So aside from hating DBL when it came out, is this going to be the norm going forward? If so, do you have a jungle themed BL hiding somewhere you’re going to torture Green with and leave ABL on blue ?
Why are you surprised? No communication is standard practice for Anet, they are by far the absolute worst gaming company when it comes to communication. You shouldn’t be surprised the WvW community has been trying for literally years to bridge the gap with no success and then they wonder why we are “hostile”.
If you praise them they might reply but other then that don’t expect anything.
And yes the Stability of the game has been horrendous as of late, but ya I agree, lets get some repair hammers in game because stability of the game is overrated.
I don’t think Anet is in a position to fix lag.
Hopefully the next generation of RvR will find a solution. But I doubt that Anet wants to make that level of investment. Maybe they will have it fixed in GW3.
Blobfighting without lag will have to wait a couple more years.
The issue is it has become worse, lags been around forever but whatever they have done recently has broken something, freezing, DC’s, Massive Skill lag in small fights. It’s unacceptable tbh.
linking is great for most tiers, which is an improvement for the statistical majority of players
Formerly t1 was the only somewhat close tier in population. Now, having done t2/t3 extensively, those are MUCH closer than they used to be. The overwhelming majority of the populaton is in tier 1-3, so I don’t know how it can be considered a failure.
The stomping in t4 (if it really is that, I haven’t seen it) is not something new. Formerly, it was common in t2-t4 for one or more of those tiers to have as much or worse of a stomping, and they were similarly Glicko locked. For all practical purposes, they’ve made more tiers closer and less tiers stomps.
It’s not really, it’s ok for most host servers, not so much the linked servers who may be tossed down into the depths of T4 next round. Everyone seems to forget that there is more then the host servers who are affected by linking. It’s a crap shoot where the linked servers will end up when re-links happen. Also will Anet drop the ball again ? I’m just going to assume yes because that’s one thing you can count on from Anet.
They’l get around to it after they finish optimizing PvE, PvP, the Store, forums, solving World Hunger, and lastly World Peace.
How dare you suggest that Guilds get something guild orientated, blasphemy, don’t you know Guildwars 2 is about catering to everything but guilds?
I believe this is currently in testing and should be ready by this time in 2026.
Instead of basing it off the servers place they should give benefits when you have the outnumbered buff.
The benefits should be things that encourage small groups to go out and try things on their own instead of logging off because there isn’t a blob running.
A few examples of what I’m talking about are:
When outnumbered you can pick up an extra 5 supply, so if you are running on an enemy bl and claim a camp you can grab 25 supply.When outnumbered you will not be marked by sentries, watch towers or when a keep flips.
When outnumbered it takes twice as long to trigger white swords.
Not only does this promote small group play, it forces the blob to split up or risk losing everything.
All good suggestions
Forgot to mention I’m in NA. Blackgate seems to be full on blob warfare which isn’t conducive to teaching or experiencing the game in a meaningful way, imo. I’ll be looking for a T2 server to move myself and my guys to. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’ll have the patience to wait until the server shuffle next Friday, so we’ll be gambling a bit on finding a new home this evening.
It’s really only a gamble if you’re not willing to pay the gem fee’s and want to try and bypass it by transferring to a linked server. Mag and FA aren’t really a gamble, they will both remain in T3, unless of course Anet resets Glicko and just pulls names out of a hat for matches or willy nilly hands out another quad server to only one host.
Both T2 and T3 are currently healthy, I don’t think much will change in that regard when linking’s are redone but just to be safe, wait until Aug 26th.
It’s Arena Net we’re talking about. Except for T1, anything else is at mercy of their sense of humor.
This is true, I wouldn’t be shocked to see BG sent to T4 vs DH with no linkings and Ebay with no linkings.
Both T2 and T3 are currently healthy, I don’t think much will change in that regard when linking’s are redone but just to be safe, wait until Aug 26th.
They didn’t replace the hamsters, they just linked the old ones to the existing wheel …
Time to blow it all up, hit that giant reset button and start over, it couldn’t possibly be worse for the game. On SBI we went from T3 to T4 for only 2 weeks and that was demoralizing regardless of landslide victories, I can only imagine how demoralizing it would be to be linked in a higher Tier only to be dropped to the depths of T4.
Just start over Anet, you talked about a reset button in the past, push it.
To be fair both SoS and SBI have a linked server YB does not. There is actually a lot of servers that could be T4, HoD, AR, SoR, pretty much every linked server by themselves could be considered T4.
