOC-deal-with-population-coverage/first#post4442870
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/why-won-t-Maguma-drop-rank-faster

Raven.9603:

McWolfy.5924:

I have the full GWEN + ranger. I main a shout warrior on raids but my first character was a ranger. After patch a lot of players started to cry because they dont like to adapt. Some days after the patch everybody think the same again: nice, but still not good enough.
I can talk about wvw only, where i play. Pets leeching our power while give us nothing on the battlefield or in/front of the tower they die randomly or do nothing. While roaming the places are too big for pets, an average player can kite them to hell.
What do you think? What will or what should be the next update?

personally, i think we need less ranger threads on the profession balance forum (because theyre just going to become flame bait) and more threads on the ranger forum.

rangers need what theyve always needed: a class mechanic that works.

either:
give pets a “spirit” mode similar to passive mode. while in spirit mode, pets follow the ranger as spirits, providing species-specific passive and pet-specific active bonuses to the ranger. Pets in spirit mode cannot attack or be attacked.

or:
pets simply take massively reduced aoe damage and can hit moving targets. anet has never provided any logic for not doing the former and for some reason believes doing the latter would make pve too difficult. personally, i think if they are too worried about pve players being able to kite they should either A) have more confidence in pve’rs or simply make the attack range of ranger pets longer than a normal mobs (say they have a reach of 260 instead of 130 or something), perferably in conjunction with making agility training baseline.

Anet you need to hire this person.

TroniXx.8513:

10 sec Lags still exist.

Still exist in NA as well. What’s your point?

Julie Yann.5379:

RyuDragnier.9476:

Julie Yann.5379:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

mtpelion.4562:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

mtpelion.4562:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

Thieves and mesmers also cannot unload significant damage every 8 seconds at a great distance from that range without significant forethought/tactical thinking, which is the focus of my argument.

Neither can Rangers. You have to wait 48+ seconds for the CDs to recharge that allow you to unload significant damage via Rapid Fire.

A full zerk ranger’s rapid fire is significant damage. We can discuss buffing that even more with Signet of the wild another time, but let’s keep this on level ground first.

A full zerk anything in PvP is a non-factor. They die if you breathe in their direction (that’s why they are called “glass cannons”… lots of damage potential but super easy to break when hit).

If full zerkers are regularly giving you problems in PvP, you need to get more experience in PvP because you are doing something wrong.

If someone has a position advantage, you should be countering that with a push, a pull, or a different position of your own.

I do not have a problem with Rangers in pvp. I ‘have a problem’ with the ease of which they can be effective, as I stated before. And, also as I mentioned before, being able to dole out reasonable damage from a perch that is difficult to access, while pushing away any classes that attempt to get near you requires very little skill.

Warriors do not have pushes or pulls. None that can be done from long range at least.

I’ve been dealing with these rangers all kittening night in PvP. All they do is climb up a ledge over looking a point and pew pew pew ftw. It’s really lame and toxic gameplay. It really sucks as a warrior cause our pushes and pulls have a short range. By the time you get up there you have -50% health and 10 stacks of vulnerablitlity. The only real option is to go fight somewhere else. I hope Anet nerfs the kitten out of those builds in 6 months.

So…why haven’t you been on that ledge awaiting their attempt to be up there? If you know they’re going there, ambush them and take them out while they’re up there.

1. I suck at jps
2. The time I waste waiting for said ranger who may or may not show up is time where I am not doing anything productive for the team.
3. All the Ranger has to do then is pew pew me from down below at 1500range.

Do you have any other smart strategy to suggest?

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?fJAQFgMCALAQFA

This lets you reflect every other rapid fire back into their face. Time your dodges to negate the other one and they will never kill you from 1500 range.

Sir Arthur.8905:

Keeping the pop. cap high for the few servers in T1 is no better than lowering it for many other servers outside of T1. Half of the mechanics in WvW aren’t even used because it is blobs and flipping paper. If the unfairness is somehow fine because it is “war” then it should obey conditions of an actual war.

In actual war, it takes a MASSIVE amount of supply to maintain a large army, from rations, to ordinance, down to the very boots your troops wear through. There is an actual population cap when it comes down to it in real life, and when you exceed that cap, your troops starve, their equipment breaks, their ammo runs out.

There absolutely has to be some sort of diminishing return on having a massive number. If not a cap, like logic dictates, there should be some sort of debuff or equipment limitation increasing over time. If this is just a GAME, then balance the teams with a cap. If this is “WAR” then a massive MARCHING army should be weakened by hunger and barefoot from crossing the rough terrain.

“War” is not fair, but there are still natural laws that govern it. Honestly, I have no idea how to implement something other than a population cap, but if SUPPLY played a role in maintaining troop numbers, at least lower population servers could limit the amount of enemies to something reasonable.

Maybe If Supply had a base generated amount, and respawns consumed supply, a better army could actually whittle down the number of a larger, less skilled army. Supply camps would play a more important role, and would actually be defended, spreading people out more. Eotm supply drop would be more important as well.

As it is now, nobody cares about WvW outside of T1, blobs make the game unplayable for many, and the massive overpopulation makes lower pops not even care about trying. Even if the imbalance could be solved without a cap, I would STILL be in favor of it because more servers blobbing is just as lame.

Yeah I am pretty sick of people making that comparison. I’ve been to war, this isn’t war, it’s a kittening GAME
Now it can either be a competitive game or a sandbox, this half kitten mix of both is just stupid. Rewarding the “winners” with more rewards when the only thing required to win is paying for a transfer is what makes this broken and is what keeps throwing the population further out of balance.

