I think if an activity is fun, a person generally doesn’t need external incentive.
When an activity is dull, boring, or un-fun AND someone wants you to keep doing it – they offer you external incentives.
I think you’ll enjoy this – I saw a thread on General Discussion today where someone claimed that having fun was not a goal.
In the inevitable event of being detected ensure you have:
1) a speed boost
2) stability
I don’t know if unbalanced scores have gotten better in this last weeks matchups, and I play on Kaineng so our problems are mostly population. But from what I have seen the main complaint about one side dominating, such as 300k to 50k/ 40k is because one side took everything at night, thus getting 500 points every 15 minutes, for 3-7+ hours.
Yeah I don’t think Kaineng is a good example. From what I’ve seen this week’s matchups aren’t quite as one-sided, or at least there aren’t as many. Next week may be even better if the server ranking system pulls its weight. Sadly I doubt that will help Kaineng though.
The other thing about the dominating scores is that a decent number of players just give up once they fall behind. I really doubt we’d have so lopsided scores in most cases if that weren’t the case.
Let me break it down for you as you seem to be unable to do so yourself.
Those players are finite and all crammed onto a few servers to ensure easy wins. Until those players decide they actually want a challenge and spread themselves out over all the servers, balance will never happen.
I’m hoping you are an EU player and speaking strictly from an EU perspective, because if not then you are hopelessly ignorant of where the majority of off peak players are.
The majority of US server off peak players are not on the top servers. HoD has a night crew but they are in no way a majority of anything. In fact the unofficial Oceanic servers were IoJ and SoS, both of whom got slaughtered by ET last week. And guess what? They both still have a large Oceanic playerbase.
Take out passive damage boost/reduction/health boost and so on. Keep things like bonus magic find and other similar buffs not directly combat related.
Agreed. There are many ways to implement progression. Unbalancing things is a sure-fire way to ensure a lack of longevity.
Right now the problem with 5 or 15 min ticks is the build up of holding a large portion of the map in off hours and gaining +500 to 600 per tick for even 3 hours giving a server a huge lead. I won’t get into the argument of off hours for who as its the same for either side.
This is where I really can’t follow your logic. From my perspective more frequent ticks rewards holding onto objectives. Less frequent ticks means holding on is not as important until the tick gets closer.
The FA v IoJ v SoS match was reasonably close until about a day ago. I think IoJ managed to open up a decent lead and then the fair-weather players abandoned the other 2 servers. Even if transfers are disabled this will still happen (people will just stop playing instead of transferring).
And no, it doesn’t make it more difficult to cap. It just limits the score significance during inactive hours. I still don’t see how this is supposed to be bad.
And you probably never will because you don’t play in off peak times so your suggestions have no impact on you.
No, plus most people don’t log in and play to get the score tick, they do so for fun and when they have time to play. If their play times aren’t when the score is about to tick they aren’t going to say “Well, taking these keeps isn’t going to matter IF they get retaken before a score tick. I will let the other team have them and sit around in lion’s arch during my free time.”
The number of fair-weather people who only play when their server is winning and the number of people complaining about night capping disagree with your statement.
If the score wasn’t important to people then this thread wouldn’t even exist.
So two situations off the top of my head:
1) you hold an objective for 11 hrs 55 mins and then lose it. You get no points.
2) people don’t bother fighting until an hour or so before your ticks because its meaningless.In short, no thanks.
Isnt this the purpose?
to 1) It will give people a chance to get a competitive score instead of getting the bulk of their score when there is no defenders.
to 2) Maybe this will help queues too? And if they log on an hour beforehand, theyre gonna be up against some nasty defence, so no this would not happen.
Err, what?
Your idea basically makes WvWvW pointless for all bar two times of the day. If you had the option of holding a keep for 12 hours vs holding a keep for 5 mins and get the same reward which would you choose?
I don’t see why people would log in at the last hour, and if they do how it would matter. If all sides had the same idea for some reason then whatever the map looks like before they log it won’t change much in one hour.
If we assume the populations in each zone become capped for all sides when it is close to the score tick it will be that much harder to make progress unless one server is just that much better than the others, in which case they deserve it.
People would only fight in the last hour because holding any objectives prior to that have practically no meaning.
