Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Suggestion: Intermediary solution to WvW imbalance


Recommended Posts

Hello there,

as it will probably take a while until the world restructuring is done, I have a very simple proposal that could handle populations imbalance in WvW:

Dynamic Player Cap Adjustment:

  • Minimum amount of Players on a map for each Server: 20
  • Dynamic adjustment: allowed amount of Players for a Server = amount of Players of the currently least populated Server x 1.5 (on that map)
  • Maximum Player cap remains with the current cap

Example with numbers:

  • Around midnight, 2 Servers are basically asleep while one is still quite active: Server 1: 15 "active" Players on the map, Server 2: 18 "active" Players on the map, Server 3: -> Maximum amount of allowed Players 23 having a Queue for remaining players.
  • Lunchtime, Server 1: 40 active Players on the map, Server 2&3 -> Maximum allowed Players on the Map: 60

This could lead to:

  • More/longer Queue times for Players on the most active Server (ofc a negative Impact)
  • Better chances for the lower populated Servers for nice small-scale-fights
  • Less bored Players on the active Server (Queued Players can do something else while waiting)

This could also only be applied to the borderlands, excluding EBG

What do you guys think?Keep in mind, only a TEMPORARY solution Suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we are only able to play because of the will of other players...

This is a horrible idea, it fixes nothing because stacked servers will still win, yet it creates a hole set of issues that do nothing but kill the game mode.

Quick one, how is this supposed to work when people are already in the map? Like all servers have 50 people. Server A jumps to EB, and server B sees 30 people gone cause guild raid ended, what happens to 20 people from B and 50 people from server C?

That's how poorly thought is your idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people think that 100% balanced population across all tiers is possible? You can't and shouldn't control when other people can or want to play.

Anet already has decent enough solution to balance out performance among different time zone activity - 8 (or 6) hour skirmishes instead of current 2 hours, which give enough time for "comeback ppt".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ansau.7326 said:So now we are only able to play because of the will of other players...

Jupp, that is the Basis behind it, if you want to say it like that.

This is a horrible idea, it fixes nothing because stacked servers will still win, yet it creates a hole set of issues that do nothing but kill the game mode.

Ah sorry, the idea was not to Change something about winning or losing, only about the possibility to have more interesting fights rather than a boring 5+v1 slaughtering wherever you go on the map with one side seeking just SOMETHING to kill while the other side tries to somehow being able to do anything.

Quick one, how is this supposed to work when people are already in the map? Like all servers have 50 people. Server A jumps to EB, and server B sees 30 people gone cause guild raid ended, what happens to 20 people from B and 50 people from server C?That's how poorly thought is your idea.

Good question, but given the usual fluctuation it probably will even out after a certain time (dunno, 15-30 minutes?) as the 50 ppl Server will get a Queue. It will in any case not make the Ratio worse as it is now sometimes.

@"steki.1478" said:Why do people think that 100% balanced population across all tiers is possible? You can't and shouldn't control when other people can or want to play.

100% is never possible, I just read/hear from various sides complains that it is far away from being nearly evened out.

Anet already has decent enough solution to balance out performance among different time zone activity - 8 (or 6) hour skirmishes instead of current 2 hours, which give enough time for "comeback ppt".

8h skirmish would fit fine for 1-2h time difference but would increase the Problem for differences related to e.g. work/free time or others as one tick would have a much bigger Impact on the Overall score.

Bring up more thoughts =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any "intermediate" solution not solving the problem is not worth the effort to implement it. If ANet is seriously working on the new Alliance system that means the solution cannot be very far away. If ANet was not serious, then an "intermediate" solution will not solve 6 years old problems.

As a note - I saw several times in the morning that a server owned 100% of 2 (or sometimes 3) maps out of 4. If a server cannot have even a camp on a map that means the number of players on that map is 2, 3. Maximum 4. According to your solution the max number of players from the server playing at its full capacity during the night period on the other 2 servers should be maximum 6. And, by revers, when the "night" server will have 3-4...6 players on any map that means the other two servers can have around 6-10 payers?

Hm - you can have already 5 vs 5 battles in PvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear people don't want somewhat close fights, and won't play unless a large group with a tag is carrying them thru the loot farm/xp session.

Can already see the "followers" using one single map cap as an excuse in this thread. When you see a huge queue do you think they are playing on another map waiting to get in? Heeck naw. They sitting in Lions Arch posting how bad your suggestion is.

