Guild Wars 2

morrolan.9608:

Princess.7584:

morrolan.9608:

Princess.7584:

morrolan.9608:

JQs SEA is not overstacked any more, at least not relative to T1 servers.

Which T1 servers do you speak of. YB? TC? Mags? Who else has the size to compete?

BG, TC, Mag definitely.

There was a reason I did not add BG, is locked, thats speaks for itself. But if you think that Mags and TC have the numbers to fight map queues, then you do not play SEA or you have trouble seeing the green names around you.

Looking at the scores this week TC and JQ have traded places in sea all week with maybe TC being just in front in terms of skirmishes won.

TC seems to win most skirmishes. JQ for sure has more activity. You have an entire SEA community with a SEA pug commander who does not fear death. You can also play more consistently.

Roxanne.6140:

Lol and you said this kitten knowing full well tc is either tanking for links or not playing because of the cannons. Tc had a huge guild transfer there a couple of weeks ago and their size was always comparable to us during sea time. Using this dumb statistic now for proof is reaching anet’s level.

If TC is tanking because of links then I didnt get the memo. I thought TC is playing like TC in a stale game. In fact, I’m pretty sure we just tried to have a “push week” that no one had the will to play any differently.

Theres nothing wrong with statistics when used properly. Where would we be in this world without them. You can look throughout Jades History for long stretches of time to see that JQ has a large SEA time zone bigger than most. In fact if I go back further it appears that only BG’s SEA can match yours but that’s before the lost of nG. Again that’s like comparing two giants or relics as Chaba said.

Now consider the objective is now balance beyond that of your tier. Consider now that balance and variety is now an objective. That means more than just 2 surrounding servers around you are going to need to be able to compete. I see a lot of talk about BG, TC, JQ and MAG but none about YB, FA, NSP or even SBI. Arena Net placed obvious restraints on the most populated servers overall to balance for this. The Server-Links are apart of the process.

This is still just 1 measurement though of coverage and coverage is only 1 part of the system that determines your status.

Today JQ owned 85% of all of WvW. This is a normal thing no matter the match up and even more so considering both MAG and BG have lost SEA to the EU servers.

https://puu.sh/rOOs5/f99440a482.png

This is JQs ticks during this match up. TC does not have enough SEA to compete with JQs SEA. Today they near full capped WvW in Tier 2.

Swamurabi.7890:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

Yeah, YB in a T1 match with zero first place skirmishes and a KDR of 0.5 along with NSP with 6 first place skirmishes and also a KDR of 0.5 must be tons of fun for both of them.

Artificially rotating servers into a matchup that they don’t belong is not going to spread out the population.

Hrm Last week YB came in second in Tier 1 and beat two Tier 1 servers in Tier 2 the week before and KDR doesn’t mean coverage. Try not to focus on 1 week or 1 tier.

Fatherbliss.4701:

One could argue the algorithm responsible for open vs. closed needs to be reviewed. However, we can’t see the overall data either. How well can “activity levels” truly be monitored? With a sophisticated enough system it would evaluate activity based on points gained or KDR. But there is not real valid way to kitten if that is a good thing or just mowing people down in a zerg like Sparkle Motion fashion.

I don’t think so. They could increase the rate and make the algorithm more accurate but that would just give way to things like tanking purposely and manipulating the opening/closing and getting a link by doing so.

All of this will be a consistent problem until Arena Net can balance on another level other than by server. It doesn’t matter if they add in KDR to determine activity. The only thing that matters is the duration of time used to determine activity over time. Shortening the time, would mean it would be easier to tank to open or gain a link. Looking at a broad time frame would prevent that but wouldn’t detect rapid change. Arena Net seemed to manually lock JQ because it didn’t detect the rapid change of population with the reevaluation so close, the movement of 40+ players could cause a dramatic effect on the servers surrounding. The amount of people following and moving can’t be determined.

Jade Quarry doesn’t even have a link, thus is a direct transfer of players to their actual server coverage. Once it happen,s Arena Net can’t simply unlink JQ like it can with MAG or TC or YB. The Imbalance could be permanent and largely determined only by the community which is the problem.

BG shouldn’t be opened. There are at least 3 large guilds wanting to move there and it will just cause a huge imbalance.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

As a reminder, we held a poll 2 months ago and the community voted to beta deployable cannons: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-18-July-Cannon-Blueprints-Closed/page/3#post6252969

This is the problem. TO be clear… your polls are the problem. I think many people have stated this…

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

JQ hit full status quick right in the middle of the transfer. This was abnormal and no doubt and possibly a manual lock on JQ but why? In fact, one would say since the release of the server-links two server seem to be on lock down and those servers are Blackgate and Jade Quarry. I’ve come to this forum several times and seen the threads of the complaints. All this leads to the discussion that happened in the server-links thread.

A server’s status is determined with WvW activity partially. It also takes into account just how many accounts are tied to that said server. Now two things:

1. Just not WvW activity but WvW activity in a 24/7 match up. I say this because Jade Quarry still has a large SEA population. Regardless if they have minimal NA. In fact, Their NA has picked up.

2. Jade Quarry has accumulated a lot of accounts more than the majority of the servers over time due to the nature of WvW and their stay in Tier 1. Because the server has so many accounts, you can expect a server like JQ to show inconsistent performance levels and spikes over time.

A server has a fluctuating cap and the capacity is not defined it’s largely determined by numerous factors and I can name 4 that are not in JQ’s favor and not in BG’s.

1. The Tier you are in.
2. The coverage you have (SEA).
3. The amount of accounts that are attached to your server.
4. Your activity levels over a month or more length in time.

