Karagee.6830
-
Posts
693 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Karagee.6830
-
-
On 6/6/2022 at 8:34 PM, Caedmon.6798 said:
Dude,ive had the most riduculous pm's from people calling me a hacker,be it on thief or warri,i should have made screenshots so you can see how hilarious these claims are. From porting too often on thief,or swapping weaps on warri too often,theyre all a joke. Most complaints are from people not knowing mechanics.Allegedly I got reported by some genius from Jade Sea for cheating because I capped a camp, on a warrior, while he went invulnerable. They are all special cases on that server.
-
3
-
-
On 6/6/2022 at 3:04 PM, Afkbrbgtgftw.7904 said:
I find it funny I know exactly who you are talking about, but what I don't find funny is how you threatened physical violence against me when I killed you on my Holosmith. You also threatened my friend when he +1'd our 1v1. There was no bow or agreement of a duel and we weren't even remotely near the dueler's spot. If you want a fair 1v1 go there, but don't whine when you get +1'd elsewhere. I can post the screenshots from my end if you want proof.
My friend and I don't run with that crowd. We do our best to avoid them. We're well aware of their infamy. Sometimes kitten happens and we're there when they are. I can't and won't vouch for them not hacking or exploiting. IMO you and that crowd deserve each other for your toxicity.
I will say this about your point though, there are absolutely hackers and cheaters in WvW. Vallun caught one on stream the other day. A reaper teleport hacking away while in downstate. It didn't save her though. I have also had experience recently with people who just don't take damage. You hit them and nothing happens, no evades, no blocks, nothing. With that said I find legitmate hacking few and far between. Most people are just ignorant of a lot of game mechanics. I've been accused of cheating by thieves when I'm running Lock On on my engineer. The best way to learn class mechanics is to play that class and test out multiple builds of said class.
Sounds like someone who can't just play and needs help to kill people 1v1. So many lines of whining.
-
21 minutes ago, ManiacMika.9851 said:
Forums complains won't go to the right person. Same in-game. "Anet" (it's no the entire company, but only a handful responsible team) won't read every single message in the game or on the forums. It's literally shouting at the wall. Don't do that. I don't like shouting neighbors.
I know Desolation has a group of 5, mainly the guild Tempést [TEMP], that will reset every keep and tower with only 2 minutes contest and without siege, which sounds unlikely since either they are T3 for hours without any enemy inside, or they are T0 but there were no red dot indicating they were inside after recapture.
What you can do:
- Get ready to bust the hacker live, while they are doing their tricks.
- Record the process entirely, from the enemy being on the ground outside, to being inside on the walls.
- During record, open your block list (have it mostly empty) and add opponent on your block list (right-click on their face)
- Post the video online, and create a support ticket with your evidence at the address below with the fields "Report a Player" for "Botting/Cheating"
https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/requests/newLook, we had a honest conversation with them about it and they openly said they do it because everyone can do it, Anet not fixing it means it's allowed. On top of that they argued Anet isn't banning anyone for it anyway. We got that chat screenshotted and reported for botting, but they are still doing it, so...
The minimum they can do is clarify if this counts as exploit or not. So if the Deso people (who change guild tag but are the same people) are right and this is tolerated/ok, then we can all happily do the same and make siege (both offensive and defensive) irrelevant.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:
I do not think that this are hackers! alot of people spend a absurd time in WvW and find all the sneaky ways and paths.
i also do not think that is banable. As long as they are not abusing any weird mechanics to float or bug thru things...
Sadly there is multiple of these cheap ways to get into keeps and towers. For example i know a way to get into the Alpine Garrisons.... no bugs... no pixelwalks... nothing... just jump jump jump and your in it. All you need is a warclaw and 5 minutes of time(the jump is kinda tricky).
Thats just WvW being neglected and them not fixing bugs that people find... FOR YEARS.
my guild reported that you can LITERALLY JUMP into the homegarris on Alpine... it still works 3 years after our reports.
