I stopped playing my Necro main because I had lag issues and the fear wall limit and stability buff. Oh the fun times in EotM! I switched to Mesmer so I could blink out of any bad situation.
Now that epidemic is so OP I might switch back to Necro.
Too bad I can rarely find 20 other organized players to run with on FA.
I think that anyone who complains about 2v1 in T1 should be instantly transferred to either SBI or FA, that way they can enjoy the feeling of being 2v1 except by only one server. Eventually we might solve the population balance issue and have a six server rotation in NA.
my server keeps getting paired against bigger servers or at least servers that can be active 24/7 while mine is only active at night
and defending is impossible because siege cant be placed anywhere safe from player exploits and attacks
by exploits i mean mesmers being able to aim their pulls behind the actual walls and pull groups of defenders to the cluster of attacks from attackers , we’re talking about 500+ range behind the walls , LOS needs fixing
rangers and eles can decimate whatever siege is placed
rangers and mesmers can summon their clones and pets behind the walls and ontop of the siege
So, according to your post , your server have less players ,so they should not be able to capture any defended objective , or you consider that you are smarter /more skilled than your enemy, behind an arrow cart ?
As i see this is just a rage topic cause you lost your keep /tower.
Defence in this game is too strong already, just l2pIt’s never been a l2p issue, it’s always been a l2stack issue. Of course there are some that think that overstacking a server is part of playing the game.
can’t really talk about overstack, when there is no server that can fully cover 4 maps even at reset. However this is the mentality that kills the game " i should be able to defend with 5 against 50 " and this is why players lose interest of wvw. Siege bunkering, afk rewarding (Track) , less fights, less action .
Most players have had at one time, especially when they’re outnumbered, the feeling that they should have an advantage as a defender, just like in real life. It takes time to realize that the only advantage the defender has in WvW is that whether it’s a wall or door, the attacker has to run through a choke point. If the defender can somehow concentrate enough damage at the choke they will win the fight.
Not enough players defending, you lose the structure.
Not enough siege, you lose the structure.
Not enough supply to repair or counter siege, you will eventually lose the structure.
The constantly outnumbered WvW player/guild eventually tires of this and either transfers to one of the overstacked servers or quits the game.
NA has gotten to the point where there is only 4 servers that have the coverage. Their idea of balance is to get enough players to queue every map 24/7. Every other server is just minor league players waiting to be called up.
Next week in Backwards world, Anet cuts your health by 50% if you have the outmanned buff, stay tuned!
And BG is re-opened.
Hey guys, the poll on Scoring has closed. I’ll repost my response on that thread here, for continued discussion:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-13-May-Scoring/page/2#post6161438The poll has ended! The finals votes were:
- 38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
- 19.0% – Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
- 13.7% – Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
- 10.0% – Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
- 8.3% – No preference
- 6.2% – Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
- 4.3% – Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)
So what are our next steps? The team is going to prioritize work on the Skrimish (time-slice scoring) system that was outlined in the Let’s Talk Scoring… forum thread. This system will be a big step to resolving the community’s top voted priorities: Adjusting scoring to be relative to current activity, as well as increasing a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities. It’s also a prerequisite to work on the outlined Action Level system, which would multiply score during periods of high activity, further addressing the top voted concern. Also, we’ll likely be able to periodically deliver the small features, like reducing the tick timer, while we continue work on Skirmishes.
This is a living process, and we plan to continue polling players to determine our priorities, doing live beta testing of features, and then polling again to determine if players are happy with those features once they’ve had a chance to actually play with them. [..]Thank you to everyone who voted and left feedback!
Bumping for An Update: Late November 2016. Implementation Autopsy.
- Skirmishing was implemented. Consensus seems to be that Skirmishes are okay, but not a game-changer.
Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of adjusting scoring relative to population size.
Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of facilitating recovery from large point disparities.
Why implement this?- Only 13.7% thought that the new “more PPT for holding objectives” would be a good idea.
Why implement this?
The result is that it makes strong sides stronger. As was always going to be the case.Conclusion:
- Arenanet have repeatedly implemented new systems, under the guise of solving problems, that don’t address the problems.
I propose that the problems identified must be tackled head on instead. It’s long past time that we had a metric for simply monitoring who is leading at any one time. Making scoring more awkward for the leading side would go a long way towards keeping the scores level and making reset day a dramatic conclusion rather than a welcome relief.
