Guild Wars 2

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

One change that snuck its way into the patch was changing to the commander buff to only be visible to friendlies. Maybe I’m alone on this, but I really HATE that change. I think that picking off an enemy commander can be tide-changing in fights of any size. Sure, sometimes it’s difficult to even find that enemy commander in a sea of red names, but every extra bit of focus and pressure you put on that commander means he’ll be more distracted with his own survival and more likely to make bad decisions. Plus, you’ve never truly won the battle until you tonic into a quaggan while spiking the commander and then play taps for him on your trumpet.

A good, well respected and followed commander can easily be picked from the crowd by observing enemy movements. I do this every day, to friends and foes alike. I can pick out the driver without being told by the guild.

If that isn’t the case, then the commander’s death will be inconsequential.

Mattargul.9235:

you could even keep the 7 day cycle, just sum the scores from each frame over the whole week.

This is how I interpret the proposal.

There are ultimately 3 ways to implement it. I prefer the third one:

1. Increase match reset frequency, demarked by the “framing” of regional primetime spikes (there are essentially three spikes and three regions, so three frames of 8 hours each)
2. Consider each frame to to be a separate score, and simply calculate three different ranks, meaning we have split the one leaderboard into three, and that is all we’ve done.
3. Do #2 on week one, execute a match reset server-side between each frame, locking in the match assignments on the 7-day cycle. Points accumulate across the week, for each frame. On week two, and beyond, do this again but observe the differing ranks for each frame and assign a potentially different matching for each frame.

I read #3 as a summary of Mattargul’s proposal. As I understand it, ANet can implement this with their existing technology, with only configuration changes server-side. Their most significant work gameplay wise (which seems trivial as described) is to insert yesterday’s final score into a frame’s beginning score at the opening of each daily frame match.

The actual most significant work they’d have to do is to modify their third-party data API service to reflect this change. They’d have to, because it’s relied upon as part of the game service. It’s an incomplete delivery without that and other minor details we aren’t discussing here.

It introduces some quality-of-life issues, as well. An example is the fact that each 8 hour frame doesn’t get 8 hours of gameplay. They get about 7.5 hours, due to the time it takes for a WvW server cluster to end and then start a match.

I really like Mattargul’s take on this, even though I don’t think the 24/7 way is stupid.

It took me a few seconds to imagine how his idea can be dropped in on the current system without any other changes. It’s just a database query on the current score results..

Vol.7601:

This seems very exploitable.

Botting companies would have two botting guilds constantly farm each other for loot.

And how could a non-botter report or see these type of players if the server is closed?

That’s easy. SPvP doesn’t reward kills through the PvE loot system. If GvG is meant to grow into a similar competition, through the Obsidian Sanctum, the answer is to treat it like sPvP in that regard, even though the PvE/WvW character build system is used there.

No loot table on Obsidian Sanctum, after this change to the game.

But… this was also already addressed in the first months of game release, and they successfully got rid of the obvious kind of farming you’re talking about. It doesn’t need player recognition of the facts. This exploit is obvious and conspicuous in the server-side data.

Dayra.7405:

- map chat to talk to your team on the current map (as it is)
- team chat to talk to your team on all WvW maps (e.g. for multi-map scouting)

I agree. Have thought so for a long time. I’ve no idea how the data throughput requirements would look, though… I don’t know how they’ve engineered the chat system.

Dayra.7405:

An the new think
- A server-shout buyable for honor-badge and/or gems to call people on your server for help.

I think this would be annoying. I really don’t care to receive announcement about some rich kid’s daily Tequatl raid, nor some retired guy’s call-to-arms for WvW “defense”. I get this infrequently via /whisper already, and that is enough. At least now it’s just an acceptable consequence of being well known in social circles. It would suck as a world-wide available buy-in.

Besides, you know my stance on the server concept. I ultimately want the divided and named server concept to be utterly destroyed. That would complicate or remove the server-shout capability.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Virtute.8251:

Deli.1302:

Megaserver has only been rolled out for HotM so far.

^ This.

Valid concern in OP, but OP can’t have experienced it yet. A “bristling” PvE is actually your home server + guests being more active post-patch.

PS: Read patch notes.

I’m not sure of that. I guested to Ehmry Bay to show a friend something in Black Citadel, I switched characters, and came back…and he was still in the instance, despite me being back on SoS. I even saw some friends from Tarnished Coast in the same instance. Megaservers have been rolled out for the main towns, sir.

Irrelevant, sir. That was scheduled to happen early on, sir. It may not have been the case at OP time, sir. It also doesn’t matter, sir.

Real thread topic is not related to what is the current state of Megaserver rollout, sir.

Maladon.5760:

Virtute.8251:

I don’t think that “ganking” is addressed by this solution, though.

If these groups are so good I’m not sure why “ganking” is a problem in the first place

OP plays bottom of Bronze League.

I agree with OP. This is the type of fundamental change to current system that I am thinking about when I propose things like reducing total number of home servers. Combining ideas like these with Megaserver concepts, and still retaining queue system for some cases, means no need for 24 or more home servers.

I don’t think that “ganking” is addressed by this solution, though.

Lord Kuru.3685:

WXP becoming accountbound doesn’t count as a feature.