W3 is at its best when you have major armies on all three sides duking it out.
I believe that is something we all can agree on. It’s also the premise W3 was designed around.
For starters this suggestion has been made and argued over many times before on these forums.
Secondly, I doubt we can all agree on your premise. I think many people consider battles between large armies to be nothing more than zergfests. The quality of a battle is not determined solely by how many you people you have. A 100v100v100 fight can be just as engaging as 500v500v500.
So two situations off the top of my head:
1) you hold an objective for 11 hrs 55 mins and then lose it. You get no points.
2) people don’t bother fighting until an hour or so before your ticks because its meaningless.
In short, no thanks.
The suggestion of dynamic pop caps has been argued over in these forums many, many times.
Considering that the majority of so-called night capping solutions involve punishing off peak players in some way, usually through blocking or restricting (points or access), then I’d say the disrespect line is perfectly valid.
What you need to remember is that off peak players have the exact same rights to play the game as you. You may not like what happens when you are not playing (assuming you even know what happens, many people on these forums are sadly ignorant) but you have no right to dictate what happens in those hours. Especially when the off peak players are playing to the exact ruleset defined by ANet (24×7 battles).
If you can come up with a solution that treats everyone as equals, regardless of when they play, then maybe you’ll be taken a bit more seriously.
I’m curious as to why some people are convinced that its even a rendering/culling issue. I mean Mesmer’s do have an area invisibility skill after all. So if a Mes is porting people on top of you and they are invis then how do you know they aren’t just using their abilities?
It’s not meant to make the whole idea of WvW easier, if your server is undermanned then you will hold less objectives on the map regardless. The principle behind the idea is to not allow the night-capping server to gain massive, uncatachable leads in points during periods were they have no competition.
Undermanned teams already face an uphill battle and yet you want to further marginalise their efforts. Frankly if a team has to put in 4 times the effort then they should be rewarded 4 times more, not punished.
And the myth that all night-capping teams face no competition needs to stop. It is unsubstantiated and only parroted about by those people who do not play in off peak so have no idea what they are talking about.
@ Richard.8207 Just wow lol. I forgot world vs world is about 1v1’s /facepalm.
And if you actually read the post rather then skimming it, you would see the population scaling idea is dependent on TOTAL population, not current.
( assuming 100 people per borderland per server)
Prime-time: 1,200 people / 1,200 people = 100% full instance = 100% full point value.Night-Time: 80, 70, 70, 50 for one server, 50, 20, 40, 10 for another server, 20, 30, 30, 10 for the last server: 480 / 1,200 people = 40% full instance = 40% point values for objectives.
Its simple mathematics really.
So the last server, outmanned on every map, only gets 40% for capturing objectives, despite the fact that its probably harder for them than their prime time counterparts.
Your simple mathematics don’t quite add up.
Realm abilities have already been discussed in the DAoC comparison threads. A common view is that they are a barrier to entry as it creates a great divide between veterans and new players.
I mean seriously, 15% more damage done, 15% less damage taken etc etc etc. The deciding factor in any battle would be realm rank and nothing else.
I still don’t see how point scaling based on population can be considered fair. What makes a 500v500v500 battle any better than a 100v40v20 battle?
There i fixed it for you^^^
Totally missing the point, and doing so with pure conjecture at that since you will not find any facts to consistently support your numbers. Population imbalances are different to total population, but the OP specifically referred to scaling based on total pop.
Im not quitting guild wars 2 or anything but its annoying when my server wich has about medium amount of people get set up against servers with full players and we have 10 on a team while they have about 30. Im just suggesting and although it probably wont be changed maybe if more suggest Arena net will try and fix this.
Is your server in the lowest bracket already? If not then it will keep sliding down the brackets until it is competitive. The system for this is already in place.
If it hits the lowest bracket and is still not competitive then its a bit harder to fix. ANet can’t force people to join your server.
I still don’t see how point scaling based on population can be considered fair. What makes a 500v500v500 battle any better than a 100v100v100 battle?
I doubt you’ll ever find a quote from ANet stating that “WvWvW will only attract the casuals and nobody will take it all seriously”.
