Guild Wars 2

Simply requeue repeatedly. It seems to get around the bug in the queuing system. Queue, wait 5-10 minutes, requeue.

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

purplestone.8364:

I like it. Or they could just eliminate any kind of point system so there isnt the feeling of omg were down by x amount of points, lets just give up. Instead it would be omg x server has all our stuff! Lets go get it back and regain dominance. However there could be an internal point system that Anet uses to match servers up and the end of the period, we just dont have to see it. So there would still be “top” WvW servers, but no one ever really wins or loses, just a constant fight for control of territory.

My idea of eliminating any sort of points system was for exactly this reason.

Once the server groupings stabilize, there’s no need for the matchmaking system anymore, so the resets can be eliminated, too.

I prefer just eliminating match resets (once the server groupings have stabilized) so the battles are perpetual.

Then eliminate any sort of points system altogether. The focus becomes orb control (like relics were in DAoC).

This would of course require orb control bonuses to be reworked a bit to make them more attractive.

Crise.9401:

mcl.9240:

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I’d prefer that, once the server groupings have stabilized, they remove the reset and scoring altogether, and just make it perpetual.

So the carrot to dominate the other servers would be just for the sake of kicking their faces in, don’t seem like an incentive worth to anyone but the most hardcore prideful players.

Perpetual, sandboxy, matches would be kinda nice though… but doubt it would work out.

The carrot would be the orb bonuses. They may need to be modified, but that would be the carrot. That and the XP/Karma/badges/gold from killing the enemy and completing events.

The more I think about it, the more I think this makes sense, and would make WvWvW more fun:

1) Eventually disable free server transfer
2) wait for WvWvW server groupings to stabilize
3) Once 1 and 2 occur, remove the scoring and the two-week reset from WvWvW. Make it a perpetual battle, in which control of the orbs (and the bonuses therefrom) are the major objective, and the battle is over the ebb and flow of orb control.

The reason I suggest this is because I’m coming to believe the scoring system and match resets are detrimental to the ability for players to maintain interest in WvWvW.

With the scoring system in place (which is really only necessary for the matchmaking system; once the groupings stabilize it will become superfluous), players use it as a gauge for whether or not to participate in WvWvW. If your server is too far behind, players simply don’t join WvWvW. And the score has a chilling effect on participation for the losing servers for the entire match period. Players simply wait for the reset before trying again, rather than getting into WvWvW and attempting to regain lost ground.

Remove the scoring system and the resets (which are also mostly a vestige of the matchmaking system) after the groupings stabilize, and the dynamic changes from one of, “well, we’re too far behind, I’ll just wait for the reset” to one of, “hey, that other server took our orbs, let’s go get them back!”

Gigachip.9473:

SteepledHat.1345:

Lol, you should try playing on TC or maguuma. It would change your perspective.

I’ve played an under populated realm in DAoC for many years. I know how its like to be dominated. Its just how WvW is supposed to be played.

I think his point was that on the losing servers, /team is filled with a bunch of people arguing about what to do, half a dozen different people calling out conflicting orders, and another half-dozen or so calling for support at places nobody was supposed to be trying to take or hold. Toss into the mix the people who are sitting in /team doing nothing but complaining about how much the server sucks, and how there’s never anyone around to organize things, and you’ve got a recipe for, well, chaos.

You end up with the forces scattered all over the map, everyone doing their own thing, nobody with enough strength to actually accomplish anything, and no overarching strategy whatsoever.

Last night was particularly fun, as two hours was spent arguing the finer points of whether or not a particular supply point should be taken and held, or just taken and lost over and over again to aggravate DB.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I’d prefer that, once the server groupings have stabilized, they remove the reset and scoring altogether, and just make it perpetual.

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Alphaone.6345:

Soutalgon.3827:

TC/Mag are just so demoralized they dont queue, dont have the numbers or dedication to win and use inferior tactics. .

This. Especially the tactics part. I can say that TC for one are actually good players individually. However, there is no leadership or any form of cohesive effort I can see currently on TC. Hell I cant remember the last time I saw a commander for one thing.

Morale is at an all time low too. TC is supposed to have one of the larger alliances, the AWC but heck if I ever saw any member guilds wvwing, well, ever. Maybe people just need to chill out, lose gracefully, and hope to come back in round 2.