However, ArenaNet seemed to manually lock you. Probably to stop mass movements to populated servers. I’m actually impressed at the speed in which this happened. It’s like they woke up the next morning checked the logs and action happened.

This example here of a guild transferring btw fits what I was saying in the Server-Links thread. About server communities being like a battlegroup without a limit or defined capacity.

JQ can’t determine if their heavily populated enough to organize to recruit. They assume the need more numbers due to coverage they perceive but it’s left up to assumptions as to how coverage and capacity is determined. They think they need to recruit more guilds for coverage but they do not. The game simply disagrees. If there was a defined cap around the JQ organization then perhaps they could and we could balance.

This also proves my point on how organized server communities largely purchase guilds in efforts to repair their coverage at all cost. 35k gold and legendary used to move a single guild. Yet, the server community is simply looking to compete and fill it’s coverage gaps. There is nothing wrong with an organized community organizing to do this and JQ shouldn’t be demonized for it because they are no different than the next server.

Yet, doing so hurts the servers around it and can cause other servers to collapse under the pressure. Servers can be forced down or up and more guilds can transfer in light of what we all perceive as a balancing act on a number that’s not defined. This is the fault of Arena Net still no matter how soon they catch the mass move to block it.

Simply blocking the move and not fixing the issue at it’s core does nothing but cause more attrition and angered players that don’t understand.

This is terrible. One of your worst decisions. We don’t even need a beta to play test this disaster.

Yeah for that matter if you tried to make an alt battlegroup, your main battlegroup could get paired with your alt lol. There wouldn’t be a benefit to doing this nearly at all.

Swamurabi.7890:

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

The guilds on servers that game the current system will be the same guilds that game the battlegroup system.

Step 1: Have everyone in your guild create an alt-account, maybe more. (assume that this hasn’t already happened)

Step 2: Have each alt-guild join a different battlegroup.

Step 3: Wait for Anet to create matchup, then play for battlegroup where you play with other battlegroups you like.

Step 4: Voids in opposing battlegroups, (by you not playing on your alts) will be filled by pugs.

Step 5: Win and profit.

I can only name 3 guilds that have made Alt account guilds in this fashion. 1 of them was a roaming/ dueling guild and I’m the guild leader of another. The question I have, is do you see this becoming the norm and why would it? If the Tiers are rotating, you’d therefore give everyone a chance to fight a dead server. Furthermore, the amount of effort it takes to organize and gear an entire alt guild is quite the effort.

In fact, gaming the system now with alt accounts would be easier because I could do this with a linked guest. It would be like having double the flexibility and no draw back to transferring around. To think about it, it’s why I’m seeing more alt accounts as of late.

As I said. I say this with great experience in making an alt account guild designed to effect WvW PPT. The only reason those types of guilds are beneficial are because the game’s tiers are stale. That means the same match-ups happen all the time. We are so beyond that point and still would be with battlegroups.

apharma.3741:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?

Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.

That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.

Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?

This is what I keep trying to explain to him. The idea of battlegroups would hinder what he’s describing. It wouldn’t enable it. If anything is enabling the actions he describes its server-links.

At the end of every reevaluation, there is a literal wave of transfers and gems spent. Arena Net wants to reevaluate the community after 2 month iterations of WvW, but the community wants to reevaluate what server they play for after the reevaluation. Arena Net places systems in place to control the flow of the bandwagon. They lock specific servers and open others. However, doing so is upsetting the community and causing instabilities every time.

In general, the overall GW2 WvW community will do whatever it takes to play where they want. They would even organize to accomplish the goal. So this server-link system is literally creating bid wars in hopes to balance everyone every 2 months. It prays on the instability of servers and not the over abundant and it uses a servers link as a form of temporary coverage and that allows guilds and communities alike to take advantage.

@Thelgar.7214 Those very same things you claim I did that had a negative effect are the very same things you are ignorant of. But at the end of the day, I just did like everyone else. Those very same things that happened are being repeated none stop every 2 months as well.

Yet, those very same things make all this relevant and that’s specifically why I can speak on them. That’s also why I can identify a solution when it’s placed in front of me like the battlegroup leak I describe and it’s why I can identify the effects of server-links and the toll it takes on the community.

I think by now anyone reading what you write can identify your problem, Thelgar. Your problem is with me. It’s something I call blind hatred. You hate me for something you perceive I did for reasons you believe I did. You hate me enough to block out all reason and logic and go on an offensive. You’ve even assaulted someone who just simply agreed and associated him with me when I don’t even know him outside this forum.

Anything I say you degrade. Any idea I give, will be seen as a small part of a larger scheme in your head. Just keep in mind, that the system I describe wasn’t created or associated with me prior to me being leaked it. What I linked came from a Discussion. It’s Arena Nets words and it would hinder what you perceive I did.

I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. But your past behaviour speaks for itself.

Battlegroups were a bad idea from the start. I heard the same leak you did. I was opposed to the idea long before you brought it up again and for all the same reasons. You could ask around to verify, but I doubt you will. You’d rather play the victim.

EDIT – Oh, and for those who haven’t caught Mal’s schtick, trying to make up some irrational reason people disagree with him or criticize the things he has done is Mal’s MO. What was the last one Mal? Calling someone “sick in the head” as I recall…

The plot thickens…

Hes focused on Me. I’m focused on solving the games issues. \o/ You say i’d rather play victim but you paint me as the bad guy thus im defending. You see the issue here.