Ok Anet, please confirm this is allowed so we don't need to use siege and we can just warclaw jump into any objective and port our friends. Imagine getting on lords with a 30 second grace period before it goes contested and no way for scout to know there are enemies inside as all gates and walls are intact.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Dear Anet, if you incapable of preventing people from jumping inside keeps and towers and then porting their friends, then at least ban them. We have screenshots of people doing it. We have screenshots of people openly admitting to it and saying because it can be done, then it's allowed (a certain Desolation guild's bright minds) etc. We report every time we see it (hard to do since you there is no easy way to do it) and week after week they are at it.
Have some self respect, Anet.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:
One critique of people who want eg., a person playing two days a week to only count for two days a week activity (the simplistic reading and suggestions done by some people) is that playing time is a variable and that such would suggest differently sized worlds.
Playing time is variable within a week and between a week and the next, but surely 8 weeks and 56 days is a large enough sample to draw pretty solid conclusions about AVERAGE participation.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Feirin.5481 said:
Close to 100 Player left Blacktide for Gunnars and/or Ruins of Surmia
Our Main Link Partner Blacktide is now on Medium (was High before) - and Miller is still on High
I can understand that International Servers dont want to play with German Servers.. but this is just fun to watch
Like half of the WvW Blacktide Players/Guilds did Server Transfer on Day1 or 2 when the Linking was announced
Server Transfers are to cheap 🤷♂️
RoS is MightyTeapot's effect probably. I wouldn't mind playing with some German servers for example, there are people who do some organised roaming on some of them at the times I play and it would simply mean we would be able to do even more damage (and possibly not be outnumbered).
And yeah instead of having 1 fee they should open every server (for moving, not new accounts those should be locked if necessary) and have dynamic pricing for transfers. You want to transfer to Gandara? Cool, give us 5k gems. Wanna transfer to, say, Fort Ranik? It's free or give us 50 gems, thank you. If that's not enough increase the gem cost even more.
-
1 hour ago, scureuil.4052 said:
You know, there’s no need to eradicate some server : 3 lone servers. You delete T5, and every server get a link. It was done once for 1 week 2 or 3 years ago.
Yeah nothing is stopping them from linking 3 servers in the same match
-
11 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:
Well, here's the thing. I'm just trying to illustrate a point to you. You are doing exactly what I first pointed to in the qoute above now. You are looking for motivations as to why it shouldn't be you but someone else. Me, I don't care either way. I'm just trying to open your eyes to that everyone thinks their server is just as precious as you think yours are. If you're not willing to accept being split up the way you suggest, you can't expect anyone else to accept it either. Anet knows it and will never do it. So there's no point in suggesting what you do. It's a bad idea that is never going to work for that reason alone. Their new system splits everyone up because of it.
Then, I too know that Gandara have considered trying to cram some 14-17 guilds into a single alliance, but that isn't really relevant to the topic of worlds being full and unlinked. Not in any other way than suggesting that Gandara is a server that still has alot of players and groups, so it isn't super surprising that the server is full and unlinked. Considering that the current system only has two grades of activity, it also isn't very surprising that the server is still full if it has a disproportionate amount of casual players, or players who play only specific days, when they under the existing system count as active every day. They can't count as more or less active, only active or not. It also shouldn't be surprising, with that in mind, that the new system will calculate this better just by having more grades of activity.
Lol no, you moved the goalposts and you are trying to do this again even though I told you I'd be fine being automatically split in the dumb way you seemed to suggest or deleted and moved. Nobody is married to the name Gandara. Otherwise explain in detail how you think creating 3 new servers or deleting 3 would work and then we can have a meaningful discussion without you reframing the discussion every time so you can backpedal.
In your last paragraph is the essence of the problem. If you can't discriminate between people playing 50 hours a week and people playing 30 minutes a week (your assumption, not mine) then there is no way you can make ANY system work, not the current one and not alliances.
