WvW is more team than anything tbh
You’re right and that makes me sad…
Nothing against wvw, it’s awesome.
But I can’t figure out why ANet is forcing this solo/duo queue only bs in ranked spvp… it’s a 5v5 team based game…I’ve never played an mmo where I was actively forced to NOT play with my friends… lol
Cause the majority who play pvp do so solo and do not want to revert to the situation of last year, ranked pvp is clearly much improved for solo players in part because of this change. I don’t think anyone would object to creating a separate team queue but I imagine the queues might be quite long.
of course closing it mid transfer would be sort of funny….
Well anet have done that before.
But in light of your post, here are some things off the top of my head without spending too much time:
Squad UI
[…]
Biggest issues facing us today:
211 (This is killing WvW.)
Population issues
SquadUI was really driven by raids not WvW. I highly doubt we would have got it if not for raids.
As for 211 killing WvW…… exaggerate much! WvW has been on a downhill slide for years, nothing has happened in the few weeks we’ve had 211 that makes it worse.
Population issues are by far the biggest issue facing the mode.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
I know trap dragon hunters aren’t a problem at high level but there is a plague of them in bronze and silver, something needs to be adjusted.
Yes I can handle them but its more the annoyance factor.
Now the huge problem in this, is that the one team can have 2 great players, 3 almost average players, matched against 5 average players.
Let’s say Team Red has; 1400, 1350, 1150, 1100, and 1100
Team Blue has; 1250, 1250, 1200, 1200, and an 1100Red has an average of 1220 and Blue has an average of 1200. Seems like it would be a quality match up right? Well Red also has 2 players that are a great deal better. while having 1 player roughly equal to Blue’s best player and 2 players equal to Blue’s worst.
Analysis by some players suggest teams aren’t being broken up like this, that the system is matching up 5 players for a team then finding another team with the closest mmr geometric average (as in S2 and s3), hence the teams are more likely to be:
Red: 1400, 1350, 1250, 1250, 1200
Blue: 1200, 1150, 1100, 1100, 1100
@shaogin
the mm sistem it apears to be like:
1
pick 5 random players of aprox same mmr (create a team)
repeat repeat repeat
pick 2 random teams with aprox the same average mmr
release a matchNot
2
take 10 random players of same aprox mmr
split in two teams
release a matchthis is the most logical explanation to stackings of highers mmr and classes cuz with method two they can split class and high mmr to balance a little teams
This is what happened in S2 and S3 and I thought it was changed. If this season is being matched in this way its crap and just leads to poor results.
Blue/Red/Green, isn’t this in EOTM?
Holy crap was ESO a waste of money for me. I mean, you wanna talk broken promises? They were to remove those “champion levels” or whatever they were called once you hit the max level and replace it with something else because the xp requirement was INSANE (people complain about mastery exp. No no no. This was atrocious). But what did they do? ADD MORE. I uninstalled right there and then.
I know this thread has been necrod for some reason but reading through it now there is some blatant misinformation spread by quite a few people. What the above poster is talking about is the veteran rank system, and I think all the others mentioning champion points are also actually talking about the veteran system. The champion point system replaced the veteran rank system and is not a grind at all, its far less of a grind than GW2’s mastery system. I left ESO because the veteran grind was so bad but its been completely removed because ZOS actually listens to their players and acts.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
its not a downgrade….. Servers are having to do more calculations than ever before. Condition stacks, sigil/rune procs, boon duration effect and removals, stablilty etc etc etc
That doesn’t explain why its suddenly worse, I’ve noticed it getting worse as well.
TC isn’t that far behind Maguuma in score.
Why should there be an incentive to play for second? That leads to 3rd place server being focussed. As for spending time I agree so then why whinge about it.
The scoring change did not change the incentive or tactic for farming 3rd place in any way. Farming the weak server in the match is often the way to win a skirmish. Efficiently execution this is often the difference in a match where the first and second place servers are evenly matched. In fact the 2-1-1 system increases focusing the third place server because of the need to finish first.
You would be the only person to make this claim.
I’ve gone through matches with the new scoring system playing as both the top server in T3 and now am playing bottom on T2. I didn’t notice any particular focusing on us when we were on top, and now when on the bottom the 2nd place is showing no interest in cooperating with us against the 1st place server. Furthermore the 2-1-1 scoring eliminates any point incentive to try to finish 2nd in a skirmish – the first place server is so dominant first place is not likely ever in any skirmish for us this week.
