Guild Wars 2

umm FC finished closer to HoD than DH did.

Julie Yann.5379:

Solstice.1097:

style.6173:

The problem with the leagues is that ANET separated the servers incorrectly. The forums users tried to tell them that 1-6 was a bad idea. 1-3 should have always been separate. I guess ANET needed their data point and now they have it. Lesson learned… listen to the forums more.

Why ANET would separate Mag, SBI, FA, and SoS makes zero sense. Those are 4 of the most evenly matched servers. With TC losing guilds, they probably fit into that group as well.

1-3 leaving 21 servers left? how would you do those 21 servers? a league of 9 and a league of 12? so you just added NSP, IoJ, and either CD or EBay to bronze league, ruining the only competitive league?

How about 1-3 fight each other for 7 weeks in the superzergballlagfest league. The remaining 21 get divided into 3 leagues of 7.

3 leagues of 7? so 1 server sits out each week from each league?

I am speaking from a bronze perspective that it IS competitive here for the most part and if the schedule was “fair” we’d probably get 3rd, but since another server has an easier schedule they will get it instead.

style.6173:

The problem with the leagues is that ANET separated the servers incorrectly. The forums users tried to tell them that 1-6 was a bad idea. 1-3 should have always been separate. I guess ANET needed their data point and now they have it. Lesson learned… listen to the forums more.

Why ANET would separate Mag, SBI, FA, and SoS makes zero sense. Those are 4 of the most evenly matched servers. With TC losing guilds, they probably fit into that group as well.

1-3 leaving 21 servers left? how would you do those 21 servers? a league of 9 and a league of 12? so you just added NSP, IoJ, and either CD or EBay to bronze league, ruining the only competitive league?

FC is almost a perfect fit for this sort of group. We have a server teamspeak and each guild has its own channels with the guild leader given total power over their guild channels.

we also have 4 public channels per each wvw map as well as float teams. We have 2-3 guilds that do exclusively WvW, the rest also do PvE as well.

We have very little drama – almost zero ever in teamspeak, just the occasional random map-chat person that you can find on any server.

we use commander cross-channel chat to communicate across maps and stay informed. The servers we face are not too big to roam vs looking for fights, nor are they too small to find any. On weekends we queue 1 map often but I don’t think I’ve ever seen 2 maps queued at once before.

We have a lot of experienced commanders who are very amicable in working with others.

lastly FC is nestled right in the 3rd/4th seat of bronze league so no matter who fight win or lose its still a closer match than any Gold or Silver league matchup.

Kanthar Turambar.9164:

I realize this doesn’t speak for the whole weekend, but my “out of the gate” experience says HoD has pretty much taken every reset night since leagues started with an equal amount of seriousness, at least by participation volume.

well, you can’t really queue more than 4 maps. you guys still pulling that off on resets like you did against us?

clint.5681:

Solstice.1097:

i still don’t know how we beat SF 2 weeks before leagues started. they must have just not been prepared.

SF was going through some things at the time and we weren’t playing as a server or helping each other. That was something that was brought up and we tried to work on. Losing to FC was a good wake up call for us.

interesting. maybe HoD’s whooping will send you back to that place.

Arius.7031:

Sean.8274:

Arius.7031:

HoD folks, do you think Dh will stand a chance against SF in week 7?

SF will destroy you in prime time…they are very formidable until about 3am EST. However their 24h coverage is not strong. DH seemed strong around mid-day/early afternoon NA…if you guys can hit hard then, you may or may not have a chance.

From what I can tell SF is a tight group, with some good and interesting tactics, I have learned a few things from them. For one, they are very good at supply traps (something HoD needs to get better about). They tend to be a bit Omega happy (not unlike DH) so be ready for that — sentry your keeps all day. Always build cannons first! I noticed that about DH, you guys would fortify before you would build cannons…a pair of sentries on cannons can do major damage to a golem rush if prepared.