Interesting that they would go that way, ignore the poll results and implement a “solution” that will ultimately not work at all and create more unbalance.
“38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population”
Seems pretty clear they had to take that path. However I think it would be easier to adjust scoring by giving the winning/losing servers a % modifier that changes dynamically according to the gap between total points.
Skirmishes does adjust scoring when there’s a huge imbalance in population aka “night capping”. Instead of winning by 5-1 or 6-1 relative to the third place server, now it’s capped at 3-1. Of course when the third place server finally shows up, they used to lose 1.5-1 or even get it to close to 1-1, but now they lose 3-1.
In the end skirmish scoring puts a bigger gap between first and third.
my server keeps getting paired against bigger servers or at least servers that can be active 24/7 while mine is only active at night
and defending is impossible because siege cant be placed anywhere safe from player exploits and attacks
by exploits i mean mesmers being able to aim their pulls behind the actual walls and pull groups of defenders to the cluster of attacks from attackers , we’re talking about 500+ range behind the walls , LOS needs fixing
rangers and eles can decimate whatever siege is placed
rangers and mesmers can summon their clones and pets behind the walls and ontop of the siege
So, according to your post , your server have less players ,so they should not be able to capture any defended objective , or you consider that you are smarter /more skilled than your enemy, behind an arrow cart ?
As i see this is just a rage topic cause you lost your keep /tower.
Defence in this game is too strong already, just l2p
It’s never been a l2p issue, it’s always been a l2stack issue. Of course there are some that think that overstacking a server is part of playing the game.
If Anet would offer tonics that only worked in WvW, and didn’t affect the gameplay, I ’m sure there would be lots of guilds buying them.
I have a screen shot of arenanet staff taking a wvw camp. Anyone care to answer what’s up with that?
I thought BG was green….
1. Lock servers with population (assuming that population algorithm works) that are above average of the top 9 servers.
2. Lower map caps for servers that dominate matches
3. Quickly close all threads asking Anet why they can’t transfer to overstacked servers
4. Temporarily give better rewards for outmanned, and servers that finish in third.
5. Allow free transfers downward.
None of this will happen so NA WvW meta will continue to be stack the winning server.
T1 needs to be opened up for more players because anytime there’s a 3-way fight in SMC and you can have any skill other than 1 work means you need more players.
Feel free to take players from the lower servers because they don’t play WvW the way it should be played, it’s not like they’ll be missed or that they’re needed.
Eventually we’ll be left like EotM with three servers.
BG always needs help, just ask Anet
matchup thread, please close.
Rewards will just mean more stacking. Why hand certain servers this just because they got the numbers.
You could end stacking by giving the best rewards to the players that lose.
Losing to a server that finishes first over 90% of the time should be an automatic full set of ascended armor.
Let the de-stacking begin.
Is BG still open for transfers?
No, but if you speak to someone on BG they will get with one of the devs and you can be transferred even though the server is locked, just be sure to say please and thank you.
If that doesn’t work, you can always post a thread with the title “Why can’t I play with my friends” or something like it every week until it finally opens.
P.S. Of course someone from JQ will soon reply saying how great their server is.
Is BG still open for transfers?
No, but if you speak to someone on BG they will get with one of the devs and you can be transferred even though the server is locked, just be sure to say please and thank you.
If that doesn’t work, you can always post a thread with the title “Why can’t I play with my friends” or something like it every week until it finally opens.
Unfortunately, we need a Mal 2.0 to lead another 9 guild exodus from BG to either FA, SBI ,or SoS. We don’t really need another rise of YB.
Then we’d need a mini Mal to take 4-5 guilds off Mag.
i think im having a deja vu
the clairvoyance is too stronk for the matchup stagnation again…….static balanced match > rotating blowout match
Beg to differ on that. Rotating blow out matches brought more people back to wvw. static matches of t1 put wvw in the decline it was before links.
Rotating Variety>Static matches
Rotating blowout matches makes players take breaks from WvW so there’s less burnout, but then it also leads to players stacking on the winning servers to make things worse and worser.
and i still wanna know what is max limit at wvw map?
It’s less than what your server has and more than what every other server has.