Spending time on this approach is a failure – it is simply not addressing the real issues of population balance and population decline in this game mode.
Why should there be an incentive to play for second? That leads to 3rd place server being focussed. As for spending time I agree so then why whinge about it.
Anet has only ever said that populations are based upon an Activity Level, which has never been defined. This activity level is averaged over time, which has said to be longer than a week. That’s all that has been said about population.
Yeah the activity level is a players activity level, hence once they pass a certain threshold of activity they are counted as part of the population. JQ being closed previously and the statements on BG are all in accordance with this scenario.
They’ve said before (at least couple of times) that they count “man hours in WvW”, so basically how much time is spent from multiple people. If 100 people spend 1 hours each its’ 100 man hours, if 10 persons spends 10 hours each it’s 100 man hours. Or something similar (they never explain it in detail).
They’ve never said anything like that AFAIK. They have said players that are only in WvW for a short time won’t be counted as part of the population. The implication being that once a player passes that threshold of time or WvW activity they are counted as part of the population and treated the same as someone who spends a lot more time in WvW. This is why JQ kept getting locked, they have a lot of casual players who spend short amounts of time in WvW in comparison to other servers like Maguuma which is primarily composed of players who spend large amounts of time in WvW.
Nobody left at anet has any vision for WvW, perhaps with the exception of Tyler B but of course he was moved off WvW development.
I don’t know where this idea of Tyler B being some amazing savior of a dev to WvW came from. Is there something specific that you could point to that Tyler championed for WvW?
Well he was the one that seemingly led the battlegroup design that was then scrapped after anet got cold feet.
Its not just that, it came across in his communication that he understood the mode better than the other devs.
It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.
How is it a failure? I would argue that from a T1 POV it is actually a success as the top server is actually focussed more. Players not liking it does not make it a failure.
For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.
You can’t possibly be counting ONLY people who are playing WvW and you should be by now.
As we’ve concluded after previous nonsensical population related decisions, when a player passes a certain threshold he is counted as part of the population for that server. A player could probably play for an hour a week and be counted as 1 player the same as someone who say plays 20 hours a week. The metric is fundamentally flawed in trying to match servers. A metric of say total player hours would be far far better.
5 servers vs JQ and their still losing.. Yet JQ cant even outperform TC, which is practically a dead server… Yeah healthy game here.
Yeah shows how many players have left
It is mindboggling that they actually think the top 5 servers have approximately equal populations
It was perfectly said. The threshold needed to be lowered a long time ago, before BG had opened up. Before that there was possibility of relatively even-populated servers rotating with each other but afterwards the population disparity between tiers became too great. No, no one can stack a server to BG/old T1 levels anymore without a link. Let BG rot with boredom if they won’t destack. No, they’re not going to destack just because someone on Mag decided to buy everyone to beat them down.
The issue is though having servers with populations that are actually reflective of the size of the mode (4 maps holding ~75 players each at any 1 time). I have never seen Mag with queues on all maps under the previous population cap just for example. Lowering the cap spreads the low population even further and is not a solution and leads to less and less competitive play style. They either need to say lower map caps as well, reduce the numbers of maps, or rather than lower population caps have less tiers and link servers by some other metric other than what they are using, which does not work.
And I’ve said before but the issue is exacerbated for those playing in off hours, spreading them further means a further decline in the quality of their gameplay.
There are also issues with getting guilds to spread out due to guilds wanting a population they can recruit from and not wanting to have to carry a server.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.
Will 5,4,3 be shortly followed by “reducing night capping” by making off hours 4,3,2 and 1,2,3 depending on population?
Only reason i can see why 5,4,3 would be an option.
Interesting point.
To those that state that the “old” server caps was too small for the game mode (to fill all maps in all time zones). It might be that ANet never intended the game to work that way, and that servers wheren’t supposed to be that big?
Problem is that ANet has never stated what they really wanted WvW to be, so everyone is running around enforcing their own vision of WvW, without the slightest clue what ANet is actually thinking.
Nobody left at anet has any vision for WvW, perhaps with the exception of Tyler B but of course he was moved off WvW development.