Balthazzarr.1349:

… and no doubt players would start to be banned. There never will be a good excuse for breaking the rules, and there will be people that report these things… ANet also looks for patterns and limits the amounts etc that people with low number of achievement points can send etc etc. I don’t think that’s a valid reason to not raise transfer prices.
The only reason I can see that ANet isn’t raising prices is so they can continue to get income from the people that continue to transfer around each re-linking.

You’d be real surprised on how many people actually get away with doing it without a ban.

if they rose the gem prices , guilds and players alike would start to use the RMT market more than they already do. The gems are set to compete with the RMT market thus raising the gem prices just for the sake of guilds moving will give way to more problems beyond that of players not being able to play where they want. Its a bit more technical then just Arena Net wanting more money they need to worry about the entire economic system in which gems are utilized for more than just server transfers.

Jeknar.6184:

People voted to server links stay… Why is this even being brought up?
What we gonna see next? Another thread asking for Desert BL to be gone?

Yes. You would probably see another thread asking for desert to be removed. You see these polls are cancerous. In mass the community doesnt know what they want and the way ArenaNet delivers polls is simply broken. The global polls in this manner is bad in general and will and does lead to us accepting mechanics that are damaging.

They need to just merge servers and be done with it.

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.

All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.

I fully agree to your second paragraph but not the first. I dont think it requires any extra monitoring and even if it did I think the monitoring of WvW is something thats greatly needed. Your second paragraph is ideally why I back what I’m backing because I believe the what you said and thats structurally WvW needs a massive overhaul but server-links are indeed whats making people quit the game. I know a lot of people who have given up since. I know people who are forced to move and play for a server they do not wish to play for. All these things are caused by server-links.

Meaningful change is what WvW needs. I believe any extra effort to bring meaningful change is better than making something easy with less effort.

Server links did not cause players to jump to different servers every two months to follow where they believe the next top server / where the fights will be. That is the player’s fault but who can blame them for wanting to improve their “experience”. It is only natural that they want to go to the server that will win or will provide the most fights. The ones that suffer the most are the ones who stick to one server and just watch the tide ebb and flow. Hence, why I support restricting the amount of transfers a player can do within a time span so that server population can stabilize and people will think about when and where they move.

Well if you said that ANet already has an automated population system in place, then it is not doing a great job. Already they had to change the amount of time between links, and inflate glicko ratings to account for shifts in population for certain servers. I’d rather they spend less on automated population systems and more on meaningful changes even if it means moving on to the next iteration of this game.

I dont see it as simply as guilds wanting to play for the winning team. Instead I see it as people want to fight whom they want to fight in a tier they wanted to play in and due to server-links altercations happen that literally force people to move which ever way. I know the guild LATE that was once on BG’s link moved to TC and this wasnt because they wanted to play on TC as a winning server. In fact we lose to BG and MAG and YB. But its instead due to the environment of Tier 1 in general.

I know DB collapsed due to internal issues and the guilds who left to other servers didn’t leave to be on the best server. They actually picked servers based off cultural relations and the tier they would like to play in.

But yes you are right indeed. The people are are loyal to servers get hurt the worst by server-links because server-links enable the player base to move this way. If the system allows it and is working as intended how is that the fault of the player for using the system as it was designed to be utilized. Furthermore, this is leading me to believe the problem with Server-links reside in how servers work in general. Which is why I think it’s better to design a category/group/ or body that can be easily identified for match making rather than have a make making system design to handle it on a server level when servers do not have the proper restraints.

And yes I believe their automated system they have in place isn’t doing the job because glicko is to slow compared to player movement and their automated system doesn’t account for that. I believe using an automated system like the one described in part in battlegroups would allow for better match making and population balance. Battlegroups in general is all on whether or not Arena Net can produce a match making system around communities with a cap. Right now servers dont have a defined cap and they can’t simply give it one due to the nature of GW2.

anyways very good discussion

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)

For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.

Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.

All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.

I fully agree to your second paragraph but not the first. I dont think it requires any extra monitoring and even if it did I think the monitoring of WvW is something thats greatly needed. Your second paragraph is ideally why I back what I’m backing because I believe the what you said and thats structurally WvW needs a massive overhaul but server-links are indeed whats making people quit the game. I know a lot of people who have given up since. I know people who are forced to move and play for a server they do not wish to play for. All these things are caused by server-links.

You bring up meaningful change and I agree. Meaningful change is what WvW needs. I believe any extra effort to bring meaningful change is better than making something easy with less effort.

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.

Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)

For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.

EDIT: on the idea that it would require much work. The idea of Battlegroups is to be reevaluated every 15 weeks. The system of server links is to be reevaluated every 2 months with changes inbetween to fix glicko and server transfers. With battlegroups you’re locked in place for that duration. So you’re actually actively monitoring population and WvW more with Server-links than you could be in a system thats not even fine tuned or completely outlined.

2 EDIT: perhaps WvW needs a dedicated team to over see it in general.

Xenesis.6389:

Hadn’t been following the thread, interesting discussions.
But kitten it Mal time to bust out the flow charts up in here!

!!!! indeed!

ukyo.5639:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Are they not already monitoring WvW population enough to make adjustments even.

Keyword “active” – It sounds like ANet are just looking at number of players and the hours played and then matching those servers up with links to fill in for those servers that come in short. Looks great on paper for when links are done and then poof, in one week, all of the balance goes out of the window when the majority of players move to the server that they think will be the next best place.

To do true balancing they would have to kitten guilds, their playtime, commanders, timezones, etc etc. Sorry, but with how often this information changes it is too expensive and costly for them to do it “right” and thus not worth their time and effort to invest heavily.

Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.

I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.

Fatherbliss.4701:

There are many interesting theories of how to re-structure WvW in this thread. But I’m not convinced that the game client can support the type of numbers we would see based on limiting our options of play. Total theory here, if the Battlegroup type of concept goes into effect, more players will be on the maps. Right? I mean that certainly would be part of the goal. Right now when we have a “full map blob” three way fight, the game client lags so badly people can’t play. Games are always limited by the mechanics. Its incredibly difficult for a company to predict what their community and playerbase needs will be four years in. So they do attempt to fix what exists now or spend more resources incorporating our suggestions into a new expansion?

Even if there is a system designed to balance out the groups fighting, there is zero guarantee that players will show up each day, everyday, week in and week out. For many people the incentive is good competitive fights. Though I imagine the opinion on what that really means changes. Finding a system where one group can roam, one can blob, one can karma train, another has coverage, supporting big guilds and small guilds? It just sounds like we would be better served by having open world pvp where the players can create the content they want to see. Without being tethered to a matchup. I like WvW in this game for what it is but it certainly leads to burnout. And I still think that despite all of the creative solutions we are going to run into a huge barrier with the coding itself. We already complain daily about the lag as it is.

What I would assume is that the map caps would remain the same, and WvW in general would be more active across more tiers simply because its matchmaking. However, as someone pointed out this leads to a lot of questions about the match making process and the entire ordeal about Battlegroups rest on Arena Net matchmaking abilities.

“So they do attempt to fix what exists now or spend more resources incorporating our suggestions into a new expansion? "

This is my opinion. When we first started the live beta and when Arena Net axed battlegroups initially I didn’t say anything. I didn’t say anything because of what Arena Net said. They said that Battlegroups would take 6 months of production and that Server-links is something fast that can produce results quicker. When you look at this, you can see that Server-links have been in play for 6 months or more yet the system is highly disliked and doesn’t provide any new but further creates issues. So in my opinion, the resources ArenaNet had was largely based off a poll in which the community voted in favor of links. Yet the community doesn’t like them. So in fact taking the short route can prove to be more damaging to the overall community.

Open world PvP is great, but that’s not what WvW is. I would agree that a typical MMO RvR model would do ArenaNet some good but thats simply not the game we are playing.

In terms of coding. I’m a programmer myself and I don’t see how the programming can cause issues. I want to point out that, I believe Arena Net knows what their capable of more than the community itself. Battlegroups was an ArenaNet design and not the communities, thus I believe they think they can do this if they had the time to do it.

ArenaNet thinks ahead of all of us and this is why they are working on an expansion already. Because they are working on this expansion, I feel its shortened everything else they have to work on and they are too quick to find easy fast solutions that are more than likely a bandaid or something thats simply not going to work.

I don’t like that Arena Net is working on an expansion and they could possibly add something like Battlegroups for it. I don’t like that thought because we’ve just purchased an expansion that did nothing but hurt WvW and added very little. Now we are about to add ontop of that and its going to cost us more money when the last expansion failed WvW hardcore to the point where people are screaming for legacy fights and to have maps reverted.

ukyo.5639:

Spurnshadow.3678:

Jesus, this thread is still talking about alliances, or whatever.

Simple solution: limit the amount of transfers you can do in a year, like 2 or 4.

+1 to this – This will limit the volatility of servers and force guilds to really think about the community / server they will transfer to.

Also, no to Battlegroups. ANet has enough on its plate already. Can’t expect them to actively monitor WvW population.

Are they not already monitoring WvW population enough to make adjustments even.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.

Internal Drama happens with Guilds and servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.

“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.

A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on server, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.

“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),

• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "

Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.

However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.

When you want to make your points, its better to stay on point rather than target someone and talk down to them. Here you could have easily explained why you think I’m not thinking this through based off what I posted in response. Be less condescending and more productive.

There’s only so many times you can repeat yourself.

The problem here is you believe you’ve presented an unassailable pov. When I counter with real issues, you don’t address them, just redivert into ideologies that you adhere to, or dismiss them as unimportant. When I say “but what about” .. you do a Hellion wall of text.

What I think is going on is perhaps just a basic inability for each of us to understand each other, and that happens.

And I’m incredibly productive. You should see me at work

I’ve answered every single “what about…” But you respond with your not thinking this through. But my hellion walls of text clearly show i’ve been thinking this through. So tell me what I’ve missed.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.

Internal Drama happens with Guilds and servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.

“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.

A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on server, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.

“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),

• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "

Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.

However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.

When you want to make your points, its better to stay on point rather than target someone and talk down to them. Here you could have easily explained why you think I’m not thinking this through based off what I posted in response. Be less condescending and more productive.

a New Borderlands map should fit nicely inbetween the alpine and the desert map. However, before they give us a new map they need to fix the ones we have first, because they all have serious flaws.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.

Internal Drama happens with Guilds and servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.

“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.

A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on server, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.

“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),

• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "

Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.

Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.

And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.

So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?

Interesting.

As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.

Again, not thinking this through.

“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "

Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.

I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.

Spurnshadow.3678:

@ Malevolent,

re: Comunities

Just because this is how YOU approach WvW doesn’t mean others do. This is more of a reflection of how YOU want to play the game and view it.

What’s wrong with trying to fill time zones that have low activity? For example, BG has 1 EU guild. It would be great to get another. Nothing wrong with that. The BG war council doesn’t do the nefarious things you are getting at. They are volunteer people that often change and exist mostly to maintain the administration of the website, TS, and provide a means and coordination for the various guilds to get together and communicate to each other on a semi-regular basis.