Thanks for the tips. We’re looking to beat them in week 7 and take 2nd place, muahahahahahaa. Don’t lose either of your matchups or that won’t be possible -.-

we’re going to beat you next week, don’t get ahead of yourself

In NA Bronze league:

HoD has the most total 24/7 numbers

SF has the strongest NA Prime force

DH does not outnumber HoD. Maybe on a particular map or a particular time of day but in general, no that is false.

i still don’t know how we beat SF 2 weeks before leagues started. they must have just not been prepared.

Draygo.9473:

Its 7 weeks not 8. Unless your point is that leagues should be 8 weeks long? I think the reason for an odd number of weeks is to reduce the possibility of a tie.

it should be 8 so every server plays all servers twice. not some once and some 3 times.

it might not be so bad if the ratings were accurate and Kaineng wasn’t rank 1 lol.

with 9 teams in all but NA gold league, an 8-week schedule could have had each server playing every other server exactly twice.

but nope, we play the top server 3 times and the bottom 3 servers ONCE. so by splitting 1-1 with the server close to us, they win 3rd because they have easier matchups.

please keep this in mind for season 2.

123
456
789

147
258
369

159
267
348

168
573
924

then repeat these matches in a different order with the 1st match being last. every server plays 2x against every server.

Most probably know this already but this schedule overall is not balanced.

FC and DH are basically fighting over 3rd place. They play each other twice. If they go 1 and 1 split, then DH gets 3rd place because DH only has HoD/SF in 3 of their matches where FC has HoD 3 times and SF once.

stupid system. 8 weeks could have had every server play every server twice. instead we get ET once and AR once and HoD 3 times???

so no matter what happens the league is already decided:

1st HoD
2nd SF
3rd DH

Asian guild? This is bronze league, never heard of one of those.

am i reading your post right? you’re looking for roaming guilds to possibly transfer to and join?

they said they are re-looking at these to make them more achievable. your post is just an echo. we all agree.

Many of us seem to be missing the point. Map caps and server merging etc are not going to happen. WvW is not going to be forced into even numbers. The point here is to make fighting outnumbered still fun and worthwhile so that when incentives to de-stack are put into place people will actually take advantage of it. Currently nobody wants to destack because fighting outnumbered sucks.

I still like my idea best (lol) – which is that you only get PPT from your own BL and your side of EB. You cap things to deny enemy points, you earn points by holding your own stuff. SMC is the only structure that can give points to any server and whoever has it will naturally then get 2v1’ed. Wiping server B’s entire borderland out does not give you a PPT advantage over server C.

SF significantly outnumbers FC but when they were winning it was because they were “more coordinated”

I see a pattern.

i command on my mesmer and ele sometimes. i dont find it particularly difficult to stay alive. however i have to be more mobile in battle which can confuse my zerg. it really depends on the size of the group you are leading and what your objective is.

Cribbage.2056:

Balefire.7592:

Solstice.1097:

MakubeC.3026:

Solstice.1097:

A simple concept that goes a really long way

Borderland structures can only give PPT to the native team to that BL. You cap stuff in enemy BL to deny enemy points, but you do not gain them for yourself.

This instantly makes the game more defensive-minded, forcing offensive pushes to be more strategic, which moves more towards rewarding coordination and skill and a little bit away from sheer numbers.

Strategies will quickly adapt. I imagine towers being much more sieged up, and therefore trebuchets and other longer, more drawn out sieges, resulting in more fighting and less of a musical chairs back-capping game.

See the thing is if server A caps all of server B’s borderlands, that sets server B back, but it does not give server A a point advantage over server C, so if server C sees that happening and goes after server A, forcing A to pull back off B, etc, you can quickly see how it would quickly become a more thought-out macro-strategic game.

Hmmm….interesting idea.

Can we discuss this?