It should have been accountbound to begin with. When it was introduced, the game’s soulbound features were being shifted to being accountbound. Only Anet’s stubbornness and refusal to admit wrong kept it soulbound for so long.

It’s a feature, and this is a feature change and addition patch, so it counts.

Please don’t be so worried that one’s pet idea or gripe didn’t make the cut this time around. This patch was a ton of work.

During Beta, map chat included opponents. In s/tPvP, it still does. The client needs the two separate channels to make that happen.

However, opponent chat in the largeness of WvW was just too much, and they bound the client-side /map to the same chat channel (think of IRC) as is /team.

Deli.1302:

Megaserver has only been rolled out for HotM so far.

^ This.

Valid concern in OP, but OP can’t have experienced it yet. A “bristling” PvE is actually your home server + guests being more active post-patch.

PS: Read patch notes.

WvW optimization step 1: delete 3/4th of the NA leaderboard.

Let’s talk more after that’s done.

Yeah, as an NA player, I never go to WvW for raid with the Dragonbrand Taiwanese guilds. Nope, not ever.

Should just shut the servers off when I log out. It’s only fair. I mean… Taiwanese people love China. It’s true!

GoodWithGravy.8019:

Virtute.8251:

Ew, gross. Imaginary numbers.

I believe it’s more politically correct to call them ‘Complex’.

My deepest apologies and sympathies. Put away the calculator, and no one’s brain will be hurt.

That German community manager is quite level headed. You should take their suggestions without the sarcasm and cynicism you applied.

Dayra.7405:

Virtute.8251:

Ew, gross. Imaginary numbers.

Has no basis in reality, whatsoever.

Edit: More specifically, it’s a tautology.

And was is this? No argument, not even a tautology, only some flames?

A succinct statement on why the “points” will not be argued.

Ew, gross. Imaginary numbers.

Has no basis in reality, whatsoever.

Edit: More specifically, it’s a tautology.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

(a) Coverage is not under the control of the individual player playing WvW at any specific time of the day.

Fact.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

It being “player-driven” is not the same as it being under “player control”.

Fact.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

The individual player has no control over the coverage disparity

As an individual: fact.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

and the negative impact it has on their play experience when they log into the game.

And I will play for them the smallest violin.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

(b) Competition is about pitting one’s skill against opponents in an environment in which every effort is made to eliminate all variables except skill.

sPvP is —-———> that way.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Using your logic, then it would be perfectly acceptable to have professional sports competitions

Oh, stop it.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Your arguments have been dismantled and found to rely on specious and self-serving reasoning.

Absolutely not. You’ve spent a lot of time saying nothing relevant toward WvW as it is or will ever be. You’ve stated some facts and then gotten lost on a tangent that has been well trodden, and is no more true now than it ever was.

I disagree without humility.

Dayra.7405:

(a) The moon drives the tides, but no one would say it controls it

False.

“Why does the gravitational pull of the moon control the tides of the sea?” — Cornell Center for Materials Research

“Although it is often asserted that the moon “controls” the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you’re measuring the tide along that basin." — UC Santa Barbara

Dayra.7405:

(a) as control means you can change it. And a single player cannot change coverage.

Yours is also a gross oversimplification of “control”. A single player should not expect anything of the magnitude of what you posit. Yet, in limited circumstances, an individual can accomplish smaller measures of control and victory, even in Gold League. I’ve done it and seen it.

Dayra.7405:

(b) The problem is not that some are loosing, the problem is that much to often the result is clear before start, i.e. there is simply no competition.

That is why the number of servers should be dropped. Reduce the variance on that variable, while increasing and leveling relative team sizes.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

This is bad game design because:

(a) coverage is not under the player’s control

(b) a factor not under a player’s control gives a reward to the opponent (PPT)

(c ) there are no counters available to (a) and (b)

False.

(a ) “Coverage” is exclusively a player-driven mechanic, which can no more be removed than can the human need for clocks, time zones, and sleep.

(b ) Not everyone wins in competition.

(c ) It is addressed by human interaction through social networking.

The solution is simpler and more plausible.

Kaos.9162:

I’m fairly certain this is something anet won’t implement. With the current set up, people who feel the way you do have the option to, at a cost (which generates income for anet). People who like the smaller servers are free to stay where they are, and no one is forced to do anything. It seems to me that if the majority of people on the servers that you want to merge wanted to play on more populated servers, they would.

You’re correct that design changes must be justifiable as business decisions, but it’s also clear that much flexibility exists in their choices. Ideas are quick, but the work is hard.

ANet would be quite well served by leaving WvW exactly as it is, and discontinuing the remaining two WvW sub-forums. It would be quick, easy, and sound very reasonable in the boardroom. The player base is only marginally served by most discussions here, and it’s not just that PvP-types are combative by nature.

The people who prefer the smallest WvW servers can be summarized easily:

• I’m emotionally attached to my server name and my peers whom log into the same place, because that is where we have access to each other as combat allies
• I have a low-performance computer or network link, so I lag too much in large fights
• I prefer the experience of small fights, and greater empty space around the fights

The server names are irrelevant (but the peer relationships are not). User PC performance is a user responsibility. Variance in battle population is incidental to other factors (such as server population and time).

