Guild Wars 2

Reaper Alim.4176:

Yet I hear the community blaming this on ANet. Lol helluva funny in my opinion. Then the community wonders why ANet don’t communicate much with such people? Pretty obvious to me why.

Its human nature, the game design has to account for that but doesn’t at all.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

“JQ has enough gold to buy your entire alliance, (because we use illegal means of obtaining gold)”

I hope you’re only joking with this because why would you say something like that?

Jerry CCH.9816:

JQ have Kazo EU Guikd

Kazo moved to TC a long time ago

More lack of transparency, such decisions need to be explained. Heck JQ only 1 1 week in T1 AFAIK and they got adjusted

X T D.6458:

KnM and FL are OCX, we recently lost a very important SEA guild in Ng, but FOO transferred here this week. Your guild SoX is on MAG now which I believe still has KnF.
Three guilds came to BG as far as I know this week, and one of them is a havok/small ops guild. One of the reasons the score is so lopsided this week is the fact that MAG basically hasn’t shown up all week, not sure why especially after getting 2 new guilds last week in SoX and KeK, I would have thought they would be even more competitive, but they seem to have taken this week off when it started.

Yesterday knf wasn’t commanding but were running with sox commander and we were still outnumbered by BG blobs at least 3:1.

micheal.8793:

Agreed, Anet always disappoints us. I don’t think they should have opened any servers right now but that’s a discussion for another time. Anet opened up some servers for whatever reasons they have and it isn’t the fault of the players on BG.

It is the fault of the bandwaggoning players and guilds who jumped there knowing they stacking on a server that was winning T1 even before then. Once they are on BG it reflects on the server.

Spurnshadow.3678:

So funny seeing all the salty people posting here that have no clue.

The fact is, BG has an active NA population. No OCX guilds.

No? What were the 2 huge BG blobs running around in ocx time yesterday then? And you do have ocx guilds, FL for one.

I just love BG folks implying they’re undermanned while steamrolling the other servers in the game outnumbering the other servers 3-4:1.

Spurnshadow.3678:

We recently lost a popular SEA commander et. al. to an EU server. Frankly, I just don’t play at that time. And one EU guild. The only reason we win so much is because we just have more roamers and a couple small 5 man groups that run during off hours to keep things capped. Half of our EU timezone is populated by NA folks not working and most of our OCX is NA insomniacs.

I’d say, we have half of the population we used to have, but were still considered full. So yeah, it’s no surprise that we’re opening up.

1: You gained 2 sea guilds from JQ, their only 2 active sea guilds left.
2. You may have half what you used to have but other servers have declined even more and you have the advantage of still being able to attract bandwaggoners to go there which other servers don’t.
3. You are not winning because of roamers, you are winning because you outnumber the other servers plain and simple.

Something has to be changed. Facing BG now is an absolute joke, due to their transfers they are outnumbering the other servers 3-4 to 1.

Rotteny.8743:

morrolan.9608:

Nope that actually happened prior to the normal time server status is changed. Same thing happened to TC when FUG moved there. They can lock servers manually, BG has pretty clearly been locked manually today to stop any more bandwagoning, although at this point its just like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

So you saying they manually lock but the unlocks life automatically? Doesn’t make sense to me. If it unlock after a certain population threshold, a server cannot be locked below that threshold or it would unlock right after. Either the entire system is automated or not.

The system is automated until they put a manual lock on a server which stays until they take it off again I guess.

Alga.6498:

Can someone explain this to me… ?
Also why does GW2 have so low numbers??

Its in billions of Korean Won. The GW2 figure is around $13.3 million USD I think. The issue is that GW2 had both LS episodes come out in this quarter but had a slight decline in revenue. Revenue per quarter with the HOT effect removed is about 25% less than it was in 2015.

Rotteny.8743:

morrolan.9608:

Dralor.3701:

As bad as it sounds I really hope opening these servers is driven by generating revenue and not by stupidity.

Them opening was clearly automated using the population calculation system they have. It happens weekly Mon/Tues. Its a reflection of the continuing decline in the population of the mode.