They did state that it would be more appealing to casuals (compared to sPvP) but that is completely different to what the OP is saying.
The thing about the zerging complaints is that is such an incredibly sliding scale. I’ve seen things like “my team of 5 was zerged by 15” and “my team of 30 was zerged by 50”. So what is this magic number that indicates a) its a zerg rather than just more people, and b) its bad.
Its not like teams really plan on how many people they will take to a battle, or that they even know how many enemies they will face. They take what they have and face what they find. If one team outnumbers the other then thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Its not an indication of lack of skill or anything of the like.
As for WvWvW, it encourages map-wide strategy. If you bum-rush one point with everything you have then you’ll probably take it….and lose everything else. The individual battles in WvWvW are unimportant.
Zerging can mean quite a few things but the most common use of it I’ve seen is to describe the situation where one side simply outnumbered another. This is hardly a problem.
Every time you see someone complaining about a zerg replace it with some variation of outnumbered and see how silly the complaint is. I mean seriously, who goes into a fight willingly with fewer people? And no, the Clans from BattleTech don’t count!
The ironic thing is that the term zerg in this context was not originally meant to be derogatory, it was a legitimate tactic. These days its just an excuse for losing.
@Tzash i think all depends, i’m for example an EU player but due to my weird hours ect my primetime is when all EU servers are ghost towns ( like 5 ppl in WvW and no one in PvE ) so i go to US servers instead and yes i got 20-30ms more but game runs more smoothly for me then in EU, its weird i know.
Yeah, its all about perspective. I play from Oz so I’m used to ~200-600ms pings in any MMO I play and they are all still playable to me. But I’ve seen plenty of posts from US based players over the years raging about lag whenever theirs went over 100ms.
If there is only a 20-30ms difference between NA and EU then that sounds ok, but I doubt that would be consistent for all countries, given international routing can be very odd in places.
You know what’s even worse? When servers that (according to these forums) have no night crew have more people in WvWvW than us during our (Oceanic) prime time!
I mean c’mon, the forums said that we should be fighting doors and npcs, not actual people. Its just plain rude when the forums say one thing and reality is totally different.
There’s a pretty big difference between “I don’t want to play because I’m losing” and “The game is completely unresponsive so I can’t (won’t) play”.
Of course the game is quite playable at ~200ms pings but its a perspective issue. If you are used to playing with that latency you won’t have a problem and if you aren’t used to it then you’ll probably find it “unplayable”.
Latency.
No matter where you locate the servers someone would end up with poorer performance than they are used to. People who are used to playing with sub 100ms pings would claim the game is “unplayable” if they had to play with 200+ms pings.
30k points behind to 10k points ahead in 24 hours. So yeah, Arenanet definitely planned on all of the Aussies congregating to the same server just like a black hole devours everything in its path.
Speaking as an Aussie player myself I can happily tell you that we didn’t “all congregate to the same server”. HoD did recruit a number of Oceanic guilds, but believe it or not there are plenty more on other servers. No, I’m not on HoD.
@Tzash
I think people just like the idea of the rank and title system, rather than the extra abilities system in DAoC. Having a Rank and Title system gives people things to aim for, which they can show off but doesn’t impact on the casual players who don’t WvW much and don’t want to WvW if they’ll get smashed by RR10 players.
In short – Ranks and Titles – Good! – Extra abilities – Bad!
I’m not in the game atm so can’t check, but aren’t there already titles on the player kill achievements? Or is that just for sPvP?
Kinda sums up the Whines for WvW. Don't come in if you can't take a joke
in WvW
Posted by: Tzash.5748
I’m curious as to what Anvil Rock did to get a mention.
If there was a DAOC realm rank system this wouldn’t be happening,
The impression I got is that a DAoC realm rank system just widens the gap between casual and hardcore players.
If you want tactics and strategy then you’ll need to join a WvWvW guild. The reason you don’t see strategy and communication is because its too cumbersome to do via map chat, it is generally done on TS/Vent/Mumble.
It doesn’t really matter if you are casual, I’m sure there are guilds that will take you in wherever you are.
WvWvW is the biggest draw of GW2.
Just to nitpick (sorry!), this actually isn’t true. ANet’s own stats state that there is ~30% participation in WvWvW. So while I’m sure its the biggest draw for some, its not for the majority.