There is this new thing called toughness. They introduced it the same time that they introduced long range shot. You should check it out, it helps out a lot.

Ummmm I’m pretty sure I read on the forums that rangers can do 5bajillion damage with rapid fire and that there is no way to counter them so I’m not sure what I will get from your video..

Because it is face roll easy to build a bar. I have a warrior that I leveled to 80 in WvW. They are ridiculously easy to play effectively.

I’m curious what the T1 servers consider a large scale fight since a lot of people said they are worried they will lose large scale battles. To me anything over 30v30 qualifies as large scale.

Eviscerate isn’t a channel. All if it’s damage comes in 1 big spike. If someone starts hitting me with rapid fire from behind I can still dodge the bulk of the damage. A warriors eviscerate/kill shot can take you out before you have a chance to react.

testpig.5018:

Jim Hunter.6821:

50% less damage from a blob that can just PvD down the doors isn’t going to stop them. What it will do however is make it harder to back cap your stuff if the blob leaves behind a couple scouts in a keep and hops to another map.

I held another servers paper hills 1v30ish for about half an hour with siege disablers. and a couple ac’s. I lost it after WvW shut down for an update and they beat me back to it. With +50% power on siege and siege disablers a small havok group could hold a keep against just about anything except a massive zerg.

it won’t stop them. it will give the outmanned players defending a chase to stop them/slow them down. so that they won’t have to back cap.

Yes, a small havoc group when outmanned can actually try to defend and hold an objective. And while they are outmanned they will be at a somewhat balanced fight with them using the keep and the siege to defend.

However, once the the population evens out.. then the fight evens out as well.

see how it works?

Except this won’t even things out. It means you will need an even bigger zerg to take anything, which will just lead to more server stacking.

Aridia.3042:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Off peak can be affected by changes to the scoring system or by setting different caps for different times of the day.

You’ve just answered yourself why player capping is pointless because it does nothing as you realize you need to supplement it with a scoring system change. Then why not just get at the core of the issue: the scoring system is what needs to be changed, which was the main point of my previous post.

Make it so coverage != automatic win, and you’ll have less stacking. Player capping is actually detrimental to the game IMO. What you’ll end up getting is guilds trying to get pugs to leave because they’re “wasting” a valuable slot. And you introduce more variables that is not needed, like trying to figure out an ideal cap. Things like that will just lead to unintended consequences.

Nope, the scoring system is half the issue. If they fixed the scoring system do you think ET could go against GB and stand a chance? ET simply wouldn’t have the manpower to take anything from BG. Even in small scale/roaming BG would have just about everything capped so they would send zergs to wipe out ET roamers.

Note: I picked these 2 servers because they are the 2 extreme ends of the spectrum. This is nothing against ET. In fact I’d be willing to bet an ET roamer would beat a BG roamer in a 1v1 about 90% of the time, and in anything over 30v30 BG would beat ET most the time because they are more used to zerg vs zerg.

testpig.5018:

munkiman.3068:

Pretty much, lol. Spin to win and all. I mentioned in another thread personal buffs, like this one are a REALLY bad idea.

it’s not a personal buff.. it’s a siege buff. and again.. 5 golems when outmanned.,.. is still 5 golems when OUTMANNED. the blob has plenty of tools to kill them. Outmanned player siege will only deal 50% more damage, not take 50% less damage. Only GATES/WALLS and NPCs would take 50% less damage.
-1 Balistas.
-2 Arrow carts.
-3 more players then the outmanned team.
-4 disable trap
-5 more players then the outmanned team. etc etc

50% less damage from a blob that can just PvD down the doors isn’t going to stop them. What it will do however is make it harder to back cap your stuff if the blob leaves behind a couple scouts in a keep and hops to another map.

I held another servers paper hills 1v30ish for about half an hour with siege disablers. and a couple ac’s. I lost it after WvW shut down for an update and they beat me back to it. With +50% power on siege and siege disablers a small havok group could hold a keep against just about anything except a massive zerg.

Tissitra.4153:

Raven.9603:

Tissitra.4153:

Atherakhia.4086:

So what you’re saying is adapting to a new threat is unreasonable and you shouldn’t have to shift your playstyle?

I don’t know what build you run, but a PU mesmer or a burst mesmer should have little trouble with a glass ranger build.

Well I was asking for counterplay, not a counterbuild. The answer can’t be ‘LB is fine, you just have to play the counterbuild’.

seriously? you have to counter build to beat condition necros, thieves, warriors… literally change your build to beat these classes. how is this different?

Most mesmers have no problem fighting longbow because they can easily body block and have more access to reflects and protection than just about anybody.

If you dont take condi clears, youre gonna have a hard time against a necro.
If you dont take stun breaks, youre gonna have a hard time against a warrior.
If you dont stack armor or defensive cooldowns, youre gonna have a hard time against a thief.
If you dont take gap closers and reflects, youre gonna have a hard time against a ranger.

Its that freakin’ simple. And all the complaints about “reflect / blink / distortion / warden / curtain / feedback / mirror / body block / LoS / terrain” (and thats just mesmers!) has a longer cooldown than rapid fire so its no good" … man, my stun breaker isnt up every time im out of endurance to dodge a hammer. my immunity is only up for one backstab. if i blow my large condi clear on a massive bleed stack, what will i use against signet of spite?

the only people who are getting stomped repeatedly by longbow are those who refuse to give it the same respect they give to necromancers, warriors, and thieves when picking out their skillset. and maybe necros, but someone needs to give those guys a hard time because other than hammer warriors no one else was.

