Server Balance???

Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

They just recently released a statement saying it still had a ways to go. I wouldn't expect to see it until at least summer 2019 tbh.

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??Is quite new news, but not really good news.https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

@Dayra.7405 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??Is quite new news, but not really good news.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

The only way to delay bandwagoning is to ramp up the cost for every transfer they made, it is the most logical deterrence since the more transfers, the more expensive it is, I doubt people will keep paying for inflated price. Just ask yourself if you willing to pay 5k gems to transfer.

By delaying bandwagoning, servers will have breathing time to stablise itself and enjoy a good bit of WvW instead of having the bandwagoners actions making more people quit wvw or even the game itself.

I personally don't think it requires major backend changes. I believe is simply just adding database count an date on transfers. Basically two additional tags on account.

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??They posted an update a couple of days ago.

Not only did it say that the back-end was comming along in pieces but is yet to be pieced together (so still alpha level), but ...

They also said that they are keeping cross-region transfer and between-link transfer for gems so the new system will be plagued by the same two major reasons as to why the current system is bad. Nightcappers and wagoneers will still be a P2W thing to ruin pop-balance :# .

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

Linking and 1 up 1 down. It allows for a server to... pick it’s matchup with minimal coordination. So... a populated server can ask its main commanders to decrease how much they tag up and within two weeks, your server can be tier four for some confidence building server beatdowns.

But maybe it’s all about the fights.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??Is quite new news, but not really good news.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

New in the sense of just 10 days ago.

And not good:just one part time developer working on it, in nearly a year he may made around 25%, if that commitment of ANet to WvW doesn't increase, we get Alliances end of 2021.

@Dayra.7405 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??Is quite new news, but not really good news.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

He's not working on it alone and he is not working on it part time. Poor reading comprehension if you picked that up from his post. He also refers to himself as "we" if that was the case.

Hope your right, we will see sometimes in the future, or not as we long forgot gw2 when it finally happen

Open all servers.Free transfers for a week, they can only move once in that time anyways.There are people that apparently like playing with less people and not in zergs, they can have the lower tier.Let people play wherever they want.At this point people complaining about bandwagons just don't want to move, but want to force people to stay on their server. The only way to truly stop this is to not have transfers, and that will never happen.Rank 1 tier 1 means nothing, populations have always been screwed since day one with coverage stacking, there's no tournaments, bragging about being number one in a game mode that has half the players from years past is empty and hallow.

And please let's not get misty eyed about a name at this point because the servers are not what they use to be, they all will be destroyed with the new system eventually.

@starhunter.6015 said:

@mike.6387 said:Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

Players are ALWAYS going to try and game the system.

Expecting them not to is foolish and a recipe for disaster.

Anet sitting back and letting it happen when they had every opportunity to stop it is what caused the problem.

Bring back free transfers or pay us to transfer instead. We shouldn't have to pay to enjoy the game.

One part time developer will give you an update when he gets a chance.

@Substance E.4852 said:

@starhunter.6015 said:

@mike.6387 said:Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

Im just loving being linked with 2 servers, and still coming in last because the server im up against(also with two links) is stacked right now. It super fun having multiple stealth groups literally camping outside of the spawn locations on all but one map at all hours of the day, so i wont be doing WvW this week sadly. :(

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:They just recently released a statement saying it still had a ways to go. I wouldn't expect to see it until at least summer 2019 tbh.

I suspect it's farther than that. I also suspect that numbers for the game mode will diminish in a snowball like fashion. Then when the alliance system hits, there will be an influx of numbers that come back, but will leave shortly after again due to bandwagoning and stacking.

The same problem that exists now will still persist through alliances: Many guilds/players have no interest in fairness or even play. They stack themselves, then if they run into any competition they either log off or cower in their towers or keeps. Outside of that, they'll just blob people down with 2-3x the numbers. This is still going to happen with alliances because it's a player behavior problem. People keep saying it's an Anet created problem.. it isn't, it's exclusively a player behavior problem

There is an extremely easy fix that would both have an immediate impact on balance, and have a positive long term effect, both in the current system and alliances. Cap the maps at a far lower player number. Right now, 20-25 should be sufficient, then if somehow a server manages to fill all the maps, increase the cap by another 5 until all maps are filled again. The only downside is reset, but I'm sorry, for 4 hours one night is no means to keep the map caps as high as they are currently.

Keeping the map capped at 20-25 completely eliminates the stacking behavior. Why stack if there is no means outnumber your enemy? The fact that you are a bandwagoner and you can no longer participate in a group larger than 20 means that it is now imposed on you that you must fight evenly. Often, the servers that havn't been bandwagoned to, can rarely ever field more than 20 people at once anyway. The guilds that can occasionally throughout the week would simply have to split their numbers up between maps. The most positive effect on Anet's side is it drastically reduces the stress on their servers that quite frankly can't seem to handle anything large scale.

The other thing they could do is simply disallow any links in T1. The second a server moves up to T1 causes their link to be recycled down to T4. The only arguments I've seen against this is, players or guildies want to play together but can't due to full servers, so the answer is move to the hosts link. This is not an argument, take your entire guild or group of friends and move to a link server where you all fit. Who knows, maybe you'll become a host. Quite frankly, if this causes the players who created this problem in the first place to get mad and leave the game, this is actually a positive thing, they created the mess to begin with.