Regarding the community alliance, I reject your idea it suggests Gandara has huge numbers and it's rightfully closed and without link. It only suggests that there are a lot of people on the server who enjoy playing with each other and have stood together despite (and probably due to) being royally screwed for years by Anet. Other servers have similar plans, including the bandwagoners. Note that I'm doubtful I would join that Alliance as I would go with my guild and that doesn't seem to be the preferred option, so I have very limited stock in all of this.
Lastly I'm not sure what you meant earlier by 'who takes the difficult targets'. I attack everything on the border I'm on, including T3 keeps and garrison trying to stay ahead of defenders backcapping and avoiding large groups. If they pull EWP and a large blob comes that's life, next time I contest the garrison and go again before they can pull it once more. The only target we usually leave is the NE tower if it's tiered and has the watchtower upgrade as yoy can't sneakily attack that. I've sneaked SM castle in 3 people as well in the past, so, again, please clarify what you are asking.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:
Yes, let's remove Gandara, it's T5 after all, deal?
Yes, let's have Gandara split up, it's T5 after all, deal?
Sure, but, if you have to keep doing it over and over, you are manually doing World Restructuring. It's the same thing, just manually doing a process they intend to automate.
Gandara is never T5 when we have a link and we're not outnumbered most of the day. Neither is Desolation. However this is a dumb argument because everyone without link ends in T5 and unfortunately we have no way to know the actual participation numbers to understand which servers are the largest and the smallest and the scale of the gaps between one server and the next.
If you were to eliminate Gandara (which according to Anet is the largest server on EU other than BB) most people would simply all move to another server together. I'm pretty sure nobody would object to that, but it seems silly to do this for the alleged largest server. It's entirely possible Gandara will have their own community Alliance as well, there have been talks between guilds about this.
The expansion method seems to have flown right over your head. That is not how you create 3 new servers (ie. you don't turn server A into server B+C, you add server D and encourage transfers towards that server). If for some reason beyond human comprehension you were forced to split 1 server into 2, then yeah split the largest servers.
-
1
-
-
Just now, subversiontwo.7501 said:
Okay, so what kind of content do you find on home or EB when you go there? If you go there at a time when people are not (normally) asleep or at work? Who on your server is usually on home or EB? Who on your server takes on the most difficult things? Who on your server is going on strikes? What would happen to your server if they quit and were not replaced by someone similar to themselves? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Typically Gandara has open tags at the weekend during primetime and occasionally during prime time the other 4-5 days. If they leave the server, presumably we get unlocked but since fairly large guilds have in fact moved out before and we have remained locked, that isn't sure either. If we get unlocked someone else will move in. Open tags (ppt ktrains) are a dime a dozen, if you have people they someone will eventually tag up.
-
42 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:
Also, I feel like I always have to point this out when someone suggests that we split or combine servers for more or less tiers: Sure, let's start with your server. Because the people who say that almost always seem to suggest that it should be someone else paying the price for that, not they themselves and not everyone because if everyone would be affected by it, on a more regular basis what you essentially have is Alliances. People like that suggests that other people should get "world restructured" as long as it is not themselves, because they have such a more special community than the others 🥴. We could remove T5 tomorrow and split the players on those servers up over the remaining four tiers. However, that would imply killing the tier's frequent visitors like Gandara, Baruch and Deso (all old, once full, functional communities). I don't think they like your suggestion when it comes to affect, them.
It seems to me you don't fully grasp the simplicity of the process.
Reduction: you remove 3 servers and give everyone on those server a choice of where to move (same language etc). Then they should still encourage moves to specific servers by pricing the transfers differently between different servers. People should be able to transfer for free to almost empty servers.
Expansion: you create 3 new servers, all new accounts should be placed on those servers and you have free transfers for all existing accounts to those servers for a period of time. Note that if these servers remain largely unpopulated, it would simply mean you are still in the current situation with whoever is linked to those servers being screwed for 2 months. Unfortunately this solution is more complicated, as EU servers can also have a language other than English.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:
You're not giving enough context to what you're suggesting in the first sentence. The new system will evaluate participation more. How can I make that clearer?