EB is always the most popular map. Its the central map, its the first map people go to. No matter what BL, this will be the case.
Pretty much this, ABL seemed empty last night but there was an EB queue so we ran around in the enemy BL, as soon as we started hitting Hills the enemy came out of the wood works and the map became populated. Now back with DBL, EB was queue’d we would go to the enemy BL, hit their keeps and maybe 1 or 2 people would try to prevent it.
EB has always been more popular then any other BL just by design.
The bottom line is something needs to be done, it’s been years and we have watched WvW dwindle because of poor design decisions, server stacking, lack of variety, and lack of communication.
I still think Merges followed by 4 tiers with combined scores that promotes guesting to other tiers when needed is a better solution mainly because it addresses most of the above issues. It’s not perfect but I have yet to see anything else suggested that would cater to most of our requests without over complicating it.
A real merging of the servers, I don’t think it’s any secret that in some cases the linking’s have done more damage then good. Allowing people to transfer to a cheap server in a high tier has not solved anything, you’ve just given people an easier way to bandwagon or stack those higher tiers while as usual the lowest of tiers continues to lose population.
Take the current servers, link under 3 new alliances and roll the Megaserver system in to WvW. Put in measures to cap PPT and PPK on heavy outnumbered BL’s maps and re-link every now and then to refresh.
That’s basically EotM 2.0, the way I suggested doesn’t require measures, match up them selves will still be separate just weekly scores are combine, so if one of the matches becomes seriously unbalanced the other tiers sharing their color can guest down or up to balance said match up out and they will want to do so if it puts them at risk of losing due to scores being combined.
Well, I’ve said this before, there is always the option to merge and keep it at 4 tiers, each week all green/blue/red scores will be combined between all tiers. Allow for people to guest between tiers to a server that shares their color. It solves some of the Queue issues, it promotes variety in fights, and all worlds will be busy because if T1 is doing great for green but T4 is getting stomped then people will guest down to T4 to help with the PPT.
It allows people to keep their home server (after merges) but you may have to tier jump from time to time to help them pick up the slack. Colors rotate all the time so it wouldn’t always be the same servers in one color.
Some people will be against this for one reason or another but there are going to be people for and against every solution we try and come up with. This one seems to cover most of people concerns from Variety to Server Pride to balancing match ups.
Seeing that CD isn’t doing so hot in T3, let’s flip the argument around…it’s not that the Quad Server idea was bad or that the population generated was too much, because it obviously isn’t for T3, it’s that SF and DH were left with being UNDER populated compared to everyone else. It’s like 10 famous Major League football team quarterbacks got to pick all the MVP players to complete their teams, and as an afterthought, two minor league guys got to pick a few of the leftovers and are being thrown into major league games without a full roster. There’s just no way to fix it without giving the two minor league teams some of the MVPs that the other teams got. They need to shoot for all server pairings to have roughly the same populations, because just like in sports, it’s all about coverage.
This is true, had they split the linking up better it probably wouldn’t have been such an issue. The fact that DH got Ebay and only Ebay just shows how inaccurate Anets “metric” truly are, or they just didn’t care enough to pay any attention to balancing and let random rolls take over. All other tiers are relatively close to balanced, YB is the other exception which is why had they done something like Give YB the lowest pop of the quad server, given DH the Middle pop and Ebay, and let CD retain the highest pop of the linking it probably would have been more balanced. DH would have had 3, SF would have had 3, YB and CD would have had 2, this would have put YB closer or equal to the rest of T3 and CD more in line with T4. Again it doesn’t matter at this point because coulda shoulda woulda, I just hope they either Merge or learn from this, pay attention, and manually adjust when needed.
Going back is a bad idea, I agree all the linkings and what not are a complete disaster but the activity per tier is better now. There is not enough people playing to go back to 24 or 27 servers. A merge is a good idea or do what so many other games have done when faced with dwindling population, create 9-12 new servers, close down the existing and force people to move to one of the new servers. People may not like the idea of the latter but it has proven in many games to be an effective fix.
It’s impossible to balance a Linking for that reason, when people can hop to any Tier they choose for the price of a lower population server the numbers are going to fluctuate a lot. Which is why I say they should just merge, just get it over with, merge, reset scores, and let the chips fall where they may.
Actually yes, I have 5 account one of which is on DH, don’t assume to think you know what people have and have not witnessed. Once again, for someone who lurks both here and the cancer forums you just can’t seem to grasp what I’m saying. The quad server ruined T4, even by your own admission people were quitting before it started as a direct result of tri and quad servers. However what I’m saying is any pairing that has yet to happen does not matter whether it is 1 or 10 servers because it has not happened. Lets focus on what IS happening not what might happen. We will cross that bridge and determine if it’s balanced or not if/when it happens.