ANet doesn’t need 24 server names available to offer the current set of possible experiences. They can reduce the server count, increase player freedom to choose an experience, and continue to sell something like “server transfer”. Failure to understand that is bound to lack of imagination.

Kaderin.7584:

Why just NA, EU aren’t people? :p

cuz merica

Kaderin.7584:

With the megaserver eliminating server identity pvewise, it should open up possibilities for improvement, god knows WvW sorely needs it.

Exactly.

The “alliances” ideas floated here and previously have merit, but their proponents usually dump all over their own ideas right around the time that they begin to think about “server” and “queue” and themselves. That’s why I don’t take them seriously.

ANet won’t take them seriously if the ideas are too far afield of what already exists and what is already planned.

Bertrand.3057:

I like the OP. His responses are prompt and reasonable, and he’s seized upon an important fault of the game while proposing a solution that would address it.

Thanks.

Bertrand.3057:

The fault is that the game and the PPT match does not function properly when servers have gaps in their coverage, and the solution is to remove enough redundant servers so that those gaps no longer exist.

Mostly true. I don’t think of that as a fault, because I’m so used to playing the always-on style of online competition that I’m fully acclimated to the facts about “coverage”. The vocal minority here (the majority of respondents that a thread like this will attract) have spent the past year-and-half complaining about that “fault” from all possible angles (except for mature and realistic angles, because those preclude the argument itself), and I’ve watched with mildly interested bemusement.

I think the complaints are cute. I also think that ANet should deliver some sort of forced accept-this-to-proceed disclaimer regarding the 24-hour nature of the game… in the same way that I wish all web browsers came with forced user-competence tests that would uninstall the software on failure.

Bottom line is that the Internet is never “turned off”, and neither are MMO games. That’s actually the point of having them around: to be enjoyed whenever, wherever.

Bertrand.3057:

I do wonder which time slot the OP plays in

I have played from NA Eastern and Central, but I’m an abnormal sleeper and a bit of an insomniac. For a few years, I used the Firefox about:me addon to track page-load times, and my 24-hour graph nearly flattened out (even distribution, narrow variance across hours). My peak hours were outside of normal NA primetime.

This is more normal for heavy Internet users than it is for others. Google it.

Bertrand.3057:

and if this is blinding him to the obvious problem with this proposed solution.

I doubt it. My attention to this scenario as a gameplay and design problem predates Guild Wars (the first).

Bertrand.3057:

If you look at T1 off-peak coverage, that’s where most people accuse the players of stacking onto servers. Before a lot of players moved to these servers, they would have encountered fairly sparsely populated maps. As such they were not creating a problem by moving to servers with better off-peak coverage but amending one, at least as far as their experience was concerned.

However, this problem of having a low population only exists at certain hours for nearly every server, and you would need to travel at least 3-5 tiers down the ladder to find servers that don’t generate queues at their peak coverage hours. What I found imperceptive was the OP’s response to my first reply, where he said that multi-hour queues were “acceptable”. This was conditioned on being “in the current server and queue system”, I’m not entirely clear on what’s implied there.

Under the current design, multi-hour queues are unavoidable, and are thus acceptable to a reasonable player who is willing to work around it. All players react accordingly.

I submitted the OP and all replies under pretext that Megaserver would be used to alter the design significantly in ways that address this problem, as evidenced by EoTM map (despite ANet statements against or leaning away from direct implementation of the EoTM overflow scheme for general WvW). It’s obvious that the EoTM design work lead to Megaserver, and the related portion of the WvW CDI was to gauge the popularity of their available options for implementing that work in the WvW context.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Virtute.8251:

I began the game in Silver League, in 2012, played more than 1,000 hours there, moved to Gold in summer 2013, and have logged more than 4,000 hours to date.

for that to be true, you would’ve had to play over 10 hours every single day since may 2013.

8 hours, 22 minutes. See screenshot.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

I love when ppl post such easily debunked numbers.

The tendency to “debunk” more often leads to error.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Also, there was no silver league in 2012.

This was a quick and easy way to refer to the Silver League leaderboard ranks range of 7 through 15. I speant more time in Bronze that year than in Silver.

Overkillengine.6084:

Except your solution is not well engineered as has already been pointed out repeatedly.

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly that we aren’t the engineers, as it’s neither our role nor our duty to do so, and ANet has or is building precisely what they need to do this properly.

I am not the troll.

roxybudgy.8205:

Virtute.8251:

Again, already addressed. Most players (note players as in a game) will use “stacked” here in terms of unfairness, even when utilizing the word objectively to indicate “numbers”. At minimum they mean both meanings.

Incorrect, just because “stacked” has a negative connotation doesn’t suddenly mean players = pack of cards. Again, this argument is as silly as the numerous forum threads on how to define a zerg/blob.

Incorrect. Applied here, the “stack of cards” definition of “stacked” infers that saying “a server is stacked” means that the people have been moved into the server “dishonestly so as to gain an unfair advantage”. It’s a matter of reading comprehension.

roxybudgy.8205:

Virtute.8251:

The Oxford ordering has no influence upon contextual interpretation.

“I’m going to tell everyone that according to the (Oxford) dictionary, everyone is a pack of cards, but if someone else refers to the same dictionary and points out an alternate meaning, they are wrong because I say so”.