Locking transfers will not stop full servers from being full and servers being full is the problem. Servers being full makes some communities transfer and other communities complain and go on "strikes". Making it impossible to transfer is not going to stop full servers from being full. Making it possible to only transfer 5 out of 8 weeks is not going to stop servers from being full and players from transfering to make servers full. The same problems will exist then as now and the only reason you can not see that has to be because you've never been in a position to exert influence over it or be directly affected by it. You'll likely not notice it until your favourite tags disappear or until hostile groups starts bullying you because you're the only content left. I'm doing my best not to be mean here. You would see this clear as daylight if you were directly affected by it.
You don't know that the new system will do that. However, you do know that the current system does not do what Anet say it should.
Locking transfers prevent bandwagoners stacking on a single server. And that's all that it should do. If they want to split to 3 servers great, just prevent people to go to a single place, either for a period of time or simply close a server as soon as it receives a certain number of transfers. This is not a complaint about Gandara being unlinked AND closed for a year, this is simply to prevent the ugly stuff that goes on on T1 and repeats every 2 months. Frankly, from my personal perspective, it does not affect me in the slightest as the last time we reached T1 was when WSR was someone else's linked server and they won almost 300 skirmishes in a row.
I can't understand why you insists talking about tags. If large dedicated guilds transfer out from a server obviously it will affect both the number of players and tags, doh. That's obvious. I do play on Gandara, I play in scarcely populated time slots and I usually roam in a party on enemy borderlands. When we have no tags elsewhere and we are forced to go EB or home one of us usually turn on a tag and that's that. This is how I play, so suggesting I would be affected by transfers and other tags is very disingenuous.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:
It intends for that to happen, making it likely.
You still ignore the root of the problem at hand. Whatever they say should happen, will not happen, if they can't evaluate participation properly.
3 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:That's not to say it is going to be a perfect system because there can be substantial differences between just the "best" and "second best" alliance.
If Anet could count players properly, it would be absolutely certain that Alliances would lead to stacking. The best players would join and recruit for the same top alliance and the filler, if determined correctly, would be in fact irrelevant.
3 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:You solve nothing by locking the system down
So locking transfers will not solve the problem of people transferring to the same exact server that 80% of other players find insufferable. Ok...
3 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:Now, for some people, especially here on the forums, having WvW lose another wave of its 25% most active and organised players may seem like a good thing.
Getting rid of the bandwagoners would also solve the transfer wave problem.
-
2
-
-
On 5/30/2022 at 12:25 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:
It always tickles me a bit when people say it with such confidence. After all you are both kind of wrong and right. You're right that the players will not have control, but you're wrong that Alliances can't use more accurate activity data. Moreover, Anet have made it a point to go out and say that it is a specific goal for the system to do that.
Anet have said that they will bracket activity more in the new system. The current system is just: active? yes or no. The new system will have brackets of activity, ie., 1-2-3-4-5, same as it will have brackets of size. It's one more of those things that are kind of simple, but it feels like the players are having all kinds of trouble comming to terms with it.
So we have players saying "it will change nothing" when it very obviously will change something. We have other players whome, as I understand them, want there to be a system that sort of punishes activity by making some worlds that are more active but smaller, so they have to be more active. If people read what Anet have said they should understand that neither is the case. We players have a tendency to perpetuate alot of myth that just creates noise and makes things harder to understand for our fellows.
This thread is a perfect example of that. It has alot of angry Gandarans. I can understand why they are angry. I can agree with them that the current system is bad or problematic in how simplistic it calculates activity. However, if I don't misunderstand them, I get the impression that many of them want to solve the "problem" by making sure that the system should only count people as active for when they are active. For example, they have alot of Gandarans playing maybe two-three out of seven days a week so they want them to be counted as part active: Essentially allowing the server to be three times the size to the cap. A system like that just isn't feasible either and, again, that is not Anet's aim with Alliances. The aim is to bracket each piece of the puzzle similar to another piece and spread those pieces out one by one to create as similar totals as possible.