That’s the biggest problem. The alliance guilds don’t seem to want to play when they can’t be guaranteed a win. Which makes having the alliance sort of pointless.

You do realize that they will eventually be 14-day matches, right?

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Yes, I think the ranking system will fix it. I find it funny that until this post you thought I was on one of the servers that has a highly-organized nighttime team.

The one problem with placeholder textures is that it makes identification of enemy professions difficult/impossible unless and until they use their skills. And if they’re close enough to use their skills, it’s too late for that information to be much use (and by then the real textures probably will have loaded as well).

Being able to scout an enemy group and make a decent guess at least in terms of ele/mesmer/necro vs. guardian/warrior/engineer/ranger/thief before they’re on top of you is helpful. Only part of that can be determined via pets. The rest is armor and weapons, and race can sometimes help as well (e.g., there seem to be a lot of asura engineers and elementalists).

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

Yoke.4671:

people need to stop posting their PC specs, it has NOTHING to do with your hardware it is all client/server side.
Anet really need to address it and let us know its gona be fixed or worked on, or as i fear its working as intended and at least tell us that t

They did address it, and they did say that they’re trying to figure out how to fix it.

It can also be answered by, “they were all standing on top of each other because it’s becoming a standard tactic servers use to take advantage of the culling to sneak into the midst of a group of enemy and kill them before anyone ever sees them, thanks to the culling.”

It’s not a mesmer portal. The devs just acknowledged this problem last night, said they were aware of it, and they’re trying to figure out the best way to fix it.

Habib -
Thank you VERY much for taking the time to not only acknowledge the problem, but to provide a detailed explanation as well. I and I’m sure others who have had this happen to them are glad to know you’re aware of and looking at possible solutions to the problem.

Thank you!

Ohoni.6057:

like say you have a group member everyone calls “Dot” for whatever reason… you try to type “Dot come” but typo and say “Dot com” instead suddenly your whole message sensors because it was interpreted as a website linking attempt.

Yeah, but as you note it’s only likely to result from a typo, and it’s something that people could fairly easily work around if it was a known issue. I mean, typos can happen all the time when you have characters like “Schmit,” “Duck,” etc., you can’t design your censoring mechanisms to ignore potential typos.

Not to mention the fact that they could simply use an IP or an integer in place of the domain name. Both resolve as well as domain names.

You’d have to filter out all integers.

I bet if they were clever they could design the system to filter out anything that resulted from “###.###.###.###”, or something along those lines, nobody would be typing out IP address configurations of numbers and periods unless they were trying to depict an IP address, and if they were, they should stop it. And of course any system they put into place, gold farmers could figure out a way around it, but so long as it doesn’t cause significant problems to normal players, it would be worth the effort.

At the very least they could use filters that detect net addresses and automatically report the post. Yes, they would get “innocent” uses of web addresses in the net, but they could manually filter each of those out, I’m sure they would catch a much higher ratio of gold farmers than legitimate uses, especially if they had a second filtering process that prioritized duplicate posts.

You missed my point. Stub resolvers treat integers as valid, because they get converted to dotted-quad internally. People wishing to advertise a website could simply tell people to visit http://1134830191/gw2gold .

You’d have to filter any mention of any number.

NOTE: That’s not actually a gold-seller website. It’s just an example, using an integer that successfully converts to a valid IP address.

People on high end computers, with high end cards from nVidia AND ATi/AMD have this problem. It’s not anything to do with anyone’s computers except the servers GW2 runs on.

“.com” is a top-level domain, or TLD. There are, according to a survey done by NANOG members in March 2012, 313 TLDs currently. A website can exist in any of them. And with ICANN allowing many more new gTLDs, that number will rapidly grow into the thousands.

Not to mention the fact that they could simply use an IP or an integer in place of the domain name. Both resolve as well as domain names.

You’d have to filter out all integers.

And this doesn’t begin to get into ways to mask domain names using Unicode.

Another this evening: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/The-real-problem-here-is-invisible-enemies-Give-their-algorithms-time-to-match-servers-properly

It’s not a client-side issue or a driver issue. It’s a server-side optimization. This is, I believe, the 25th thread on the issue, and they haven’t acknowledged it yet. See https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/BUG-Mobs-and-players-suddenly-appearing-pop-in

nilco.8457:

mcl.9240:

Slamz.5376:

Lax.4730:

You guys need to chill out. The servers will be re-matched and the large servers with 24 hour populations will end playing each other each week..