LOL

roxybudgy.8205:

But in the interests of not confusing OP, I suggest everyone replace the term “stacked server” with “relatively highly populated server” so that OP can’t dismiss everyone’s arguments based on incorrect semantics.

My semantics are pristine.

roxybudgy.8205:

Virtute.8251:

My condolences. I hope things work out for you somehow that you’ll accept without too much upset or anguish, yet I don’t believe that your emotional attachment to the name “Ehmry Bay” is sufficient justification for its continued existence.

I don’t believe that your lack of emotional attachment to any server is sufficient justification for its non-existence.

That is neither the basis nor justification for my argument. It is a refutation of yours.

roxybudgy.8205:

If you think that “attachment to a name” is all that holds server pride together, then you obviously have no idea how people who willingly stay on a particular server feels.

I don’t think that, and I do know how they feel: I’ve felt it.

roxybudgy.8205:

Since you don’t have access to ArenaNet’s finance data, then I doubt you can claim that the costs of running the server is justification for closing them down.

I don’t claim that. The engineering involved in applying Megaserver to WvW (which has been revealed to already be in progress, at some unrevealed extent), to facilitate such a move as I suggest can’t be cheap. It’s the good move, though.

roxybudgy.8205:

So why is the current situation so bad that ArenaNet needs to kitten off their paying customers by shutting down some servers?

They kitten off customers every day, as every active business does, and the WvW-playing set of customers are particularly given to being kittened off. So much that it’s plainly obvious that the customers themselves are to blame for the majority of their own anguish toward the game mode. ANet’s kittened if they do or don’t.

This move makes the most sense architecturally for the game mode, and for the long-term quality of life for the players that will continue (and begin) playing WvW for years to come.

roxybudgy.8205:

My brother has no attachment to any server, or even guild, he plays for himself. He initially started on Sea of Sorrows, was paid to transfer to Blackgate, then paid again to move to Jade Quarry, then voluntarily moved back to Sea of Sorrows when his guild became inactive. If that’s how you like to play, good for you, keep it up, whatever floats your boat. The existence of additional servers doesn’t stop you from doing that.

Neither will a well-engineered solution which reduces the total number of servers.

Colt.9051:

This makes me raise the question of if the OP has ever had the experience to play on any servers T3 and under.

Yes. I have a Bronze League and a Gold League account. Two of my brothers have Bronze League accounts, and one of them also has a Gold League account.

I began the game in Silver League, in 2012, played more than 1,000 hours there, moved to Gold in summer 2013, and have logged more than 4,000 hours to date.

Colt.9051:

There is a reason why a vast majority of these players prefer to stick to their own servers instead of joining the T1/T2 bandwagon.

This is at once patently false and also a strawman for your next point.

What is actually true is that while some unknown (but significant) portion of us have stayed with our original server while continuing to play, the majority of us have not, and those servers where we have done so probably also trend toward the top of the leaderboard.

Colt.9051:

Personally I enjoy being in the lower tier servers because of a plethora of reasons, mainly that I WvW with the same people I know and have grown to love

I enjoy precisely that experience in Gold League. There are simply more of them, more groupings like ours, and it occurs more frequently in a more evenly distributed swath of time across 24 hours.

Colt.9051:

there isn’t a constant zerg ball running around lagging everything in its wake

Neither of these are constant anywhere.

Colt.9051:

and you get fun small roaming fights as well a lot more often.

Sure, as essentially the only action you can ever hope to get.

Colt.9051:

Yes, there’s the issue of coverage which throws things off balance a lot of times, but we’re all willing to look past all that and still enjoy where we are.

That’s the small town mentality, where it doesn’t matter to the citizens how dumpy their home gets, because it’s theirs and it’s all they’ve got.

Natronix.9827:

This obvious troll thread actually worked omg ppl…

r not troll thread am srys thread pls

Seemore Bunz.7345:

This idea is Awful!!!!! In Fact the opposite needs to happen!

No. Leave the “massively multiplayer” in MMO.

Seemore Bunz.7345:

If we can reduce the server population cap, effectively we will balance out the lower tier servers. Transfer guilds/new players will leave T1&2 after season and this will effectively strengthen the competitive nature of the lower tier servers!

No. Leave the “massively multiplayer” in MMO.

Seemore Bunz.7345:

And please T1 and T2 already have Que problems! The last thing we want are Tiers 3-8 joining in!

Again, already addressed.

roxybudgy.8205:

First of all, I find it most amusing how OP is trying to argue the definition of “stacked” by pulling the number TWO meaning from the Oxford dictionary, not to mention that it refers specifically to a pack of cards (are people a pack of cards?). With the number ONE definition being:

“(Of a number of things) put or arranged in a stack or stacks:”

Now I’m pretty sure people/players/characters/toons are considered “things”, not a pack of cards. Sure, we are not literally arranged on top of each other in-game, but I’m sure that we are arranged as a stack in the databases.

Again, already addressed. Most players (note players as in a game) will use “stacked” here in terms of unfairness, even when utilizing the word objectively to indicate “numbers”. At minimum they mean both meanings.