It will take Alliance A, B and C - compare them - and if similar spread them out. It will do the same with guilds and players. So every world will have something from every bracket of size and activity. It is pretty simple and pretty good. Now, if only they would spend the money to finish programming it. Instead of pretending to us that they care, when they do not care with their wallet.
Conveniently you left out the part where I said Alliances will help, that takes some skill, friend.
To repeat what I wrote before. If the way the activity is calculated is flawed then there will be no balance with alliances either, because a full alliance is only part of a team. Alliances give some control over participation (up to 500 people) and hopefully will prevent bandwagoning transfers, but it doesn't solve the problem that Anet can assign you 800 people who have next to no participation over a week of WvW because Anet are dumb that way and they consider these players 'active'. You follow? So your exceptional Alliance of handpicked 500 players may end up being outnumbered 2:1 all day long because of how Anet calculates things.
The bottom line here is: remove 3 servers (or create 3 more), prevent transfers during the first 3 weeks of each linking period and count correctly each player's activity and you have already solved 90% of the problems without having to implement a new system. In fact, this would be better for Anet as they would still get payments for transfers.
-
2
-
-
On 5/30/2022 at 10:08 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:
I am close to the difficulties of gandara. but this is a competitive mode, and the game lasts a week 24/7. you have to make some choices to solve this speech. who wins a game at the end of the week? who scored the most points. points are generated from captured or retained structures, or you can score points by killing enemies.
my suggestion is to constantly count the online players of gandara and compare them numerically with respect to their opponents. consequently you can give a different value (variable in time) to the points that the structures and kills that gandara generates.
the game time is a variable, it changes continuously, to solve it you need the same thing, a variable parameter to be applied constantly.
Look, if they counted total player hours in a week correctly Gandara would not be even remotely close to the most WvW populated server n EU. I don't care that German servers have massive blobs at 6am CET, I don't care about the Spanish speaking north americans who play on BB, it's obvious and understandable that different servers have different coverage. What I am saying is that if you account for the fluctuations Gandara is outnumbered most of the day on several maps 5 days a week. And that's in T5, not T1. It only evens out when the other server with no link inevitably joins T5, but even then the difference with the worst linked server is significant.
In any case, it's offensive to anyone's intelligence to claim that Anet can't count total hours per server spent in WvW over the 2 month linking period. They can, but they don't use the data, at least in any discernible or vaguely intelligent way, otherwise the stacked servers full of bandwagoners, who transferred there 2 months earlier, would be ALWAYS be stripped of their link the following time (even if they are linked servers and not the host). It's simple logic and simple math.
-
55 minutes ago, kamikharzeeh.8016 said:
and most of the concepts ideas would fix literally all matchup-inducted issues so idk what u malding about again
Alliances can't fix flaws in how they calculate participation and make decisions based on it. It can mitigate it to some extent.
Let's say a team is made up of 1500 people, you can stick together with 499 people in an Alliance and you know what to expect from them. The remaining 1000 people will be assigned to you by Anet. It may be other alliances, likely smaller, it may be individual players. Either way, you don't have any control over this process, how these players are selected and why, however they will be assigned to your team based on calculations and algorithms that we know not to be fit for purpose (not now and not ever in the past).
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Corma.7268 said:
They do exactly THAT, that much they told us.
Various effects of apparently unbalanced linkings, full vs medium servers and such result from flaws in just counting playtime regardless of the distribution of these periods - a server may seem to get queues averytime just because all people try to play during lets say 8 hours of a day, while much more people playing evenly across all 24 hours never will see queues.
Maybe there simply is no good way to find good population balances. Even when you split the day in smaller chunks and try to match population in these chunks, the system can easily get exploited by assembling people at specific times AFTER the link has been done. And then there are the band wagons, transfers just after links, which immediately destroy every balance someone tries to achive.
I don't think you understand the situation with Gandara. Gandara has participation only at the weekend. Now, if you count the number of people who log in into wvw they probably have a lot, but if you counted the played hours they have less than many other servers at least 5 days a week. Gandara is often outnumbered on home and/or EB for long stretches any day and any time that is not reset or Saturday. And that includes near non-existent participation in the morning and central part of the day.