I remember when YB got the Mal transfers and did the same thing to what used to be a fights tier in T2. Maybe many of the players on Mag remember.
Why don’t we all just end this and put everyone on BG?
Since Anet can’t distinguish between BG troll posts and BG legitimate posts and seems to give any post by BG higher weight we should all become BG and join the 24/7 fights, the mostest awesomest community and we would then let our opinions be heard.
Please and thank you, from every NA and EU WvW player.
If this matchup could be maintained, I wouldn’t mind. There were great fights in almost every timezone this weekend. JQ could use some more NA guilds. TC could use more SEA. But it was nice to just see people showing up and having fights with bags flowing on all three sides.
JQ and TC used map politics to flip T3 objectives which makes for challenging and interesting situations.
Guilds looking for the T1 atmosphere of populated and challenging fights should consider JQ or TC.
NA T1 always wanting more……
How about we lock all NA servers except BG, JQ and TC and then close out all other tiers because that’s what WvW is all about. Anyone that can’t play the game the way Anet wanted it to be played should just go to EotM.
My vote is def to lower WvW pop caps. I would even vote lower map pops as well, there is NOTHING fun about 60+ man blobs
A lot of players play WvW for LARGE SCALE COMBAT! WE like LARGE SCALE COMBAT! Do I need to say it again? The dev’s would have to be crazy to lower map caps.
WvW is sooooo much fun when only one side brings the large scale.
You must enjoy running back from spawn this matchup.
Anet believe JQ is competitive in T1 but in reality it isn’t. JQ is too casual thus the inconsistent for T1. It can also be that anet believe some absurd advise from some foolish JQers that JQ should go T1.
I look at it this way:
Anet gave JQ a chance. What happens afterwards is up to JQ to decide. The concept of “earning it” still applies I guess.
This only goes to show that population size/activity, while it does account for a certain “background PPT”, still needs to perform a certain amount of teamwork when teams are closer in size.
That’s assuming that the population algorithm Anet is accurate. Based upon the actions last week and the results afterwards I seriously doubt that algorithm is accurate.
We’ll see next week as Anet manually makes adjustments and we have BG/TC/Mag in T1, because as the week goes on it’s clear that while JQ might have deserved a shot, they didn’t perform up to Anet’s calculations and Mag is doing to the T2 match this week what BG did to the T1 match last week. Maybe by Monday JQ will tank their way out of T1 like Mag did last week.
Instead of just combining smaller server populations into one, I like this idea of forcing the overpopulated server onto all the other servers, at least until they destack to the level of the 5th server. Only have 3 matches with 9 teams. Also remove glicko.
Of course since the server in question has been known to “game” the system with their great community, you have to set up something that only lets 25 players at a time to select a world, and prioritize teams that have lower populations in the current match. Open up other choices as balance is reached.
To even come close to balance you need to first know the average player-hours per timezone for each server.
Anybody know if BG placed 3rd in ANY of their skirmishes yet?
If a server never places 3rd in their skirmishes or almost zero in comparison to the other 2 servers it’s fighting against…does that tell us anything?
BG has never finished third in this matchup, but also hasn’t finished second for the last three days!
Anet, are you reading this?
What does it take for you to realize you made a mistake?
What will you do to fix it?
When will you fix it?yup so Anet need let JQ replace FA at kitten will be BG/JQ/?
And when that doesn’t change anything what will you say then?
Anybody know if BG placed 3rd in ANY of their skirmishes yet?
If a server never places 3rd in their skirmishes or almost zero in comparison to the other 2 servers it’s fighting against…does that tell us anything?
BG has never finished third in this matchup, but also hasn’t finished second for the last three days!
Anet, are you reading this?
What does it take for you to realize you made a mistake?
What will you do to fix it?
When will you fix it?
Anet should have a dynamic population threshold.
The 3 most populated servers should ALWAYS be full no matter how many ppl they have.
The third most populated server should be the “100% bar”, even if it means some server will be 150% full (or 250+++% in BG case….).
When the #4 server gains enough ppl to and surpasses #3, it becomes closed and the new server becomes open.this way servers that actually LACK player will remain open while the stacked ones will always be closed.
Also it doesn’t have to be top 3. It can also be like 5 or more… the higher the number the more balance population will become over time.
I see four problems with this.