That balance didn’t occur after numerous 1-day rounds. Why do you think a single 1-week round with fix it?

Players keep transferring so there’s no guarantee that a server that did well last round and got promoted to a new tier is actually justified in being there. Similarly, there will be lower pop servers dropping down to lower tiers who will suddenly dominate because a few big guilds moved there to avoid the queues.

Server balance will remain in flux until free transfers are ended.

Numerous? There are 24 NA servers. That’s 120 possible combinations.

There have been 10 server groupings since launch.

That’s hardly “numerous”, and not nearly enough for the matchmaking system to have settled into stable groupings. The fact that free server transfers are still enabled compounds that problem.

Wait 3 months, or more. Then complain about groupings. But not while the groupings are changing for almost every server, every time the groupings have the opportunity to change.

This thread my friend is not about “most” server it pertains to top servers, where this problem happens. As I previously stated as the nr2 ranked server we arent going to be matched against anyone other then the nr1 server and nr3 server.

Then perhaps you need to wait until the queuing bug is fixed.

If you still have the problem, then you’re either wrong about how many people are in your server’s WvWvW, or you are simply upset that you’re losing.

Thrumdi.9216:

Yes, but every 2 weeks WvW stops.

Thus, no great principle is broken if at midnight very day WvW stops, or is modified, reset, using new scoring etc. We are only debating the degree of persistence WvW should have.

Any modification of the 24 hour cycle should, however, try to balance the best results for players who play at the different times.

Right now, it stops every week, not every two.

And the balancing will come in the coming months, as the matchmaking system has a chance to settle on stable server groupings. That probably won’t happen until a month or two after they disable free server transfers, though.

nilco.8457:

mcl.9240:

You can’t possibly make any claims based on WvWvW participation, since you don’t have access to that data.

The only problems with WvWvW as things currently stand:

1) People log in, see their server is losing, and don’t bother to participate in WvWvW.
2) People get into WvWvW, see their server is losing, and quit WvWvW.
3) People participating in WvWvW on losing servers are disorganized.
4) People participating in WvWvW on losing servers would prefer a game mechanic to solve their problem, rather than put forth the effort to recruit more people on their server to play WvWvW, forge guild alliances, forge cross-server alliances with the other losing server, etc.

I assert there is not a single server in GW2 that has so few people that they cannot field enough players in WvWvW to hit the population cap in WvWvW.

Given that, the problem is not server population. The problem is the number of people on your server playing. Not just when you claim nobody is on and the other server is “night-capping”, but during prime time as well. You’re not losing at night; you’re losing because you’re not fielding enough people at any given time, and the ones you ARE fielding would rather give up than stay and fight.

Wait what? Are you by chance r-e-t-a-r-d-e-d?

“You can’t possibly make any claims based on WvWvW participation, since you don’t have access to that data.” And there you sit making such claims yourself? What the mother kitten hell?

The problem as I see it is that during the night many servers WONT fill 4 borderlands, the servers might say “full” but the players aren’t in WvWvW, and as a player there is NOTHING I can do to make them join and fill the WvWvW.

And to the people saying we just need to wait 1 week to be rematches, thats NOT how the system works. As the second best EU server we will NOT get matches against anyone other then the nr.1 and nr.3 server.

Ignoring your abusive comments, if your server is claiming that the WvWvW is full and you don’t have the actual population cap in your maps (and I’m sure you’ve personally run the breadth and depth of each and every map numerous times, counting heads to verify this), then use the in-game reporting to file a bug.

However, they’re already aware that WvWvW queuing is broken, and they’re going to implement a fix soon. That’s the official word.

Until then, the only thing you can do is be patient.

Slamz.5376:

Lax.4730:

You guys need to chill out. The servers will be re-matched and the large servers with 24 hour populations will end playing each other each week..

That balance didn’t occur after numerous 1-day rounds. Why do you think a single 1-week round with fix it?

Players keep transferring so there’s no guarantee that a server that did well last round and got promoted to a new tier is actually justified in being there. Similarly, there will be lower pop servers dropping down to lower tiers who will suddenly dominate because a few big guilds moved there to avoid the queues.