This is what pisses people on Gandara off: there are never queues, 5 out of 7 days of the week they are outnumbered on home and/or EB plus on the other borderlands throughout the day and they are always unlinked and closed to transfers despite all of the above.
This is why everyone knows that what Anet say (which has never been clear, to be perfectly honest) and what they actually do are very different things. And this is why nobody in his right mind would believe they use total number of hours played (for people who play more than, say, 20 minutes per session to discriminate between wvw players and people doing dailies in pve gear) per server and then match 1, 2, 3, 4+15, 5+14, 6+13 etc. because...you would have much less variability in the pairings.
The only thing that would convince me they have a non-idiotic and non-subjective system is to see the numbers and how they impact the decisions on links. Vague, unintelligible explanations simply won't do.
And let me repeat an obvious consequence of all this: alliances will be better, but they will suffer from this same issue. And since alliances will make transfers useless, they may as well start counting properly right now.
-
1
-
-
I just want to add one thing to this discussion: Alliances are NOT going to fix the issue of Anet being unable to count active player hours properly (if Anet's people could count, we wouldn't be in the current situation in the first place) and 1 maxed out alliance is going to be only part of a team, so the players' control over numbers will be limited to that.
-
9 hours ago, Threather.9354 said:
The system is so bad.. Can we get the old one back? Pre-linking one but with 4 tiers and 1-up-1-down in EU.
The logic behind linking is sound, but the implementation is demented and it's even worse when you consider how long they kept this stuff going. If they were counting total ACTIVE player hours (ie. not people who play 5-15 minutes a day to do 2-3 dailies and log off) and pairing the 4th most active server (in EU) with the lowest etc, it might work properly. But that is still predicated on the fact that there is an enormous difference between the top most active 3 servers and the bottom 3, which is unlikely in my view (ie. 4th+15th will greatly outnumber 1st + nobody).
Anet could have done many things to spread out the population starting with incentivising transfer to certain servers and disincentivising moving to or leaving other servers (by using dynamic pricing for transfers). There is a fundamental flaw of a system where 3 servers get no link, but transfers are definitely part of the problem as well (even for NA), because if they had different pricing to move to different servers (depending on active players statistics) and they locked transfers at the beginning and the end of the linking period, leaving 3-4 weeks in the middle when transfers are allowed, they could manage and spread out the population. But of course anything that curtailed transfers would lower revenues, so it's never going to happen.
-
9 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:
All these great "fighters" just want to press 1 and win. No one wants a challenge. They stack in one place, and run around with 50-80 people to fight pugs and doors. There is NO solution to this because wvw rank and player drops exist. Path of least resistance, and fighting other boon stacking blobs would be challenging, and guilds can't handle that. Lose to someone, lose people.
The only things that might make a dent in the stacking, would be:
1. Remove boon sharing, or make it 10% of what it is now
2. remove the aoe cap, so that stacking in one place is harmful
3. revert the siege changes
4. remove downstate
5. remove all player drops, wxp only, loot is from pips and reward tracks
6. remove player transfers for the 3 weeks before relinks and the 3 weeks after, leaving a 2 week window to transfer, allowing the link system to sort of work
Beyond that, not only will nothing else work (including alliances), it will never happen and we all know it. Ktrain boon blobs will continue to avoid each other and farm pugs for easy everything.
These are mostly good suggestions except maybe 2 and 5 as 2 would do nothing for zergs with a ton of cleanses and you can't pigeonhole people into playing for ppt or you'd lose a chunk of the playerbase.
However, 1 yes, very much so, if you can nerf warriors' cc to do basically zero damage in wvw, then you can fix this too.
4 yes, yes, yes, remove downstate forever at the very least if you are outnumbering people: just give people a debuff if they are outnumbering others, I'd go as far as to say that outnumbering should apply a debuff/buff that affect stats exponentially the more someone is outnumbered. It won't do anything for small groups getting stomped by zergs but 3 v 6, 5 v10 it would be significant.