Let’s say server A is the most populated one. So he goes to B and spends time taking B’s BL. He also has to protect EB and his own BL. B is not making points in his BL, and instead it goes to EB and try to stop A there. Since EB is the only place where the battle for points is. The one who domains EB, domains the game.

Now, what would be the balance between EB and a BL? Will a server with his entire BL producing points be enough to fight a server controlling EB?

Well after some thought I think EB could operate the same way, with SMC being the only structure that can give PPT to any server that owns it. Therefore whoever holds SMC becomes the target of the other 2 servers, and encouraging the 2v1 that was initially expected to happen in WvW naturally.

This is the best idea I’ve seen, as the concept in and of itself functions for every tier, it really stresses defense over offense, and it encourages more tactical usage of Borderland maps within the scope of all of WvW.
It also reduces the raw number of points available, which I think is better for the game, since having a 60k deficit breaks morale a lot more than something like 20k. If Server A has terrible coverage, as long as they can maintain their BL, they won’t fall as far behind, and can then try to rally to make up the smaller point gap.

It will seem like a lot less of a good idea once you see a single highly populated server hold it unbroken for days against two low pop servers. Those servers will in your proposed system have no way at all to score points and no meaningful objectives to head for.

And if by some chance the two smaller ones overpower the high pop server, as soon as one of them caps SMC, the fight becomes them vs high pop + the remaining low pop. So they get to hold SMC for all of 5 minutes.

At least as things stand, smaller groups can dodge about taking minor locations.

he didn’t quote the original idea.

go back and read the initial idea it will make more sense.

its not hard to sweep for mesmers.

hiding in SMC successfully and porting a group in to cap it is very rewarding and intense and exciting. it’s not easy to hide in there unless the enemy is just well…. dumb.

Ele is meant to use terrain to its advantage. Dagger 5 and other AoEs also don’t require LOS it’s just that DT happens to be ranged. The AC can be built farther back, still hit the gate, and be out of range of DT.

L2Place ACs is what I get out of this.

Samhayn.2385:

Andrew Clear.1750:

sil.4160:

Replace PPT. I think its the biggest contributor of stacking servers. It encourages off hour play and having more off hour players, which makes it unfair for those who don’t play off hours or don’t have enough off hour players

Replace PPT with system similar to points gained from stomps when you capture nodes/ruins. Towers gives 10 points per kill, keep gives 30 points per kill, camps gives 5 points per kill. This basically don’t reward timezones where its PVDoor, when theres noone to kill. This will work well for most NA/EU servers that don’t have off hours players and encourage fights

Under this system, the good guild and players would try to form alliances and move to other servers esp to lower tiers wheres theres very little players that give needless points to hostile server.

So, tell the people who play off hours to take a hike, and make the match only decided by the prime time players?

That right there makes your solution fail, because the game mode is 24/7 and everyone needs to be considered.

the only way off hours players (what ever that is differs per server) would only have a hard time gain points if there was no one to fight.

then my server would just tell our night crew to not log in at all when we’re in the lead.

Cactus.2710:

Solstice.1097:

I’ve had several ideas and read all 20 pages of this post and here is my FINAL SOLUTION if it were up to me:

Phase I

Transfer system is the best place to start since it will be the easiest to fix, immediately making stacking less desirable and offering an incentive to de-stack.

Transfer fee = (9 – tier) x 300 gems. Transferring to tier 5 or lower comes with a “rebate” upon transfer. Rebate = (tier – 4) x 300 gems. Rebates can only be received by accounts active more than 90 days with no rebates in the previous 90 days, and only when transferring “down” one or more tiers. Transferring to tier 1 comes with a probation period where some WvW functionality is restricted for a period of time. It also comes with an option to undo the transfer and receive 50% of your gems back. Transfers, including “undo’s” take effect until the weekly reset following your transfer.