The Oxford ordering has no influence upon contextual interpretation.

roxybudgy.8205:

Nevertheless, in this forum, a “stacked server” is the general terminology for a server that people flock to. OP trying to tell people that there’s no such thing as a “stacked server” is as hilarious as someone trying to tell someone their character is not a tank because it’s not a large metal vehicle, or there’s no such thing as a karma train because choo-choo trains aren’t made of karma.

There is no stack.

roxybudgy.8205:

On topic: OP is essentially suggesting that several servers be shut down, with ranking being the determining factor as to which server gets shut.

Ranking is directly consequential to all reasons a server should be shut down, and when servers begin shutting down, unless the entire named server system is done away with at that time, then you will see low ranked servers go first.

roxybudgy.8205:

People from the servers that get shut will be forcibly placed on another server.

Indeed.

roxybudgy.8205:

This is essentially transferring everyone from other servers to another server so that you have lots of people on certain servers.

Yes.

roxybudgy.8205:

This already happens when people voluntarily transfer to another server. The only difference between what already happens now and what OP is suggesting is that we currently have the choice of not moving to a “stacked” server. OP seems to want that choice taken away.

The day they close Ehmry Bay is the day I quit GW2.

My condolences. I hope things work out for you somehow that you’ll accept without too much upset or anguish, yet I don’t believe that your emotional attachment to the name “Ehmry Bay” is sufficient justification for its continued existence.

VaaCrow.3076:

All i got from this thread > OP “you have to stop liking things i don’t like!!!!”

I’m sorry for you.

VaaCrow.3076:

people with your personality should be shot into the sun.

… burn?

VaaCrow.3076:

Just because YOU don’t like smaller servers doesn’t mean that they aren’t justified in their existance.

And this is why you’re wrong. You’ve inverted the proposition in order to misunderstand it in a way that more quickly fits your world view. My argument isn’t that the lowest servers are unjustified because I don’t like them. My argument is that they are unjustified… and that happens to be one reason for which I don’t like them.

Sad Tas.2509:

you still don’t address the fact that this merger will create more queues and more skill lag.

I have, in the OP, and multiple times since, in asking ANet to consider ways in which Megaserver can solve it. It is not the players’ role here to engineer the game, even in a thread like this.

Sad Tas.2509:

Like I’ve said and other people have said, as well, tier 1 needs to destack, not the other way around.

There is no stack.

Sad Tas.2509:

Your idea won’t be implemented because 1) its awful and 2) anet doesnt give a kitten about WvW and hasn’t from the launch of the game. Once season 2 is over the game mode will die.

1. It’s beautiful, simple, elegant and absolutely necessary.
2. ANet cares about WvW, and has since before launch of the game.
3. Players leaving the game has not and will not happen yet in any quantity to justify mourning it as a death.

Overkillengine.6084:

ManaCraft.5630:

Virtute.8251:

Population distribution doesn’t need to be mitigated.

Ehm … that’s exactly what your suggestion does. Rearrange population to mitigate poor distribution.

Bingo. And where strongly encouraging the higher population servers to disperse across the lower peon servers wins out over even more mega consolidation, like what has been suggested here, is that the engine this game uses does not handle anything over 50 or so players in one spot very well.

So this proposed method of population redistribution would very likely end up with a less satisfactory overall experience than other methods.

No. My suggestion does not rearrange population to mitigate poor distribution.

My suggestion does not value a particular population distribution. What it mitigates are the negative affects of retaining access to sub-par and dying server communities.

Separately, it asks that the Megaserver system be used to mitigate any negative affects of population distribution. The act of population redistribution through merger can occur without that step. They are distinct suggestions.

No level in the system mandates a static number of named “world servers”. They are using database sharding and high-availability technology. Your server names are merely cosmetic.

There are too many world servers. It diminishes player experience quality, and is unsustainable for the full life of the game.

skullmount.1758:

Boonprot.6274:

The last thing we need is more queues and skill lag in T1 and T2. It’s getting stupid as is. T1 has needed to de-stack for ages now, but they’re too obstinate to bother.

Well Anet hasn’t given people a reason too. Thats the main problem.

Reduce the number of world servers, and you reduce the quantity of this form of petty bickering. There will be no need for lowest-tier servers to spend energy attempting to recruit players, then experiencing anguish at their inability to do so, while simultaneously their server-mates interact with the at-large community in ways that exemplify precisely why those servers are low-tier and untenable as MMO communities.

They won’t exist, and we’ll be better for it.

Pretty Pixie.8603:

Virtute.8251:

There is a very easy solution. The most vocal minority will object. The majority will enjoy the result, and only the data will reveal this fact.

You appeal to majority and then claim data backs your argument up without presenting any.

Your argument is illogical.

Underlined the more pertinent parts for you. I claim that ANet’s privileged data will reveal the facts, y’know, in the future, when they implement an excellent solution (such as mine) for population coverage imbalances.

Abe Kleine.3568:

I’m seriously enjoying this post, the guy is so steadfast in his opinion without resorting to name calling. This is oddly refreshing to read, I shall keep up to date with this one for the sake of a good read.

Yet, I got smacked in PM a few times for being a big meanie face. Q_Q SORRY I <3 U ANET PLS NO HITSES MEH.