6 addresses the mother of a lot of problems with wvw that leads stacking on some servers. As people have repeated to death they will never do this, because they like the money coming in from massive waves of transfers.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:
That would be a never. The closest they ever got was a bar graph showing non labeled worlds without actual numbers that we were told the largest activity world was BG.
🤷
it's not so hard to put together 1 chart with every server population during each hour of the day without server names. This will also show what the difference really is between the most populated and the least populated server (wvw-wise). We all know that a link makes a huge difference in numbers, therefore aside from stacked bandwagoning servers (which are the by-product of Anet genius transfer policies) the rest will be closer than people think. And I'm talking over the 24h period, as different servers have obviously different time slot coverage. I mean, it's a chart with 15 lines and 24 data points for each series for crying out loud.
The fact that they have something to hide and/or the system used to make the decision is dumb, to put it mildly, is that Gandara has no link, no queues, is outnumbered on most maps (today, Saturday, at some point outnumbered on every map including EB and home) and...it's closed and has been closed for a year. Basically the only time Gandara has been opened to transfers is when they tinkered with server caps and everyone ended up open because they went from full to very high.
Edit: I have to add that a lot of people suspect the decision is not made based on numbers or statistics actually. Gandara has tanked before to artificially depress numbers into almost nothing and get a link and it resulted in...no link. Business as usual. This was with pretty much with every major guild not playing wvw and no tags at any time of the day. People would just do dailies and log off.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Cal Cohen.2358 said:
Here are the worlds for EU:
- Augury Rock (FR), Jade Sea (FR)
- Aurora Glade (EN), Dzagonur (DE)
- Baruch Bay (SP)
- Blacktide (EN), Miller's Sound (DE)
- Desolation (EN), Ring of Fire (EN)
- Drakkar Lake (DE), Arborstone (FR)
- Elona Reach (DE)
- Far Shiverpeaks (EN), Gunnar's Hold (EN)
- Fissure of Woe (EN), Kodash (DE)
- Gandara (EN)
- Piken Square (EN), Ruins of Surmia (EN)
- Riverside (DE), Abaddon's Mouth (DE)
- Seafarer's Rest (EN), Underworld (EN)
- Vabbi (EN), Fort Ranik (FR)
- Whiteside Ridge (EN), Vizunah Square (FR)
Here are the worlds for NA:
- Blackgate, Anvil Rock
- Crystal Desert, Yak's Bend
- Darkhaven, Gate of Madness
- Dragonbrand, Borlis Pass
- Ehmry Bay, Ferguson's Crossing
- Fort Aspenwood, Sorrow's Furnace
- Jade Quarry, Eredon Terrace
- Maguuma, Isle of Janthir
- Sanctum of Rall, Northern Shiverpeaks
- Sea of Sorrows, Devona's Rest
- Stormbluff Isle, Henge of Denravi
- Tarnished Coast, Kaineng
When can we expect to see the numbers these pairings are based on? We don't need to see the name of the servers just understand if there is any sort of logic to this or you pull things out of you backside. Why don't you do it for NA since it would be harder to identify the specific servers and there are fewer variables (language, BB etc)?
-
Any strong evening/night capping server + German server link should be outlawed in principle as they would have pretty much 24h coverage
The ugly truth about alliance timeline.
in World vs. World
Posted · Edited by Karagee.6830
The truth of the matter is they would not even need changes to the game mode to fix 90% of the problems. Other than class balance which they do patch for and it's neither here or there, the far and away biggest problem for WvW is numbers balance.
To balance the numbers you only need someone with 3 working brain cells to decide on a transfer policy that encourages flows towards less populated servers and discourage or outright prevent stacking and flows towards the same overpopulated servers. This does not require any change, it only requires a monkey to change the cost of the transfers and close/open servers as appropriate. And if they don't have reliable stats on participation to base these decisions on, then this should be driven by actual performance. Servers with the best performance every relink should either be closed or have prohibitively high transfer fees. This will drive towards a workable equilibrium albeit indirectly.