Phase II

Scoring change – no longer do you receive points for holding enemy structures. You only earn points for holding what is naturally yours. You win by capping enemy structures to deny their points, while holding your own. The game becomes more strategic and scores become visually closer. You still earn points for stomps, dolyaks, and sentry caps and these become a much bigger factor in the overall score. Currently they can be up to 30% or more of the score, under this system they would likely make up 50% or more. Bloodlust and dolyaks become potential game changers.

Phase III

Actual changes to the game mechanics.

Waypoint contesting mechanic is revised to allow 1 player every 12 seconds to use waypoints that are contested, however the waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the event ends, meaning there will not be a “split second” for everyone to spam in during a continuous siege. This allows people to slowly WP in and starting sieging up to try to slow down the enemy while the main force runs there. Previously you could wait 2.5 minutes and spam a 50-man zerg in. Now in 2.5 minutes you’ll have 12-13 people inside with the rest on the way.

Outmanned buff now allows you to see enemy players on your mini map within X range.

Zergs of 40+ even when not in combat create an orange troop icon on the map showing their location.

Other possible good ideas here!

LOL. What part of that achieves population balance?? Did you forget which thread you were posting in? And don’t tell me that your first suggestion does that, because it won’t.

It addresses the broken transfer system and then introduces scoring and gameplay changes that make it much more possible for the undermanned server(s) to stay close in score, and gives favor towards coordination over sheer numbers.

spreading people out is only a small part of this topic, a bigger part is making it so it is more fun playing while outmanned.

MakubeC.3026:

Solstice.1097:

A simple concept that goes a really long way

Borderland structures can only give PPT to the native team to that BL. You cap stuff in enemy BL to deny enemy points, but you do not gain them for yourself.

This instantly makes the game more defensive-minded, forcing offensive pushes to be more strategic, which moves more towards rewarding coordination and skill and a little bit away from sheer numbers.

Strategies will quickly adapt. I imagine towers being much more sieged up, and therefore trebuchets and other longer, more drawn out sieges, resulting in more fighting and less of a musical chairs back-capping game.

See the thing is if server A caps all of server B’s borderlands, that sets server B back, but it does not give server A a point advantage over server C, so if server C sees that happening and goes after server A, forcing A to pull back off B, etc, you can quickly see how it would quickly become a more thought-out macro-strategic game.

Hmmm….interesting idea.

Can we discuss this?

Let’s say server A is the most populated one. So he goes to B and spends time taking B’s BL. He also has to protect EB and his own BL. B is not making points in his BL, and instead it goes to EB and try to stop A there. Since EB is the only place where the battle for points is. The one who domains EB, domains the game.

Now, what would be the balance between EB and a BL? Will a server with his entire BL producing points be enough to fight a server controlling EB?

Well after some thought I think EB could operate the same way, with SMC being the only structure that can give PPT to any server that owns it. Therefore whoever holds SMC becomes the target of the other 2 servers, and encouraging the 2v1 that was initially expected to happen in WvW naturally.

I’ve had several ideas and read all 20 pages of this post and here is my FINAL SOLUTION if it were up to me:

Phase I

Transfer system is the best place to start since it will be the easiest to fix, immediately making stacking less desirable and offering an incentive to de-stack.

Transfer fee = (9 – tier) x 300 gems. Transferring to tier 5 or lower comes with a “rebate” upon transfer. Rebate = (tier – 4) x 300 gems. Rebates can only be received by accounts active more than 90 days with no rebates in the previous 90 days, and only when transferring “down” one or more tiers. Transferring to tier 1 comes with a probation period where some WvW functionality is restricted for a period of time. It also comes with an option to undo the transfer and receive 50% of your gems back. Transfers, including “undo’s” take effect until the weekly reset following your transfer.

Phase II

Scoring change – no longer do you receive points for holding enemy structures. You only earn points for holding what is naturally yours. You win by capping enemy structures to deny their points, while holding your own. The game becomes more strategic and scores become visually closer. You still earn points for stomps, dolyaks, and sentry caps and these become a much bigger factor in the overall score. Currently they can be up to 30% or more of the score, under this system they would likely make up 50% or more. Bloodlust and dolyaks become potential game changers.