The people that “waged war” by trying to activily poach guilds and pay for a large amount of a guild’s transfer cost was you….

My approach to WvW wasn’t the context of any of my post. My post are a reflection of things I experienced playing this game for its full duration as a leader.

There is nothing wrong with BG trying to fill its coverage gaps just like there is nothing wrong with me looking to do the same. However, doing this based off BG’s current standings is damaging to the game considering BG’s status as a server. There is a reason BG is locked and not paired. There is a reason BG can win the majority of it’s match up as well.

Now you’ve used this word “nefarious” multiple times, but not once have I described the actions of any server community as negative or nefarious. In fact, I’ve been defending against such talk.

Now you say the BG War Council doesn’t do the things I’m getting at but then you say in the same post that BG looks to fill its coverage gaps they think they have.

1. BG During Season 1 made deals to recruit mercenaries to BG for the sake of winning Season 1. Doing this time, the only say I had was as a guild leader.

2. During Season 1, Riven of KnT was appointed server leader of the BGWC and his first actions was to make a deal with Jericho of AGG to not hit BG. He then proceeds to announce in global Commander comms to not hit AGG at all because they are working for us.

3. BG War Council had several auctions to auction off legendaries and collect funding. At one point in time BG community donated over 11 thousand gold. BG also bought Ra and while the deal was sealed by me, it was backed by the entire war council. After all 11 thousand gold didn’t come out of my pocket nor do I speak Chinese thus, BGWC hand to handle the deal.

4. BG War Council is directly responsible for sending TW to JQ in efforts of stabilizing JQ with alt accounts. Yes, indeed that was also a Black Gate War Council meeting in which BGs War Council was scared for it’s own community because of a lack of fights. Thus, TW opted to save the day and the BGWC agreed.

5. Everyone knows BG is steadily trying to recruit JQ’s off hours guilds and if BG did open up, BG would aim to grab the last remanding JQ SEA guilds although they need zero coverage.

You see coverage isn’t a matter of everyone having equal time zone coverage in a tier. Balanced coverage works like a jig saw puzzle and just because you don’t have a lot of EU doesn’t mean you are in need of more numbers when your other timezones have 95% of the game out numbered.

6. BG attempted to 2v1 TC out of the tier for FA. BG attempted to 2v1 Yaks Bend out of the tier for TC.

Now, I will say again. I think everything that BG has done was in the light keeping their own community healthy. However, the effects of what they’ve done has had negative effects on others. But this is just the game we play in called WvW and this is generally what happens when any community organizes to achieve a goal.

The only issue is there are no restraints or restrictions and no structure to monitor and if there had be a structure to monitor, the events of the past wouldn’t have dealt so much damage to the surrounding servers.

Lastly my name comes from a comic book and is used to draw attention in this game. It’s easy to remember and gives me a platform that you are clearly showing right now.

Jayne.9251:

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.

You’d think.

Until:

• each of those groups were manipulated to capacity,
• then internal group drama where someone gets kicked out, or another group wants to join,
• then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because
• we’ve seen, historically, that people want the easy face roll,
• then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups …

And then guess what? Stale matches, predictable week after week matches, personal pride battles that satisfy a small minority of those in control of the dominant groups and leave everyone else out, and we are back to where we are now. Only worse. People just give up because the community they once had no longer exists to keep them tied to the game.

People are not thinking this through.

This model highly favours GvG groups. A demographic assessment needs to be done to determine if these groups are stable enough to sustain the model. Because once you eliminate the casuals, they won’t come back.

Edited for formatting.

This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.

Internal Drama happens with Guilds and Servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.

“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.

A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. Server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on servers, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.

“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),

• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "

Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.

Jayne.9251:

If there’s a volatile history, people will automatically brand the proposed changes with the individual, rather than the idea. Continuing to argue it will only cement that branding.

Yeah case made lol.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?

Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.

That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.

Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?

This is what I keep trying to explain to him. The idea of battlegroups would hinder what he’s describing. It wouldn’t enable it. If anything is enabling the actions he describes its server-links.

At the end of every reevaluation, there is a literal wave of transfers and gems spent. Arena Net wants to reevaluate the community after 2 month iterations of WvW, but the community wants to reevaluate what server they play for after the reevaluation. Arena Net places systems in place to control the flow of the bandwagon. They lock specific servers and open others. However, doing so is upsetting the community and causing instabilities every time.

In general, the overall GW2 WvW community will do whatever it takes to play where they want. They would even organize to accomplish the goal. So this server-link system is literally creating bid wars in hopes to balance everyone every 2 months. It prays on the instability of servers and not the over abundant and it uses a servers link as a form of temporary coverage and that allows guilds and communities alike to take advantage.

@Thelgar.7214 Those very same things you claim I did that had a negative effect are the very same things you are ignorant of. But at the end of the day, I just did like everyone else. Those very same things that happened are being repeated none stop every 2 months as well.

Yet, those very same things make all this relevant and that’s specifically why I can speak on them. That’s also why I can identify a solution when it’s placed in front of me like the battlegroup leak I describe and it’s why I can identify the effects of server-links and the toll it takes on the community.

I think by now anyone reading what you write can identify your problem, Thelgar. Your problem is with me. It’s something I call blind hatred. You hate me for something you perceive I did for reasons you believe I did. You hate me enough to block out all reason and logic and go on an offensive. You’ve even assaulted someone who just simply agreed and associated him with me when I don’t even know him outside this forum.