Reflection is not a chore mechanic the way a condi cleanso or a stunbreak is. There is no class without access to condi cleanses or stunbreacks. Necros, thieves and guardians however have no or very limited access to reflect.

I think I will stop arguing at this point. Just count the number of threads on this forum about RF. Do you really think it will stay the way it is?

Engi has pretty lousy access to condi removal and stun breaks. Not every profession has equal access to everything in the game. And you are playing a mesmer who has plenty of access to reflects, stealth, LoS blocking through clones, CC, interupts, heck you have a reflect on your heal with a 15 second cool down.

testpig.5018:

*First off, as many of you have pointed out, it will be impossible to create equal populations without moving people around. As several others have pointed out we don’t want to break apart communities. *

I think you are missing a point and solution to WvW imbalances. The issues are, the outmanned teams simply can’t compete, or even slow down the enemy enough to compete. I’m not referring to the open field fight, because 1v10 in open field should go to the 10.

I’m referring to the static structures that can be the ultimate form of WvW game play balance, that would still allow each player vs player interaction to remain equal. If we allow siege/structures/npcs to gain an outmanned buff we can see great balance happen in the game.

Outmanned buff:
-NPCS: all outmanned NPCs take 50% less damage, and deal 50% more damage
-Siege: All Outmanned Siege Deals 50% more damage.
-Structures: All outmanned Gates/walls take 50% less damage.

these simple simple changes would allow the realm that is outmanned to still stand a chance in the WvW game. Not only will they be able to have a better chance of defending their structures with less numbers against greater numbers. But they can also retake stuff much faster then if they were on equal footing.

And the great thing about this.. once that realm losing the outmanned buff, it means they should have enough population to defend the structures without the buff benefit on siege.

And Balance is easily found… This solution causes many things to happen:
-1 Creates a system that would allow underpopulated teams to actually take down very upgraded objectives from an overpopulated realm much easier.
-2 Would greatly support spreading out over multi zones
-3 Would support spreading troops out over the map instead of all trying to attack/defend one objective.
-4 Supports the outmanned way in a balanced equal footing fashion without creating class imbalance.

This only works if the outmanned buff takes the population of every map into consideration, otherwise you will have people blobbing up on 1 map while leaving a token force to hold things they capture on all of the other maps.

DeadlySynz.3471:

This is how Alliance, aka guilds, aka factions, should work, at least IMO. This will also include “overflow” style maps.

First

Separate the matches into 3 match-ups throughout the day (12-8, 8-4, 4-Midnight). There is a PPT ticker for each time slot. Each time slot constitutes a “point”. For a team (alliance) to win, they have to win 2 out of 3 time slots. This stops those with a massive coverage advantage during a given time slot. The only way for an alliance to win is to have strong coverage through all 3 slots. Massive SEA coverage will no longer work.

Advantages – Strong coverage in one area no longer works
Disadvantages- ?

Second

Cap the amount of players per map to say 70ish. This is more so to help control lag. There will also be “overflow” maps which become available once that particular map gets close to capping. The “overflow” maps will also count towards PPT, as long as, there is at least 25 people per side. I think there would be enough players at any given time to fill all maps 2 times over

Advantages – No more ques & not likely to have population imbalances any longer
Disadvantages – Might not work for players who like small populated maps

Third

Introduce a new set of siege and achievements native to each alliance so it gives achievement hunters something to work towards. Make the achievements more in-line, unlike the current WvW achievements.

Fourth

Add some sort of dynamic questing schedule inside based on the current map conditions. Gw2 is built a lot around questing, so why not add WvW specific questing based on what’s going on the map at any given time. Completing the quests awards additional PPT. WvW specific questing would be things like capturing objectives or killing “X” number of players of each alliance.

The disadvantage you aren’t seeing is you are removing incentive for people to defend. Your idea is like a slightly better version of EotM. It will end up being just another karma train.

Swamurabi.7890:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Swamurabi.7890:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Aridia.3042:

Server merge/alliance/player cap solves nothing. Because you cannot prevent people from stacking. If you let it, they will stack.

How would a player cap not prevent stacking? It won’t fix everything that is wrong with WvW, that wasn’t my intention when posting this idea, but the one thing it will definitely fix is player stacking.

Set the cap too high and off peak coverage determines winners through stacking.
Set the cap too low and peak players might not get to play.

There’s no just right cap level because of population differences between peak and off peak.

Off peak can be affected by changes to the scoring system or by setting different caps for different times of the day. If there is a cap during peak preventing people on a certain server from playing but there is open space on any other server than it is up to the player to make the choice to move or sit in queue. That is what prevents stacking. People can say they don’t like it but they can’t argue that it wouldn’t prevent stacking.

You either have caps so that every match has 80v80v80 during peak times and 30v30v30 for off peak OR you have a few matches where you have 80v80v80 on peak and off peak but you also have other matches where you have 80v80v80 for peak and 0v0v0 for off peak.

Changing scoring does not change the fact that 10v80 is not fun.

10 vs 80 isn’t but 10 vs 30 can be a lot of fun right now. If they got rid of the AoE limit for damage and removed the downed state 10 vs 50 could be a blast.

munkiman.3068:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Aridia.3042:

Server merge/alliance/player cap solves nothing. Because you cannot prevent people from stacking. If you let it, they will stack.

How would a player cap not prevent stacking? It won’t fix everything that is wrong with WvW, that wasn’t my intention when posting this idea, but the one thing it will definitely fix is player stacking.