@Dante.1763 said:

@Substance E.4852 said:

@starhunter.6015 said:

@"mike.6387" said:Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

Try being a on a server that has no real guilds left but is still "Full" because Anet says so.

I read somewhere that Anet balances WvW based on average hours played in a server. If that is true, then that is a terrible way to "balance" WvW because average hours played is not indicative of how many players play in a server. Anet needs to balance WvW on population not on average hours played.

Anet doesn't balance anything on "average" hours played. They base population on "total" hours played. All the hours played by anyone on a given server get added to one lump sum.

What Anet doesn't balance around is "when" those hours occur. IE if all your players are NA, or if some play during other time zones. Nor does Anet check the effectiveness of those hours played, IE some players are hugely more organized and effective at either PPT or K/D, or both.

I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning. That's the players job, not the developers. Sure, they could make transfers more expensive, but that wouldn't help wvw a bit.It's your mind set that destroys the game mode in the long term.Why do you think BG and JQ where on top of that list for so long? Because everybody bandwaggoned there? Why didn't it work out for bandwagon servers like Dragonbrand (remember 2014?) or SoR or SoS recently?You need a good mix of solid guild groups that show up on a regular basis and even more important you need a solid number of pugs that are willing to learn and get on teamspeak, discord or the voice chat your server uses. For those pugs you need commanders that don't hide in a guild discord and run closed group, but commanders that are willing to teach the pugs, to shape them into a useful part of the server. That takes time, that takes dedication and a lot of sweat and tears.Your server will die if you ignore the pugs and do your "guild stuff" and it will die when your pugs don't care and just block the ebg queue while farming pips by sitting somewhere.You can transfer as often as you want, but you won't end up on a server where someone takes your hand, hands you some gear, gives you a hug and carries you around until you are done with your shit.That's how BG and JQ worked for a very long time and the reason it stopped working is the same (at least for JQ). Running closed groups, server drama, entitled pugs and more entitled guild leaders.

Solution: Get a pin, learn to pugmand or find someone you can support. You may not end up in tier 1 with that, but you can get things done and have while trying.

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Dante.1763 said:

@Substance E.4852 said:

@starhunter.6015 said:

@"mike.6387" said:Yeap Anet you ruined wvw think I am done with gw just for that reason alone.

Thats just as bad!

@"gebrechen.5643" said:I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning. That's the players job, not the developers. Sure, they could make transfers more expensive, but that wouldn't help wvw a bit.

They can they choose not to, theres alot of things that could be used to stop transfers bandwagoning.

It's your mind set that destroys the game mode in the long term.

this is true, but the ease of bandwagoning doesnt help.

Why do you think BG and JQ where on top of that list for so long? Because everybody bandwaggoned there? Why didn't it work out for bandwagon servers like Dragonbrand (remember 2014?) or SoR or SoS recently?You need a good mix of solid guild groups that show up on a regular basis and even more important you need a solid number of pugs that are willing to learn and get on teamspeak, discord or the voice chat your server uses. For those pugs you need commanders that don't hide in a guild discord and run closed group, but commanders that are willing to teach the pugs, to shape them into a useful part of the server. That takes time, that takes dedication and a lot of sweat and tears.Your server will die if you ignore the pugs and do your "guild stuff" and it will die when your pugs don't care and just block the ebg queue while farming pips by sitting somewhere.

This bit is 100% true and i agree with it.

You can transfer as often as you want, but you won't end up on a server where someone takes your hand, hands you some gear, gives you a hug and carries you around until you are done with your kitten.That's how BG and JQ worked for a very long time and the reason it stopped working is the same (at least for JQ). Running closed groups, server drama, entitled pugs and more entitled guild leaders.

Solution: Get a pin, learn to pugmand or find someone you can support. You may not end up in tier 1 with that, but you can get things done and have while trying.

Sadly more and more servers at lower tiers are just becoming rover servers due to having to go up against servers that get swarmed by players, TC has been nearly completely empty, with the odd roamer for weeks now, and we keep going up against servers that we shouldnt be seeing.

Ya, T4 is a mess with SoR being dead. Should've had emergency re links asap but instead people in T4 and SoR have to wait 2 months for a computer to do it for them. Anet needs to step in right away when tiers/servers get this dead. The player can only transfer or wait 2 months and i guess the first option is what most people choose for good reason.

It's not just T4, look at T1, Kaineng has 2 T3 keeps in EBG

absolute garbage. but i guess i have a lot of reading i want to do anyways. this wouldn't be a problem if ANY of the following were to happen:

1. servers were unlinked
2. servers were merged permanently
3. there were restrictions on server transfers
4. alliance system was worked on and implementedBut nope. shrugs

@Shagaliscious.6281 said:It's not just T4, look at T1, Kaineng has 2 T3 keeps in EBG

Well, we all said 2 months for linking was too long and we were correct. Anet does nothing

Your never going to have full control over the player base the best thing is to ask for relative mobility for ppl to move but with a massive cd.