Phase III

Actual changes to the game mechanics.

Waypoint contesting mechanic is revised to allow 1 player every 12 seconds to use waypoints that are contested, however the waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the event ends, meaning there will not be a “split second” for everyone to spam in during a continuous siege. This allows people to slowly WP in and starting sieging up to try to slow down the enemy while the main force runs there. Previously you could wait 2.5 minutes and spam a 50-man zerg in. Now in 2.5 minutes you’ll have 12-13 people inside with the rest on the way.

Outmanned buff now allows you to see enemy players on your mini map within X range.

Zergs of 40+ even when not in combat create an orange troop icon on the map showing their location.

Other possible good ideas here!

A simple concept that goes a really long way

Borderland structures can only give PPT to the native team to that BL. You cap stuff in enemy BL to deny enemy points, but you do not gain them for yourself.

This instantly makes the game more defensive-minded, forcing offensive pushes to be more strategic, which moves more towards rewarding coordination and skill and a little bit away from sheer numbers.

Strategies will quickly adapt. I imagine towers being much more sieged up, and therefore trebuchets and other longer, more drawn out sieges, resulting in more fighting and less of a musical chairs back-capping game.

See the thing is if server A caps all of server B’s borderlands, that sets server B back, but it does not give server A a point advantage over server C, so if server C sees that happening and goes after server A, forcing A to pull back off B, etc, you can quickly see how it would quickly become a more thought-out macro-strategic game.

Waffler.1257:

Solstice.1097:

Waffler.1257:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Paid transfers in any form will only cause server population to be more imbalanced. The top tier servers have hoards of gold and gladly pay guilds to transfer to their servers to make them even more stacked. This causes guilds that are thinking of transferring to choose between transferring to a stacked server which will win most every week for free, or transferring to an empty server that gets smashed every week and on top of that have to pay a hefty gem price. The choice is pretty obvious.

look up at my solution and does this apply? if you transferred down to T8 you would pay 300 gems and then after transferring you would get a 1200 gem rebate to spend on whatever you wanted.

T1 would cost 2400 gems (approx 100+ gold per player) and you get nothing in return except to convince yourself that queues are worth a gold dolyak finisher.

This is Anet, anything that would even slightly reduce the amount of revenue they collect won’t even be considered. A 1200 gem rebate definitely falls into that category.

I disagree. To go to tier 8 the player first has to buy 300 gems, then after transferring they get 1,200 to spend in the gem store or convert to what… 50 gold or so? 50 gold is nothing to those who buy gems, and for those who never do, it’s not hurting anything to give away virtual currency that costs Anet exactly $0.

Indirectly, however, it ‘starts’ to solve an issue that is driving some players (dollars) away.

Waffler.1257:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Paid transfers in any form will only cause server population to be more imbalanced. The top tier servers have hoards of gold and gladly pay guilds to transfer to their servers to make them even more stacked. This causes guilds that are thinking of transferring to choose between transferring to a stacked server which will win most every week for free, or transferring to an empty server that gets smashed every week and on top of that have to pay a hefty gem price. The choice is pretty obvious.

look up at my solution and does this apply? if you transferred down to T8 you would pay 300 gems and then after transferring you would get a 1200 gem rebate to spend on whatever you wanted.

T1 would cost 2400 gems (approx 100+ gold per player) and you get nothing in return except to convince yourself that queues are worth a gold dolyak finisher.

Nuzt.7894:

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

This would make the problem worse, the reason people are transfering is to WvW. I wouldn’t be a very happy customer if I transfered down to a low rank to help balance the population and couldn’t participate. Putting any form of restriction on participation defeats the whole purpose of the transfer imo.

just have transfers take effect the start of the following match. you can still participate in your current match the rest of the week, you just cant switch mid-match. it does make sense to reduce queue priority at top tiers or put a limit on amount of consecutive time in a map, to make stacking more risky and put less punishment on increasing queue times for players that were already there.