Server balance will remain in flux until free transfers are ended.

Numerous? There are 24 NA servers. That’s 120 possible combinations.

There have been 10 server groupings since launch.

That’s hardly “numerous”, and not nearly enough for the matchmaking system to have settled into stable groupings. The fact that free server transfers are still enabled compounds that problem.

Wait 3 months, or more. Then complain about groupings. But not while the groupings are changing for almost every server, every time the groupings have the opportunity to change.

You are not forced to attack the front or main gate. The walls are destructible.

The other day, my server took back our garrison by ignoring the gate and quickly taking out a wall.

You can’t possibly make any claims based on WvWvW participation, since you don’t have access to that data.

The only problems with WvWvW as things currently stand:

1) People log in, see their server is losing, and don’t bother to participate in WvWvW.
2) People get into WvWvW, see their server is losing, and quit WvWvW.
3) People participating in WvWvW on losing servers are disorganized.
4) People participating in WvWvW on losing servers would prefer a game mechanic to solve their problem, rather than put forth the effort to recruit more people on their server to play WvWvW, forge guild alliances, forge cross-server alliances with the other losing server, etc.

I assert there is not a single server in GW2 that has so few people that they cannot field enough players in WvWvW to hit the population cap in WvWvW.

Given that, the problem is not server population. The problem is the number of people on your server playing. Not just when you claim nobody is on and the other server is “night-capping”, but during prime time as well. You’re not losing at night; you’re losing because you’re not fielding enough people at any given time, and the ones you ARE fielding would rather give up than stay and fight.

Chronologist.9782:

mcl.9240:

I just don’t get the reasoning here. The game has been out for less than a month. Why are people trying to change an aspect of it before the matchmaking system has even reached a stable set of matches?

You can’t possibly call WvWvW boring already. Lopsided? Perhaps. But again, the matchmaking system hasn’t had enough time to settle on a stable set of server groupings. The lopsidedness of the groupings will disappear over time.

But trying to change WvWvW after three weeks on the basis that people are bored? Nonsense.

3 weeks after MMO release on this scale is very critical point for lot of MMO players on whether they want to stay or not.

All the incentives ANet is throwing to WvWvW players seem lacking, this is a valid point. This is not trying to change fundamental idea of how WvWvW should work, RvR Rank could be just title

I agree with the poster above you: I don’t want to see something like that in GW2. WvWvW is about serverwide accomplishment, not individual accomplishment. And I don’t want to see another grind added into WvWvW, nor any mechanism that allows individuals in WvWvW to become more powerful than an existing 80 with exotics.

If people want to grind for cosmetic differences in WvWvW, that already exists today, and will likely be expanded over time.

Perhaps at some point in the not-too-distant future we could see some official server-specific subforums?

It’d greatly aid in developing a sense of community within a server, and also provide an appropriate place for members of a given server to organize guild alliances for things like WvWvW, discuss server-specific issues, and so forth.

Just a thought.

I just don’t get the reasoning here. The game has been out for less than a month. Why are people trying to change an aspect of it before the matchmaking system has even reached a stable set of matches?

You can’t possibly call WvWvW boring already. Lopsided? Perhaps. But again, the matchmaking system hasn’t had enough time to settle on a stable set of server groupings. The lopsidedness of the groupings will disappear over time.

But trying to change WvWvW after three weeks on the basis that people are bored? Nonsense.

I don’t think using WAR as a model for how to implement WvWvW is a particularly good idea, seeing as how people found WAR’s endgame so poor that they would intentionally reroll just to RvR in the lower-level areas, or just quit the game entirely.

I agree that RvR in WAR was fun, and I really, really wanted WAR to succeed, but I think one should think long and hard about how and why WAR RvR failed before borrowing any of their mechanics.

I “tried the same thing yesterday”? You mean disagreeing with your idea?

Yes, this is a discussion forum. People will in fact disagree with you here. I happen not to like the idea of turning WvWvW into something it isn’t. It’s fun as it stands. You’re trying to redesign the endgame before the vast majority of people have even hit endgame.

Mog.1589:

When you play WvW you get Honor Badges, money, loot, karma, xp, gathered mats. Hate to break it to you man but the rewards in WvW are the same as PvE. Literally exactly the same.

