Chaith now playing Rev in pro league, rip engi meta
I find it amazing that BG was coming in dead last for months. MONTHS. Getting absolutely smoked in scoring (mainly due to YB back/night capping playing the PPT game). Then, for 3 weeks BG reversed the tables and its suddenly the ‘no one can compete with BG’ argument? People are raging against the coverage BG has now. Well didnt YB have that same covered for months while they were winning by 100k points each week? Where did they go? They are still there,
No they aren’t, all the guilds that took YB to T1 have left, mainly for TC. This is then coupled with the fact that BG clearly still has a large dormant WvW population which never left the server and which came back for the recent WvW changes. Plus transfers to ET of idiot players wanting to ride the bandwagon.
Omg this necro thread. That’s more shocking than me being on the forums at this time.
FYI we know all the builds now. And it’s got so much worse since HoT. I really hope the new management can turn things around…
No new management on balance team.
Locking host servers and leaving guests open with no time frame for re-linking is pretty lame. It was hinted every 3 months, but that was not concrete and will NEVER work since it is only around 100g to transfer.
With the current system they need to raise the transfer cost to a flat price at the highest level and redo server linkages at least every month.
Due to server stacking on the lower ranked servers and the low transfer price, its become absolutely apparent that server linkages need to be reviewed and changed far more often than 3 months. Its should be 4 weeks at most.
Are people really transferring to ET? If that’s the case then nothing Anet will ever do will matter. Because people truly are stupid.
Spot on, its why Anet needs to look at ways of stopping stacking. For a start they could review server linkages far more often than every 3 months.
People whine about leaked patch notes like it’s some kind of insider trading that needs the SEC to investigate. No, it’s not. Everyone saw the leaked notes. Everyone had the same chance to take advantage of that information. If your server didn’t that’s your problem, not Anet’s and most certainly not the players on other servers.
People saw the notes before they were even leaked though.
Uh… ok?
Did that sound better in your head before it reached the forums? Because I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. The pairings were leaked but they were leaked before they were leaked?
I mean some players clearly saw the notes before they were put on pastebin for all to see and were able to act on them with their guild.
Next week
Dev response is in post
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/PvP-Season-3-Amulet-Changes
And still no details.
People whine about leaked patch notes like it’s some kind of insider trading that needs the SEC to investigate. No, it’s not. Everyone saw the leaked notes. Everyone had the same chance to take advantage of that information. If your server didn’t that’s your problem, not Anet’s and most certainly not the players on other servers.
People saw the notes before they were even leaked though.
It is not for anet to balance servers. That is 100% the responsibility of the players.
Human nature being what it is you can’t rely on this in such a structured game mode that is exploited by stacking
BG came out of hibergate mode and will probably go back into it soon enough.
Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.
Changes to Match Structure:
- We’ll split the week long matches into 2 hour time slices we are calling ‘Skirmishes’
- Warscore is used to determine the winner of a Skirmish
- Skirmishes award varying amounts of Victory Points based on placement
- Victory Points are used to determine Match victor
- When a Skirmish ends, Warscore is reset, but actual map-state remains unchanged
And PPK:
*The amount of score earned from PPK will be increased, so that it contributes more to the overall score.
*As a rough number, PPK may increase to 3-5 points, rather than 1, with diminishing returns on killing players who have been alive for less than 5 minutes.
*We will also rebalance the Warscore for Caravan Kills, Caravan Delivery and Sentry Captures.
This explanation really should have been included in the poll itself.
This poll is extremely ambiguous. What does adjust scoring based on population mean? It is a reference to the OPTIONAL proposal in Tyler’s post about scoring which was not meant to be looked at until the other options had been implemented?
Given that we had a poll to look at scoring followed up by Tyler’s post why is this poll even necessary? Shouldn’t you be looking at implementing what Tyler stated rather than breaking it down even further?
ETA ok I’ve seen the explanation in Tyler’s thread but I still wonder why this poll is even necessary, just implement what Tyler stated you were going to in total rather than piecemeal. You seem to be taking the idea of polling to an extreme.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Sidenote: Don’t know where these people get night capping as a OCX thing to do…
SoX……….
Yes SoX do raid during the NA night so……………………
I feel like we won’t get major changes until expansion 2 drops.
Er yeah and that will be more OP elite specs to sell the xpac, rinse and repeat.
I hate the night capping. If your server is kitten during NA Prime, there’s no chance of coming back cos the PPT will nerfed for Euro/ OCE/ SEA time, making American players more important than the rest of us.
