Gandara server perma-locked - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Gandara server perma-locked

2>

Comments

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 14, 2021

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    @Zok.4956 we will have to simply agree do disagree here then. Maybe you are right and we on Gandara have figured out a secret: How to play a game, without playing a game. Because that's apparently what is happening: A lot of people are playing the game (according to your facts and the combination thereof) without really playing the game (in terms of seeing any kind of result - result not only being measured in score here, but in any kind of thing where population has an impact on the in-game experience).
    The activity of Gandara is not shown in either PPT score, kills or deaths, it also doesn't show up in queues (as has been confirmed by other people in this thread, whereby a commander is apparently able to move a full zerg between maps without much of an issue - which I personally can confirm. There were no issues moving even a full 50-man-zerg between maps freely, even to home and EB).

    To which I would say:
    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    Your experiences seem to differ.

    Already when you had your first meeting on what to do as you got unlinked again I told you to look this up on your discord server:

    Again, the only way out of this mess is Alliances. Server pride never existed as Guilds always were the primary content creators and Guilds always cared about Guilds first. The problem with the linking system always was that people could just transfer after Guilds that left full servers to recruit and choke out their recruitment again. That always made Guilds quit and with Guilds quitting: Tags quit. This system has been choking Tags out of WvW since its inception. In fact, the original design has choked Guilds out of WvW and/or the game since its release. My first Guild (fittingly: on Gandara) quit in 2014 citing that WvW is the only place where Guilds matter and as WvW is not given due attention it is not a game where communities can be built or maintained. You are just six-seven years late to the party. One reason Alliances are not here yet is that unproductive players keep muddy the waters.

    Now, I don't know if this is how it still works, nore do anyone else. You were also given another explanation by an ArenaNet partner on your disc (or at least someone embedded with the partnership-program community, I don't know if he is a partner or not). That could be true. However, this is the only official communication we have on the matter and until ArenaNet says something different this is what we can take at face value.

    ed. Capitalization for emphasis

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭

    Yes, I can see that with the tail.
    And I can also see the effects of Gandara activity and "fullness" for several months now. Not as extreme as in the last few weeks, but no queues, ability to easily transfer whole zergs between borders, etc - that has been a thing for the whole last year. The only times when we could not do that was, when we actually had a linked server. Which makes be believe this is untrue.

    Also we can see population adjustments pretty quick after transfer of big guilds like KISS or KILL, so the statement above cannot be true.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Theres a reason your server is full gandara. You can allways hop into bandwagon for easier bags.

  • Hey dude I made some memes for you in Gandara Discord since i would get banned instantly for posting them here:)

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭

    @Neukku.5713 said:
    Theres a reason your server is full gandara. You can allways hop into bandwagon for easier bags.

    Yep, we all know the reason. Because this isn't about population balance and surely not about matchup balance.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    What exactely is the "duck" your are seeing? That the "full" and "very high" of Gandara are false and Anet has set Gandara intentionally to "full" because Anet hates Gandara?

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2021

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    What exactely is the "duck" your are seeing? That the "full" and "very high" of Gandara are false and Anet has set Gandara intentionally to "full" because Anet hates Gandara?

    I don't think "hate" is any factor. I wonder what you're trying to achieve by putting me in that corner. Hate is something that actually takes a lot of effort, consumes and wastes energy, and I don't think this has any room for that. I could speculate, that Gandara is not as economic, as it could ideally be, so opening it up might have no priority - but then again by the amount of players transferring, the transfer costs, the frequency, even such a speculation does not exactly make much sense. It doesn't appear as though the WvW transfers are that much of a notable chunk in the revenue stream, right?
    So no, I don't know. Maybe it's simply neglect? Maybe I'm completely wrong, and Gandara, despite all the hints we have pointing to the opposite, is actually full and our population just distributes very, veeeery evenly, so that there are never queues (well I am exaggerating here. Of course we sometimes have queues. Very small ones. During primetime, and not during the last weeks - but generally moving even big groups was pretty easy during the last months). And we're just so slightly above the full threshold, that moving between maps 50-man-zergs is indeed easily possibly. Yet somehow we never dip below the "full" threshold anymore, despite guilds transferring off the server and no one new being able to join.
    And of course our players are all pretty bad, so that we can't win fights. That aspect is very easy to explain generally. There is a lack of commanders (we're not the only server suffering from that), which means a lot of activity is pretty unfocused.
    And maybe, just maybe, the average Gandaran player is so bad, that even the PPT is bad, right? Bad enough to not make it past T4 when we have no link (but we can make T4 and even T3 when we do have one).
    But you have to admit, that's a lot of factors that have to combine together to give the picture you imply, namely Gandara being actually a full server which does work exactly as I describe above.

    Or you take the simple explanation. That we're not full. Or at least that this criterion of being "full" is inadequate for the gamemode.
    And that doesn't only go for Gandara.

    Maybe someone could take the time to cross-reference server population history (for example researchable through gw2mists.com) and cross-reference with links and matchup-history (activity, points) from wvwstats. Might give us a better idea on how activity or points and server population might or might not be related and thus remove at least some of bias, we're all prone to have :)

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I’ll leave this here again: I think Anet has chosen the two most populous servers on NA and EU and set them as the ‘population control’ points.