So you agree JQ lock prior was also automated?

Nope that actually happened prior to the normal time server status is changed. Same thing happened to TC when FUG moved there. They can lock servers manually, BG has pretty clearly been locked manually today to stop any more bandwagoning, although at this point its just like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Dralor.3701:

As bad as it sounds I really hope opening these servers is driven by generating revenue and not by stupidity.

Them opening was clearly automated using the population calculation system they have. It happens weekly Mon/Tues. Its a reflection of the continuing decline in the population of the mode.

Jerus.4350:

rhayan.9580:

ANET cant fix Casual’s etc. Not their fault if BG players stays longer on WvW

Well they could base their ‘population’ counts more on activity rather than just a head count. If serverA has 1000 people but most of them log in to do their dailies then log out. Then serverB has 700 players but most spend 2-3hours a night in WvW capturing and killing, then there’s no doubt that serverB would likely be more successful than serverA.

Perhaps calculating active population based on worldXP or participation points given out would be better than just having an ‘do they wvw sometimes’ headcount?

Its pretty clear their population count is simply based on someone coming into WvW for a certain time period, probably as little time as doing dailies. Its equally clear that this calculation is so flawed as to be useless. It has to be based on total player hours or some measure of activity like objectives taken plus kills.

Another thing Blizzard is constantly making balance changes, like almost every week and they don’t care about making balance changes in the middle of pro tournaments either.

Scampy.9506:

Well, probably because it’s my only account and I have been a BG member for years. All this QQ against HateGate is just too irresistible to stay quiet. We have fewer players than JQ, as stated by ANet, yet everyone wants to boycott BG.

Take a look at recent results even before BG opening, that will tell you how great Anets population calculations are. Seriously BG was winning T1 before it opened. Opening it up has led to at least 4 guilds moving there and undoubtedly numerous pugs, so why shouldn’t those players on other servers who simply want an even playing field be salty?

Jayne.9251:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Heimlich.3065:

Xillllix.3485:

We are interested beyond belief, but your proposition is not even a half measure, it’s a cheap fix that would lead to terrible results. It’s only good on paper and not in practice, which is what about 66% of the people in this thread have been saying. Why do you need us to tell you that? It has nothing to do with our interest.

What’s most bizarre is that they asked us the same thing back in May and people didn’t like the idea then either.

I have to suspect somebody inside ANet really thinks this proposal is just the ultimate solution to every WvW problem and brings it up regularly.

And when people didn’t wildly support it anet opened up BG as a big kitten you to the player base.

The thing is Puck, the players have always had the control.

Time for us all to pull up our socks and sort this mess out.

I’ll craft the viral campaign if you (and others) help implement it.

Look at whats happening with BG. Players will not do it, heck there are clearly plenty of guilds that do not care about balance in the game mode either.

Yes kittening boycott them.

So Arenanet, given you manually locked JQ and TC quite quickly when 1 guild moved to each of those servers, how quickly are you going to move to lock BG with at least 4 guilds moving to BG now?

forumbugpleasefixfinallyanet

Xenesis.6389:

There’s a thing called balance that most players would like to achieve, it isn’t absolutely achievable but it would be nice to keep working on getting closer to it, I know, a wild concept you apparently don’t give two twinkies about.

The guilds moving don’t want balance. They wouldn’t move to BG if they did.

Another thing that makes this worse, we’re at the beginning of a link cycle so links can’t be used to mitigate against the stacking cause anet refuse to do what must be done under the current system.

I think BG probably did slip below the pop cap. Its simply a reflection of the decline in WvW, and unfortunately its going to make things worse as BG gets more stacked with anet sitting on their hands. The way things are going there will be 1 tier, BG alone and the other 2 sides made up of linked servers.

jamesdolla.3954:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Arena Net lock Blackgate right now. Just check your logs and see the mass transfers just already started. This was a mistake. I understand that this is automated but still a very bad mistake. BG is at risk of absorbing very large guilds on off peak hours when they already have that coverage. BG equates to World 1: 95% and we all know it.