In fact in PvE you get tokens for killing dungeon bosses. In WvW you get tokens by killing kitten. At the moment they do not have much you can buy for these just 1 skin but I am sure they will offer more stuff over time.

I dunno why people seem to think WvW is less rewarding. It is literally no different then PvE.

He thinks nobody will play WvWvW unless they can be better than everyone else through rewards. It’s a typical mentality from a certain other MMO.

I don’t think we need to see all 120 matchups before the matchups stabilize, but I also don’t think 10 out of 120 possible matchups is anywhere near stable.

You don’t have the information to determine whether the transfers are having an impact, but ArenaNet does.

Also, I’d prefer that people play WvWvW because they want to play WvWvW, not because they turn WvWvW into a “I’ve got better gear/higher level than you” game.

The whole point of WvWvW is that everyone’s on equal footing, modulo gear, and even gear is maxed out after a while.

Didn’t you post the exact same idea here? https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/A-point-system-for-WvW-so-its-more-of-a-Endgame

Mog.1589:

Hey OP ya know an attitude like that is why your server is probably losing. People who “Just give up” because they are losing so much are a big cause of your servers troubles.

This.

When people are losing WvWvW, they either leave WvWvW or don’t queue in the first place.

When people are winning WvWvW, they remain in queue, or stay in WvWvW.

The result? You hand the winning server an overwhelming victory, rather than staying and trying to fight tooth and nail to regain ground.

Also, the current data (from the 24 hour matches and the single 1 week match) used to determine matchups have all been obtained while free transfers are in effect. People are still server-hopping like crazy.

Which, in my mind as someone who has studied statistics at the Master’s and Ph.D level makes the data invalid for the purpose of matchmaking, since a good many people are changing servers based on the WvWvW score for a given match. They’ve got a confound in their variables; the IV isn’t independent.

Be that as it may, the data they have is insufficient at this time to produce stable matchups. And will be for some time. At a bare minimum, until several weeks after they disable free transfers.

Lappdancer.4857:

mcl.9240:

There is a system in place to encourage balancing: The matchmaking system. It’s three weeks old, and has not had enough time yet to stabilize. It will need several months, most likely.

You’re demanding a fix NOW for something that is designed to work itself out over time, and most likely won’t be a problem once matches have stabilized.

I’m not demanding anything. Offering suggestions and opinions.

We’ve already had 10 iterations of matchmaking and the servers are no where close to balanced according to this thread. I don’t really expect much of a difference going forward. I’m sure pretty much every server can pick the group of 4-5 others that they are going to be playing.

You expect 10 matches to be sufficient? It isn’t. There are 120 possible matchups among 24 servers.

shortcake.8659:

the matchmaking system will never fix it and even trying to justify that is borderline moronic.

different time zones per server cause extreme imbalances and they’ll never line that up perfectly.

dynamic population restriction fixes most issues, and if you’re ever stuck in a queue with free transfers available it’s only your own fault.

You have no proof of any claim you just made, and are insisting on changes to WvWvW. Whereas my solution (wait until the matchups stabilize over the period of a few months) requires only patience.

My idea: Give the matchmaking system enough time (several months) to stabilize the match-ups before people run around demanding changes to WvWvW.

Indeed. There’s no problem here yet as the matchmaking system is only three weeks old. Let the system have a few months to stabilize matches, and THEN (and only then) start examining whether or not there is a real problem here.

Right now, the only problem I see is certain servers gaming the matchmaking system for intentional advantage by throwing matches.

There is a system in place to encourage balancing: The matchmaking system. It’s three weeks old, and has not had enough time yet to stabilize. It will need several months, most likely.

You’re demanding a fix NOW for something that is designed to work itself out over time, and most likely won’t be a problem once matches have stabilized.

neoxide.7320:

I think team populations should be equalized in some way. If you’re being punished by queue, transfer to a new world without a queue.. The real people who are punished are the worlds with less population that wake up every morning to see the high pop world owns 95% of the territory.

I will make the following statement: There is no server that has such a low population that it cannot reach the maximum number of players allowed in WvWvW.

However, there are servers in which so few people are playing WvWvW that it seems like the servers with more people on them always win.

The problem here is that the servers with low participation rates need to motivate more people to play WvWvW.

