4 Tiers are way too much to balance WvW population. — Guild Wars 2 Forums

4 Tiers are way too much to balance WvW population.

hidrOxi.7082hidrOxi.7082 Member

My question is:
Why have 4 tiers of WvW?.
Imagine if we only had 2 Tiers and all the other servers get paired up with the "higher" tier servers. More people available, means more fights that equals more fun.

PD: Yeah, queues but hell, little price to pay to have more people actually fighting instead of empty maps.

Comments

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

    revive the eotm =p

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No doubt a variable match count will be part of the coming alliance system.
    And you're right, there's too many empty slots for everything but EB.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

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

    eb is love eb is life =)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @LetoII.3782 said:
    No doubt a variable match count will be part of the coming alliance system.
    And you're right, there's too many empty slots for everything but EB.

    Yeah, but they can do something like this while we wait for the alliance system to take place. Try to revive WvW while we wait for the alliances, make people care and come and fight again, instead of "Meh, not playing until the alliance system is online".

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    eb is love eb is life =)

    YOU STOP AGREEING WITH ME RIGHT MEOW

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It depends really. When the pips system got released or the wxp weekend was happening 4 tiers wasn't enough but a lot of the times even 3 tiers is too many. With WVW restructure we'll see the elimination of servers. We also need the elimination of tiers. Make it all about the alliances i say.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @hidrOxi.7082 said:
    My question is:
    Why have 4 tiers of WvW?.
    Imagine if we only had 2 Tiers and all the other servers get paired up with the "higher" tier servers. More people available, means more fights that equals more fun.

    PD: Yeah, queues but hell, little price to pay to have more people actually fighting instead of empty maps.

    So you are up to date on what’s coming...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

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

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    eb is love eb is life =)

    YOU STOP AGREEING WITH ME RIGHT MEOW

    That's it... I just saw Pestilence galloping down the street.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    eb is love eb is life =)

    YOU STOP AGREEING WITH ME RIGHT MEOW

    That's it... I just saw Pestilence galloping down the street.

    That's how the get you.
    One minute it's all friendly conversation, next 70% of the species has Genghis Khan ancestry.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭

    So what criteria do you balance the number of tiers around? The activity during prime time hours? The around the clock activity level?

    You could almost certainly condense the NA servers down to three tiers, and it wouldn't be too crowded during NA, but for the off-hours folks you would have to condense them all into one tier to make it comparable.

    Or we just wait until alliances when tier creation will be dynamic based on population activity.

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

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    @hidrOxi.7082 said:
    My question is:
    Why have 4 tiers of WvW?.
    Imagine if we only had 2 Tiers and all the other servers get paired up with the "higher" tier servers. More people available, means more fights that equals more fun.

    PD: Yeah, queues but hell, little price to pay to have more people actually fighting instead of empty maps.

    No no no. The queues would be too big to make it worth it.
    You say that's a small price, but people are more likely to stop playing altogether if they can't get past queues or can't get a raid going because they can't get their guild on any maps.

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

    The game mode is dying and anet took too long to decide the next course of actions. If anet is in trading business, I am sure they gonna lose tons of money.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Ah yes, only 2 tiers, imagine how much more boring matchmaking would become. And the queues, no chance to play WvW in-between work and sleep at all. Sounds lovely <3
    Anyone still remembers when people used to actively transfer onto small servers to avoid queues and enjoy roaming etc? When did WvW become all about equal oppurtunities and stacking numbers...?

  • DeceiverX.8361DeceiverX.8361 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @hidrOxi.7082 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    No doubt a variable match count will be part of the coming alliance system.
    And you're right, there's too many empty slots for everything but EB.

    Yeah, but they can do something like this while we wait for the alliance system to take place. Try to revive WvW while we wait for the alliances, make people care and come and fight again, instead of "Meh, not playing until the alliance system is online".

    I don't think there's any reviving WvW short of major class balance restructure and elite spec design.

    The game's PvP just isn't fun.

    It doesn't matter how fair the matchmaking is and how balanced the PPT scoring may be if nobody really even wants to play because the build diversity and balance is terrible.

    It's why PvP fell apart and why WvW will continue to.

    You sure that Sniper idea is as good as you thought it was gonna be?
    Because I think my original idea is better.
    Quit/Inactive. No, you can't have my stuff.

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2018

    4 tiers was OK when linking happened but with the continuing decline in population its now too much, It probably should be 2 tiers.