I do think it’s funny that you proved my point and still want to argue it, the linkings made people quit before they saw the balance is a good indication that it was a not healthy for the game because people were aware that the balance was off. Now if all 3 servers had a quad linking it may have been different but that did not happen so it doesn’t matter.
The way I see it, Linking was a soft merge, I’m sure the intent was to merge servers without servers losing their identity. This did not work, the linked servers currently have no identity, they are just additions to the home server who’s identity remains intact. On NA it’s not really a case of a home server saying “I hope we get linked with X server this time around” because it’s not really relevant which server it is as long as it’s one of them.
There’s no real good reason to keep linking around, those servers no longer have identities, just merge and get it over with.
You’re trying to make an argument where there isn’t one, the quad server was the issue. Whether you think 4 other servers would have worked is irrelevant because it is not the case in point.
You just don’t want to accept that he do have a point.
His point has literally nothing to do with anything, people are talking about the CD quad server, say it with me, the CD quad server.
We could sit here all day and talk about stuff that has not happened and may not happen and try and justify it but what exactly is the point? This thread is about the current match up not some imaginary one that coulda shoulda woulda been balanced.
You know what else would have been awesome and worked? If on day one Anet had balanced all classes properly, paid more attention to WvW since release, found a way to prevent server stacking. You know what though, it doesn’t matter because it didn’t happen.
So can we continue talking about the match up that did happen and was unbalanced instead of trying to justify some imaginary match up that has yet to happen?
Futher more I will give you one legitimate reason why a quad server will never work in GW2. Because Anet.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
You’re giving them far to much credit, we the players don’t have access to this “data” and yet somehow we all knew what the results would be. Why did the mess up? because as usual they don’t listen to us, their “data” is wrong as usual which makes one wonder what they are actually basing this “data” off of because it can’t be WvW.
You’re trying to make an argument where there isn’t one, the quad server was the issue. Whether you think 4 other servers would have worked is irrelevant because it is not the case in point.
Ok so to sum up how this thread is going to go down so you don’t have to bother reading updates.
-Non thief players will agree or disagree and say they beat them all the time because 90% of thieves are baddies or they get rekt by them all the time because they are worse then the 90% of baddy thieves.
-Thief players are going to disagree because most of them are terrible.
-The other thief players are going to say their main class is X and they don’t play a thief and that you are wrong because they beat thieves all the time on X class.Now my opinion, a good thief should win every 1 vs 1 they come across. The ability to reset fights at a whim makes for no risk and all reward for any competent thief, the problem is there really isn’t that many competent thieves.
This is extremely naive.
[/quote]
Not at all, it’s the format for 99.9% of all class balance arguments on this forum.
I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!
Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!
Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!
It’s completely relevant when talking about T4, it may not have an effect in T3 but for T4 it had a large effect. This thread is about T4 and the balance issue with it of which the quad server was the direct cause.
My point relates to T4 as well. I am saying that people shouldn’t focus on the number of servers but on the population. Inherently, it has to do with the population, not the number of servers. If Anet needs to link multiple servers together to equal the population of a single link then they should do so.
I did say in another thread that human psychology comes into play. And maybe the fact that 4 servers are linked gets everyone excited. And therefore the fairweather effect takes over and gives them an advantage. And the servers with less links irrationally get discouraged just by seeing that they’re up against 4 servers. Is that what you’re saying?
Your argument is irrational, it wasn’t/isn’t a fair weather effect at all, it’s not a case of people just getting excited, the population wasn’t even remotely close. You can fabricate any excuse you like but the reality is that quad server destroyed any remote chance of balance they had in that tier. Stop reaching for excuses for Anet, they messed up, plain and simple.
Ok so to sum up how this thread is going to go down so you don’t have to bother reading updates.
-Non thief players will agree or disagree and say they beat them all the time because 90% of thieves are baddies or they get rekt by them all the time because they are worse then the 90% of baddy thieves.
-Thief players are going to disagree because most of them are terrible.
-The other thief players are going to say their main class is X and they don’t play a thief and that you are wrong because they beat thieves all the time on X class.
Now my opinion, a good thief should win every 1 vs 1 they come across. The ability to reset fights at a whim makes for no risk and all reward for any competent thief, the problem is there really isn’t that many competent thieves.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.
Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.
Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.
And what happens when a server pushes into T1 and the former T1 server goes down and is facing servers with links like happened with YB? I know YB is close to universally disliked but still what happened to them was absurd.
This is true, DH/Ebay is another bad joke by Anet. Linking is a failure, I honestly don’t believe it will work no matter what they do.
My guildmates make WvW awesome, I have lost all faith in Anet so without my guild and some of the enemies this game would be no fun anymore.
Waste of time, the winner of an engagement always has more numbers, this is common knowledge. No need to waste Dev time on something we don’t need.
I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!
Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!
Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!
It’s completely relevant when talking about T4, it may not have an effect in T3 but for T4 it had a large effect. This thread is about T4 and the balance issue with it of which the quad server was the direct cause.
SoS, don’t listen to the zerg kids in T1, SoS still has arguably the largest Auzzie crew.
If nothing more, some proper class balancing would be great, by proper class balance I mean making the red headed step children of classes useful in all areas.
I think everyone in WvW learned not to get overly excited. It will focus on PvE and WvW will be thrown some scraps which will probably be nothing we have been asking for or want.
The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.
SoS and CD are doing what they want to do, six against one and then thinking they have so much skill when numbers and nothing more are tearing Tier 4 into a “we don’t want to run today, they just blob us out” for most guilds.
Wait I thought it was YB & SoS vs CD, can you guys please make up your minds it’s starting to get so confusing which conspiracy theory is the most absurd.
The only real solution is merges, T4 will still most likely be the deadest of matches but it would prevent some of the server hopping fluctuation.
The issue with Linking is it can be manipulated easily. If we use BG/AR as an example, you can jump to T1 for a mere 500 gems knowing you will be there for 2 months with AR. If BG gets a new low pop server 2 months later it’s pretty easy to justify buying 800 gems to jump again or use gold accumulated over the last 2 months. If servers were merged you wouldn’t be able to bypass the price tag of BG by joining the lower population which would make people think twice about stacking on a T1 server.
People would still stack just as they did prior to links but at least now there is half as many tiers to spread the population between. It would really depend on how well Anet managed to merge.
guess some people get tunnel vision and strategy goes out the window…hehe.
When you’re 200k ahead I don’t think you need to bother with strategy.
There has been very little if any of that going on. Anyone on SBI who thinks we are winning because superior skill/tactics is lying to themselves. We outnumber SF in every time zone and DH … well I don’t know what to say, I guess sorry that Anets hates you.
I read a lot of these replies as “We are finally good, don’t take this away and make us bad again”.
I read it as, finally something to replace that boring, mind numbing, crappy meta called Pirate Ship.
Is it the most optimal ? No but it sure is a lot more enjoyable to see melee leading the charge and doing melee on the frontline as they should be instead of pacing back and forth for 5 hours waiting for someone to make the first move. I’m sure there are youtube video’s of Pong that are more entertaining than the Pirate Ship video’s.
It’s a 3 way fight, why are you saying sorry for the inevitable ? That makes no sense, besides anyone who has played this game and not looking for excuses realizes that it didn’t occur for a week straight, it wasn’t organized and IF it happened it was opportunistic nothing more.
If your bay is being hit by the other server and you’re all there defending why wouldn’t I hit Garri or Hills? It’s common sense, doesn’t mean it’s a double team, it’s called logic.
INB4 Anet somehow introduces ultra-efficient boon stripping to siege such as arrow carts or the new build-able cannons, instead of you know, actually balancing class skills and abilities that apply an insane amount of boons.
Don’t give them any ideas, in the off chance they didn’t think of this.
I would rather have pets turned off tbh, not only do they count as a body who could potentially take needed buffs from allies, they also account for a chunk of your damage. They are unreliable, die to easily, and always suffering from one bug or another.
Make them activated through the beastmastery line not by default.
What about putting something in to the effect of, once X boon has been stripped/corrupted that boon type can not be reapplied for 10 sec, or 5 sec or whatever just throwing out random numbers.
I feel this is the most logical solution, fewer nerfs that go around the better imo. A 5 sec delay between a corrupted boon being able to be reapplied would work well enough imo.
That would be pretty harsh in PvP with the current boon implementation. There would be no sense having the pulsing boon application skills as one corrupt would negate the pulsing effect.
There really is one main culprit in wvw that’s responsible for the boon share meta – its revenant and more specifically the passive boon resistance on Facet of Nature. For a measly 2 upkeep you can passively give +450 stat points of concentration to 5 players. That’s absolutely insane and not even remotely close to inline with existing with traits (eg. strength in numbers, empower allies, etc) that are similar in function. Additionally, the existing traits require you to be in combat before they activate.