3 or 4 day matches will still suffer in the situation where server A has 24×7 coverage and server B/C has only 12×7. The weekend matches might be a bit more even as more players might be encouraged to play longer but it still doesn’t compare to having real off peak players.
The only difference I can see with shortening the duration of matches is that there will be fewer “dead days” where a server has basically given up because they are losing.
Reality of so called Oceanic Population Imbalance - Player Driven Solutions
in WvW
Posted by: Tzash.5748
ET basically shut out IoJ and SoS (both heavy Oceanic pop) on the scoreboard in the last matchup during off peak hours and now ET suddenly has no night crew?
Seems to me that the people making these claims have zero knowledge of what happens after they log off.
^ SoS and FA are teaming on IoJ because we’re winning. This isn’t how it should be. Wvw should be 1v1 and not 1v1v1. Terrible servers will make alliance and that isn’t fair to anyone. You shouldn’t kid yourself when you’re bad.
This one gave me quite a laugh. For being so incredibly wrong.
Couple of points:
- the graphs only indicate a queue. A map could be full with no queue, or almost full and not show up.
- the vast majority of people complaining about night capping are claiming that it is being done unopposed. The graphs do not show either way whether this is the case as they do not show population. If one server has 500 people in plus another 100 queued and another server has 475 in and no queue is that a night capping problem? The graphs do not say.
So overall the graphs are useful, but only when taken in context. Night capping is about the population INSIDE the maps, not those outside. You can make the claim that no queue means less people inside but you have no means to measure how many.
So FA move up into a higher bracket next round.
Where is the problem again?
One imbalanced round, especially this early on, doesn’t indicate a broken system.
So you are all in favour of increasing queue times.
I mean hey, it doesn’t affect you so why not?
If you read Mike Ferguson’s post you will see that they don’t like it when people have to queue and really hate it when people can’t get in at all. So any suggestion that will increase queue times, regardless of when, is likely to be thrown in the bin where it belongs.
I think these people are getting to your head. No continent/timezone is going to get special attention.
Its more a case of people from one continent/timezone asking for restrictions to be placed on another timezone.
HoD owns us (SBI) and JQ at night. Day time it’s pretty even most of the time. Come late night and HoD will be up by 100-200 points. Every night.
I honestly don’t see a solution to this other then balancing servers not off of performance but off of average participation. That way servers who can field the most people 24/7 are facing the same numbers on average.
100-200 points up is not owning relatively speaking. In fact that suggests that while HoD have a stronger night crew your own are doing a pretty bang up job of holding their own.
Even if every server has the max number of players in WvW, how many battles will be fought on an even footing? Practically none. And even if a battle is roughly even I can bet both sides are calling for reinforcements.
Numerical superiority is a tactic. A valid tactic. But you want to punish people for it. Where does it end? Do we start handicapping servers that use TS now because they are better organised than the ones that don’t?
The unmitigated foolishness of asking for WvW to be balanced on what time of day you play.
in WvW
Posted by: Tzash.5748
Its called a ladder, and to climb it you must be the best. But in this case, you just need a large NA and Oceanic playerbase and you are golden. Anyway I have proven what needs to be fixed, and I am sure the developers see the problem themselves.
If all you need is a large NA and Oceanic playerbase then why isn’t SoS or IoJ on top? They both meet that criteria and yet are both getting pummeled by ET (a medium pop server).
The fact is that you don’t “just need a large NA and Oceanic playerbase”. And more than one server has a good off peak presence as well so it doesn’t automatically make anyone #1. So no, you really haven’t proven anything.
When one team fields 5x the population of the other two teams, then they should not be allowed to generate tons of points regardless of what time it is.
Why not? If one server can organise a good number of people to be on at a certain time and another server can’t then why do we penalise the organised server?
Numerical superiority is supposed to be an advantage. You want to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.
Actually there are no real consequences in sport either.
Move/Remove players from WvW maps to keep all 3 sides within 10% population
in WvW
Posted by: Tzash.5748
That solution is only “good” if you don’t play off peak.
You get 20ms to a EU server? Is that actually physically possible given the Atlantic Ocean and all?