Solution: open BG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Cristalyan.5728" said:As a note - I saw several times in the morning that a server owned 100% of 2 (or sometimes 3) maps out of 4. If a server cannot have even a camp on a map that means the number of players on that map is 2, 3. Maximum 4. According to your solution the max number of players from the server playing at its full capacity during the night period on the other 2 servers should be maximum 6. And, by revers, when the "night" server will have 3-4...6 players on any map that means the other two servers can have around 6-10 payers?

Minimum would be around 20, if it still a 100% own, be it. If ppl are more interested in boring stay-arounds the Suggestion is obsolete anyway, but with 20vs4vs4 it would at least give SOME small Entertainment when 20 have to cover the whole map while the 4 can sneak around taking camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isnt a solution, it's just placing a lower bar on everything.

The problem here is that it's the increasing populations of maps that drive WvW. One server has 5 peeps on a map, a 50 man enemy zerg comes in. That only mean the server with 5 peeps need to step up their game. If the enemy was limited to just 5 man joining there would never be any zerg. And thus there would never be escalating gameplay. And looking at the other end of it too, heaven forbid a zerg stops playing. If one server has "too many" players just because the others are logging, what are you going to do? Kick them out of WvW and say "hey you're not allowed to play, that's unfair!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we just have to accept that population balance will always be a problem. Instead, ArenaNet can change the scoring to account for population. For example...

  • Server A: 7000 points with 100 player hours = 70 points per player hour
  • Server B: 3000 points with 50 player hours = 60 points per player hour
  • Server C: 2000 points with 20 player hours = 100 points per player hour

Server C would win the skirmish, despite having the lowest war score. We'd probably need a more complex calculation than simply dividing the score by player hours, but I'm sure a solution can be found that factors in population imbalance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebalance the aoe spam to a more team based game than any one is a aoe/cleave spammer.

Give some zergbusting skills like meteor storm and skills alike strong aoe, this would help groups more towards skill than numbers..This would help balance and reduce lag.

Balance isn’t a score issue lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Shining One.1635" said:I think we just have to accept that population balance will always be a problem. Instead, ArenaNet can change the scoring to account for population. For example...

  • Server A: 7000 points with 100 player hours = 70 points per player hour
  • Server B: 3000 points with 50 player hours = 60 points per player hour
  • Server C: 2000 points with 20 player hours = 100 points per player hour

Server C would win the skirmish, despite having the lowest war score. We'd probably need a more complex calculation than simply dividing the score by player hours, but I'm sure a solution can be found that factors in population imbalance.That literally only encourages playing in a zoneblob for a couple hours and then log off ASAP to not "drag your server down". No roaming or smallscaling allowed because its too long periods of actual fighting rather than PPTing. In fact, dont log in to WvW at all, let the big boys on the server handle this. You're just too ineffective.

Is that really what we want WvW to be about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:

If one server has "too many" players just because the others are logging, what are you going to do? Kick them out of WvW and say "hey you're not allowed to play, that's unfair!".

If one server had too many they would trigger a queue until the buffer is met by the other servers. Pretty simple really. Still allows for escalating play as you say. It discourages calling in a huge blob to fight the handful of people trying to play the game on the opposite side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@displayname.8315 said:

@"Dawdler.8521" said:

If one server has "too many" players just because the others are logging, what are you going to do? Kick them out of WvW and say "hey you're not allowed to play, that's unfair!".

If one server had too many they would trigger a queue until the buffer is met by the other servers. Pretty simple really. Still allows for escalating play as you say. It discourages calling in a huge blob to fight the handful of people trying to play the game on the opposite side.Except
sometimes you need it
. The assumption here is that everyone is perfectly equal. They're not.

If a decent 25 man guild from an otherwise low pop server are on a border and the random enemies arent allowed to bring people in... then what? Are you supposed to beat that with 25 random pugs? A guild that can even nuke a 50 man to shreds?

And after you figure how enemies are supposed to respond to something when they're not allowed to bring players to beat them... whats that guild going to fight exactly? If there is already random enemies on the border, trying to put up weak attempts at defense... no organized enemy guild or zerg can join cause they instantly hit the cap.

Again, we're looking at a scenario where players are activly encouraged to not play and gtfo of the way so that "fair" fights can happen - whether it be zergs meeting zergs, guilds meeting guilds or just a couple of havocs facing off its a matter of anyone not fitting into the matched criteria within the population restriction not being welcome in WvW at that time. We are already seeing it with the current caps, when zergling commanders demand everyone on meta builds on tag or get off the border. The only reason its not such a big issue is the 50 man squads leaving room vs the ~85 man border caps.

This isnt a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:That literally only encourages playing in a zoneblob for a couple hours and then log off ASAP to not "drag your server down". No roaming or smallscaling allowed because its too long periods of actual fighting rather than PPTing. In fact, dont log in to WvW at all, let the big boys on the server handle this. You're just too ineffective.Why would this discourage small scale? Small scale can be very efficient for scoring purposes. The 50-man zerg that spends an hour flipping keeps is generating less points per player hour than the solo roamer flipping camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

If one server has "too many" players just because the others are logging, what are you going to do? Kick them out of WvW and say "hey you're not allowed to play, that's unfair!".

If one server had too many they would trigger a queue until the buffer is met by the other servers. Pretty simple really. Still allows for escalating play as you say. It discourages calling in a huge blob to fight the handful of people trying to play the game on the opposite side.Except
sometimes you need it
. The assumption here is that everyone is perfectly equal. They're not.

If a decent 25 man guild from an otherwise low pop server are on a border and the random enemies arent allowed to bring people in... then what? Are you supposed to beat
that
with 25 random pugs? A guild that can even nuke a 50 man to shreds?

And after you figure how enemies are supposed to respond to something when they're not
allowed
to bring players to beat them... whats that guild going to fight exactly? If there is already random enemies on the border, trying to put up weak attempts at defense... no organized enemy guild or zerg can join cause they instantly hit the cap.

Again, we're looking at a scenario where players are activly encouraged to
not play
and gtfo of the way so that "fair" fights can happen - whether it be zergs meeting zergs, guilds meeting guilds or just a couple of havocs facing off its a matter of anyone not fitting into the matched criteria within the population restriction not being welcome in WvW at that time. We are already seeing it with the
current
caps, when zergling commanders demand everyone on meta builds on tag or get off the border. The only reason its not such a big issue is the 50 man squads leaving room vs the ~85 man border caps.

This isnt a good idea.

So if 40 people can't beat a group of 25 your solution is to bring 60 people instead? Hmm that just rubs me the wrong way for some reason..

Assuming the buffer is like 10+. If 40v25 isn't working then hmm.. go back to world boss rotation or whatever it is people do in PvE. Map hop and PPT somewhere else..

We all see how bringing 60 to "win" gets gamed by the locusts. No fun. At least this way they can only bring a blob if there's a decent size opposition. But that would be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Prinzsecond.4863" said:Hello there,

as it will probably take a while until the world restructuring is done, I have a very simple proposal that could handle populations imbalance in WvW:

Dynamic Player Cap Adjustment:

  • Minimum amount of Players on a map for each Server: 20
  • Dynamic adjustment: allowed amount of Players for a Server = amount of Players of the currently least populated Server x 1.5 (on that map)
  • Maximum Player cap remains with the current cap

Example with numbers:

  • Around midnight, 2 Servers are basically asleep while one is still quite active: Server 1: 15 "active" Players on the map, Server 2: 18 "active" Players on the map, Server 3: -> Maximum amount of allowed Players 23 having a Queue for remaining players.
  • Lunchtime, Server 1: 40 active Players on the map, Server 2&3 -> Maximum allowed Players on the Map: 60

This could lead to:

  • More/longer Queue times for Players on the most active Server (ofc a negative Impact)
  • Better chances for the lower populated Servers for nice small-scale-fights
  • Less bored Players on the active Server (Queued Players can do something else while waiting)

This could also only be applied to the borderlands, excluding EBG

What do you guys think?Keep in mind, only a TEMPORARY solution Suggestion.

I think everyone understands your intentions are to help improve wvw, but this is a 24/7 game mode. And such a change wouldn’t ever happen anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@displayname.8315 said:

If one server has "too many" players just because the others are logging, what are you going to do? Kick them out of WvW and say "hey you're not allowed to play, that's unfair!".

If one server had too many they would trigger a queue until the buffer is met by the other servers. Pretty simple really. Still allows for escalating play as you say. It discourages calling in a huge blob to fight the handful of people trying to play the game on the opposite side.Except
sometimes you need it
. The assumption here is that everyone is perfectly equal. They're not.

If a decent 25 man guild from an otherwise low pop server are on a border and the random enemies arent allowed to bring people in... then what? Are you supposed to beat
that
with 25 random pugs? A guild that can even nuke a 50 man to shreds?

And after you figure how enemies are supposed to respond to something when they're not
allowed
to bring players to beat them... whats that guild going to fight exactly? If there is already random enemies on the border, trying to put up weak attempts at defense... no organized enemy guild or zerg can join cause they instantly hit the cap.

Again, we're looking at a scenario where players are activly encouraged to
not play
and gtfo of the way so that "fair" fights can happen - whether it be zergs meeting zergs, guilds meeting guilds or just a couple of havocs facing off its a matter of anyone not fitting into the matched criteria within the population restriction not being welcome in WvW at that time. We are already seeing it with the
current
caps, when zergling commanders demand everyone on meta builds on tag or get off the border. The only reason its not such a big issue is the 50 man squads leaving room vs the ~85 man border caps.

This isnt a good idea.

So if 40 people can't beat a group of 25 your solution is to bring 60 people instead? Hmm that just rubs me the wrong way for some reason..

Assuming the buffer is like 10+. If 40v25 isn't working then hmm.. go back to world boss rotation or whatever it is people do in PvE. Map hop and PPT somewhere else..

We all see how bringing 60 to "win" gets gamed by the locusts. No fun. At least this way they can only bring a blob if there's a decent size opposition. But that would be fair.Then WvW rubs the you the wrong way. Because thats WvW. Thats how it works. You are describing daily WvW of raids vs randoms. Or have you never played with or against good guilds? Your attitude to WvW just proves everything I've said in my posts when you say "map hop or PPT somewhere else".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

If one server has "too many" players just because the others are logging, what are you going to do? Kick them out of WvW and say "hey you're not allowed to play, that's unfair!".

If one server had too many they would trigger a queue until the buffer is met by the other servers. Pretty simple really. Still allows for escalating play as you say. It discourages calling in a huge blob to fight the handful of people trying to play the game on the opposite side.Except
sometimes you need it
. The assumption here is that everyone is perfectly equal. They're not.

If a decent 25 man guild from an otherwise low pop server are on a border and the random enemies arent allowed to bring people in... then what? Are you supposed to beat
that
with 25 random pugs? A guild that can even nuke a 50 man to shreds?

And after you figure how enemies are supposed to respond to something when they're not
allowed
to bring players to beat them... whats that guild going to fight exactly? If there is already random enemies on the border, trying to put up weak attempts at defense... no organized enemy guild or zerg can join cause they instantly hit the cap.

Again, we're looking at a scenario where players are activly encouraged to
not play
and gtfo of the way so that "fair" fights can happen - whether it be zergs meeting zergs, guilds meeting guilds or just a couple of havocs facing off its a matter of anyone not fitting into the matched criteria within the population restriction not being welcome in WvW at that time. We are already seeing it with the
current
caps, when zergling commanders demand everyone on meta builds on tag or get off the border. The only reason its not such a big issue is the 50 man squads leaving room vs the ~85 man border caps.

This isnt a good idea.

So if 40 people can't beat a group of 25 your solution is to bring 60 people instead? Hmm that just rubs me the wrong way for some reason..

Assuming the buffer is like 10+. If 40v25 isn't working then hmm.. go back to world boss rotation or whatever it is people do in PvE. Map hop and PPT somewhere else..

We all see how bringing 60 to "win" gets gamed by the locusts. No fun. At least this way they can only bring a blob if there's a decent size opposition. But that would be fair.Then WvW rubs the you the wrong way. Because thats WvW. Thats how it works. You are describing daily WvW of raids vs randoms. Or have you never played with or against good guilds? Your attitude to WvW just proves everything I've said in my posts when you say "map hop or PPT somewhere else".

It was map hop AND PPT somewhere else.. if you can't handle even-ish matchups. And no WvW is not just about bringing alot more numbers than the other guys. Kinda sad that you want it to be that though.

Great example of why forcing balance on the players is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Population balance is a complicated issue, it isn't just A or B, it is a combinations of multiple factors therefore it require control on multiple factors. However, anet has never been a big fan of control therefore the lack of controls have been leading to a worsen population balance over the years. It has already reached a point of no return and any "solution" will require hardcore control which anet will absolute not implement.

The only real solution is to blow up the server to force population redistribution which has always been a controversial topic because people are not willing to let go of the "power" they accumulated over the years or for the new players, the "power" they just discovered, for the greater good. Afterall, human are not known to do things for the greater good. Even the "alliance" solution has a few critical flaws which people can use to destroy any so-called population balance that they hope to achieve. This game is doomed, just play while you look for a better one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While population balance is a complicated issue, it is not impossible to design an intermediary (or intermediating) system.

Dynamic- and actively balancing systems can work and is most likely the right way to go (as Ray has noted: Alliances won't solve all), the problem with the suggestion of this thread is just that it adds queues while queues are an old and bad way to go about things. The upside of a dynamic system is that it can take queues away instead as a properly designed one could be used with the overflow technology that ArenaNet has already developed and use elsewhere.