I think if ANet thought this was a viable solution they’d have done it already. I can’t imagine they haven’t tweaked the numbers at least once (most likely more) since release. I’m with the folks on tier 1 and 2 servers that already have a more robust WvW community that are against just a flat out cap. Half-baked solutions like this is what we have come accustom to seeing in the game anyway, so it’s kinda sad we have to dumb down suggestions for fixes since the probability ANet might implement them is higher.

I can’t argue that point. I’ve said before that the reason I proposed this solution is because it would be easy for them to implement, and even though it would upset some people, it would be effective.

I don’t agree that Anet would have implemented this already if they thought it was viable. Everything about WvW seems to be geared towards encouraging players to stack to win. It seems like they put the money they can get in the short term through transfers above the over all health of the game mode.

Swamurabi.7890:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Aridia.3042:

Server merge/alliance/player cap solves nothing. Because you cannot prevent people from stacking. If you let it, they will stack.

How would a player cap not prevent stacking? It won’t fix everything that is wrong with WvW, that wasn’t my intention when posting this idea, but the one thing it will definitely fix is player stacking.

Set the cap too high and off peak coverage determines winners through stacking.
Set the cap too low and peak players might not get to play.

There’s no just right cap level because of population differences between peak and off peak.

Off peak can be affected by changes to the scoring system or by setting different caps for different times of the day. If there is a cap during peak preventing people on a certain server from playing but there is open space on any other server than it is up to the player to make the choice to move or sit in queue. That is what prevents stacking. People can say they don’t like it but they can’t argue that it wouldn’t prevent stacking.

Aridia.3042:

Server merge/alliance/player cap solves nothing. Because you cannot prevent people from stacking. If you let it, they will stack.

How would a player cap not prevent stacking? It won’t fix everything that is wrong with WvW, that wasn’t my intention when posting this idea, but the one thing it will definitely fix is player stacking.

nirvana.8245:

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

With a more balanced server population you could put your money where your mouth is.

Wanderer.3248:

JaredKincade.9761:

Yak’s Terrace, Dragon Rock, Crystal Crossing, Stormbluff Furnace, Devona’s Kaineng, Isle of Emery, Northern Rall, Henge of Darkhaven, and Borlis Madness. (examples)

Dear sweet Jesus please do not choose these abominations of names.

You don’t think Devona’s Kaineng has a nice ring to it?

Reverence.6915:

Jim Hunter.6821:

The problem is stale matchups. Besides for the complete joke of a matchup this week because of the tournament, how many months has it been since you fought someone that wasn’t JQ and TC?

Here’s the thing. The matchups aren’t stale. One red tag replaced by another doesn’t make a difference. What would make the matchup stale is if a lesser populated server got matched up with us and couldn’t/wouldn’t show up to fight. It seems you want ‘diverse’ but balanced matchups, but with WvW being set up so that you’re essentially anonymous to the other server besides some different letters, what difference does it make?

Different servers run different tactics. Get out of the blob and you will encounter different raomers/ havok squads and they all fight very differently. With a more balanced population you wouldn’t run up against a lesser populated server that couldn’t show up to fight you.

Honestly if people don’t want to make WvW competitive they may as well just do away with it and introduce a PvP megaserver so we can have a real sandbox.

DeadlySynz.3471:

I personally am in favor of WvW being separated into 3 alliances. There are more than enough servers to handle the overflow style maps.

Basically once say EB 1 is qued (or close to qued), EB 2 opens up for players to join, and so and so on. Once EB 2 gets enough players on each side (say 20 per side), the PPT score will tick), anything below a certain number, the score doesn’t tick.

If this were done, I personally think there would be enough players logged on at any given time to que each map 2x over.

They already have this. It’s called EotM and it is terrible.

munkiman.3068:

Jim Hunter.6821:

The problem is stale matchups. Besides for the complete joke of a matchup this week because of the tournament, how many months has it been since you fought someone that wasn’t JQ and TC?

Yeah but you’re basically asking that servers that already face queues to endure longer ones. In the hopes that it does what? Motivates through contrived inconvenience to switch to servers that don’t experience queues. You like your server, you don’t want to move, why would you want to force that on T1-T2?

I’m highly sure if ANet actually put time into fixing the fundamentally broken scoring, built in mechanics that mostly affected the the population imbalances that allowed for lower pop servers to compete, we wouldn’t keep beating this same dead horse. Mix up the mode add new interesting worthwhile features to it and you might see more people coming back to play and definitely more movement in the ladders. For one thing, if they did away with PPT and lowered score tallies, you’d see the ladders move a lot faster than the cluster we have now.

I would love for them to fix some of the issues that caused this problem in the first place but I’m trying to be realistic here. It took 2 years for friggin colored commander tags, how long would it take them to admit certain things like the downed state and the rally mechanic need a change? I mean just take a look at our newest changes, did anyone really think Omega Golems weren’t powerful enough?

This is why I proposed something that would be simple to implement and effective. I understand why T1 players don’t like this idea but this idea would actually work, where server merges would not.

They say T1 is fine but they are getting less variety in their matchups than anyone. I’ve seen countless posts on this forum from T1 players complaining how they are bleeding players. Just look through every “merge the bottom servers” threads.

NevilleDevil.4530:

munkiman.3068:

NevilleDevil.4530:

"
I feel like there are a scary number of people in that thread who seem to think T1 is the problem rather than the goal, which scares the crap out of me.

Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels Don’t send me back to T2 coverage levels

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
"
We want to stay in our coverage and tier for a reason. Anyone who did’t like it left T1 already. Why can’t you see things from other’s perspective.