Anything I say you degrade. Any idea I give, will be seen as a small part of a larger scheme in your head. Just keep in mind, that the system I describe wasn’t created or associated with me prior to me being leaked it. What I linked came from a Discussion. It’s Arena Nets words and it would hinder what you perceive I did.

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.

And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.

No you are ignorant to the maximum level. But, I will let you be that way. You can believe what you want but my examples make it perfectly clear. You choose to be blind as you always are.

elkirin.8534:

This thread was about DB. Due to the single server allocation and maybe other reasons it has fallen. DB may or may not recover during the next rotation as server partners are re done.

The people who post with the full intent of turning this into a match up thread should cease.

This was never a thread about A timezone vs B timezone, or A server vs B Server.

Hatred vitriol and spam posting may be your way of supporting your server but please tone it down. I thank those few who made clear on topic posts

Good Luck DB hope to see you as you rise back up past us next cycle.

actually this entire thread is troll bait. The OP knew what happened to DB and only posted this to turn it into a match up thread where DB gets trash talked. The OP is from JQ and is the leader of KEK.

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

What defines the difference between battlegroups and our current system?

Our current system has no consistent means to measure. Our measurement is on a server level yet servers expand, thus allows near limitless bounds to our server communities and enables everything we do and will do for the foreseeable future that disturbs balance.

Doesn’t matter what time period you examine WvW. Server communities look to gain without any means to measure.

If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. Instead of, matchmaking Glicko placements and Server pairings based off activity and PPT when servers fluctuates by design, it would go a long way to solving the communities balancing issues and ArenaNets struggle to maintain it. Furthermore, it would give ArenaNet a tool to analyze and properly query to determine what communities want.

It would allow the communities to know a limit and balance based off that limit and not the perception of one. Once all is said and done, you will find Tournaments easier and just as the system explained in it’s form, Tournament could be utilized to determine lock periods and competitive tournaments.

The Blackgate War Counil, The Jade Quarry Council, The Tarnished Coast Roundtable, and all server organizations alike are already battlegroups without limits.

I want to make Arena Net and everyone aware of the fact that Server communities organize to purchase guilds directly from their competitors. The relationship between server and guild is quite a interesting one. Servers want to stay competitive in a very stale game mode. They look out for their own server. These Servers have central organizations.

http://tarnished-coast.com/forum/
http://gw2blackgate.com/forum/
https://maguuma.org/
http://www.fort-aspenwood.com/
http://jadequarry.com/page/index.html
http://yaks-bend.enjin.com/

Are some examples. They are Communities with their own governments and leaderships. * They have admins and moderators and community leaders. They also plot against each other* because each community is a direct competitor in this system. They interchange guilds and players at an alarming rate simply because they all trying to fill their respective coverage gap they think they have.

The only problem is their opinion on what a coverage gap is. It contradicts not only what balance means in a three way but their direct health as well. This is simply because their actions and perceptions tend to have a negative effect on the competing servers. This is because of the nature of the Server | Tier system in an competitive environment that’s 24/7.

These server communities listed don’t represent even 50% of the total server population 9 times out of 10. These communities not only wage war in WvW against each other, but they wage a war of guilds and they pay for it through gems. Greater than 50% of a server population has no clue about the type of organization and funding it takes to move a single guild and even less has an idea on the impact or domino effect it could have on the surrounding servers. So not only are guilds moving by themselves, but they are being coordinated to move large scale.

But wait it gets more interesting. Because the communities then starts to understand the system and they start to use it for their own benefit. They split off or coordinate a plan that is in fact something that’s going to alter the tier.* The communities call it manipulation and we are all responsible. Each server and sub culture of a server is responsible and has engaged or invoked it.* Every single community organization and myself and all leaders who ever wagered on trying to balance their server or sustain an environment in their respective tier has caused shifts in balance. Some greater than others.

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

In fact you can say these very same communities that I describe are indeed battlegroups. They don’t even make up for 50% of an entire server. They have rules and if you break them, they will indeed remove you from their communities assets. They all aim to recruit the best fit for their community and they all want the best fights. They all eat each other, and they all have a sense of control that they bestow through ranks and leadership beyond that of a guild.

Immortal.1543:

Xenesis.6389:

Immortal.1543:

YB will get relinked and drop and someone will come up to take their place. This system aims to end the circlejerk in the same 3 servers in every tier by making it actually possible to move up. In the old system we would have dominated each tier for 6 months before moving up which leaves nothing but disenfranchised players in the wake.

Which makes no sense since they don’t even build the links according to multiple tier, but just to the tiers the servers are in. It’s obvious actual t4 server links cannot compete in t3, t3 server links cannot compete in t2 and so on. The only time we’ve seen servers make those jumps in power is because a) they made a mistake in the link (4 headed cd monster) or b) a server was asleep, got a link and then dominated again, see bg and yb.

It also isn’t good for a population to keep yo-yoing them up and down the ranks, eventually players will look for more stable situations.

I definitely disagree. WvW is war. It’s not supposed to be 100% stable, but to make a game fun it at least needs to be balanced. Having a rotation up and back down again is much more balanced than being stuck behind a glicko wall for 6 months.

What we should really be talking about it how all the servers in NA are shooting for T2 if they can so they can be the top tier with pairings. This is why YB is winning right now, Mag and TC just stopped caring two days ago.

Either every server gets a pairing or it causes a bandwagon to T2 because players don’t want to be in the situation of YB or DB falling to the bottom again.

Your idea of basing pairings on multiple factors is something I have brought up in the past just don’t really have a good idea on how to make that work with the current situation.