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

    3 or 2 Tiers will better, lots of time was Ktrain no em tower....
    Boring in 2018 :'(

  • Slick.7164Slick.7164 Member ✭✭

    EOTM worked out so well. Lets do it again. blah blah blah

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Slick.7164 said:
    EOTM worked out so well. Lets do it again. blah blah blah

    What does reducing the tiers have to do with EOTM? In NA there clearly aren't enough players to support 4 tiers.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 4, 2018

    @morrolan.9608 said:
    4 tiers was OK when linking happened but with the continuing decline in population its now too much, It probably should be 2 tiers.

    Knowledge is power...

    This is what the devs are working on...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

    “World Creation Summary
    So to summarize world creation: at the start of every season our new World Restructuring system will use recent statistics, based on similar predicted participation, skill, and coverage, to create worlds filled with alliances, guilds, and unaffiliated players.

    https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/a3c5eWvW_image1.png

    The above graph displays an example of what makes up a world under the World Restructuring system. Keep in mind, due to the algorithm used to keep worlds balanced, the number of alliances, guilds, and individual players can be wildly different between worlds, but the participation and playtime should be relatively the same.”

    AND...

    Amount of worlds, and amount of match ups, will change from season to season depending on population numbers... See the below for more dev info...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq

    “Q. How many servers will there be? Will this be evolving or a constant?

    The number of worlds can change every season. The number will always be divisible by three, but one season could have 12 world and the next could have 15 based on the need of the population.”

    You’re very welcome!

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeceiverX.8361 said:

    @hidrOxi.7082 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    No doubt a variable match count will be part of the coming alliance system.
    And you're right, there's too many empty slots for everything but EB.

    Yeah, but they can do something like this while we wait for the alliance system to take place. Try to revive WvW while we wait for the alliances, make people care and come and fight again, instead of "Meh, not playing until the alliance system is online".

    I don't think there's any reviving WvW short of major class balance restructure and elite spec design.

    The game's PvP just isn't fun.

    It doesn't matter how fair the matchmaking is and how balanced the PPT scoring may be if nobody really even wants to play because the build diversity and balance is terrible.

    It's why PvP fell apart and why WvW will continue to.

    Well said, we totally agree on that!

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 4, 2018

    Every meta people cry and there's stuff that's OP but even if the meta was picture perfect the Wvw population balance is so bad that there's barely anyone to fight and the game lacks any sort of meaning and purpose. There's no new content in this gamemode. It's not even worth playing most of the time since there isn't anything to do even if the PVP was super balanced it wouldn't change anything about the gamemode.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • bLind.6278bLind.6278 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd hate to be forced into constant t1 level blob fights. T2 seems to be okay for roaming, t3 is ideal for roaming or small group play, though. If you're running a group smaller than ~35 on a t1 matchup, you're gonna lose the majority of your fights because they blob at 50 plus a handful of tagalong pug's.

    Big fights are not enjoyable. At all.

    There's a 95% chance I'll be warned for this post, regardless of what it says.

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

    i love massive full q fights. only time i hate it is if it lags.

    many have their own preference but the big scale as mindless as it may seem to others is the feauture.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Blackarps.1974Blackarps.1974 Member ✭✭✭

    4 tiers are fine. Tier 4 is mostly 1-2 groups at a time while T1 is just 2-3 blobs and maybe a guild group or two. T2 and T3 are much more evened out and fun to play in. I'd hate to be forced into playing T1 or T4 every week or I guess it would be T1 or T3. Blob vs. Blob isn't for everyone and it lags a lot of player's games.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Lag with lots of players? More like FPS drop and that should be it. Either your graphics settings need changing or you simply need a new PC. not my problem. 4 tiers is way too many. When you get no fights in PRIME TIME hours you know something is wrong.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    ^
    There's usually one or two empty maps in every match

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Tiny Doom.4380Tiny Doom.4380 Member ✭✭✭

    I have accounts in three of the four tiers some weeks. I play from the UK on NA servers and the only time period I never see is NA Prime, which is the middle of the night for me. I've been doing that since launch (originally on two accounts, three acounts for the last 3-4 years). I play WvW most days and have been doing so across that time period.

    Most days there are good fights over structures at all times of day in T1 and T2. T3 and T4 are certainly not dead most days although mid-week afternoons can sometimes be quiet. I rarely see qu eues these days but I consider that to be a very good thing. A queue to play a video game is a sign that there is something wrong with the management of that video game, in my opinion.