Before you say all I like is winning. in PTT. I hate PPT; I am in a fighting guild that has fun finding other zergs and killing them. I enjoy the 24/7 coverage because I always can find a zerg to fight, and there many more in T1 that agree with me, all of T1.

I personally don’t mind one bit that t1 exists and we aren’t part of it. So at least some of us are on your side. Some of us actually want to improve the mode, for everyone.

It’s been said since almost day one, the scoring system is horrible for this game mode. We’ve lost so many to that issue on top of the lack of updates, rewards and changes to WvW. ANet keeps saying they need to work on the fundamental issues of the game, yet here we are arguing over band aid solutions which will only get people riled up if implemented.

My exhaustive posts stem from this long standing problem, one that pushes people away from wanting to play WvW and causes sever burn-out. It’s completely frustrating that fixing the fundamental problems is not the focus.

We typically end up bleeding players to a lot of the design decisions ANets made and i’m pretty sure if they keep doing it this way, there won’t be much left in a year and they will have no choice but to merge the remaining top 6 servers.

With the quotation fixed. The idea to lower map caps to T8 standards is NOT REALISTIC. It is estimated that each map can hold 100 people, so let’s do some math. That is 24*4**100 = 9600 people. That is the amount of people that can be in WvW across all the servers at any given time. Reducing this number is not the solution, forcing kitten break up and across all of the other 21 servers.

While there is a problem, which is what I’m not denying. The solution that Jim, in particular, is pushng so hard for is NOT FIXING THE PROBLEM. It is creating problems, and relationships to break apart.

I want there to be a solution for T2 and below, don’t get me wrong, but I will not support a “solution” that creates more problems and destroys server communities. For Jim right now, has to think harder for a solution that does not affect the current T1 scenario because that is not broken. Don’t fix what is not broken and that is T1, you need to fix T2 and below.

The problem is stale matchups. Besides for the complete joke of a matchup this week because of the tournament, how many months has it been since you fought someone that wasn’t JQ and TC?

SixFPCs.9840:

John Corpening.9847:

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again for all the great and constructive discussion!
John

John, I think that the implementation of alliances on a large scale would severely reduce community building in WvW as a result of chilling effects on how guilds interact overall. Since server communities are one of the primary draws for WvW players, I think alliances are a poor idea.

Servers bring together a wide range of guilds. The large WvW-focused guilds team up with small havoc squads from PvX guilds and individual players. We all get together and talk and plan, because we are fighting as a server. We are all fighting together for some indeterminate amount of time (in technical terms, this is an infinite length cooperative game unless other conditions are imposed). As a result, we learn to work together and communicate, despite having different interests and priorities and strengths.
Once alliances are introduced, the threat of being moved to another server on any given week, or being reorganized entirely if we change the system more drastically, means that I have much less reason to invest in building a relationship with a non-alliance guild. If you are outside the alliance, I have to be afraid of the fact that I might not be on your team again for a long time. Thus, there is less relationship-building, because relationships are perceived as more transient. This creates a chilling effect where I am less likely to befriend a non-alliance guild, unless I intend to recruit them into my alliance. They are simply outside of the effective “server”.

To take an extreme example, compare alliances to sPvP hotjoin. I don’t really care much about learning to work as a team with these particular players (despite the fact that it will help me win), because these guys likely won’t be on my team again. In fact, it’s possible for them to get shunted over to the other side to balance out the teams during that same game. There is no reason to build an effective team, or even any kind of connection with them, because there is no future benefit. Alliances will shift WvW play in this direction.

Certainly a lot of good people will still help to build communities, and perhaps large alliances will result and replace the server identity. But on the whole, the sense of community will be lowered as a result of alliances, and as such I can offer no support to the idea of alliances as you currently describe it.

That’s an excellent point. I know I personally communicate with my server almost entirely through TS and it’s unlikely I would invite temporary allies into our TS. I don’t see much organization or bonding occurring between temporary allies. We might loosely support each other but I think everyone would slowly start to lose their sense of community.

Otokomae.9356:

timmyf.1490:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout.

It’s because of the Swiss style system. Next week should be better matchups. It has nothing to do with systemic problems in WvW rankings.

Yup, this week is SUPPOSED to be the most imbalanced week of the entire Season. It’s BY DESIGN. Most matchups involve servers that are usually 3 tiers apart from each other.

And you think that this is just how things should carry on? Wouldn’t it be better if servers in any tier could compete with each other?

timmyf.1490:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout.

It’s because of the Swiss style system. Next week should be better matchups. It has nothing to do with systemic problems in WvW rankings.

It absolutely does. If the gap in population between the tiers wasn’t so big this week would have stayed competitive.

NevilleDevil.4530:

Otokomae.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged. There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.

I mean, you started this thread about how your server needs help with population &/or Outmanned issues, to such a degree that your server (which is in 2nd to last place, currently) can’t even compete consistently in Tiers 7 or 8; you can’t really believe that there’s no problem at all with Anvil Rock, and that this is somehow EVERYONE ELSE’S SERVERS FAULT, and therefore they need to change, not AR… can you? Because that really seems to be what you’ve been pushing this whole time: “Please Anet, bring the map caps down only the number of players that my NEXT-TO-LAST-PLACE SERVER can field, it’s the only way to save WvW!” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense! I have to ask here, was this whole thread originally based on a troll post? If so… you got us, man! Good one.

I honestly think Jim cannot be argued to. Out of all my post that I have tried to argue him to, he has only read the whole post of one of them. The rest of them he has taken a single sentence from them, and said stuff that completely puts words in my mouth that I have never said.

I have read the entire thread. Sorry if I don’t feel the need to quote your wall of text every time I respond to you, especially when most of it doesn’t add anything worthwhile to the conversation.