1. Closing n servers means that the n+1 server gets most of the transfers, so you will only get a rotation of n+1 servers.
2. Opening a server doesn’t mean that the server gets players to fill a void, it could cause an overstacking of an already stacked time zone.
3. There still is no incentive to de-stack the overstacked servers or overstacked time zones on certain servers.
4. Most importantly, it has been shown that Anet doesn’t really know how to calculate WvW server population.
Blackgate and Jade Quarry both opened because they were below the population cap. Blackgate currently has a smaller population than Jade Quarry and some of the combined linked worlds populations (combined linked worlds population example being Crystal Desert + Darkhaven + Devona’s Rest combined has a higher population than Blackgate). With all that being said, we do keep track of the transfers that happen. Since we have been seeing an increase in transfer behavior with the past 2 world links, we are discussing whether we want to change how we calculate WvW world populations or if we want to lower the WvW population caps.
It’s obvious from Anet’s perspective that CD>BG and that JQ>BG. Put them in a matchup. It should be esport worthy.
Fact 3: ANet Dev starts thread about creating more servers to improve matches, gets 6 pages of responses. Closes thread for lack of interest. Afterwards BG and JQ open up for transfers.
Just gonna stop you right there on that one. Just because a thread is 6 pages long doesn’t mean its 6 pages of positive responses. I didn’t read all of the posts on that thread, but a lot of the ones I did read were against the idea (for whatever stupid reason). You shouldn’t go around accusing ANet like this in such a biased way. Long threads do not automatically mean support.
It’s one of the top 5 threads in terms of both posts and views in the last 20 pages of threads. Is that enough proof for you?
That doesn’t mean that it had positive support. This is a gaming forum, people come out in droves to complain about stuff. Large threads are not guaranteed to be in support of something, which is exactly what you are trying to imply. Large threads are just as often, if not more often, critiquing the idea or being in outright disagreement with it.
I’m not saying I agree with Anets decision, but you absolutely cannot go around claiming that a large thread automatically means support. It could just as easily mean huge opposition to the idea, as evidenced very clearly by the threads on the change to GoB vendor when it was made.
I never claimed that a large thread equaled support, I claimed that the players have shown interest in the thread, which means that it is a issue that is of concern to a lot of players. Support doesn’t equal interest and interest doesn’t equal support.
Back in the good old days people had this thing called server loyalty.
Back in the days the only way a server moved up was if a higher server imploded. Then came the purchasing of guilds.
None of the guilds I saw when I first started WvW are tagged up today.
The problem Anet has, as evidenced by McKenna’s post, is that Anet has just shown to the NA WvW population that they have no clue about the population of WvW.
If your population data is wrong your fixes to the problem are also wrong.
No, the only free transfers after transfers were locked was pre season 2 tournament, and the players all jumped on the highest of the free to transfer servers, HoD, which collapsed after the tournament was over.
Fact 3: ANet Dev starts thread about creating more servers to improve matches, gets 6 pages of responses. Closes thread for lack of interest. Afterwards BG and JQ open up for transfers.
Just gonna stop you right there on that one. Just because a thread is 6 pages long doesn’t mean its 6 pages of positive responses. I didn’t read all of the posts on that thread, but a lot of the ones I did read were against the idea (for whatever stupid reason). You shouldn’t go around accusing ANet like this in such a biased way. Long threads do not automatically mean support.
It’s one of the top 5 threads in terms of both posts and views in the last 20 pages of threads. Is that enough proof for you?
At this point I think I might be happier if I watched election returns instead of playing WvW or writing on the forums.
I’m wondering if population is calculated by how many times players enter a map.
If you are on an overstacked server, you don’t jump maps because your blob won’t all make it but if your population is lower you are free to map hop and you get counted towards the population every time you jump maps.
This could explain why the CD link has more players then unlinked BG or JQ.
Next weeks T1 matchup after glicko adjustments. BG/JQ/CD
Battle of the overstacked.
Anet discussing population. Opens BG and JQ. Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
BG and JQ players “Better late than never”
Blackgate and Jade Quarry both opened because they were below the population cap. Blackgate currently has a smaller population than Jade Quarry and some of the combined linked worlds populations (combined linked worlds population example being Crystal Desert + Darkhaven + Devona’s Rest combined has a higher population than Blackgate). With all that being said, we do keep track of the transfers that happen. Since we have been seeing an increase in transfer behavior with the past 2 world links, we are discussing whether we want to change how we calculate WvW world populations or if we want to lower the WvW population caps.