Natronix.9827:

2/10 troll thread

0/10 troll thread, cuz is srys thread.

oscuro.9720:

NONONONO!

Woa, there.

oscuro.9720:

I went to kaineng BECAUSE there aren’t people. It promotes small group roaming. I would probably quit WvW if not the game if it truly turned into Blob Wars 2: Blobs and Boredom!

And I want to be able to mod GW2 to the point that we have a nexusmods.com section for the thousands of jiggly-bits addons that would be made. Not happening, though!

Not everyone gets their own personal WvW sandbox, and we don’t need to keep Kaineng around until the day that there are 5 of you chasing 5 Anvil Rock across all 4 maps for epic sPvP-in-WvW hide-and-seek. But I’m willing to bet that ANet can find a way to make a very special Obsidian Santcum type of playpen just for the solosmallmensroambro players to enjoy. They certainly ask for large, empty, maps often enough.

Let’s make a deal. Solosmallmensroambro world server, where PK is enabled and every map has a player cap of exactly three. They can roam for 3 hours hunting each other, and argue when a wrong one gets in and interrupts an epic 75 minute duel for capture of Stonemist Castle.

Gotta please everyone, these days.

ManaCraft.5630:

Some systems are better at mitigating the impact of population distribution than others, and we should lobby a.net to make them implement better systems.

Population distribution doesn’t need to be mitigated. It needs to be accepted as a fact of life by the PPT players, and used as a game mechanic. Non-PPT players do not even have a horse in this race. Their opinions are mostly irrelevant to the discussion, because it’s a scoring issue.

ManaCraft.5630:

No doubt. Server death is an inevitable consequence of the current system

Right.

ManaCraft.5630:

and will occur eventually somewhere down the line. I don’t understand why an MMO in 2014 still uses a server-based architecture. In any case, server loyalty is only a thing because servers are what we have. If we had alliances instead, it would be alliance loyalty.

So we agree. You are welcome to join the Dragonbrand alliance. You’ll be joining one of the 6 Alliance Servers eventually, anyway. Get a head start on the BANDSTACKNUMBERSBLOBZERGNOSKILLLAGWAGONGEST.

yanniell.1236:

Virtute.8251:

yanniell.1236:

DevonCarver.5370:

At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.

This is just stupid and narrow minded. There’s a lot of ways to make WvW more fair and balanced. Players have been pointed ways to do that since forever.

Yeah. Inappropriate, untenable, nonprofitable, irrelevant ways… since forever, or at least since Beta.

That quote is one of the truest and most insightful things that Devon has ever said about WvW, and he deserves a bonus check for having the nerve to click “Reply” on it.

No.

Yes.

yanniell.1236:

The only thing that makes sense on what he said, is that there’s servers with more people. And there’s ways to solve that

Yes, I know: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Devs-Please-Merge-NA-Tier-3-8-into-Tier-1-2/

yanniell.1236:

as pointed out by a lot of players, in a lot of opportunities.

No. Nearly all of the player suggestions have been terrible.

yanniell.1236:

The organization argument is just non-sense.

Only for people who don’t understand or work well with people, thus do not understand organization and should not expect to succeed in an MMO game. The winners are defeating them in this factor.

yanniell.1236:

People know who is gonna win in the first day not because the winner-to-be is the most organized server

You’ve just defeated your opening argument.

yanniell.1236:

but it’s because it’s the server with the most coverage.

Thanks to their superior organizational skills.

yanniell.1236:

When the coverage is balanced, like in T1, we can never say for sure who is gonna come out on top.

Tacit.

yanniell.1236:

To be fair, organization should play a important role in the outcome of the match

It does.

yanniell.1236:

but it’s hard to be organized

Yes, it is.

yanniell.1236:

when you’re outnumbered 3 to 1

Hence Glicko, and https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Devs-Please-Merge-NA-Tier-3-8-into-Tier-1-2/

Azreell.1568:

My wells must have really bothered you to take all that time to make the above post.

Thank you for the compliment.

You’re welcome! They don’t bother me, we need MOAR. “All that time” is measurable in seconds totaling about 2 minutes average.

Straegen.2938:

Conditions are incredibly powerful in small fights, mediocre in skirmishes, crappy in large group fights and nearly pointless in raid content. Basically they suffer from tremendous balance issues.

LOL

True at some points, “didn’t read the thread or the Wiki” at others.

DeeSystm.1256:

As someone who has seen almost every tier of wvw.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

:D

As someone who played Anvil Rock for my first year in the game, I feel bad for you. I hope you find a home and play nice with them when then AR doors are locked.

The game started out with too few servers to support its early WvW attendance. Then it began cascading toward too few. AR is in Bronze for the long haul by its own doing, and they’ll be first to go.

yanniell.1236:

DevonCarver.5370:

At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.

This is just stupid and narrow minded. There’s a lot of ways to make WvW more fair and balanced. Players have been pointed ways to do that since forever.

Yeah. Inappropriate, untenable, nonprofitable, irrelevant ways… since forever, or at least since Beta.

That quote is one of the truest and most insightful things that Devon has ever said about WvW, and he deserves a bonus check for having the nerve to click “Reply” on it.

amberlin.5124:

Virtute.8251:

I just want the commander icon deleted entirely, so I can watch the fallout in map chats.