    There's certainly no reason to consolidate tiers ahead of the big revamp (which, as far as I am aware, still hasn't been officially confirmed as happening, let alone been given a timeframe). Whether, when it happens, there will really be a need for as many as five matches as suggested by the FAQ I somewhat doubt. I wouldn't be surprised to see three. For the time being, though, we are fine as we are. It's supposed to be a tactical, strategical game mode, not a 24/7 arena anyway, so lulls are a feature not a bug.

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    No doubt a variable match count will be part of the coming alliance system.
    And you're right, there's too many empty slots for everything but EB.

    This is exactly why EB should be the only map that counts towards scoring. This is where everyone generally conglomerates, and it's the only map that is actually relatively "even", in the sense of how things are laid out.

    I actually wouldn't mind if they somehow expanded EB to include an additional keep for each side, then turn the borderlands into no more than a map that adds minor buffs based on what you own.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    ^
    There's usually one or two empty maps in every match

    there's so many empty maps in this game in general. Just a waste of space. Wvw has pretty much 2-3 maps empty which doesn't seem right to me

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

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

    @hunkamania.7561 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    ^
    There's usually one or two empty maps in every match

    there's so many empty maps in this game in general. Just a waste of space. Wvw has pretty much 2-3 maps empty which doesn't seem right to me

    Which server are you on? And which tier?

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @hunkamania.7561 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    ^
    There's usually one or two empty maps in every match

    there's so many empty maps in this game in general. Just a waste of space. Wvw has pretty much 2-3 maps empty which doesn't seem right to me

    Which server are you on? And which tier?

    What does that have to do with anything? Been playing this game for awhile and there's a lot of empty maps round the clock EU and NA. It's a waste. EB is the only real viable map other than primetime and that's if you're facing a stacked server or you're on one. It's a total waste and could be condensed so let's hope wvw restructuring fixes this.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Been suggesting they make a system that adds/removes maps at need, which likely would mean only EBG during night time, and open up more maps as needed in prime time. Doubt they'll do it though.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "GW2 is a MSOFGG: Mass Singleplayer Online Fashion Grinding Game" -me

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

    @joneirikb.7506 said:
    Been suggesting they make a system that adds/removes maps at need, which likely would mean only EBG during night time, and open up more maps as needed in prime time. Doubt they'll do it though.

    No upgrading any structures on the other maps?

    How would notice work?

    Would they open at specific intervals?

    Walls and gates equivalent of base towers and keeps?

    No pre-made siege?

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:
    Been suggesting they make a system that adds/removes maps at need, which likely would mean only EBG during night time, and open up more maps as needed in prime time. Doubt they'll do it though.

    No upgrading any structures on the other maps?

    How would notice work?

    Would they open at specific intervals?

    Walls and gates equivalent of base towers and keeps?

    No pre-made siege?

    The very short version is basically freeze the map when it's "off", points, upgrades, everything. And when opened up again just continue from where it was. When shutting a map down, give a 15 minute warning something like "Mist instability map will collapse" or something, and stop yaks, and scores, and after 15 minutes players will be booted to the map select and have to pick another map.

    Basic idea is just to dynamically adjust the number of maps to the number of players (limited to second largest world at the moment), and gather more players into a single map in the off hours, when you can have 20 players total from 3 sides split up over 4 maps.

    It also runs into a problem with the "borderland" system, which I would prefer to see removed and replaced with more full 3 way maps anyways (both alpine and desert can be made into decent 3way maps anyways with small changes, with slight advantage to red).

    Used to play in old T6-7-8 where we couldn't even fill a single map, so with this system we would have 1 EBG map open entire week :p

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "GW2 is a MSOFGG: Mass Singleplayer Online Fashion Grinding Game" -me

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

    Got it. You noted you played in T6/7 prior. So you were used to roaming and small groups. I know most on here (not necessarily you) feel like that scene is dead. I think with what you propose it may kill that scene, as currently, it seems to be very much alive. I can usually fill a party of 3-5 on any map, and encounter similar sized groups, ( yes, occasionally find the rare solo or get zerged down by 20-30) during EU time and some SEA. Yes, it isn't the maps full of blobs, but that's what makes it more fun to me.

    I don't know.

    If they're going to make this WvW change, I think they need to do it by summer, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wait until andnof 2018/ early 2019

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Got it. You noted you played in T6/7 prior. So you were used to roaming and small groups. I know most on here (not necessarily you) feel like that scene is dead. I think with what you propose it may kill that scene, as currently, it seems to be very much alive. I can usually fill a party of 3-5 on any map, and encounter similar sized groups, ( yes, occasionally find the rare solo or get zerged down by 20-30) during EU time and some SEA. Yes, it isn't the maps full of blobs, but that's what makes it more fun to me.

    I don't know.

    If they're going to make this WvW change, I think they need to do it by summer, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wait until andnof 2018/ early 2019

    Good old T8, liked it, though I realize not everyone else did. But honestly at this point EOTM = T8, I'm ok with that personally. But regardless, running around entire alpine map without meeting anyone for hours is boring, no matter how much I/others like small scale fights.

    A system like this would help create more "life" on the map that remained, instead of splitting them up over all the maps. By locking the extra maps down, people wouldn't feel compelled to flip them around for "more points" either. WvW should be about putting people together for conflicts, not lap circles around each others. That said, doesn't mean zerg everything.

    Anyways, don't expect them to go with this idea. Nor honestly with the idea of changing servers every 4/6/8 hours to match different coverage zones (just imagine being kicked out of wvw every 4 hours, and get a new set of upgrades etc). Will just have to see what they do, don't believe that "coverage" will ever be "fixed" in any way.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "GW2 is a MSOFGG: Mass Singleplayer Online Fashion Grinding Game" -me

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @morrolan.9608 said:
    4 tiers was OK when linking happened but with the continuing decline in population its now too much, It probably should be 2 tiers.

    Knowledge is power...

    This is what the devs are working on...

    Read my post history I'm very much in favour of the alliance system. However it looks like that system won't be in place until 2019 now which is far too late. The mode is continuously losing players, they need to be more flexible with the current system until the new system is ready. NA now needs 3 tiers at best

  • Talindra.4958Talindra.4958 Member ✭✭✭✭

    that loooooooooooot! :P

    Death is Energy [DIE] in EU
    Envoy's Herald, EAoA, CoZ, VitV, DD, SS, The Eternal, LNHB, Champion Magus, Champion Phantom, Wondrous Achiever etc.

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 8, 2018

    I'd prefer that we Remove All Tiers & just use Server Guesting to handle the Match-Ups.

    Let the players pick their own match-ups, but set weekly limits on how many & which servers that they're allowed to fight on.


    Water is going to want to flow down hill.

    No matter how much you try to prevent it from flowing...players are going try & leak past any obstacle that you put in place to stack their population for the win.

    Let the water flow where it wants to go, but set-up mechanics that will help channel it into a healthy ecosystem.

    Water = (Players & Population)
    Flow = (Server Stacking & Attack Behavior)

    Using a Player's Home Server Rank:

    Channel to Encourage = Reward Players to Attack Higher Ranked & "Over-Stacked" Servers
    Channel to Discourage = Punish Players that Attack Lower Ranked & "Less-Stacked" Servers


    WvW is a natural disaster that is caused by the fixed tiers that holds back the inherent flow of the water.

    Water has the power to both create or destroy our life.

    Witness the sheer raw force that water has when a Beaver Dam Collapses & the utter devastation that sadly happens in its wake.


    We should be saying:
    We need to engineer solutions to harness the natural dynamics of water & use it to take advantage of its properties to create a better ecosystem for WvW.

    We should be asking:
    Why are we engineering WvW to repress & reset (server wiping) the natural tendencies of water...knowing the adverse effects that tend to occur when you force things?


    We're engineering a wilderness ecosystem that gets devastated by a match-up design that systematically destroys any long term chance of community identity.

    We should instead engineer a design that allows for different sized & even different cultural based communities to exist that supports a vast ecosystem that is able to replenish & sustain itself in the long term.

    Server pride is dying & under constant siege, but it's not extinct...as long as the WvW game mode continues as an option.

    What we choose to power WvW as a game mode will determine if it THRIVES or languishes.

    We need to engage & entice players to return to a stable WvW ecosystem where they can always have a place to call "Home".

    We simply can't build any long term ecosystem with drama prone guilds & world wiping.


    Beaver Dam Collapse


    Anybody else notice that the Beaver Dam had different Tiers in its design too?

  • Sarrs.4831Sarrs.4831 Member ✭✭✭

    Variation in the number of matchups is a confirmed feature of the new matchup system

©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.