Right now there is no server to compete against BG and you’ve made it so that BG can receive more numbers. The amount of guilds now deciding to go to BG is anywhere from 6 to 8 guilds..this does not include singular players. This effects coverage largely and goes against what you’re trying to do.

The longer BG stays open, the more imbalance created. The more you’ll have to resort to forcing movement of players.

They already got FOO a sea guild that they didn’t need. I would be cool if they got some more NA guilds but it looks like they just want more off hour pvd and no challenge(BG and the guilds that move there)

They would also have got TGA another SEA guild. Good luck fighting those doors guys.

I’m not on JQ <15 chars>

Grim Reaper.3048:

So, BG and JQ opened up, good for them. Lets not kid ourselves, we knew it would happen sooner or later. Let the 2 biggest servers stay in T1 and fight each other.

Er name the last time JQ was in T1, heck the last time they even won T2.

YB > SoS > SoR > JQ > Mag

All apart from the 1st were guild driven.

Reaper Alim.4176:

Nope leave BG and JQ full FOREVER That should be the minimal punishment for their action which is more so responsible for players and whole guild leaving WvW then ANet itself. Again if it was up for me I’d at least manually disband such cancerous servers, and then place all of their members on random servers then force them to pay gems to transfer.

If I was truly able to have my way with these guys. I’d do a full investigation into which guilds was responsible for the match manipulation, and then permanently ban all accounts tied to those guilds.

Just be lucky I don’t have a say in how to deal with such vile players such as them

You realise every top server has done this, every single one, in fact JQ has done it less than most.

Mokk.2397:

ANET isn’t killing JQ and BG guilds.The guilds trying to transfer to JQ and BG are killing their guilds.People know that those servers have a very high or full population but you insist on stacking them so you can get easy wins.

ORLY, look at JQs results over the last several months and say that with a straight face.

forumbugwhatchagonnado

Jacion.6302:

Unrelated to topic at hand but why is this the case? I can understand not displaying pvp/PvE titles in wvw, but what’s the point of the coveted wvw titles if you can’t display them in wvw, not to mention the demoralizing the enemy with Ultimate Dominator?

Demoralise? It makes me laugh because the player has in all probability obtained the title farming in EOTM.

Caliburn.1845:

A couple points.

First, guilds aren’t looking for space to expand, they’re looking for PEOPLE to recruit. There is a reason that most of the surviving large WvW guilds are in the upper tiers, because that is the only place they can replenish numbers and maintain themselves. WvW guilds die on lesser populated servers. You’re not going to get WvW guilds to move of their free will unless you can guarantee them a population to recruit from. These new empty servers would be the death knell to an already dwindling supply of WvW guilds.

Second, reading between the lines and looking at Tyler’s post, and remembering the leaked notes on Reddit before world linking went in, the conclusion is pretty obvious.

This is an oblique way to bring Battlegroups into the game. You might still call these 50% smaller servers “servers”, but they’d in practice just be a couple guilds(maybe approaching that 1000 man cap that Battlegroups were rumored to have) and would essentially be Battlegroups.

Now, I am all for Battlegroups, anything to make WvW more alive and less stale. But if the Reddit leaks were accurate Battlegroups were going to go in with a couple other features. Battlegroups(or small servers if we want to call them that) would be able to shake up their rosters every 8-12 weeks without costing gold or gems(Very crucial to creating new match-ups and recruiting new players). And more importantly the existing server structure would disappear and be replaced.

Creating these small servers without these other features would not be ideal at all.

Don’t be afraid to shake things up. WvW needs a shake up.

This, a thousand times this.

Especially the part about guilds, the ability to recruit was a major part of my guilds recent decision to move servers and in the choice of server. Why would guilds move to smaller servers with less ability to recruit?

1 and 2 no. If you had read the forum you’d know what the solution is, have the linked name be a combination of the names of the linked servers, and to enemies have players referred to by their home server not the main server name. This should have been the solution form the start given you were apparently so concerned about server identity.

