Here the Dev’s are thinking of this “Last Stand” mechanic. But, do we really need a mechanic added that encourages players to call in sick on Fridays? WvW has consistently lost players due to such burn out. What we really need is a Day Off! We probably should have had a “Day Off” added in two years ago. Turn matches into 6 days per week. Leaving the maps open and running the last day for carefree fun. Toss Golems in there, those exalted armors, the EotM transforms, make the entire day on huge “Snowball Mayhem” or “Dragon Bash” map, or whatever other craziness we can dream up. THAT would be far better than a “Last Stand” mechanic.
if people are calling in sick to play a game, those people have bigger issues……
Edit: People can take AS MANY days off as they want presently. Your world wont change whether you win or lose a wvw match…..
Keeping the linking is currently winning the poll. It should have been placed in the WvW subforum (as mentioned in another thread).
It should have been mentioned, AND it should NOT be just a Yes keep world linking, No, get rid of it completely.
The poll is practically designed (even if unintentionally) to get a Yes response no matter how people feel about it. What if someone thinks the world linking could work, but it’s implementation is awful? How are they supposed to vote? Voting Yes in large percentage could be seen as if the current status quo is perfectly fine and should stick to it when that may not be what many want.
In this case it may very well be choosing the lesser of 2 evils for the majority, while too many feel like their voice is being ignored/they have no say. Hmm I just described politics too but that’s a different subject.
As said, the poll is awful. We wanted the poll put out, but this? Might as well not have done it at all. Should have known it would be just a Yes keep/No get rid of. Yes I am being critical of this, because it’s frustrating.
couldn’t agree more. I voted no because all I can base it on is the current version. it was ill timed, poorly linked, and way too static (3 months)… Given the right circumstances maybe it would work….
and really attributing population bump to this and not the patch or ABL… just wow
wow such limited choices…….. I may have said yes, if it was followed up with better algorithms for linking and/or more frequent re-linking. not given those options, No seemed the better option for me….
to really think linking increased pop and not considering it was the patch or even ABL – just wow…….
umm matchup is 10-11-12 with a 173 gap to 9th. this is likely the only matchup you will see until a re-link…. the linkings were bad and will remain bad for 3 months…..
Jump aboard the ET bandwagon like so many have done…..
lol I’ve been on a server where they used a spy to get fights! OR at least as many as they could.
You see the enemy servers, although outnumbering the server I was on, were just bad, even when they built arrow carts in open field, or their tower walls.
You see the enemy servers love to PvD rather than fight for a tower, even when they outnumber you 2 or 3 to 1.
Because the enemy died so easily, the enemy just ran away when they saw the front of out zerg, like literally either run into their closest tower, or waypoint away! They refused to fight at all!
So enter the spy who told the commander where the enemy zerg was, and we followed then or waited for them, and then annihilated them.
The enemy zerg even tried to go to other maps to get away from fights so they could PvD in peace! We didnt let them, but then they left to another map.
Dont get me, wrong here, we didnt use the spy to take towers when the enemy zerg was on the other side of the map, we used them to hunt the enemy zerg, we didnt care about about taking towers, even if the walls were taken down by either a small ally group or the third server. We simply went in for the fight.
What fun is there for them to run away?
What fun is there for server who want fights to see a larger enemy zerg just waypoint away in front of you?
This is a flaw in the WvW design. Zergs going round flipping and reflipping towers.
There isnt much incentive to stay and defend a tower.
What fun was it to fiGht groups that didn’t want or were incapable of fighting? It goes both ways….
This is like the ABL discussion – don’t people remember all the posts and threads on how bad the tournaments were and they should never ever be held again? We seem to remember the good things and forget all the bad things…..
I never miNded them myself, but I recall many people against them.
wait so you want server caps removed so that people “quit trying to transfer” ??? Wouldn’t that just make everyone bandwagon on to I assume BG?
they already are – ET…. the cost is so low and Anet is still stuck on 3 month links. By the time they get around to re-linking servers, bandwagon will just move again for another 3 months.
The linking is fail sauce as currently constituted.
Apparently they are hung up on the quarterly number per Reddit. Will lmao when ET server status becomes very high or full (unless of course Anet has now locked statuses as well)
Apropos of this thread here is what Tyler just said on reddit: “The current plan is to change world links once every quarter. It takes 4-6 matches (weeks) for Glicko to place the newly linked worlds in their correct tiers, so changing links faster than once a quarter would mean almost perpetual inaccurate matchups.”
My feedback is this is not enough and they are not doing anything to discourage overstacking.
