New Record in Singlesidedness? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

New Record in Singlesidedness?

Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

Whow, look at EU T1 (please don't make this a match thread, by talking about internals of this match, I am as well an outside observer).
Never seen before that 1 server-link dominates a match that worse, all so far 56 skirmishes won by the same server.

And it's only 1/4 of this link season passed, I fear it will become even worser during the next 3/4 as the link-partner is still only "high", i.e. enough space to make the remaining matches of the link-season even worser.

ANet, please hurry with the alliance system, or even better stop this as fast as possible, by switch server-status from single worlds to the complete link.

Comments

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Lol jade is rank 8. That means its a 2-way. And the dominant server is totally dominating, go figure. Like a soccer match of 6 year olds vs manchester united.

  • FogLeg.9354FogLeg.9354 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2018

    It was same previous week (Deso winning every single skirmish), and 2 weeks back Gandara managed to win 1 skirmish. We have been now stuck at exact same situation for 5th week in a row, and as far I have seen, servers who pop up from T2 have not enough players to match Deso, or to even fight Gandara.

    Not that long ago Gandara had queues in every map at prime time. Not anymore. Yesterday prime time we had no queues at all. Not in EB. Not in home map. Many Gandara guilds have disbanded or stopped playing lately since the WvW stopped being fun. It is not even about winning a match or winning single skirmish, there just is nothing to do in WvW anymore. People still log into WvW, but mostly for weekly pips, and do not care about much else.

    I have no solutions to improve current T1 either. I have tried to push issue in weekly server meeting several times now, attempting to get Gandara lose at least one match so we could drop to T2 and do something more interesting there (even if it only lasts for 1 week), but no luck. This has happened earlier to other servers, and I am afraid, once people start to leave, it is very difficult, if not impossible to get them back later.

    (not trying to start another fight with Deso players, just posting how I see current T1)

  • Odinens.5920Odinens.5920 Member ✭✭✭

    @FogLeg.9354 said:

    Yesterday prime time we had no queues at all. Not in EB. Not in home map. Many Gandara guilds have disbanded or stopped playing lately since the WvW stopped being fun.

    This is going on in NA too, and my opinion is by no means everybody's opinion - it's not fun, and hasn't been fun since PoF launched and this new new meta has been the "thing." People are just giving up and saying "screw it, I have better things to do." The whole "whoever brings more scourges" to the fight wins is ruining WvW for a lot of people, and I'll say this now, if they don't do something about it before they introduce the WvW rework, then that effort will go to waste, because regardless of a newly introduced system the actual play will still be the same, and it won't matter at that point.

    I don't even care if I finish my tickets anymore, and only play an hour or 2 on resets, and maybe an hour or 2 during the week, cuz that's all I can stand anymore.

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2018

    Forcibly over-meddling with population never works... Really should stand back, maybe put some incentives, and let it self adjust. This is like econ101.

    Otherwise let's get this over with and just roll out that new alliance system already and see how that'll turn out before everyone quits. If it works, then great, if not then gg

    Power > Condition

  • Djamonja.6453Djamonja.6453 Member ✭✭✭

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    Forcibly over-meddling with population never works... Really should stand back, maybe put some incentives, and let it self adjust. This is like econ101.

    Otherwise let's get this over with and just roll out that new alliance system already and see how that'll turn out before everyone quits. If it works, then great, if not then gg

    Self adjust? LOL. They just need to get the alliance system in as soon as possible, it sounds like the EU servers/tiers are becoming as bad as the NA ones.

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2018

    @Djamonja.6453 said:

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    Forcibly over-meddling with population never works... Really should stand back, maybe put some incentives, and let it self adjust. This is like econ101.

    Otherwise let's get this over with and just roll out that new alliance system already and see how that'll turn out before everyone quits. If it works, then great, if not then gg

    Self adjust? LOL. They just need to get the alliance system in as soon as possible, it sounds like the EU servers/tiers are becoming as bad as the NA ones.

    Yes self adjust. Leave the LOL for yourself.

    You're never going to achieve complete textbook number and coverage balance, but why do you need to? This is how servers compete, spread propaganda, trash talk and create rivalries even outside the actual gameplay. It's imbalance yes, but it's an imbalance that we as players and communities have a lot more control over, and when we have more control over it, we feel more attached to the community. It's almost like a game within a game. There were high profile implosions and this is what most people only remember, but in general it was relatively stable and consistent.

    Whereas in this temp linking, it's almost as if players don't change their schedules and play hours day to day depending on the time and month. Unless they have some competent data scientists calculating this thing, it was doomed to fail from the beginning.

    Power > Condition

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

    On thenplayer control aspect, even the implosions were player generated. With significant player control over the stacking and link moving,

    Incentives varied, but winning always turned out to be a poor one. Stacking will happen again, both in the current system, in the potential upcoming alliance system, and in the old system (non linked servers) if it ever returned.

    If 'winning matters' again, i.e. Increased rewards, expect stacking to be more pronounced.

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 14, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    On thenplayer control aspect, even the implosions were player generated. With significant player control over the stacking and link moving,

    Incentives varied, but winning always turned out to be a poor one. Stacking will happen again, both in the current system, in the potential upcoming alliance system, and in the old system (non linked servers) if it ever returned.

    If 'winning matters' again, i.e. Increased rewards, expect stacking to be more pronounced.

    Player generated implosion is fine. They've clearly lost the game within the game as a community. People would leave the server, the server would slowly drop down ranking, tolerate few weeks of lopsided match with an odd one out server, then another server would slowly replace it. What I don't want to see is anet doing something so intrusive like forcibly link and inflate numbers of a server to keep things "balanced", for example.

    I agree winning should never be a significant incentive (though not saying none), maybe rewards in "winning" can be spread by play hours or contributions rewarded in small bites rather than for the entire week, and just not too significant? Of course, I personally don't want to see it if the system would significantly cause stacking. Outnumberred is a great example of a good incentive to make people play on an empty map. Incentives should not be intrusive that significantly impacts the gameplay, but more of a "cherry on top".

    Power > Condition

This discussion has been closed.
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.