You need to get over this need to poll everything.

1. I vote no because of anets complete ballsing up of links many times so far and their completely lack of transparency in why links are done. As an ocx player I have no faith that alliances with ocx players would be matched together just for example.

2. If you want to go to this extent to revise the WvW system why not go back to the battlegroup design?

3. No I would not move but I would be in favour of the battlegroup proposal I referred to in 2.

PariahX.6970:

Cecilia.5179:

Desert bl is the product of not taking any feedback. Beta testers stated concerns, and they did nothing.

morrolan.9608:

I’ve recently found out that it wasn’t just beta testers, core testers also expressed the same concerns. At no point did they listen to user feedback at all.

All of the Desert Borderland design ideas came from suggestions on this forum and a lot of different factions of players. Now you can easily argue that once ANET sets down a path they are very slow or unable to adjust course based on real-time feedback but you can’t really say they don’t take ideas from the community. Even the mostly bad stuff like more siege has a vocal segment of the population that supports it.

That becomes almost irrelevant if they ignore user feedback at every stage. They are taking broad ideas drawing their own conclusion about what they mean and then completely ignoring any and all feedback prior to implementation. I’ve said it before anet’s software development and project management processes are absolutely woeful for something of this size. I’ve worked on small software development projects with better processes and project management.

Cecilia.5179:

PariahX.6970:

it would actually likely suck less if ANET didn’t listen to the community and picked a vision for what they wanted WvW to be to stick with instead of all these garbled together pieces of what they thought players asked for, what players said they wanted but didn’t work and how they originally thought WvW was going to be for the long term. Sadly I don’t think many of the ANET devs who had a clue about WvW are left to provide a grand unified plan to do the “blow it up & start over” option justice so be careful what you ask for.

At this point I would have liked to see what the nuclear option looked like but since they scrapped it to go with linking I don’t think we ever will and they certainly don’t have time or staff to start again from scratch right now.

Desert bl is the product of not taking any feedback. Beta testers stated concerns, and they did nothing.

I’ve recently found out that it wasn’t just beta testers, core testers also expressed the same concerns. At no point did they listen to user feedback at all.

Siska.8102:

Because of the total lack of transparency in relation to what servers are deemed full and linking. How on earth can Anet justify giving Mag a link? A TI server. I thought maybe they were going to open BG then okay, that might balance out, but nope.

Balance what out? BG is winning the week. They still don’t need a link or to be opened.

synergy.5809:

I was one of those people who voted for it. But me and a bunch of other people assumed that we would retain our name and/or rotate out every week. If I knew we would be just someone else’s kitten every week I’d vote no

A lot of assumptions were made which turned out to be incorrect. The vote might be a lot different now.

Nuzt.7894:

Either way at this point it would hurt nothing to try, but i guess the poll will decide.
Also are we playing the same game ? Anet doesn’t reward, they slap you in the face with a worthless item.

I actually agree with you on that. As for 1 up 1 down I can sympathise with your point but the problem is thats only an issue for a minority of the player base. Although if you get too low you’ll be linked to a T1 or T2 server.

Nuzt.7894:

It’s really not game breaking at all, 1 up 1 down creates variety and less stagnant matches. Let’s not pretend that Glicko is even remotely healthy for the game, they’ve only had to tweek it how many times? and its still complete garbage.

With the increased volatility we have more variety now. So long as that is the case there is no need for 1 up 1 down.

Weren’t repair hammers only in game for a week, so why are cannons being tested for longer?

Straegen.2938:

Some games like SWToR with a much larger budget had their large scale combat completely fail and never recover. ESO was mostly a balance disaster centered around near endless grinding for months on end (WAY worse than anything in GW2).

I cannot think of a single better WvW or RvR game and that includes the upcoming CU which is a throwback of games built 10+ years ago. If you are looking for an expert, sad to say GW2 has them.

GW2 devs working on WvW have no expertise at all that is the problem. ESO’s issues were exactly as you say, not around the RvR aspect of the game, same with DAOC. The issues with WvW are around the implementation of the RvR aspecst as well as some balance issues.