I don’t have an issue with the boon share mesmer. That build requires a significant investment to make it work, and more importantly the mesmer can’t really generate the boons, only share them out (i.e. boon duration really isn’t needed on the mes as it doesn’t increase the duration of anything passed from sig of inspiration). This is important as it means if rev didn’t provide this massive passive boon duration bonus essentially for free the other sources of boons in the raid and even the revs itself would have to invest in boon duration on their gear to generate the long duration boons for the mesmer to be able to share them out. i.e. it would be an opportunity cost to run a boon share guild group setup which would be fine.
I suspect and hope even, that we see flat condition and boon duration sources from runes, sigils, food, etc get a pass from the devs (much like they did with crit damage to ferocity). If you look at these sources as stat points, the bonuses they give aren’t inline with all of the other stat point bonuses. In short its really too easy, in any game mode, to get very long duration conditions and boons.
They could adjust for PvP, make it 2 sec or not at all in PvP. The problem with asking for nerfs is, Anet goes over board, they don’t just nerf things, the destroy them beyond all recognition.
What do you guys think of creating a T5 tier? Maybe take Dbay vs SF vs a broken off CD server?
I guess it would help if anet was more transparent and provided average server participation. Ya know, statistics.
I think adding another Tier would be going in reverse. There’s already the issue of having a rounded population in T4, adding another Tier would do more harm then good imo.
While like all of us, I can only speak for myself, I initially was concerned about the unfair treatment of SBI in being demoted twice after their big win in T3.
Due to vitriolic and rubbish posts I now have other more pressing concerns.
Those of you making constructive comments, thank you.
Those of you who think you are the only gamer on the planet. Cut it out, you are not that important. Please try to make suggestions that Anet can actually consider.
Thank you.
Why hello there pot, have you met kettle?
What about putting something in to the effect of, once X boon has been stripped/corrupted that boon type can not be reapplied for 10 sec, or 5 sec or whatever just throwing out random numbers.
The solution is kill all SBI and SF enemies.
That is your assignment son.
To be fair, all 4 of them are trying. I dot a lot of respect for DH for not just up and quitting over the last few weeks. SF as well, though they do have considerably more to work with.
You could just deal with it too. The server pairings are going to change eventually or just transfer if you hate it so much.
You’re missing the point, we shouldn’t have to “just deal with it” we should not have been placed in this position to begin with. We shouldn’t have to transfer, our server was doing just fine where it was but because Anet couldn’t see what every other NA player could see would happen in T4 they artificially boosted a T4 server and sent a server that wasn’t even close to falling into T4 down the drain.
Anet should have and could have stopped this before it even happened, but as usual, neglect is the easiest route.
Not exactly. I mean, glicko scores are based solely on the host server, so cd’s glicko didn’t accurately reflect its capabilities and it was stuck in a matchup that wouldn’t give it enough to move up a tier no matter how high its score (as you’re experiencing now).
Afaik, Anet gave cd a glicko buff for the purposes of matchmaking only (for two weeks). They’ll probably do it again this week too and, if they do, I imagine it’ll be closer to a +100 buff. That will put you, them, YB, and SoS in the running for the T3 matchup, but one of you will end up in T4.
All that means is they dealt with an unfair glicko wall that would have kept cd in hell for the entire duration of the current linking, and you ended up with 2 weeks of it (and maybe more, depending on your luck going forward).
Being on a server that will get crushed every week no matter which of you ends up drawing the short stick, I can’t say I have a lot of sympathy for you. I mean… you’ve had two weeks of crushing your matchups. Suck it up, buttercup.
My point was it could have been prevented if Anet hadn’t allowed the quad server, and they should not have. CD +1 is not in the same Ball park as the rest of T3. That quad server linking should have never happened to begin with and all of this would have been prevented. Anet created the imbalance in T4, it was not the players, it wasn’t 4 T3 servers, it was 3 T4 server one of which was over inflated creating a (debatable) 4th T3 server.
The point is Anet needs to wake up and pay attention, anyone who didn’t see the issues the quad server would create was hiding their head in the sand.
To make it worse, leaving it without some kind of intervention for 8 weeks is not the best of plans. Most of us knew what would happen within the first 5 minutes but if they really wanted to be sure 1 week was more then enough to see the damage being done. They should have stepped in after the first week and manually adjusted the links to prevent any further damage.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)