Does this mean that next week if you manipulate the matchup for T1 and have BG/JQ/CD it will be competitive?
Please do this and then re-evaluate your algorithm.
-slips on floor-
…omg, what did I just slip on? Is that…oh jeez, who got salt all over the forums…
Salt is used for traction…
0/10 bud
That’s true, I typically salt my kitchen floor so my bare feet have a better grip.
Guys, call off the search. I found our salt perpetrator.
Why do you have to post with an account you haven’t posted with in one year?
Fact 1: BG is the ONLY server, NA or EU to never finish a skirmish this match in third.
Fact 2: BG is not linked, the other two opponents are linked.
Fact 3: ANet Dev starts thread about creating more servers to improve matches, gets 6 pages of responses. Closes thread for lack of interest. Afterwards BG and JQ open up for transfers.
There was a time in EU that nobody wanted a match with Vizunah, has NA got to the point where it’s best to tank your server out of a match with BG?
Anet just need limit WvW Map ppl (like WoW)
use hand let Server Full is a bad idea
**we accept more than 1800 Gem to transfer ( ex: Highest Server 3600 Gem *
Right now your favorite server has finished first in 2/3 of the skirmishes and is the ONLY server not to finish 3rd in any skirmish.
Remind me again why BG needs to be open?
At the end of the day, its player behavior thats the hardest to control. Bandwagons happen for reasons that we all know and unless something can be done about that, no system is going to balance out given the mantra of playing with your friends and when you want.
Just reduce map cap by 5% a week for overstacked servers, by the time new link happens they could be at -40%. That will motivate them to transfer.
The other, less drastic solution is to not give overstacked servers a link AND make sure that the other linked servers in the matchup always have more players.
Then you moderate (close) all the “I want to play with my friends” threads.
I’ve paid to transfer twice, but I’ve forgotten how many times I transferred when it was free because my first toon was going for map completion and there was an event that was bugged on my server. Plus I also transferred to a WvW server that was ticking over 500 for WvW map completion.
are you currently on a lga1151 socket? if yes, then the 6700k is the most powerful cpu you can currently buy.
and no, that cpu is not overkill for gw2. the only thing that matters in this game is single core speed – the latest i7 k models (6700k for lga1151 or 4790k for lga1150) do have plenty of that, with the included ability to overclock them for even more juice.
FA to DB for season 2 to stay in gold league.
DB back to FA as soon as I had enough gold.
Here’s my concerns with the plan:
1. Which servers are above the lowered population cap? Should they even get links?
2. What’s the incentive for players on overstacked servers to move, if they can beat linked servers?
3. Does this mean the you are de-linking the WvW and PvE servers?
4. How will the new servers recruit PvE players? How does a new player to WvW get assigned a server? Are you reassigning PvE servers also?
5. How quick will you lock or open servers that have WvW guilds transfer?
6. Certain servers have been known as having higher “non-prime” populations, which has caused imbalanced matches. How will you get those players to spread out to other servers?
Why do you think that if total of linked server 1+6 is similar to the population of linked server 2+5 and the linked server of 3+4 that you would have a competitive matchup.
the total population of each server doesn’t play at the same time
Years ago there were graphs of each NA server’s WvW activity and it mostly showed 4 humps in 24 hours. 1 for NA, 1 for OCX, 1 for SEA and 1 for EU
Why can’t you make matchups where NA populations are close, OCX populations are close, SEA populations are close and EU populations are close?
Veteran WvW players played when the rewards were crap and changing rewards won’t change how they play. However, I worry that adding rewards for winning, either skirmish or match, will create a snowball effect that will give a winning server a boost in population/coverage as the fairweathers come out which will lead to lower participation for the losing servers later in the week.
I feel this poll is a lose-lose.
Doesn’t this ultimately end up with more people playing WvW overall, and the rise in active population will seal high-tier servers from transfer for longer, so the impact’s overall pretty well cushioned?
It might not have been an issue pre-HOT, but now numbers matter way more then skill.
I think both options will eventually lead to matches ending up being 1v0v0.
(edited by Swamurabi.7890)