Straegen.2938:

Back to my point… if there is an RvR or WvW expert out there it probably is working or has worked on GW2 at some point. CU sounds good until you play it and realize the game is already 15 years old before it is even released.

The game is not even in beta yet and is a long long way from a polished product.

krmatth.3904:

So, some people like linking, some people want merges, some people want what we already had, and some people just don’t care (just here for the fights I guess). Does that sum up the current state of the WVW discussion? We asked ANET to listen to us and they responded with polls…which some people liked, some thought ridiculous, and some didn’t care enough about to cast a vote. ANET will never be able to keep all of us happy…whatever they do will offend some percentage of the WVW player base. So, what are they to do?

Get devs with RvR experience and/or knowledge onto the WvW team and develop the mode as needed not according to entirely player driven polls.

How does using tactivators make it a fair fight. They are gimmicks that have nothing to do with an actual fight.

Lahmia.2193:

Jeknar.6184:

Jayne.9251:

Those who are dismissing server pride aren’t looking at longterm. You buy the game because it entertains. You stay because of the community.

If people really stayed in certain game because of the community, things like FPS or MOBA (who have extremely toxic communities) would have died long ago.

People stay in the game because they still have fun playing it. Not because of it’s community.

MMOs are social games. FPS and MOBAs are not.

Don;t see what that has to do with WvW. WvW is not really the mmo part of GW2. And besides the social aspect of the game comes in many forms other than just servers.

Never, anet stated a while ago that they wouldn’t be coming back largely because there was a decline in the WvW player base after each tournament.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

This time around I believe the reevaluation was done by Tiers. Arena Nets logic was pretty spot on. Good job Team!

Not when you consider the far greater volatility in matchmaking. They did this in EU and the servers they were matching the population with didn’t even meet each other.

Do you want a return to closed tiers?

A reconsideration of the battlegroup plan. Failing that monthly relinks. The basis for linkages changed to something approximating WvW activity.

Chaba.5410:

DeWolfe.2174:

Chaba.5410:

morrolan.9608:

Chaba.5410:

But it is about being Full. JQ is Full because it has more active population than Very High servers. There’s no reason to give a link to a Full server.

I think this round of links is pretty reasonable. Look at how close all the NA matches are right now.

Population is used for server status. Links are used to better even up matches. This is not whats happening

Jim Hunter.6821:

^This.
I’ve got a lot of friends on JQ and when I look at my friends list during the day I rarely see more than 2 or 3 of them in wvw. But every one of them will hop in at some point, either during prime time or just to get their daily.

All of these people are technically active players even if they are only in wvw for about an hour or less everyday.

When I look around on Mag I see the same names logging in every day and putting in way more hours.

Yeah and thats why we’re full, not why we didn’t get a link.

JQ is currently winning the T2 match without a server link. Seems like the T2 match is pretty even.

That’s because it’s the weekend and some of our Sea came on for reset. Today we have some NA playing during EU, etc. Once the work week begins, that coverage and man power goes poof!

Basically what happens to most servers.

Not really, clearly not to the same extent, otherwise JQs score would not decrease so much relative to their opponents. Its already happening now with TC going to take the lead with the current skirmish.

Jim Hunter.6821:

If you already have the population to be competitive but half your population logs off the second you wipe or your pug commander tags down, the solution isn’t that you need moar numbers.

Which doesn’t happen, JQ is casual in having people play very limited time during a week because thats the only time they want to play a stake game, not because they only play when there’s a huge blob or are logging off after 1 defeat.

Jeknar.6184:

morrolan.9608:

Population is used for server status. Links are used to better even up matches. This is not whats happening

I know it’s early, but since you already calling imbalance 12 hours in the matchup let’s look at the Warscore… Hmmmm, the only imbalanced matchup NA seens to be tier 1. Where (gasp!) the only server with no link is winning.

BG is a clear exception, and I believe I said apparently T1 servers are not meant to have links. JQ is not a T1 server, TC may not be either, time will tell.