What other solution do you expect them to pull out? Like I said those 3 servers have been open and still haven’t recruited enough catch BG, do you want them to leave it to be a constant arms race with BG?
You can’t bring 22 servers up to BG or Mag’s population levels, it has to be the other way around.
Solution to what? Whats suddenly come up that required this? Like I said I can understand a temp manual closure pending relinks but this is clearly not that. If you mean the overall population disparity this is not a solution, it hasn’t worked before so why this change? Its more likely to drive players away. The player base is too small for the number of servers even with links and that is even more of an issue for players in non NA time zones that this is not a solution for.
There are guild issues to that make it problematic to spread out, primarily guild recruitment but anet remains oblivious to these issues.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Don’t see a problem with this, the threshold needed to be lowered a long time ago. Most servers have been open for a while and they’ve had a chance to recruit, even BG opened for a week to restock their zergs.
People come in here to complain every time a server is closed and yet don’t bother to recruit when it’s open. Learn the lesson already.
1. How are TC, YB and JQ meant to match BG and Mag?
2. The population caps were too low anyway to properly cater for the size of the maps and the map caps themselves now its going to be worse.
3. Players in off hours on NA servers are only enough to really fit on 1 tier, its going to spread those populations out so they become much more sporadic.
video showing how this is done
Man how easy is that. Why does anet not just shorten the leap a bit?
For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.
Oh god, I thought it was just to prevent bandwagoning ahead of relinks and normal transmission would be resumed afterward, but this implies you’ve changed it permanently for this reason!
Do you not realise the implications of lowering the cap? Especially for those in non peak times? Sorry but you guys really do not understand the mode.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
The response to 2,1,1 is mixed
Hahahaha… I dont think you have been reading the same things we have. It’s disliked by almost everyone. That’s not exactly a mixed response.
Its not disliked by almost everyone, many people liked the idea when it was first suggested hence why it was implemented. Most of those who like it now can’t be bothered saying anything whereas of course those who don’t like it speak up. I’ll also say its interesting looking at the servers of those who don’t like it.
Please leave in Desert Borderlands so players can continue to produce epic gameplay content such as this video.
LMAO thats as funny as Helseths portal to his own base in spvp
which no life guilds are actually ktraining during the holidays?
LUCK on BG are 1.
The server linking was a big change, and so were skirmishes, but those only happened recently. They are good changes and Tyler has done a good job so far, I like the direction he’s taking it.
Tyler is no longer on the WvW team he was moved to work on the xpac months ago.
For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes
Sorry I have to do this: For a better long term solution to WvW – Open BG.
Sigh, so many of you are totally lost on the concept of the ratio between points and how that affects peoples behavior.
I think you’re projecting if you think any more than a tiny % of players actually care about the nuances of PPT strategy that much any more.
The nuances of the system are gone. It’s either win, or don’t.
And what’s exactly the problem in that?
Play against linked hype servers with an unlinked server and you see the problem.
Open BG, you know it makes sense.
if people try to spawn camp me i just put on scorpion wire pull them in legendary npc XD
Doesn’t work anymore at least on most maps. Enemies get teleported back now. ANet basically carebeared spawn camping… for the spawn campers.
You’re joking, why the kitten would anet do that?
This is a terrible change. Now my server doesn’t even fight once the matchup shows a win/loss about 15 mins in. We afk defend until the next one. 3-2-1 theres always someone close to you in score to try to pass or keep them from passing you. 2-1-1 theres a huge gap not worth bothering over. Nope no 2v1 here.
It has been shown that scores are closer in the 2,1,1 system than the 3,2,1 system. If you choose not to fight because PPT during the skirmish is low thats a separate issue.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Whats the point of having as many people of the other two servers combined if the other two servers are just going to team up on you.
They key word being “if”. I haven’t seen it yet. Is there a match somewhere we can use as an example of the 2nd and 3rd placed servers teaming up yet?
My understanding is that a certain tier 1 server is always double teamed.
Wrong., assuming you mean BG.
They are probably trying to get mag closed
I will break this down for those that havent figured it out yet. Because this change basically punishes winning, making second place ironically the preferable placement in a matchup.
All I hear is BG don’t like this because you have to work harder to win.