The braindead chaos that would follow would almost be worth the loss of the 100g investment.

IKR?!

It would be a definitive end to that disgusting, “someone tag up” cry from people that will never experience being “tagged up”. I’m no nihilist, but I would get sick from eating popcorn.

Brando.1374:

we have to apply conditions rapidly because of how weak single stacks of bleeds/confusion/torment is.

Yes, and we can (for the power-build kids that don’t get it).

Brando.1374:

even with 20k condi damage 1 stack of bleed is only 143 and confusion is only 210.

Edit that for 2k, not 20k.

Brando.1374:

we need to be able to stack damage to kill and then survive long enough for the stacks to do damage.

Yes, although this misses a key point, and it’s the one I’ve withheld all day: condition builds for group play are strongest amongst an allied group of power and condi-clear builds. Lemongrass soup pots aren’t expensive because necro zergs are chasing hammer-kids, and only a portion (perhaps the majority portion) can rightly be blamed on HAMMERMETABRO hype.

They’re truly expensive because the majority of weapons and field combos in the game will apply at least 1 stack of some condition… and condition built players are adding to that with real damage.

Enjoy.

Stone.6751:

I think by “stacked” people mean heavily loaded with, as in “stacked high” not as in “stacked deck”.

I read it this way for months, and selectively read “stacked deck” sometimes, but I disagree now. Preponderance of evidence is that most people mean “stacked deck” not “stacked high”. They even use it as “stacked high” in context, but then reveal that the emotional quality of their position being argued is “stacked deck”.

It all lies in the fairness factor. Most users of “stack” here will present a statement that pivots on that.

DaMikenatr.7041:

Rigel.3092:

Lord Kuru.3685:

Here’s a better idea. Break up the servers in tiers 1-2 and distribute the players into what’s currently tier 3-8. How do you like that?

First, most or half of those people in those Tiers 1-2 are original to those servers. Secondly, those who are not original to those servers PAID to move to those servers – in other words, your’s and others suggestion to have ANET re-distribute players from those Tier 1-2 servers into Tiers 3-8 is removing PERSONAL CHOICE and definitely not compensating those players that actually PAID to move. What happens if I get moved to a pathetic Tier 3-8 server that I did not or do not want to be on simply because you wanted ANET to re-distribute the player populations on those Tier 1-2 servers? YOU going to pay for my move back to a Tier 1-2 server? Hardly. ANET ever ‘re-distributes’ me to another server without my approval and I will uninstall this game so fast it would make heads’ spin, bet.

That’s his point exactly. It’s just as kitten to merge down as it is to merge up. It’s not fair to anyone.

Yet again, and again, and again:

DevonCarver.5370:

At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.

You do not receive permission to argue upon fairness in regard to WvW. It’s not happening, ever. You may freely waste calories doing so, but know that they will be 100% wasted.

The true facts are that any other factor imaginable is more relevant than fairness. Business decisions are at the core of everything that happens here. That is a relevant factor to the game. For the majority of players, my merger proposal would render a positive net impact that is measurable in business decision making metrics. The counter offer of even distribution on the whole set of 24 NA servers would not do the same. Mine wins that round.

Sad Tas.2509:

enjoy your queues and omniblobs

This is a valid point at its core. It is entirely possible to implement my suggestion while also solving this problem.

ManaCraft.5630:

Forced redistribution is forced, regardless of who gets moved around.

The only way you could potentially have players redistribute would be with alliances. That way players get to choose where they want to play. Whatever solution you have in mind for population control it is essential that it lets players make their own choice, rather than arbitrarily imposing it upon them. Empower the player, not the system.

That’s a fair assessment. There will come a time in this game where servers will have to close. It always happens on this model. Arguments against it show that the “server loyalty” factor has succeeded.

Dayra.7405:

Virtute.8251:

Observer bias, again.

The fact you have illustrated is that Week 2 of Swiss Style is working as intended, as it has to, and as basic arithmetic would have revealed in any case.

My bias or your unwillingness to see the facts?

Your bias and unwillingness to correctly interpret facts, I’m arguing.

Dayra.7405:

Last week “The most balance week possible” (http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/history/160 and http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/history/160) had only 3 close matches as well and every other week will be less balanced than last.

This tournament is non-sense.

I’m sorry for your not understanding the facts. I can only help, I can’t inject the understanding into you.

DevonCarver.5370:

At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.

Sad Tas.2509:

I understand that stacking servers is what the game mode rewards

There is no stack.

Sad Tas.2509:

and that it is more fun to be on a more populated server.

Yes.

Sad Tas.2509:

I merely pointed out that the population imbalances are caused not by lower tier servers having small populations but rather that people decided to stack the higher tier servers.

There is no stack.

Sad Tas.2509:

I never said it was dishonest or unfair or whatever.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stack

stack the deck,
a. to arrange cards or a pack of cards so as to cheat: He stacked the deck and won every hand.
b. to manipulate events, information, etc., especially unethically, in order to achieve an advantage or desired result.

Yes you did.

Sad Tas.2509:

It’s understandable that the people from the stacked servers will come in and be defensive about it.

There is no stack.

Sad Tas.2509:

Personally I don’t care.

Yes you do.