Anet – they weren’t accurate from the start and the linking becomes worse daily……
So I guess we all need to move to et until that is full as well to show Anet how moronic a 3 month time frame is.
Sorry, I totally do not understand the purpose of this polling. Isn’t the changes supposedly comprehensive and not selective parts?
the poll is the order they implement. the changes will be introduced piecemeal and not after all changes are done…..
And isn’t that bad? All the mentioned changes affect the overall scoring. They might be working good as a whole together but it might perform really bad in parts. Thus, using incremental approach is questionable.
personally speaking, any score changes before getting linking out of beta are bad. the linkings were ill timed, poorly linked, and now guests are being stacked on the cheap to get around full on the host…..
Due to server stacking on the lower ranked servers and the low transfer price, its become absolutely apparent that server linkages need to be reviewed and changed far more often than 3 months. Its should be 4 weeks at most.
see JQ and YB (well 2 of us anyway) can agree on something ! If this isn’t addressed fairly soon, don’t even bother with the scoring changes….
Locking host servers and leaving guests open with no time frame for re-linking is pretty lame. It was hinted every 3 months, but that was not concrete and will NEVER work since it is only around 100g to transfer.
With the current system they need to raise the transfer cost to a flat price at the highest level and redo server linkages at least every month.
or limit the frequency of transfer to be a period longer than the re-linking so one cant stack / re-stack constantly……
They just wont play if they cant play with their guild/ friends. Limiting things like that always result in players leaving the game just to play together due to Friends, family and Guild > game.
People play games to play with those they enjoy playing it with. If they cannot do that on one game, they play a game they can.
This suggestion always ends in running off players from the game.
if they are really friends and family – can’t they can coordinate when and where to move? but that was what came to mind and could indeed have drawbacks.
Either way, the current linking is just plain stupid – lets allow people to get around full on host by allowing people on the guest for such a small cost…. If the linking changed every 2-4 weeks – maybe it is fine as is as that cost could add up quickly….
T1 needs JQ and DB since the other servers don’t have enough Australians/Asians to sustain healthy WvW activity during OCX/SEA for themselves or their opponents.
It doesn’t matter how close the scores are when your server is dead 6 hours a day. Every day. Literally ticked 500 reset night in OCX vs TC/YB.
That’s the problem you need absolute coverage to win against BG atm. Its a scoring issue which is why everyone has been asking for it to change for years. Winning just because of a coverage gap.
I don’t care about the scores, I just want people to fight with and against during OCX/SEA which frankly doesn’t happen at all with TC/YB. All these band aid fixes to PPT mean nothing when you guys can’t even muster up 15 people to defend your garrison, what is even the point of being in T1? Just go away and let servers with real players during those timezones play together rather than create fake coverage by pulling overtime and mashing PPT to make it close through gimmicks.
BG/JQ/DB = 1 24 hour tier. The other 9 can be 6 hour WvW servers with the other 18 hours locked and thus no night capping. All happy ok?
like we have a choice where we are matched up…. also, you realize yb beat jq last week right? Not that the score/placement was a big deal – just shows JQ is strong when you play and everyone else would be bored….. Now YB / JQ link might compete with BG (assuming there is also TC + someone else as well)
Locking host servers and leaving guests open with no time frame for re-linking is pretty lame. It was hinted every 3 months, but that was not concrete and will NEVER work since it is only around 100g to transfer.
With the current system they need to raise the transfer cost to a flat price at the highest level and redo server linkages at least every month.
or limit the frequency of transfer to be a period longer than the re-linking so one cant stack / re-stack constantly……
Locking host servers and leaving guests open with no time frame for re-linking is pretty lame. It was hinted every 3 months, but that was not concrete and will NEVER work since it is only around 100g to transfer. It needs to be every 2-4 weeks or not all.. It also needs to be a bit smarter than 1+24 2+23 etc… On a side note, if Glicko is no longer maintained on guests, how will relinking ever work? Their pop has changed too….
3-2-1 / 5-3-2 – 2 hour time slice scoring may prevent runaway scores, but unfortunately that is lumped in with action level issue. you would think they could run the time slice scoring against old matches and see if it makes any difference at all. present the comparison and the consumer can make an informed decision….
@morrolan – I think this is the priority of the things mentioned. the choices were not very clear when compared to tyler’s entire list though…. nothing jumped out as 2 hour time slices to mitigate the runaway scores when population is extremely unbalanced (and yes that could be na prime for some servers)
PS: I still think linking beta should be resolved first. Either de-link or set the rules for re-linking (frequency / how the links are made).
be done with the linking already. it needed to wait on the pop shifts that had already occurred to make any sense. even then 1+ 24 / 2 + 23 was/is far too simplistic to accomplish anything real….