Otokomae.9356:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The people who are complaining that their server is constantly outmanned, has no will to fight, or that they simply don’t/can’t field enough people to compete are precisely the ones who should see their servers merged. There’s absolutely no logical reason to destroy only the servers where people are generally happy with the current WvW balance, whether it’s with a forced dismantling or merger, or whether it’s with some sort of passive means, such as punishing servers with a healthy WvW population by artificially inflating the ques there through some sort of new “Lower WvW Cap”.

I mean, you started this thread about how your server needs help with population &/or Outmanned issues, to such a degree that your server (which is in 2nd to last place, currently) can’t even compete consistently in Tiers 7 or 8; you can’t really believe that there’s no problem at all with Anvil Rock, and that this is somehow EVERYONE ELSE’S SERVERS FAULT, and therefore they need to change, not AR… can you? Because that really seems to be what you’ve been pushing this whole time: “Please Anet, bring the map caps down only the number of players that my NEXT-TO-LAST-PLACE SERVER can field, it’s the only way to save WvW!” I mean, it just doesn’t make sense! I have to ask here, was this whole thread originally based on a troll post? If so… you got us, man! Good one.

You should probably read the whole thread before spouting this crap. I love my server. We have fantastic fights especially against ET who actually jump into fights instead of hiding behind siege. We often have fights that come down to the last hour before reset to determine the winner and the small scale/roaming is terrific.

The problem is there are only a few servers with a similar enough population that the fights are competitive and fun.

This isn’t strictly a tier 8 problem. Take a look at this weeks scores, think about why everyone of these matches is a blowout. Every server has a handful of servers that they constantly fight because the populations are so imbalanced between all of the tiers.

I don’t care about more people to fill our ranks. We have an awesome community. I’m a roamer, bigger zergs just get in the way of my fun. But facing the same few servers is getting old, I want more variety in our matchups. Judging on how quickly this thread jumped to 13 pages I don’t think I’m the only one that is looking for a change.

NevilleDevil.4530:

Jim Hunter.6821:

timmyf.1490:

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

The current scoring system ensures that the server with the most players wins. This is a big chunk of why WvW is so damaged at the moment.

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

Not true.

Bloodlust and scrubs. If one server is outmanned and the other server are scrubs, all you need to do is gain bloodlust and farm. You’ll get more points from killing than having the tower/keep/SM.

You win with less numbers, in your bags and your ppt.

That doesn’t work when the other server actively avoids fights. They turtle behind siege, WP and hit other objectives, and will only fight if they have a minimum of triple our numbers. Even when we win those fights it is tough to get a decent number of stomps in because of all the aoe flying around.

timmyf.1490:

Samis, Kovu, and Jim Hunter are all talking about weighting PPT based on population. I’m pretty confident that this is a terrible idea. Why?

Elitist guilds trying to bully people out of WvW because they aren’t efficient enough.

Any change to the scoring system should ensure that it’s always better to have more players. There should never be a case where you can attain a higher score by having fewer players.

The current scoring system ensures that the server with the most players wins. This is a big chunk of why WvW is so damaged at the moment.

It shouldn’t be the case that a server can lose every fight but still win the match.

SkyShroud.2865:

timmyf.1490:

SkyShroud.2865:

The suggestions are so vague. What is alliance? How does this alliance gonna behave in this WvW context? What is worlds?

TBH, I still believe closing 9 servers is the better way to go. The large list of servers to choose from is one of the reasons why the population base is spread thin.

Do you think Crystal Desert should be closed?

If that improves the gameplay, then so be it. The server pride is not going to solve problem, in fact, it is a obstacle to solving the problem. Alliance? It just gonna create confusion. How even this alliance gonna works anyway, no one knows. There are only two options, keep the problem or solve the problem.

Closing servers doesn’t have be done selectively but rather, holistically. Closing all servers and recreate 18 servers of new names. All players are given option to choose a new server. Allowing transfer to be free for a period of time. Basically, resetting everyone to square one.

If people want the server pride or don’t want to begin from square one again even though population issue is resolved, then, don’t complain about population imbalance.

For the record, I didn’t complain about population imbalance.

I could go along with this if they made the server cap the active number of WvW players divided by the number of servers in order to balance the servers. Doing it without the cap would be pointless because people would stack on certain servers and we’d have the same problem.

Kovu.7560:

Samis.1750:

One could adjust the score, at least to some extent, based on the numbers playing to reduce the affect of off-hour coverage on scoring. The present system gives too great a weight on off hour coverage. There’s a reason why California has more electoral votes than Delaware.

One could weight the scoring as follows: .3 (highest pop server) + .6 (middle pop server) +.1 (lowest pop server). I picked lower weight for the lowest population server since one doesn’t want to discourage people from playing so as not to harm their server. You can normalize things with some type of log function. I made another post on this topic awhile back.

I actually like this idea.
Have the points scored per tick be modified (amplified or mitigated) based on the number of people playing the game at the time of the tick. If there are 3 servers and one is ticking 400+ but has 5 times the population then their tick should be mitigated as such. However if they’re ticking 400+ and there are plenty of unorganized defenders on the other two teams then that 400+ is earned. Likewise, if you’re ticking 235 with half of the population than the next guy ticking 235 then your 235 should be worth more.

If this were to happen then balancing the servers would still mean something, but would be significantly more relative. It wouldn’t need to be exact by any means.

~ Kovu

I like this idea, but it would still need somewhat balanced servers to make it work. Otherwise a stacked server could just dominate reset night and the weekend and then run a skeleton crew the rest of the week because with the PPT ticking for less points for the other servers it would be harder to catch back up.