Sad Tas.2509:

But the point remains that the top 3-4 servers stacking

There is no stack.

Sad Tas.2509:

is what created the problem and they need to lose the people in order to fix the problem.

No it’s not.

Sad Tas.2509:

Merging lower tiered servers is not the solution.

Yes it is.

Bertrand.3057:

Partial merger of rank 26 and rank 27 EU servers onto a rank 15 EU server during free transfers already resulted in multi-hour primetime queues.

In the current server and queue system, that’s acceptable and expected.

Bertrand.3057:

Anyone who proposes something like this has no idea about the population numbers.

Irrelevant and untrue. I’m in NA gold league, and I expect that this suggestion would be paired with ANet’s privileged knowledge of real population data which you also have no reference for.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain.

Eve.1580:

Unbiased, by the way, I’m a power ele and ptv warrior.

So am I.

Dayra.7405:

Virtute.8251:

Dayra.7405:

Any league is pointless with the current server-balance.

EU Gold with Gandara instead of SFR would probably be a quite interesting one, but as SFR wins everything without doubt, it’s as pointless as all other leagues.

Self-fulfilling prophecy …

Unfortunately it’s not a prophecy, but a current fact that:
- there is only 1 match with 1st and 3rd less than 10k apart
- there are only 2 other matches with 1st and 2nd less than 20k away
But
- there are 12 matches where 1st and 2nd are over 50k apart
- There 6 matches where 1st and 2nd are over 100k apart and
- 8 matches where 1st and 3nd are over 100k apart

13 out of 17 (14 non-EU-gold) matches are currently very imbalanced, such that the leagues are non-sense (and not will be non-sense due to my prophecy).

Observer bias, again.

The fact you have illustrated is that Week 2 of Swiss Style is working as intended, as it has to, and as basic arithmetic would have revealed in any case.

No server is stacked.

Why wake up in the morning, when the schedule is already planned in advance?

Sad Tas.2509:

you have it backwards. The top 3-4 servers need to destack, not the other way around

No one is stacked. “Stacked” is an irrelevant term as used here.

Stacked: “(of a deck of cards) shuffled or arranged dishonestly so as to gain an unfair advantage.”

That’s what people here mean by “stacked”, and they are flat-out wrong. There’s nothing dishonest about it here, ever. It’s an in-built game mechanic and part of the business model that funds your free-to-play fun. There’s nothing unfair about it. 1:1:1 fairness is not a goal of the game mode.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain.

TyPin.9860:

@Virtute.8251:
“con·struc·tive”?

Are you using the same forum as I do?

Exactly. 10/10, would inform again. Good job, sir.

Dayra.7405:

Any league is pointless with the current server-balance.

EU Gold with Gandara instead of SFR would probably be a quite interesting one, but as SFR wins everything without doubt, it’s as pointless as all other leagues.

Self-fulfilling prophecy condition is OP. Eat more lemongrass, IRL.

You have the power!

SmoothHussler.6387:

Condi spam is out of control. Debuffs are just that – debuffs – and NOT nor should they EVER be the main damage source.

But…

TyPin.9860:

Dee Jay.2460:

….then why does my Commander heavily invest to donate -40% Condition Duration food for the zerg?

Because of Immobilize and possibly cripple. All other conditions are unimportant. Damage through conditions is in zerg fights with or without the food is negligible.

UnknownRH.4592:

Then run a condition build team in WvW and beat a power build team. Then tell me who is right and wrong. Convince your guild group to try this. I have and seen how badly it fails.

UnknownRH.4592:

I bet you have never played WvW with an organized group. No one will ever let your conditions end their duration on them selves. They can be very easily removed.

… I don’t know who to trust anymore! I need a calculator… or an adult.

Both are valid damage sources. Condition Damage =/= Debuff.

24 hour persistence and the thrill of uncertainty of (then checking up on) how your other-hours teammates are scoring is a superior aspect of WvW as-is.

Forum warriors: Learn to 24-hour game, please! For your own sake!

GrandmaFunk.3052:

no thanks, I’m happy where I am.

We’ve built a community, there’s rarely queues and I can actually have an individual impact.

Your whole community will come with you. It’s small enough to fit in a single guild. Name it “Northern Shiverpeaks [NSP]”. Problem solved.

TyPin.9860:

What do you intend?

Either this:

con·struc·tive

adjective

1. serving a useful purpose; tending to build up.
“constructive criticism”
synonyms: useful, helpful, productive, positive, encouraging

2. derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit.
“constructive liability”

3. relating to, based on, or denoting mathematical proofs that show how an entity may in principle be constructed or arrived at in a finite number of steps.

Or this:

Virtute

:D

Dayra.7405:

Virtute.8251:

24 hours of 80 v 80 v 80 v 80

=/=

24 hours of 40 v 40 v 40 v 40

Next winky face, please!

4 sided matches? (and it’s not equal, but equally balanced)

if you have 10000 wvw-player you can make
- 3 servers 24/7 400 per side
or
- 6 server 24/7 200 per side
or
- 6 server 12/7 400 per side
or
…

Four maps.

I would rather that you are forced to set your alarm to 3 AM to hope to get through queue by 5 AM for a few hours of gaming… or just a few minutes, since you hit disconnect and got requeued.