SUPPLY RESERVES – A NEW CORE WVW FACTOR Idk where I got this idea but it would really punish the expansionists and karma-trains for not defending their dolyaks, and would greatly limit how much of a point gap can be created.

In addition to your PPT your server also has a new statistic – your Supply Reserves.

Your server on each map has a Supply Reserve (SR) and will display at the top under your PPT.

SR is needed to successfully hold structures and earn PPT from them. Let’s use Eternal Battlegrounds as an example:

To maintain objectives, they cost their PPT value in SR. Meaning a camp costs 5 SR per turn to maintain. If you do not have 5 SR, then you don’t get the PPT for the camp that turn.

In EB your SR increases by a base of 75 per turn, which is exactly enough to maintain your natural keep, 4 towers, and 2 camps.

Now, if you capture 2 enemy towers you have a 95 SR upkeep cost, but you only earn a base of 75 SR, so you are now losing 20 reserves each turn.

The only way to gain more SR besides the 75 per turn is when you have a dolyak that reaches a structure that it cannot put supply into, either because it is full already or because you do not own it. (I’m not sure how I feel about this part of the idea yet – trying to think of a way that might be better).

If your SR reaches 0 (because you are owning most of the map for awhile), then structures begin turning neutral and upgrades begin disappearing, as well as you are not gaining any PPT from that map until you get some SR back.

You can still take as many structures as you want and DENY points to the enemy, but holding too many things would create huge liabilities unless you are protecting enough dolyaks into full-supply structures to keep the SR up.

Dolyaks would now be extremely important both offensively and defensively.

If your SR reaches 1,000+ you can withdraw the supply from your spawn point supply depot.

Johje Holan.4607:

Solstice.1097:

Yes I suggested already what I think would fix this:

after 24 hours holding a structure it starts decaying upgrades and needs to be continuously re-researched to keep it from going paper

then waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the attack event (so they will not uncontest for a split second like they do now) ends but can still be used by 1 person every 12 seconds when contested.

and 2-3 matches per week instead of 1, or EVEN maybe the same match is broken into 3 parts and its like a week-long “best of 3” – 56 hour long matches each with a different reset time would make things extremely interesting.

More matches per week would be good. And I like the 56 hour timeframe. Gives other timezones a chance to experience reset.

But decaying upgrades or having to have a maintenance cost would’t be good – unless it only applied to the server that was dominating. The problem with across the board changes to supply or whatever is that whatever you do to try to limit the power of the stronger side, also limits the power of the weaker side – and usually to a greater degree.

Anet just needs to accept the fact that unless they can balance actual WvW population, which I doubt, there needs to be handicapping mechanisms put in place.

the decaying wouldn’t happen until you owned something for 24 hours so it WOULD apply to the server who is dominating. If you keep getting your stuff flipped it would never apply to you.

Low rank servers occasionally receive guilds transferring down.

But not the ones rated “very high” population.

This is broken.

Please stop arguing against a fix.

IMAGE.1509:

Solstice.1097:

IMAGE.1509:

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

WvW rank is a clear indication of WvW population. If you think anything more than coverage and numbers decides the matches 99% of the time you’re fooling yourself.

The high transfer price on high servers is not necessarily because the server needs, but more likely for $$$$$$ reasons.

If you are reading the forum Devon last night asked us if we based price on WvW populations how do we think it would make sense, and that’s what we’re discussing.

Yes, wvw rank does indicate the wvw population. But does not indicate server population. If I wanted to transfer to black gate for pve, why should I be paying more to transfer because it has high WVW population? Basically, the opposite effect of the transfer pricing right now. Just looking at it from a pve’er point of view.