And because they’re no Oceania/Asia servers, we’re kittening screwed no matter whether we’re in an european or american server.
That part is only a proposal at this stage and whether its implemented or not will depend on a poll to be run in the future and I guess anet’s interpretation of the feedback they have gotten.
For map populations, he means it depends on how active the map is at any given time. I assume it means how big is the population disparity between servers during a skirmish since Tyler says “to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score multiplier low by exiting WvW”. So we can say if the disparity is large, the action level is low (1x). One server may have 40 people while the other two have only 5. If the disparity is low, the action level is high (3x). All three servers in a match have relatively equal numbers. This seems to incentivize players into making teams of roughly equal size.
I assumed it meant total players across all 3 servers and all maps.
This entire thread fails at reading comprehension.
(And I don’t have the energy to even begin to try to correct it, it would take more text than I could fit into a single post.)
I would guess that you mean the fact that the prime and off hours multiplier is an optional, possible addition after the main changes and that they will have a poll on it.
I don’t think that means the discussion is wasted. It has given anet a good idea on where the community stands on it now and it has provided worthwhile suggestions for possible alternative methods, most of which are better than the anet proposal.
You’re not really arguing for equality though. The current scoring system is designed for teams of equal size. That doesn’t happen in WvW, which alienates players right now. We can assume there will always be some form of population disparity, which creates the whole point of the scoring discussion, create a system that is designed for teams of unequal size. Any asymmetrical scoring system is going to be unequal precisely because the team sizes are unequal. It doesn’t matter if the system adds a multiplier for NA prime, or uses time-sliced skirmishes with set Victory points which devalue score differentials, or if it adjusts point values based on real-time map population through outnumbered buff or other similar means. Every proposal here devalues players on one side in some way. There will be pockets of players that always will be “alienated” by an asymmetrical scoring system until population shifts. What JQ is discussing internally is irrelevant.
I disagree, some of the proposals take account of differences in total population and activity level without making those in off hours feel discriminated against and devalued as the anet proposal does. It could be that the effect on the final score and result is not that much different but perception is reality
As for JQ I only mentioned it because you seemed to imply that JQ was worrying about this and using it as a cover when they should be dealing with other issues, this is not the case.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
And hopefully this makes DB perish from tier 1 and we can get the dream matchup FA/BG/TC and have a real fight tier .
TC in a fight tier?
And yet here you are, posting in defense of off-hours that are stacked more than your NA while ignoring that your NA would benefit from having their playtime hours valued more or at least not being pushed up into a tier they cannot compete in. I’m not saying that preferencing NA prime is the best solution, rather that WvW interests as a whole should be placed above server interests. Population balance really comes down to players, not Anet. The changes that were implemented is Anet trying to circumvent something that was player-created. Servers with more non-NA players than NA players is cause of player choices. Servers can be in score/glicko balance with each other due to population asymmetry. It creates a boring WvW playstyle though. Is that the right thing to advocate for?
Do you really think its not in the interests of the game as a whole to promote equality for all players regardless of timezone? For JQ its situation brings the issue into sharper focus than other servers but that doesn’t make the point invalid. Also you have no idea whats being discussed by JQ internally.
As for being player created humans will always make bad choices, just look at the kitten alliance, its up to anet to mitigate against that. Designs have been propose din this thread that are perfectly reasonable alternatives but don’t run the risk of alienating non NA prime players.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Did any of you whining about OCX/SEA being discriminated against even read the initial post? It says prime time will tick some modifier (3 in the example) and the other time slots will tick anywhere from 3 to 1, depending on the population.
Yes so the overall NA score contribution could be 3 times as high.
TLDR: it’s not a “night time” issue. it’s a population balance issue. designing around a set time period that does not reflect the play time of all or some players is unfair and will only server to further the imbalance and alienate more players.
You’re 100% spot on its not that players contributions are worth more its that there’s no matching opponents on the other servers, population mismatches. Its 1 reason why the server model is so poor for this type of mode.
If they are not going to make fundamental changes to the mode to add the flexibility needed then they need to adopt a scoring model that reflects the fact that there might be mismatches because the proposed solution takes no account of it at all. There have been multiple solutions posted in this thread including yours that anet seriously need to look at.
How is WvW population even calculated, im from JQ and there is hardly any people here.
Depends what tz you play. JQ has very few EU, low NA relative to the other top servers, competitive OCX and high SEA.