The people on the lower tiers had 3 years to migrate up if they had really wanted to…..
I keep reading its only beta. Shouldn’t this be resolved before even presenting options on scoring? Too many concurrent “betas” could muddy the waters if things go poorly…
How about getting the current beta changes out of beta first? Linking is done, re-link based on pop changes around the patch, or no link. If linking stays – what are the rules for how often they are re-linked?
How do you create an area for conflict. You need to have something in that area for someone to control and it needs to have value else why control it. That’s PPT. Why do I want to fight you for it, because if I don’t you win. Therefore I need to take it. We need incentive to want to hold and upgrade these objectives and that’s what the increased PPT for upgraded structures means. This is also what gives yak kills and escorting more meaning, as well as scouting, sieging, scribing and guild upgrades. Those all tie together. If a structure has no value then all of that is moot and a waste of time.
Now PPK should score as well since the point of having something someone wants is to create a reason to fight. PPK needs to be rewarded and probably adjusted for other reasons. Such as fighting on objectives and in cases of being outnumbered. Not having PPK makes fights have less value and favors PvD which is bad. The idea that level 0 structures have very little value also makes sense since you don’t want to favor K-trains.
So fights, attacking and defending at objectives needs to score well for both types of actions and be rewarding to encourage that.
You can’t just have an empty map and expect people to find and engage in the fight, they need to have that sense of ownership and something to fight over. There are people that enjoy the fight for the fight, people that enjoy the capture, people that enjoy the support, people that enjoy the build and defend. Scoring needs to be address all of them and work for the 24 hour clock.
Not everyone can be on at the same time. The fight is interesting since it is 24 hours. So you don’t want to remove that but you can’t let that decide the match. That’s why the slices make sense. Again I am cautious of the action level and would want to see some weeks without that. A compromise might be that PPK should be worth more during times when there is more of a balance of players on all sides to offset empty captures. At the same time if a side can muster people off hours to take and control they shouldn’t be penalized for it either. People need to adapt to the fights. ANet has already said we can not mix EU/OCX/SEA/NA severs but that would have been the best solution here. Maybe there are still options of combing score at least across servers in different server farms. Have server alliances across these server groups that combine score to help offset off times but still allow people to add value in off peak times.
Other aspect is that if a scoring element creates an environment that does not generate “fun”, it needs to be adjusted sooner rather than later if the point of scoring changes is to create an environment that retains players, brings back older ones and creates a desire for new ones to start to WvW.
PPT isn’t necessary at all for Objective based PPK.
In objective based PPK:
Owning the objective ( tower, keep, camp, ect) does not give score by itself, however it gives higher chance of rare LOOT to the individual and increase PPK for fighting over it. This makes the objectives MORE valuable than they currently are so you still want to own them but they do not do anything by themselves to affect the score. Their value is based on players fighting over them instead. Owning them ensures you have the best loot drops in the game mode when you fight over them. You create the conflict over who gets the most loot, and owning the objectives you are fighting over are how you do so. Currently players do not care about the score and there is less conflict due to that and the lack of personal rewards involved. This corrects that.
You only get loot or PPK from fighting other players without the use of siege over objectives under attack. Defending team gets slightly higher loot and PPK than attacking team. This encourages players to own the objectives because they get the bets loot and pPK for doing so as well as blocking the K train by rewarding those for defending. This encourages players to fight over the objectives rather than run around in the field instead by personally rewarding them for doing so.
The score is only increased by fighting other players rather than a tower just sitting there doing nothing, ye they will e fighting over the tower instead.
The score cannot be run up if there is no one to fight.
It is pretty easy to understand and it no longer rewards afk, PvD or siege humping and yet makes the objectives more valuable and will have more players willing to fight over them than the current system. If players only get loot and PPK from killing other players while fighting over objectives, they will fight over the objectives to get the most loot and PPK.
If the population issues are worked out, you will not have empty maps and will always have people available to fight over objectives to be able to score.
Sry but your system based on PPK will be gamed the second it comes out.
I think she really wants a PVP match that lasts longer with many more people on bigger maps that use pve gear. That style could even have proper leader board and ladders.
Many probably would enjoy that, but wvw would also lose a lot of people as well ….
Well, this is more of a personal issue. If JQ players are hurt for NA servers having centralized NA prime-time then just transfer to other servers. Either way JQ is not doing so hot in PPT land. You are currently bordering on entering Tier 3. Your players will be transferring off whether or not these changes go through.