I think the issue isn’t the price of transferring, but the issue is transferring to a server with x population. To me, pricing of transfer is a band aid solution, and not fixing the foundation of the problem.

Answer: because you can already guest on Blackgate for PvE for free.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

Transfer does not take effect until their first login after the next WvW reset.

IMAGE.1509:

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

WvW rank is a clear indication of WvW population. If you think anything more than coverage and numbers decides the matches 99% of the time you’re fooling yourself.

The high transfer price on high servers is not necessarily because the server needs, but more likely for $$$$$$ reasons.

If you are reading the forum Devon last night asked us if we based price on WvW populations how do we think it would make sense, and that’s what we’re discussing.

Yes I suggested already what I think would fix this:

after 24 hours holding a structure it starts decaying upgrades and needs to be continuously re-researched to keep it from going paper

then waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the attack event (so they will not uncontest for a split second like they do now) ends but can still be used by 1 person every 12 seconds when contested.

and 2-3 matches per week instead of 1, or EVEN maybe the same match is broken into 3 parts and its like a week-long “best of 3” – 56 hour long matches each with a different reset time would make things extremely interesting.

Relax, no one is suggesting locking transfers or servers. Well some might be suggesting it but it will never happen.

ONE PIECE of the puzzle is how to fix the transfer system.

We can all agree it should be based on WvW pop instead of the current PvE population, since PvE has guesting and transfers are mostly for WvW reasons.

People/guilds often leave their server due to drama/attitude within their community. When they look for a new home they often check into several other servers before making a decision. Those decisions can be heavily influenced by the cost/reward system in place. It is not a short-term fix but it is very important long-term necessity to fix this system.

It is also probably the easiest place to start as it does not involve changing gameplay or game rules in any way.

could make it 2 hours but the point is to make bandwagoning risky while still allowing serious transfers to occur. also reducing the inconvenience veteran players on the server face when being in queue behind new transfers.

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Price is not alone the issue. There should be an added incentive for destacking and a risk for bandwagoning on top of price.

I propose a model such as

1-3 – 2400 gems w/probation period
4-6 – 2100 gems
7-9 – 1800 gems
10-12 – 1500 gems
13-15 – 1200 gems w/300 gem rebate
16-18 – 900 gems w/600 gem rebate
19-21 – 600 gems w/900 gem rebate
22-24 – 300 gems w/1200 gem rebate

Rebates – to qualify for rebate you must:
—be transferring “down” at least 1 tier
—account must be at least 90 days old
—have not received any rebates in the past 90 days
If you meet these conditions, upon successful transfer you will receive your gem rebate to spend in the gem store or convert to gold, as you wish.

Probation – tier 1 only
—new transfers for tier 1 will receive a probation status for 30 days, which adds a 1 hour per-map playtime limit at which point you must re-enter the queue.
—duration probation period commander squad functionality is disabled.
—during probation period a player may “undo” the transfer if they are not happy with tier 1, in which case they will receive a 50% refund on their gems and be placed on their previous server.
—probation period does not apply if you are transferring from a tier 1 server to a different tier 1 server, only to those transferring ‘into’ tier 1.

it would be essentially like every player has a tiny ring of warding around their character, without the knockback effect, and that stability does not negate.

the amount of AoE calculations would reduce greatly I would expect, both friendly and enemy.

King Amadaeus.8619:

Does anyone else think YARR builds too much field siege?

how about your zerg with 2 ballistas and a treb camping our spawn in your own borderlands, with a 50-man blob in EB, and meanwhile you took all 3 of our keeps with whatever other group you have running?

Clipping yes I have suggested this to breakup the zerg fights.

It would not apply to movement skills and stealth and blink and probably dodge.

ranged attacks would need LOS to attack past ally players. Formations would become important with a front line and peripherie etc. a small, powerful group would have more opportunity to flank and widdle away at a larger uncoordinated group. mass-rezzing would be less of an issue. As far as performance goes, AoE cap calculations would be greatly reduced so it may solve itself.

everything would change, and nearly all the changes as far as WvW goes would be awesome.