Abysmal, extremely poor viewer numbers that are dropping, teams that aren’t taking it seriously, a small number of players that are somewhat incestuous and poor balance and diversity.
JQ may not be “full” for NA prime time anymore now that a decent bit of their guilds went to TC, but they still have some pretty impressive coverage at other times.
JQ fell to high status just prior to the server linking not even very high so no its definitely not full.
When will anet realize, that amulets are not the (main) issue?
As mentioned in the OP, there will be a few balance changes coming next week as well, but runes/sigils/amulets are one of the things the PvP team can change on our own without impacting the rest of the game. To be clear: the PvP team, just like fractals/raids/wvw/etc, does not handle profession balance – there is a separate team for that.
But amulets are added or deleted for balance reasons. Surely they work together? And if certain balance changes are made then an amulet wouldn’t need to be deleted.
Thanks for the comms, Gaile, we definitely appreciate it. Any update on when Season 3 starts? We’re all dying to know.
Next week.
In that case when will details about matchmaking changes be released?
The people actively playing in these timezones for months/years obviously dont want a more active environment, or else they wouldnt pvdoor for months/years. If they wanted it they would transfer to other Servers so each Server has an equal amount of Players during night providing “Action”.
But they dont and thus prefer PvDoor.
You’re just being needlessly dismissive. OCX players for one have never been players who want to PvD by and large. And most did migrate up the tiers.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
“Rip Ocx/sea” and similiar comments make me laugh.
There are ways of doing it without making ocx, sea and eu players feel disregarded and devalued many of which have been suggested in this thread.
Working as intended. The plan is for you to want to transfer to a host server that is full. You will then pay 500 gems to transfer to the guest server of that host. After 4 months, you will get linked to a different host server and pay 500 gems again to transfer to the new guest server of the host server that you like. As a result, you will spend 500 gems every four months in order to play with the host server that you want.
Would hope that was not the intent of Anet, if it was I would quit the game.
TBH being able to transfer to the lower ranked servers in a matchup is not an answer anyway cause of the dynamic nature of server linking.
it is the answer when the goal is for overall population balance. By filling up the lower ranked servers they can eventually become competitive by themselves without needing to be linked to a higher tier server.
You really think the overall population is enough to fill 24 servers? 12 servers is probably too many nowadays. If anet really think the mode can sustain 24 servers……………….
Working as intended. The plan is for you to want to transfer to a host server that is full. You will then pay 500 gems to transfer to the guest server of that host. After 4 months, you will get linked to a different host server and pay 500 gems again to transfer to the new guest server of the host server that you like. As a result, you will spend 500 gems every four months in order to play with the host server that you want.
Would hope that was not the intent of Anet, if it was I would quit the game.
TBH being able to transfer to the lower ranked servers in a matchup is not an answer anyway cause of the dynamic nature of server linking.
forum bug <15 chars>
Name these 3 servers that have more OSX/SEA than NA.
JQ currently for one.
I think ArenaNet really needs to confirm if bonuses will be based on an ever-changing time which is dependent on population activity, or if they will be limited to fixed times that never change. The original announcement doesn’t really make this clear, and that’s where most of the complaining is coming from.
Its limited to a fixed 6 hour time period during NA peak. There may be an adjustment if the population during another time period is high but it remains to be seen how this would work and how it would trigger.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
I would guess they’re still working on the matchmaking changes.
We want to improve scoring for a few big reasons:
- Reduce the need for 24 hour coverage by reducing the effects of off-hours capping (night capping)
[…]- In conjunction with population rebalancing, updating Scoring allows us to decide a winner of a match more fairly, and thus reward players more fairly
As an Aust. player on a server where the NA population is smaller than most your proposal will alienate non NA players, you should do 1 of the following which have all been mentioned by others:
-base the scoring on time slices reflective of each major timezone;
-base the scoring on the relative size of the total population for the matchup on a dynamic basis;
-do more to balance the population, balanced populations will ensure scoring is even. This would require you do more to change the mode than your current proposals but drastic measures are needed.
Upgraded Objectives Score Higher
- Each tier of objective upgrade increases the amount of score per tick
- The goal is to incentivize defending your upgraded objectives and assaulting opposing upgraded objectives
In practical terms having coming up against a server like YB this is just going to encourage turtling inside keeps and towers behind siege and tactics even more than now. Siege and tactics should all be drastically nerfed to encourage more active defending.