Solution: open BG.
People need to understand that this system punishes both the first and second strongest servers.
The strongest server gets 2v1’d. DIRECTLY encouraged by the new system, even more than the 321 system.The second strongest server will get the same amount of points as the weakest server regardless of how they perfrom. Meaning the weakest server can finish all skirmishes in a day at 1k points and still be tied for second place in the overall matchup with a server that finishes all the skirmishes at 4k points…
People perfectly understand that. On your first point players by and large would think a 2v1 should be on the stronger server, certainly more than on the 2nd server which happened under the 3,2,1 system.
On your 2nd point ultimately 2nd and 3rd place mean nothing to players and if the 2nd server is strong enough they will be ahead of the 3rd server anyway. It actually provides them more impetus to do as well as possible if they care about it.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
The PPT fanboys are strong here.
P P T
P P T
P P T
How the kitten do you people even enjoy this kitten?
Ask your BG server mates, BG is becoming almost as bad as YB.
I’ve been a WvW commander since the game started. I played in each tourny. I have a friends list filled with guild leaders and other commanders.
The idea that the tournys burned people out and made them quit WvW is true to some extent. But honestly the humdrum lack of tournys has made far more commanders and guilds lose interest in WvW and quit playing. Name a commander who quit because of a tourny, I’ll name two who quit because of boredom.
Thats not due to tournaments thats due to the lack of development in the game. The game is poorly balanced population wise so tournaments are still meaningless and will still have the same issues they had then. Anet need to pull their finger out and actually make major changes if tournaments are to mean anything.
Guys,
You can’t look at past matches and place this new scoring system on it to see what the difference is. The reason is peoples behavior and strategies will change. The behavior in past matches are based on a 321 scoring system. Strategy will be totally different in a 211 system
It will take time for the new strategies to work themselves out, but a strategy of capture and hold by the first server will probably be the dominant one.
This is happening now due to T3 objectives earning more PPT.
And even subscription games now generally have cash shops. You’re fighting a losing battle here and your main points are they used to be able to do it and that you don’t like it.
It’s not a strong platform.
Well then devs have to move away from using game systems that only exist to keep people playing and p2w type items in the cash shop and make good repeatable content that players will want to keep playing and buying purely convenience and cosmetic items in the cash shop.
What is there to like? It basiclly kills the competiveness of this system even more.
Scores will be closer than before, thats more competitive.
Whatever. More importantly in the patch notes it says “this is a change that we and the players wanted to try….”. What players? Who? This line in the patch notes just appears to be anet trying to continue the idea of player participation in wvw development when infact this doesn’t exist.
It was discussed a while ago mainly favourably.
Another example using current T1 matchup.
Under the 3,2,1 system the scores are currently: BG 116, Mag 102, JQ 76. A spread of 40 between 1st and 3rd.
Under a 2,1,1 system the scores would be currently: BG 71, Mag 70, JQ 55. A spread of 16 from 1st to 3rd.
2-1-1 system would clearly result in much closer matches.
Doesn’t that just mean that the server that tries hardest to win is getting rewarded far less for their efforts? Because that’s all I see. Your server can make a kitten good push in off hours and wring out a second place, but the currently offline 3rd place will get just as many points as you. Where’s the motivation to even bother?
1st is still 1st, if they want to remain 1st they’ll push.
Awful change. They might as well completely remove any points seriously.
Revert this back to 3-2-1.
Why?
Another example using current T1 matchup.
Under the 3,2,1 system the scores are currently: BG 116, Mag 102, JQ 76. A spread of 40 between 1st and 3rd.
Under a 2,1,1 system the scores would be currently: BG 71, Mag 70, JQ 55. A spread of 16 from 1st to 3rd.
2-1-1 system would clearly result in much closer matches.
With this new system, T1 servers will absolutely dominate, accumulating a massive amount of points during periods of low coverage.
Under a 3-2-1 system the margin server 3 has would be similar it would just have an overall higher score. So 2-1-1 has less blowouts and closer scores overall across an entire week.
I guess I just don’t see the point in this change other than to make the 2nd/3rd place score much closer,
Its going to make the gap between 1st and 3rd closer and gives less reason to 2v1 2nd or 3rd. Its not as though 2nd and 3rd really mean anything.
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.