You have to realize there is more than 1 school of thought.

I personally enjoy more than anything a close PPT game and playing macro map strategy rather than micro fight strategy. In the last 3 weeks I have been involved in 2 matches where the winner was not determined until Friday, and they were the most fun matches I have ever played.

Any relatively competitive game should have lead changes sometimes.

The biggest thing that makes matchups fairly even is when all 3 servers are fairly close

The biggest thing that ruins it is when 2 close servers have a 3rd who is way above or below

With a much higher or lower server in the mix, it completely ruins the balance of the matchup. The only server in all NA that could not easily be put into a competitive matchup is Tarnished Coast because the server above them is way above and the server below them is well below.

Other than TC the old “tier” system would have worked great if it weren’t for the glaring flaws in the glicko system. If you KNOW for a fact that 300 people left a server, it shouldn’t take 6 weeks of blown matches for the rating to even out. If you KNOW for a fact a server received massive influx, it shouldn’t take 6 weeks of blown matches to reach the actual rating.

I think each server should get a +20 player increase to map limit in their own BL so if you queue your own BL you will always have a numbers advantage on your home turf. This advantage would really only come into play when an enemy is hitting you in full force otherwise it would be pointless to queue anyway.

If you’re getting double-teamed then you’d still be outnumbered like 200-120 or so, but in general it does give the weaker server a better chance to really hold their ground and make a stand to try to keep a respectable amount of points on the board.

And while we’re at it, have the bloodlust buff only apply to the BL it is in, and remove it completely from EB but have a default +1 point per stomp on all maps at all times – in a BL with bloodlust you get an extra +1.

Creates a home field advantage and makes it a bit easier to defend your natural BL. It won’t really help when you get double-teamed and your bloodlust taken from you, but the extra 20 player limit will definitely give you a better fighting chance.

imo the queue size per map will not and should not change. nor should it vary.

nor should servers been done away with in favor of some red/blue/green extremely casual pride-less kittenathon.

I thought of a couple more ideas so I am deleting my previous post and combining here.

I believe these types of changes would make the game much more enjoyable and playable while population imbalances still exist as they do today. This would also prevent server exoduses due to frustration as well as make the decision to transfer to a lower pop server less of a death sentence for your gaming enjoyment.

1. Erosion – if you hold a structure for 24 hours, it starts losing upgrades. You have to keep re-researching them or it ends up going back to paper.
2. Survival instinct – outmanned buff also allows you to see enemy dots on mini-map
3. Righteous Indignation – lasts between 1-15 minutes depending on server score
4. Contested Waypoints – stay contested 10 seconds after event ends, however still can be used by one player every 12 seconds. OR contested waypoints cost 10 supply to use.

Core game changes -

Matches 56 or 84 hours long instead of 168
Server rating difference applied as a handicap to PPT

too many posts by 3-4 people over one battle.

its all BS without proof.

Meanwhile since I changed to ATI graphics cards my screenshot format is no longer .jpg and is now .jpt or something that I can’t even view???? Anyone know how I can fix that so I can show some actual proof of things that I haven’t stated yet?

style.6173:

Titan.3472:

Remove everyone from every servers. Rename 24 global servers (no more NA or EU but GLOBAL): make everyone choose a server after these change : implement a lower cap on population on every of these server. Start leagues. Here you have 24 random servers that have all equals chances. Next season repeat the same: remove everyone from servers, rename them all, etc…

This^^ With the exception of keeping NA and EU separate for lag reasons.

Remember, this is a thread about “World Population”. It needs to be even across servers. Right now it is not.

actually, this thread is less about fixing population imbalance, and more about addressing the problems it causes.

and add in there that I think siege decay timers should be very long for undermanned servers and very short for queued servers.