    For example:

    BG sits at 50000 play hours (not real numbers, examples)

    Anyone who hits that play hour threshold goes ‘full’.

    BG drops to 40,000? They stay full and any server that is above that new threshold is ‘full’.

    If, the algorithm fails and BG opens, they close it as soon as they recognize it within that day.

    It does a few things:

    • keeps the evil empire closed
    • Makes more worlds appear full
    • Makes WvW look more populated
    • Creates more opportunities to drive people to link servers spreading out population
    • Pushes transfers for more gems.

    But, who knows.

    Makes me wonder if Gandara is the EU control.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Zok.4956Zok.4956 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 15, 2021

    @nthmetal.9652 said:

    @Zok.4956 said:

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    What exactely is the "duck" your are seeing? That the "full" and "very high" of Gandara are false and Anet has set Gandara intentionally to "full" because Anet hates Gandara?

    I don't think "hate" is any factor. I wonder what you're trying to achieve by putting me in that corner. Hate is something that actually takes a lot of effort, consumes and wastes energy, and I don't think this has any room for that.

    Ok, I rephrase "hate" to "does not like". My point was: Do you think that Anet runs their populations algorithm on all servers and then, intentially and manually, sets Gandara to "full" regardless of what their algorithm computes?

    So no, I don't know. Maybe it's simply neglect?

    Yes, I think Anet probably neglects Gandara, like Anet neglects all other servers and the WvW-gamemode.

    Maybe I'm completely wrong, and Gandara, despite all the hints we have pointing to the opposite, is actually full and our population just distributes very, veeeery evenly, so that there are never queues (well I am exaggerating here. Of course we sometimes have queues. Very small ones. During primetime, and not during the last weeks - but generally moving even big groups was pretty easy during the last months). And we're just so slightly above the full threshold, that moving between maps 50-man-zergs is indeed easily possibly. Yet somehow we never dip below the "full" threshold anymore, despite guilds transferring off the server and no one new being able to join.
    And of course our players are all pretty bad, so that we can't win fights. That aspect is very easy to explain generally. There is a lack of commanders (we're not the only server suffering from that), which means a lot of activity is pretty unfocused.
    And maybe, just maybe, the average Gandaran player is so bad, that even the PPT is bad, right? Bad enough to not make it past T4 when we have no link (but we can make T4 and even T3 when we do have one).
    But you have to admit, that's a lot of factors that have to combine together to give the picture you imply, namely Gandara being actually a full server which does work exactly as I describe above.

    Or you take the simple explanation.

    The simple explanation would be, that your "anecdotal evidence" is not evidence and that your perception is biased, you expect too much, and you want to see a pattern/connection for unfairness against Gandara.

    Maybe you do not now when your fellow Gandarans are playing and where they are on the maps when you play and what they do.

    Some example: My server is "very high" and linked with a "high" server. Very often when I play I have the "Outnumbered" buff and often when there is an enemy ktrain blob we are not enough to defend and they just flip our garri. I do think sometimes, a linked-server that has very high+high should have more population. An when I was in matchups against Gandara, I felt as if there were a lot of Gandara players all over the map - more players than on my own server. This is also just a subjective observation, of course. But Gandara never felt like an empty server.

    Or at least that this criterion of being "full" is inadequate for the gamemode.
    And that doesn't only go for Gandara.

    A lot of things are inadequate for the gamemode and the link-system itself is not a good system and this leads to a lot of players/guilds bandwagoning after a relink to overstack servers to make bigger blobs.

    We as players do not know Anets thresholds for "full", "very high", "high", "medium" and "low". But I do think that (with the exception that BB will never be "full") Anet uses the same thresholds for all servers.

    I know it can s..ck if a server does not get a link. Been there. But I do not think that Anet treats Gandara differently than the other servers.

    https://www.gw2gh.com/ - A GW2-Guild-Hall.
    Register and check your guild leaderboard to see who is the best in your guild and who finished achievements first.

  • @Sin.4130 said:
    Last EU tier state for Monday, just few days after reset:
    Kills:
    Gandra 10 000
    Drakkar Lake 23 600
    Elona Reach 26 500

    Skirmishes points:
    Gandra 154
    Drakkar 178
    Elona Reach 184

    K/D ratio:
    Gandra 1.0
    Drakkar 0.8
    Elona Reach 1.1

    So anyone who try to find full status on Gandara is just dumb, simple as that

    because gandara players tried to boycot wvw during the last weeks.

  • Only what you left on servers without link is follow commander in prime time and farm the kitten bags.

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 17, 2021

    @Handtuch.6503 said:

    So anyone who try to find full status on Gandara is just dumb, simple as that

    because gandara players tried to boycot wvw during the last weeks.

    Untrue. We had problems with activity all the time last year, especially since summer, best visible in the periods without links, so it's not like this singular event now what was pushed it all. But it shows how tilted the players are. And looking at the mass transfers from WSR / to WSR last year, we're not the only ones.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais