WVW readings are wrong — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

WVW readings are wrong

aandiarie.7195aandiarie.7195 Member ✭✭✭

It was said on the reddit dev post that Fort Aspenwood was within 10% of BG's playtime/hrs for wvw. This can't be correct. Fort Aspenwood is in Tier 4 and BG in Tier 1. BG queues every map up to 100+ and there are "crickets" on FA ( mainly because a lot of players are off doing the expansion on the new maps).

Something is wrong in the formula or whatever it is you use to determine server fullness/activity.

BG is so active they are in tier 1 and in 1st while FA is in Tier 4

:(

Comments

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    I don't believe the readings are necessarily wrong though I do believe they're being used irrationally. If you read the Reddit post further, it said that servers with links are larger than BG's population. So the question becomes, if these linked teams have a larger population than BG yet can't win against BG, why is Anet even making server teams that are smaller than BG's population? What is the actual goal here in doing that? If Anet is making teams larger than BG to give them some sort of fighting chance against BG - which doesn't seem to be working, it also means they're removing that fighting chance from the smaller teams against almost every other team. FA is only the most recent example of a repeated pattern we've seen with several different servers now that were marked Full and had no server link.

    I think Anet should do relinkings every month instead of every other month given this case in order to be more responsive to population changes. And the reason for this is because the smaller teams will tend to start putting in overtime to try to pull out a win. That makes for a perverse incentive because the extra hours inflate the population - larger teams have the luxury of more people to spread the playhours out over. This was the problem with the Tournaments that lead to a lot of burn-out btw.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    quality vs quantity.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    quality vs quantity.

    When numbers are equalized then skill becomes the deciding factor - that "fighting chance" I mentioned. They can put together a team with higher playhours and activity from players who just go around capping and upgrading objectives and never much fighting and these teams will win matches because of that. Then they hit a brick wall when facing BG and they'll just melt. That's also why we've seen only Maguuma with a link be able to put a dent in BG.

  • aandiarie.7195aandiarie.7195 Member ✭✭✭

    :O you just blew my mind! You're absolutely right.

  • JoEWas.1409JoEWas.1409 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    The algorithm they use probably just shows a percentage of increase or decrease, main purpose is more than likely for a board meeting with power-points so they can say, 'this is the amount of playtime in WvW, next slide' they don't monitor anything; 1 person playing for 10 hours does not equal 10 people playing for 1 hour, but that is what their algorithm is for, so at the end of the day they can sit back and think 'man these 2 servers are close in playtime they must be close in population.'

    I Play On Fort Aspenwood [WHY]
    http://i.imgur.com/uQQTn.jpg

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    It isn't "skill" exactly, it is mindset and organization. The commanders and guilds and players willing to run 50 man or greater squads for hours on end have over the course of five years become concentrated on a few NA servers. Anet is looking at overall WvW numbers, when a better indicator(one Anet can't observe) would be how many followers each commander has in voice comms. If you have the TS addresses of the various server voice comms run a little experiment, log in, note the number of active users then compare that to other servers. Then run that experiment during off hours. That data will tell you exactly why BG, MAG, JQ(albeit Discord now) are winning against the other servers.
    Random players running around in WvW milking pips and running up a lot of man hours in WvW is not the same as a focused 50 man squad in voice comms.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    i can imagine each bl has a slot.

    red 1 to 100
    blue 1 to 100
    green 1 to 100
    eb 1 to 100

    and they record the number of slots taken and the number of hours played. then comparing this with other servers. = population cap.

    so if deso has 50 players throughout the day, those slots will be used and they count the time based on that.

    green 1 to 15
    blue 1 to 15
    red 1 to 5
    eb 1 to 15

    for 12 hours.

    vs

    x server

    lets say

    green 50 at 2 hours
    then red differebt players 50 2 hours
    etc etc completing 12 hours too.

    the data will show the same number of players at those times.

    in paper it seems fair. but server x has replacements whereas deso has no lifers.

    in reality other servers could have 3to 4 x the number of players a no lifer server has.

    but one server is full and the other is not.

    I guess the solution therefore is for us to play less of gw2? hee

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    I guess the solution therefore is for us to play less of gw2? hee

    Aye, there's the perverse incentive. Just quit playing for a bit to lower your team's population even more so that at next re-linking you will have a population larger than BG's.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    I guess the solution therefore is for us to play less of gw2? hee

    Aye, there's the perverse incentive. Just quit playing for a bit to lower your team's population even more so that at next re-linking you will have a population larger than BG's.

    thats weird, dont anet want us to make them money?

    i myself am adjusting by not playing as long or as early as i used to. i get to watch the blacklist - good series, spy stuff.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Server population is accurate FA historically has had skill and organizational issues.

  • Rampage.7145Rampage.7145 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    BG ONLY has people arround when they have a full blown blobmander running a 70 man zerg on TS, when that person calls it they are just completelly ded, you wont find BG players on any map at that point, unlike some other servers where people actually play just for the sake of playing, poeple in JQ and BG only play whenever they have a full map que blob running arround, if they dont have that they just PVE, other servers actualy have smaller groups running arround most of the time doing random stuff, farming pips or whatever, so that equalizes the actual numbers Arenanet see.

    VR Driver
    Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
    https://saltybeavers.com/

  • You guys realize that Maguma is first and has placed first in 6 out of the last 7 matches, right?

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Spurnshadow.3678 said:
    You guys realize that Maguma is first and has placed first in 6 out of the last 7 matches, right?

    I'm not sure what your point is with regards to the topic of making teams that are smaller than BG's population size. See this comment I wrote earlier: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/182038/#Comment_182038

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭

    TC is in T4, and even we have "space fillers". I don't mean pve folks doing the bare minimum to get their pips. I mean, people who log in and stand for 6-12 hours in 1 spot and never participate. Occasionally, they will build 10 crappy trebs in our keep (or rams) to use supply or pull tacs. but they never DO anything else. Anet is counting them as players, and their "system" counts them.

    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)
    For the geographically challenged, yes, Tarnished Coast is located IN the Maguuma Jungle.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    @aandiarie.7195 said:
    It was said on the reddit dev post that Fort Aspenwood was within 10% of BG's playtime/hrs for wvw. This can't be correct. Fort Aspenwood is in Tier 4 and BG in Tier 1. BG queues every map up to 100+ and there are "crickets" on FA ( mainly because a lot of players are off doing the expansion on the new maps).

    Something is wrong in the formula or whatever it is you use to determine server fullness/activity.

    BG is so active they are in tier 1 and in 1st while FA is in Tier 4

    :(

    Queues of every map up to 100+...wow..., please stop making stuff up. Scores, and match results are not an accurate measure of a server's status.

    FA's problem is internal, in that they need to rely on a link to stay competitive.

    I have said this for a long time, linking is a temp boost and will only hurt a server in the long run. It actually punishes a server for winning. If you want to be successful, you need to build up your core, your server's community. Linking needs to be done on a monthly basis as well to reduce the bandwagon effect. And linked servers should share the same status as their host servers so as to prevent dramatic rises in populations that make matchups lopsided. If a full server gets a link, that link should be locked as full as well when linking is done.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • aandiarie.7195aandiarie.7195 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't want a link lol. I was just saying anet saying we are within 10% of bg is a joke.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @aandiarie.7195 said:
    I don't want a link lol. I was just saying anet saying we are within 10% of bg is a joke.

    Right, but don't confuse match results with individual playtime. Placement in tiers is determined by match results, not how many hours you play.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:
    Placement in tiers is determined by match results, not how many hours you play.

    Match results based mostly on population (which can be artificially inflated by overtime hours) and coverage. :thinking:

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:
    Placement in tiers is determined by match results, not how many hours you play.

    Match results based mostly on population (which can be artificially inflated by overtime hours) and coverage. :thinking:

    Match results are based on score, not population. If we on BG tank the matchup and go down to t2/3 are you still going to say we do not have enough population and coverage?

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    @X T D.6458 said:
    Match results are based on score, not population. If we on BG tank the matchup and go down to t2/3 are you still going to say we do not have enough population and coverage?

    Score has always been a function of population and coverage. It's the whole reason behind trying to split up timezones into skirmishes.

    I get what you're saying though and you're essentially talking past me. If you tank, you are artificially decreasing your population and coverage for that match. If you overtime, you are artificially increasing it. If you go down to T2/T3 and then subsequently lose those matches, yes, it can be said then you do not have enough population and coverage.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 7, 2017

    There isn't a timezone outside of NA reset (I assume, I can't play right on reset,) where FA isn't outnumbered on at least two maps. Usually the two opposing borderlands. I would know. I enjoy 13~15 pip ticks.
    I can't speak to Blackgate.

    ~ Kovu

    edit - And I mean right now, in T4.

    Ranger, Necromancer, Fort Aspenwood.

  • Jerry CCH.9816Jerry CCH.9816 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rampage.7145 said:
    BG ONLY has people arround when they have a full blown blobmander running a 70 man zerg on TS, when that person calls it they are just completelly ded, you wont find BG players on any map at that point, unlike some other servers where people actually play just for the sake of playing, poeple in JQ and BG only play whenever they have a full map que blob running arround, if they dont have that they just PVE, other servers actualy have smaller groups running arround most of the time doing random stuff, farming pips or whatever, so that equalizes the actual numbers Arenanet see.

    30 [VR] always run with 40 [KeK] all time isn't ? :bleep_bloop:

    you want no blob fight just go down low tier, my dear Bloodie" lol

    example : Borp " Those people hype play T2 now without map blob pin snipe :+1:

  • Drinks.2361Drinks.2361 Member ✭✭✭

    VR outnumbers everyone 4:1

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    That is the issue with playtime, I made a thread on this in the old forums when they announced it. A lot of people at that time was saying "wait & see" but I never think it require so because it has logical flaws to begin with. Logical flaws are not something you can fix by "wait & see".

    Founder & Retired Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi
    https://discord.gg/P5dj7fd