Zepher.7803:

Since people (and a lot of people do) transfer servers all of the time especially during the tournament, I would say the majority of people could care less about server identity they want to be somewhere where they can win.

So holding onto the server identity complaint is from the minority, and shouldn’t be an issue.

it’s derailing any hopes of something to change anytime this year or the next.

take the bottom 6 servers out(calculated from last 6 months performance), give players a month to switch, THEN start working on these other convoluted ideas.

this is just getting waaaaay overcomplicated.

and I also propose all Anvil Rock, Borlis Pass and Ehmry Bay peeps to find a way to land on the same side

So the people that did stick with their servers, instead of paying to win by transferring, should be the ones to lose their servers? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

munkiman.3068:

Jim Hunter.6821:

That’s what I took away from it as well.. This sounds like setting up a system for people to voluntarily merge servers. While that is better than forced merges, it still doesn’t fix the problems.

After all the discussion now, since you’re the OP, where do you stand on the solution? Do you still feel a lower map cap is going to help address population imbalance?

I do. I still see it as the best practical way to balance out the population.

An alliance system could work if done right, the problem is I’ve seen how EotM turned out, so forgive me if I’m not supportive of that idea before we get some more details.

keep in mind there are a lot of people playing WvW that don’t want to play in the tier 1 blobfest. If the population cap stays at what it is we will need bigger maps and you will need to stop rewarding bobbing so heavily.

A few ways to do this have already been mentioned such as removing the downed state and preventing hard rez in combat. I personally feel you would also need to fix whatever is preventing you from raising the aoe limit. I know it is supposedly a technical issue but the same thing was said about culling.

There are a lot of things that will need to be addressed before you drastically change WvW. You have to be ready to devote real time and resources. If this is done kitten it will kill the game. If things like the living story are going to take up too much time then you are better off implementing the cap and hopefully doing something with the scoring system to fix the overnight coverage problem.

Torsailr.8456:

Dayra.7405:

Match-making could be totally different from today.
We have a fixed set of matches, and matchmaking would only be to place alliances into the teams of the matches, such that all teams have nearly equal man power, e.g. This week SFR-alliance is placed as one team to fight against the team of Elona+Gandara alliances as second team and Vabbi+Millers+Abaddon+Jade sea alliances as third team (assuming the total alliance size are nearly equal.). At the end of the match each alliance in the team receives the team-score as alliance-score and in the leaderboard alliances and it’s score are listed (not the temporary teams).

I think he was saying that if BG has 10,000 WvW players and alliances have a 10,000 member cap then all of BG could move to one alliance and be called the BG Alliance.

However if alliances have a cap of 5000 then BG would have to split into 2 alliances and they’d both need unique names. Or if 2000 then 5 alliances, etc. Now if alliance caps are set lower than a full world population then you’re almost guaranteed to end up with more alliances than you have servers and it’s likely not all alliances would be capped out. The more alliances you have, the more potential match ups there are which makes it much easier to match alliances up based on relative populations and skill/score.

So that creates multiple alliances at cap that would then be in the same pool to be matched against each other. Alliances that are 90% of cap would be in a separate pool of match ups. 80% in a third, etc. Match ups would then proceed as they currently do. 1 alliance vs 1 alliance vs 1 alliance.

As alliances change in size restructuring would need to be planned in to avoid a constant steam roll scenario that many people find problematic. And with the increased number of alliances over servers it should limit the stagnant feeling of always playing against the same people.

I think….at least that’s how I interpreted it. Am I close? Not sure.

That’s what I took away from it as well.. This sounds like setting up a system for people to voluntarily merge servers. While that is better than forced merges, it still doesn’t fix the problems.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Don’t merge servers. Disband them. Start with the top 6. That probably does more than disbanding the bottom 12.

This would have the same problem as destroying the bottom servers. It temporarily shakes things up but in the end people will still stack for the win and we will run into the same population imbalance.

If we actually make the game mode competitive we might draw more people to the game. There are plenty of people looking for a good RvR game and this one has the best potential.

eithinan.9841:

Jim Hunter.6821:

eithinan.9841:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Balanced populations means more servers to fight. This will help reinvigorate WvW, and when I say WvW I mean all of the servers.

It is impossible to balance the servers because there are not enough OFF prime time players to go around. population balance for WvW in it’s current incarnation is impossible because there are not enough people to spread to all the servers. If t1 had 3 servers with true 24 hour queues everyday then yes it may be possible, but we dont…

fishball.7204:

We’re fighting BG/JQ this week and even those guys don’t have insane off hour coverage everybody thinks they do. WvW is very dead compared to a year ago.

as was posted from an sos person.

Okay.. once again.. People have offered suggestions on how to deal with overnight coverage. Feel free to read through this entire thread and you will find many solutions to that problem.

However what I am talking about is the overall population imbalance among the servers. Compare BG to ET, if ET had all of their WvW players on and BG had half of theirs BG would still completely out man ET. This is just a ridiculous situation that was created by people bandwaggoning to the top servers and it gets worse with every tournament.

Now we can carry on with stale matchups, only seeing a new server when 1 implodes and another becomes the new bandwaggon server, until people get completely tired of the same fights and give up on the game. Or we could proactively try to fix the problem that free transfers and tournaments created. That is what I am trying to do.

It isnt overnight coverage only. It is also morning(SEA) and afternoon(Russians, <3 ZDs) and early evening(Europe) coverage if you are based in NA. Also know as 24 hour coverage. If you cannot understand that concept then why would I take anything you suggest seriously. The other suggestions fundamentally change the WvW game mode into something else, which is why I don’t acknowledge them as options.