MAG and TC didnt stop caring. MAG lost coverage those same days ago and both MAG and TC were playing normally. The only thing abnormal is Yaks Bends rise in these last few weeks.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Hibernation was the concern I had.

I suppose battle groups ( not in the way previously discussed) could work. Straight out replacement to current servers. – Essentially servers, by another name, and smaller population caps.
Plug those straight into the “server-linking” process in place of servers..

Something like seasonal sign up may be worth mixing into the idea.
RIP transfer gem revenue though. Which will impact design decisions somewhere along the way.

I voted for server-links thinking they were going to add battlegroups on top of server-links in a well defined system. I assumed the information I received on battlegroups were not finished and server links were simply going to end with them merging server and preparation for battlegroups. I thought with this in mind the game state was looking to be going in the right direction. That is until Tyler said Server links were to replace any other system they had in mind.

The gem thing from all this madness is swaying me to believe ArenaNet is doing this for the money. This is coming from someone really likes the company. I hope I’m wrong.

Leaa.2943:

Xenesis, sorry something did not go right with this post so this is a answer from a post i made a while back

So i been playing many games with this idea of alliances (or add your own word) and none of them have ever worked as intended. Reason have already shown in wvw after linking started. It is in the nature of gamers (or i should say some gamer) wanting to be on the server that runs the others over. A lot of gamers love to join the rolling group so they can run over a lesser group to boost their ego. This is why linking only worked with the first server linking, then players started to do their own thing and bandwagoned linked server to be sure they would be on the rolling server.

This is nothing new in the genre, it happens in every game that have this sort of pvp. The only game were it did not happen was in GW2 and this because of servers and server pride. It meant something. Linking is about to destroy this and few servers are held together, because unfortunate many want to be on the choo choo train.

More unfortune is that the players do not realize that they are actually ruin the game mode by doing so.
Because this is what happen in other games with similair idea of game mode. It starts with a vision from the game devs. Alliances. 3 of them mostly, and players can mostly choose first. First week all goes as the vision is thought. Then players starts to draw their own conclusions and realize that if they stack one team they will win over the other teams. This will boost their ego so players start to move.
Some of this games you have to sit and hammer on the keyboard for 5 min to manage to get in to the stacked alliance. Noone cares anymore about the game mode, only about the stacking. After a while the two other teams get tired of loosing, and people start to drop off from the game mode. Some try to stack the winning team but in the end there can only be so many on one team, so those that never get in stop playing the game mode too.
Now the stacked team have nothing to kill, and they start to tell the world the game mode is dying and blame the devs and they stop joining the game mode because there is no choo choo anymore and moving to the loosing alliances are not an option. And yes in the end the game mode will die or a lot less players will be left and try to make something out of it. That is what happen to those games in the past.

This is were WvW will go as well and especially if we stop using servers. Then it will go even faster. Because as fun as it will be for the bandwagon during the short time they do it, they will kill it slowly until no one is left to kill then they move on because hey, the game mode is dying and no one is to blame, or is it?

So i stand by my words. It been done in so many other games with no long period of success. I can actually not think of any other game with somewhat same game mode who lasted this long. And the only difference is the servers.

What you describe here is already the scenario in GW2, with the already existing server/guild structure. The same power plays are present. The only difference between alliances and our current system is that alliance would have a well defined cap on it where as servers do not and can not. So in fact having alliances would give ArenaNet a mechanic to hinder what you’re talking about in a mass scale and better analyze balance based off it.

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

ArenaNet, obviously if you have to keep making manual adjustments and fixing the matches thus taking it out of the players hands then your system is failing horribly.

You will never solve our balance issues this way, you will only cause us to buy more gems. I don’t know how many times this needs to be said. Furthermore fixing any server is screwing up another server. If every 2 months you change links, open and close servers, you have a high chance of collapsing a server in coverage causing waves of players to move to random locations. If you do this in the off chance the communities will decide to reside in a spot for balance you’re forgetting and undermining the larger percent chance to ruin balance within the same time frame. This is what’s happening constantly and each iteration we have new bandwagons that end up losing members as the weeks go on. A lot of the same folk are moving and it’s predictable movement based of the community culture. It’s not predictable or solvable by equations or statistics. Purely driven by friendship, culture and which server community has the most coin to purchase a guild for what they perceive as a balancing act.

The chances of us getting it right aren’t high enough compared to our attrition rate and detachment from communities.

Forcibly fixing a server is changing the cultures that server and the servers around it especially in the higher tiers and that alone causes waves of transfers. You can understand why if you do this consistently you’d cause some issues. Especially when the community is applying old school mechanics to new school systems.

Perception is huge as well and this comes into “taking it out of the players hands”. Yak’s Bend is notorious for their play style. Regardless if they deserve Tier 1 or not, fixing them to stay in a tier, sends a heavy message especially if in general other servers do not wish to fight them because of their playstyle. WvW and the tier structure is determined by player coverage and points gained. This effects our position and this is the determining factor that drives the server communities to organize and play harder especially in the higher tiers. So when you take it out the players hands, you are increasing our attrition rates and giving more people a reason to not care.

Last thing:

I firmly believe Yak’s Bend is indeed a Tier 1 server as long as they’re not asleep I want to point out. I also believe that Yak’s Bend’s play style fits into the category “working as intended” and if most servers have a problem with fighting Yaks Bend, its more or less a problem with the game and what the game allows Yaks Bend to do.

#WaitingForTheNextBandwagon

P.S. MAG just lost 3 guilds. 2 to SBI. Match fix SBI to T2. lol

Caliburn.1845:

Been watching this discussion with interest.