[quote=6145749;Tyler Bearce.3427:][quote=6145749;Tyler Bearce.3427:][quote=6146251;Ulion.5476:]
(edited by morrolan.9608)
WL/HIRE defs giving us OCX players a lot of fights/fun. Props to fighting and not 100% nuthugging siege liek YB did in T1 and running away like SoX all day every day.
- casul BG #pug
Sox only refuses to engage when you outnumber us significantly. Pretty funny to get knm pming us for fights only to show up with 50 players to our 15-20.
Why isn’t there an official feedback thread on the ABL like there is for the other changes? Another issue with them is the tactivators, the abilities are clearly designed for a larger area that the DBL towers and keeps are rather than the smaller ABL eg. the watchtower tactic that is spread far too wide. Why weren’t these changed? Its simply unprofessional IMO.
Pretty much all of that. I’m on BG, only reason I went to BG is because roaming was super dead in every tier except tier 1. I like it there, but I’m not going to pretend I have any loyalty to any server – if stuff gets boring, I’ll transfer again some day lol. I’ve transferred 16 times (I think? Maybe more) between my 2 accounts. Transferring guilds happens a lot, people just need to realize that lol.
Its hardly just a guild transferring servers though. Its organising for multiple guilds to transfer to the same server and then hypocritically trying to claim that its for the good of the game overall, followed up by more hypocrisy in claiming other guilds should spread amongst different servers.
Groups of guilds jump ship all the time (bandwagoners). So it’s only the hypocrisy that bothers you?
No its also that it has a deleterious effect on the mode.
Pretty much all of that. I’m on BG, only reason I went to BG is because roaming was super dead in every tier except tier 1. I like it there, but I’m not going to pretend I have any loyalty to any server – if stuff gets boring, I’ll transfer again some day lol. I’ve transferred 16 times (I think? Maybe more) between my 2 accounts. Transferring guilds happens a lot, people just need to realize that lol.
Its hardly just a guild transferring servers though. Its organising for multiple guilds to transfer to the same server and then hypocritically trying to claim that its for the good of the game overall, followed up by more hypocrisy in claiming other guilds should spread amongst different servers.
You seriously have to ask why? LOL.
WvW Is PvP. The Difference between it and Instanced is the lack of control of population on each side. Other then that it’s basically the same.
Its not really the same as far as balancing goes. Look at the original change to stab, didn’t seem to affect pvp much but had a huge effect on WvW. And this change BTW brings up an issue with Hugh’s statement. If they want players to think about the effect on all game modes then clearly they didn’t do that with the original change to stab. Not to mention letting it stay that way for so long which was a major contributory factor in the decline of WvW.
They said it had to be done because of some software limitations. It is not a biggie. Get over it.
It is a biggie with the complete lack of communication over it. It came at completely the wrong time for my server and we were hampered by the lack of preparation. This is being overshadowed by alpine being back so its not receiving the attention it deserves. We had some completely new matchups that some of us were enjoying and it was cut short. Why not patch this specific thing at normal reset time? Players would not have minded so long as they knew what was happening.
And even now the API score sites have not fixed the change.
Its in beta…none of these scores matter atm
AFAIK our glicko is still being updated so that is live.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Siege being able to be put up at the citadel area is a big one it makes holding the north towers impossible.
Ill save the forums the balance QQ. I wanted to say bravo to the dev team for some precision on the nerfs to rev and mes.
What? The nerf to mes while needed was completely the wrong way to do it. Its poor balancing.
My opinion, alpine is good for finding fights but is pretty boring otherwise, and in the current climate it may get stale quickly. They need to remove to a rotation of the 2 and not every 3 months as mooted, but every month at least. Anet needs to get over the idea that 3 months is a reasonable timeframe for WvW things.
Give ANet the space to rework the DBL and add them again,
They have reworked them. And given the amount of reworking alpine has got, just adding the new mechanics in, no change to design at all, desert is not going to get the change to design it needs (better strategic location for towers, less paths……). At most they will probably add something to the centre, they should just transplant the ruins from alpine into the centre.
My brain hurts considering in-game mechanics of that zoner thing. Be real, the next elite needs to be demolitionist with nades/bombs/explosives line synergy. As is, this would give us viable builds using all available engi weapons.
Shouldn’t that be one of the base trait lines considering those are all base abilities.
Talking about Hunter’s ward as the skill that really needs work? That skill has a 40 sec CD, who cares how they change this skill, it rarely affected the outcomes of any of my games, maybe only team fights and only rarely against 1 person.
There are other modes apart from spvp, hunters ward was ridiculous in WvW with multiple dhs.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.