To this day I have not seen anyone come up with relevant or effective counter arguments to my soon half-decade old idea of tying server score to the outnumbered technology and making maps less valuable for everyone based on relative population (ie., the % difference between the servers actively on the map, not to the total % of the cap). It is a core design that is logical and the tech for it already exists. It is essentially what they failed to do with EotM (mega server) and outnumbered, because you can make those ideas work. It is also a platform from which you can tweak (you can tweak the figures of how much value a map should lose and at what intervals to balance out and meet how players attempt to exploit the system), so it is easily reiteratable.

It works with alliances (and servers and mega-server style puzzle pieces too) so all that work does not have to go to spill. It would also work very well with a more iterable approach to maps by making only one type of map ideal (but not mandatory) so they could focus on one concept and only variations of that to keep maps fresh and possible to release new maps into the existing pool.

The best thing is that it isn't heavy-handed and does not stop players from playing the way they want - it just shapes and encourages behaviour in the right direction through the scoring system itself. It even lets nightcappers be nightcappers and equally valuable to prime time players. It simply encourages everyone to spread thin if they want to impact the server score and it lets them stack if all they care about are the personal rewards. It's adaptive that way.

 

If big words are a problem here are the basics of the system again:It is for World vs. World vs. WorldWvWvWThe mode assumes that there is a cap somewhere around 100, so a spread of 1-100.

A relative balanced systems assumes that:

1v1v1 is as valuable as 100v100v100In both situations the WvWvW is balanced and the prerequesites for the mode are met so the map is worth 100%.It also assumes that 1v1v0 is not as valuable as 1v1v1 or that 100v100v50 is not as valuable as 100v100v100 so those maps are worth less.It likewise assumes that 1v1v1 is more valuable than 100v100v50 or that 100v100v100 is similarily more valuable than 1v1v0.

That will make sure that maps become more valuable the move evenly populated they are (relative each other), regardless of how much populated they are (relative the cap).

That then creates a number of situations:It will encourage players who want to impact the server score and win, to spread thin rather than stack, stacking will be useful for social reasons but useless for winning. It will encourage that for players regardless of their timezone relative the server's prime. It doesn't matter where you play from it will encourage all players who want to win from your time zone to spread out to create the balanced situation that lets the map be valuable in your time spectrum and thus let you impact how your server does in your timezone. It will create competition within the time zones rather than between the time zones as it is now. It will shape player behaviour without necessarily stopping them from making choices or punishing them for choices with other motives than winning world-level competition.

It also does away with queues since you can now create overflows and only let the overflows affect score if they too are even as the capped maps are. So if there are 123v123v123 players and the cap is 100, then there will be two maps one with 100v100v100 and one with 23v23v23 and they can be equally valuable because they are equally competetively balanced in terms of numerics. No queues friends, no queues at all. The system will simply let the map work as an overflow until it is evenly populated and then automatically make it competetive. That also lets performance, at any scale, dictate winners rather than coverage, player stacks or peak numbers and that opens up the opportunity to provide server-wide rewards for winning and makes being #1 more meaningfull in and of itself.

Since there now are potentially inifinite numbers of overflows to be populated, you can use any server/alliance/mega size of puzzle pieces you wish, you could even make a true WvWvW where you only have 3 total groups (though I personally prefer servers/alliances and a ladder system). All I'm saying is that it is flexible and not dependent on those kind of choices made.

As there are overflows it also promotes using the 3-side equal-ish design of EBG over the defender-attackers design of the borderlands. Some overflows could still be borderlands of course (the system is flexible) but it wouldn't make sense from a balance perspective to have so many maps with built-in advantages for one side. Instead it would promote designing more maps that are variations of a the 3-side equal core design of EBG and be able to throw all of those new maps into a carousel as overflows are created. If they use the overflow tech as we know it with the LFG-system in place, squads could even opt to avoid maps the commander dislikes by simply moving to another overflow (similarily guilds could track each other and face up on overflows, not needing to exit the mode, create queues or disrupt map content; and the system could be used to form the foundation of a GvG map system within the overarching design by simply removing the server building block element from a series of sanctum overflows or w/e) - that would let Anet put in alot more unproven maps into the same system without them impacting the game too negatively and then reiterate on them as they evaluate their popularity. So they can easily ventilate ideas without it negatively impacting the players too much and then improve upon those ideas live. That is a good place to design from.

I'm probably even forgetting some advantages as it is bedtime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...