First, the battlegroup idea. To what degree it was developed and the specifics of how it would work are unclear, and if it had gone Live the finished product would almost certainly have been different than what Mal’s sources told him.

But it is clear that World Linking is only a band-aid solution to WvW. A short term fix for larger systemic problems that need to be addressed to revitalize WvW.

I have been a WvW commander since the first month of the game(and am still active). The game-mode is incredibly stale, players and guilds are quitting, disbanding, or branching into other game-modes to maintain interest in GW2.

So to McKenna and the other members of the WvW team, pick a direction for WvW and go with it. It might be wrong, it might be right. It might work, it might not. But right now WvW is just sliding into oblivion.

If you have to do away with servers in the process, do it. If you have to fundamental change how scoring works, do that. If you need to revamp mechanics and maps, do that.

But don’t rely on the players to direct your attention. We’re a diverse and argumentative group that will never agree on anything, and if you leave things to us WvW will never change in any meaningful way.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The polls in general hurt the community. My example was something made by the devs that would have helped tremendously instead it was canceled out by Server links as a permanent solution.

Battlegroups indeed would have evolved from the point in which I knew it to be.

Thelgar.7214:

At least one above you and the other people in favor of battle groups, which includes a guy who was involved in match fixing and deliberately stacking two servers for advantage as well as a guy who posted a screenshot here celebrating TC spawn camping with arrow carts after the first guy stacked the server. You fit right in with them, playing the victim and acting offended after you attacked someone first.

lol wow. You are a comedian. If you could only understand, but you are beyond understanding. You choose to believe what you want to believe without even knowing what took place or the other side. If anyone is toxic and discriminating it’s you. You throw down others opinions just because you don’t like them as well.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Ok that’s a huge difference. Thank you.

When you first introduced the “leak” into this thread, it seemed like this was something currently being considered or new.

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Why not consider implementing some of the alliance principles to the existing server structure. Cap the population, etc.?

You haven’t outlined any reasons what so ever. You can cap the population but you’d still need variety and you would still need to have a system in place to keep it that way. Arena Net would still need a better metric to decide balance.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Not trying to argue. It’s just that you seem to contradict yourself with your words.

For example, the above is unclear.

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped

Yes. I bolded that part, which lead me to my question.

And here’s where it gets confusing:

you’d see that’s not the case.

.

What isn’t the case?

So are you saying this alliance idea is on the horizon, that it’s been newly reintroduced based on your “Insider” information? Or are you simply trying to push forward again an idea that was considered, then scrapped, for whatever reason?

Because the difference is important.

My post in which I quoted the the Tyler saying why the overhaul was canceled. It didn’t have to do with what you’re saying. But in fact that’s not even the point. The point is Server Links did not work, and Battlegroups were not heard of as a possible fix to our solutions. Thus, I brought it up because I wanted discussion about it because I think it’s better. I made my point very very clear multiple times. It’s how you choose to pick apart my words for these said contradictions.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Ah, so you’re admitting you’re trying to resurrect something that got dumped by inferring it’s current?

Interesting.

Maybe there was a valid reason for axing it in the first place?

If you read what I said in which I even gave the quote as to why it was dropped you’d see that’s not the case. I made my point clear and I can’t tell anymore if you’re just trying to argue for no reasons. I brought it up because I believe as though it’s a better design then Server Links no matter if it took 6 months to make.

Jayne.9251:

As long as they run a poll, WITH a super majority result, before implementation.

I’d like to see at least a nominal reflection of what everyone wants, instead of a single agenda of a few.

Yeah, I would have rather a poll on this and community dicussion before hand like whats happening right now. But Instead, we got a poll on Server links which canceled this out without us knowing.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

How does a battle group include me, a player without a dedicated wvw guild, but enjoys dropping in from time to time?

You can join a battlegroup as a singular person. There would still be a server as well. Thus if the season hasn’t started you could transfer to where you want to play just the same. Someone can kick you out a battlegroup just like they can kick you out a guild. That doesn’t mean they can kick you off a server. The leak says there is a time period for formation inbetween seasons. This is the time to move as a individual or guild. I wouldn’t be able to talk in depth about the match making system because the leak doesn’t have the entire system detailed.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

What you’re describing also sounds a similar to alliances in gw1.

However it sounds a lot like a “world” ( in the current meaning of the word world) would be made up of battle groups, who you’re teamed with decided by anet. A lot like world linking currently.

So a battle group sounds like a server – before its linked.

So as a player without a wvw guild.. I could end up anywhere – with battle groups made of guilds who have barely any interest in wvw, so I end up with dead maps?
Do I have to join a guild to be in a battle group at all?

as a player without a guild, you can still join a battlegroup. As a player without a guild or battlegroup you can still join a server during the formation period.

Battlegroups would be much like Alliances in GW1 except, Arena Net would be using the various layers of the community to depict match making for balanced match ups. Right now Arena Net uses an equation based solely off server population for server links, locks and balance. Doing it this way leads to issues, and improper balance. Taking it down to a battlegroup level allows for more flexibly in match making and balance in general.

It’s really hard to guess what it would be like especially with so little information. I am also curious on the procedure to match make because that makes or breaks Battlegroups. The original idea was to not split communities which it seems it wouldn’t.

“• We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.”

“You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.”

“• The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.”

So by analyzing guilds and their battlegroups Arena Net would then be able to better place them and the community alike. Right now, they can’t do that with server links. Thus, each time they rematch us, they cause huge waves of transfers. Battlegroups would keep these communities together when a shuffle happens.