Originally WvW matches were going to be 2 weeks long. That’s what was said at release. Persistent 24 hour warfare, was another tagline or something like that.

You make a point about how ET would get smashed by half of BG, which is true during NA, but the rest of the day from 2AM EST to 6PM EST BG would pvd because BG has off hours. You say you want to " fix the problem that free transfers and tournaments created." but the real problem is inherent to the 24 hour WvW game mode. There are not enough Off prime time players to balance with regards to the number of NA prime time players. the disparity is too great. This has become even more apparent since gw2 china opened and there are less ocx/SEA forces out throughout the day.

It’s more like 2am to 9am. The servers don’t have the same numbers as prime time from 9-6 but they do have people on and fighting. With a lower population cap in place they would have a much better chance of holding their stuff even when they are outnumbered because they can only be outnumbered on on map by so many people.

NevilleDevil.4530:

Jim Hunter.6821:

NevilleDevil.4530:

I swore I left a server…

Funny how this is the common theme I see from everyone posting that has BG in their sig.

I hate to break it to you but WvW is more than just your tier. Balanced populations means more servers to fight. This will help reinvigorate WvW, and when I say WvW I mean all of the servers.

I left my last server because my guild moved. I personally wanted to leave because there was a sadistic person who got to a leadership power in that server. I wanted away from that server. My two previous servers, I was a server leader/organizer. The people of the server and I brought it up a tier, but then I was targeted by the bad apples of the server because they did not organize the events. This so I left for a new home.

The thing you don’t realize is that you only seem to think people move because of numbers and bandwagoning. I am actually a refugee (server-wise), an exile, or whatever people call it, and I think quite acouple people from BG are as well. People who left their home for various reasons and make their gaming life’s better. I do not want to leave because I found a place where I fit in, and we all fit in the BG community.

How would you feel if I tore up AR and all the other servers get equal amounts of your population?

No more WvW with your guildmates (without gems price of course) or friends. Community TS that I hop in almost daily is gone.

I would have no motivation to play, and I’m pretty sure quite acouple of other people are with me – and you’ll get what you were trying to fix. Population imbalance because you alienated a massive population and they quit. So if I was “forced to go to AR” guess what, you would be one guy short compared to the rest of the servers. Think about that, next time you propose you want to destroy a multiple communities.

I have a feeling, that you’re so hellbent on destroying T1 that you don’t even see the arguments against it, and not even realize the consequences from it.

You only quoted 5 words from me, can’t you make it seem like you actually read what I said!

-Edited for Clarity (11:54pm EST)

What I see is you’ve already been on 4 different servers. Sounds like relocating wouldn’t be anything new for you. And if you really don’t want to move you don’t have to, I’m sure others will and the queues will go down.

And I don’t know why you automatically assume it should be pay to transfer is they decide to implement this idea. Ideally they would activally open up free transfers to certain servers at a time to try to help with the balancing but even if they just opened up free transfers to all the servers I think the population would sort it self out to avoid the queues. What would really help is if they could give us a rough idea of the population before people move so they could know a good spot to move as a guild.

eithinan.9841:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Balanced populations means more servers to fight. This will help reinvigorate WvW, and when I say WvW I mean all of the servers.

It is impossible to balance the servers because there are not enough OFF prime time players to go around. population balance for WvW in it’s current incarnation is impossible because there are not enough people to spread to all the servers. If t1 had 3 servers with true 24 hour queues everyday then yes it may be possible, but we dont…

fishball.7204:

We’re fighting BG/JQ this week and even those guys don’t have insane off hour coverage everybody thinks they do. WvW is very dead compared to a year ago.

as was posted from an sos person.

Okay.. once again.. People have offered suggestions on how to deal with overnight coverage. Feel free to read through this entire thread and you will find many solutions to that problem.

However what I am talking about is the overall population imbalance among the servers. Compare BG to ET, if ET had all of their WvW players on and BG had half of theirs BG would still completely out man ET. This is just a ridiculous situation that was created by people bandwaggoning to the top servers and it gets worse with every tournament.

Now we can carry on with stale matchups, only seeing a new server when 1 implodes and another becomes the new bandwaggon server, until people get completely tired of the same fights and give up on the game. Or we could proactively try to fix the problem that free transfers and tournaments created. That is what I am trying to do.

NevilleDevil.4530:

I swore I left a server…

Funny how this is the common theme I see from everyone posting that has BG in their sig.

I hate to break it to you but WvW is more than just your tier. Balanced populations means more servers to fight. This will help reinvigorate WvW, and when I say WvW I mean all of the servers.

fishball.7204:

Even T2 is completely a barren wasteland anything after midnight PST up until like 9am (SEA timeish). I don’t understand why these lower tier people think there’s enough people in WvW in T1/2 to pad 24 hours a day on 24 servers and STILL have WvW be enjoyable for non-NA prime players.

We’re fighting BG/JQ this week and even those guys don’t have insane off hour coverage everybody thinks they do. WvW is very dead compared to a year ago.

This thread isn’t about the overnight coverage issue. This thread is the population imbalance issue. A clue to that was the thread title.

Both issues are important, as are many of the other things that people have brought up in this thread like hard rezzzing, rally mechanic, PPT issue, etc. and all of these will need to eventually be addressed.

But we need to take this 1 step at a time and propose solutions we can realistically expect to be implemented. When I say realistically I want everyone to keep in mind that it took 2 years for colored commander tags.