Ness.3846:

Bellok.4180:

The population cap needs to be variable and based upon the server that has the least amount of people in WvW. The system should evaluate all server populations in WvW every minute and block entry to new people, and maybe even dump some people on a server that is significantly more manned than others while competing in WvW. This is the only fair way to do it. If people want to play night crew and do not like the queue to get in they should look for undermanned servers during the night time to transfer to. This is the only fair way to do this. Period.

oh yes very good solution!

At the opening we will take care to return to our map and quickly take a fortress on the other map. And then we can all disconnect and wait the end of the week.

Precisely. People fail to recognize the various ways this sort of mechanic can be used to gain advantage.

oldthrall.7823:

ecwoodrow.7034:

oldthrall.7823:

mcl.9240:

oldthrall.7823:

What I’m saying is that the way WvW is right now limits you from using your skills to much…I should be able to knock people down the wall yet it doesn’t work and I have a shadowstep I should be able to port to people above…so if they take the fun out of this then add in ladders…but they didn’t do it.

And I have magic. I should be able to turn the entire opposing force into ants.

You’re stretching the metaphor too far. Which is why metaphors are generally a poor tool for argumentation.

I don’t think I am stretching it too far…why do we pretend we are fighting a real war in a game? if not then why not give us player names

Player names A) are irrelevant and put strain on servers.

It isn’t irrelevant. Mike Ferguson justified his reason for not showing player names because WvW was designed to mirror real war.

And you took that far too literally. If it was truly designed to mirror real war, matches would take years, you’d almost never see the enemy, you’d be forced to eat regularly, you’d have to worry about sanitation and hygiene, you’d need much more complicated supply logistics than moving dolyaks from point A to point B, you’d have to deal with fatigue, you’d have mental and physical wounds, death would be permanent, and you’d have to spend months traveling just to reach the site of the battle.

Like I said, you’re taking what he said FAR too literally.

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Preventing people from playing during certain hours isn’t a punishment? Perhaps only because from your point of view, you would gain an advantage from that situation.

Nobody is doing anything “bad”. The developers made free transfers available, and in their judgment they decided to leave them available even after changing the match times from 24 hours to 1 week.

EVERYONE can use those free transfers, yourself included. You chose not to. This is one of the consequences of your choice. At least until the ranking system settles. 3 weeks of matches (with only one week of 1-week matches) isn’t long enough for it to have settled. You’re complaining about a situation that will be fixed by the matching mechanism over time. The situation will not exist once the matchups have settled to a more stable state.

Well we’ll see wont we. I doubt the ranking system is going to equalize this mess.

Whether you doubt it or not, lobbying for changes before it’s had a chance to be proven one way or another is pointless. Three weeks isn’t nearly enough time. Six months is more reasonable. I’m sure the devs have some timeframe in mind in which they will have considered the rankings to have stabilized.

What you fail to see is that this game will be much more competitive if the international guilds were more spread out amongst the other servers, instead of being horded on the highest ranking servers.

What you fail to see is that your statement, which I quote here, is asking someone to force certain people to play on certain servers.

This game is competitive. Your server may not be. There are myriad reasons your server isn’t competitive, but the very last item on the quite long list of reasons should be “game mechanics”, if that item should be on the list at all (and I don’t think it should).

Bellok.4180:

It’s not preventing people from playing for one thing. If someone wants to play in WvWvW and they have long queue times due to the fact they moved to a higher ranking server they have just as much ability to transfer to server that is less busy. It is generally wrong when you have only a few servers fielding the bulk of international players, it needs to be evened out. You’ll find that there will be much more competition amongst the servers this way, and probably a lot more fun to boot. However I have a feeling you are afraid of competition, that is why you greatly oppose this idea.

Yes, I’m clearly afraid of competition. That’s why my server loses so much.

You want to reduce the number of people who are able to play during the times that you are able to play. That’s preventing people from playing. Not everyone lives on your schedule. Forget Europeans and Asians for a minute. Think about American shift workers. You’re going to punish them because they don’t work 9-5, or go to school during the day (and if you’re in school, you get the luxury of choosing your own schedule [assuming you’re in college], and being able to play much earlier than those who work a day job. Not to mention your spring and summer breaks.)

It’s a persistent world. That means things happen when you’re not logged in. The world does not and should not revolve around you.