I don’t know about transferring off, it was actually pretty fun fighting TC and FA last night.
Props to the FA SEA map zerg (GK guild?) for taking us on continually during SEA prime (even though they were wiping quite often).
It’s a refreshing change from a certain T1 server that likes to run away from every fight (not BG).
I don’t think we want to transfer off JQ, it would only fragment an already great community (some wouldn’t transfer due to cost, some would transfer, some would go to different servers, etc).
JQ’s match up with IoJ is obviously quite wrong when you compare it to the other T1 servers. I think Arenanet should be doing a one off rebalance based on this weeks stats that haven’t been manipulated by people logging off (and then revert to the 3 month rebalance).
No way you were fighting TC and fa in the same match yesterday.
I hate the nightcap myself, but old SOS (maybe current as well) and JQ seem screwed in that my nightcap is indeed their prime. they seem to have little to no NA prime to go with the very significant (stacked) “off hour” pop.
scoring would maybe fix itself with better linking / matching that takes into consideration when servers play. Right now JQ and YB look pretty even in score so may get matched together quite often – too bad a significant (majority?) of players on both servers play at different times. I don’t know how that will ever be “fixed” even with a scoring change…..
In options you may also need auto loot: auto pickup checked and auto loot : quick interact checked. There was some discussion that this was required + provisioning when it was added the 19th…..
Anet may want to do this poll to either
rethink how the linking should work
re-link using the same formula (but now adjusted for the pop change before and after the patch)
or drop it all together.
anet really should have brought back ABL a week or so before they released all the other wvw changes. That way, we would have a little more data as to whether the huge population spike was due to the BL change or the other changes.
So much this. IMHO dbl was blamed far too much for HOT failings when there were so many other detrimental changes. It is now given too much credit for the population increase when a patch hit and oh yea so did a server merge (link). The link should have waited Because of the returning pop, but that is another story.
My gut tells me the majority prefers ABL. I just don’t think it is as big of a gap between the ABL lovers and DBL lovers as some think there is. This is why they need multiple maps in some sort of rotation (and 3 months doesn’t cut it) or choice within a match.
I have not done this since getting the back piece. I wonder if many have moved on once earniNg It since the Loot was not teq level loot, but still takes some effort….
The best suggestion was using the LFG tool looking for an organized or cc taxi 15 mins ish before the boss is scheduled…..
@jonie – I enjoyed the patch for about 10 days. With the return of the ABL it dawned on me the new and improved wvw was really 2 year old wvw with a few QOL changes. Those changes were nice, but didn’t amount to much if spread over that 2 year time frame…. I will wait it out a bit too for real changes…
My playtime in WvW has dropped considerably because I still dislike T1 WvW tacitcs. I’ve played in the BLs consistently since the linking began and I can definitely say for myself and for quite a few members of my guild and the guilds we run with (no not speaking for everyone) that we still prefer the mid sized battles that take a somewhat moderate amount of skill in knowing your character and team, tactics and a decent leader calling out commands to take down an enemy party or defensive team guarding a tower or keep to the mindless full server zergs that can appear out of nowhere and destroy anything in its path like it was the Nothing from the Neverending Story.
Come on now, my guild normally runs between 5 and 10 and we have no problem with “zergs.” You just need to know when to call it quits and run, other than that we still get plenty of good fights.
I also look at this from a business perspective, which is sometimes hard to do when you’re the customer.
Having 24 servers is expensive, 12 servers is likely half the cost. It is hard to justify having the bottom 2 tiers at all because there was probably a total of 40 people tops a week (between all time zones) on those servers that even entered WvW. From a business stand point, those 40 people aren’t supporting keeping those servers open.
Keep in mind, your $0-$100 you spent to buy the game/expansion doesn’t go too far. Lets say every one of the 40 people paid $100, that is $4000. Now that is enough money to buy a decent server, but it wouldn’t be enough to host it. So basically the lower tier servers are losing money.
Now all of that above is assuming the way that their servers are set up – they may all be hosted on 4 physical servers for all I know, but if each server has its own physical server, that gets expensive quick.
This is the one time I can agree with you. The linking did nothing in my mind but cut costs…..
Just give me 7 months of Alpine since I have had to be without it for 7 months then you can start rotating once every week or something lol. I don’t want them to rotate the DBL in ever again personally. When it is in play again, my guild won’t be playing WvW.
And we had 2 years + (almost 3) of ABL going with your line of thought…..
