Chaba.5410

Don't roamers and other players who want smaller skirmishes than the boonball guilds also hope to run into individuals to murder over and over and over too?

This is a problem regardless of off-hours vs NA/EU prime skirmish. That's why historically there's been servers with "weak NA" that existed in higher tiers. The score generated by off-peak times was causing teams to not be balanced during NA, for example. So unbalanced teams during off-hours would also cause unbalanced match ups elsewhere. How do you fix that?

That incentivizes the fights crowd, yea. There has to be other options though for the wider variety of players too.

It would be great if they find a way to incentivize the 2 weaker servers to attack the stronger server. That extends the idea of working together to make the match more competitive.

Here's an example of past player suggestions. As you can see in hindsight, some ideas were implemented or at least the original problem was fixed in a different way and other suggestions ignored. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Some-WvW-Ideas

Yet agreeing with me about the northern desert towers having no value even though you didn't see what I wrote. 🫠 Thanks for your support! I gotta really hand it to readers who block others because they couldn't agree to disagree. I wouldn't remove my own opportunities to respond to another. Really takes one out of the conversation.

Go re-read the part about "more strategic layout". That area control was the replacement for the strategic value of the alpine northern towers, which then got removed because it was so bad too.

Players complained for years about teams being able to treb garrison from the safety of northwest and northeast towers on alpine. What was Anet's solution to that player complaint? They placed the northern towers on desert into the hinterlands where there's no reason to go outside of getting PPT. Now players complain about how the northern towers on desert have no tactical value. Good job, playerbase. "Careful what you ask, you may just get it."

Back before server links, the player base came to believe that the tier system could be used to split itself by playstyle. People who claimed they wanted smaller fights went to the lower tiers. There was also a claim that blobs made roaming dead. Was it true? So I transferred an account around to both T1 and T8 for the experience. What I discovered was due to the higher population, there were more roamers around in T1. Lot of good small skirmish fights were occurring in most maps. Sure, you had to have your head on a swivel for the blob that would come around every once in awhile, but it didn't really matter since the blob was headed to fight other blobs. And T8 ended up having zergs that would also blob you down, but it was harder to find roamers. T8 also had some GvG guilds in it too that I found in the OS. TL;DR: The point is tiers only ever reflected team population sizes. We've never had "proper matchmaking" for skill even with monoservers. And blobs didn't make roaming dead, less population made roaming dead.

Breakpoint in this context is a gamer's min/maxing term. Your translation app probably doesn't understand that context. So let's say there's a 1x multiplier when your team has 80 players on a map. It changes to 2x multiplier when you have only 40 players on the map. Then it becomes 3x multiplier when you are down to 20 on a map. 40 and 20 players are the breakpoints at which the score change takes effect. If you have 22 players on the map, you are close to that 3x multiplier and want 2 people to leave the map. If you have 38 players on the map, you're much further from that breakpoint. But you wouldn't want to go down to 10 players on the map. You'd want as close to 20 as possible without going above that. You may hear GW2 build theory crafters talk about "wasted stats" or being "overcapped on precision". That's in the same context.

"We need more players to leave the map so our points can get scaled up! We're almost to the breakpoint! GET OFF THE MAP! GO TO EOTM!"

Need your crash log. Also please uninstall any third-party add-ons like Arcdps.

This sort of suggestion has come up multiple times over the years and always suffers from the same problem. Outnumbered teams will be telling everyone to get off the maps in order to force the larger team to get queued. And by "telling" I'm referring to an increase in toxicity that already occurs under more casual contexts. Also, didn't you consider how hostile such a design would be to players on the larger team trying to play? Imagine new players trying to understand why they aren't allowed to hop into WvW. It won't be only big guilds hating this.

Which we were already told will be adjusted: "there are a couple of teams that stand out as unbalanced, and even on well-balanced matchups we have noticed some performance gaps at specific times of day. We'll be adjusting the algorithm to better address this for the next team creation at the end of July. "

Players want to frame this scoring change in terms of fairness between timezones so I modified this old cartoon in order to illustrate the fairness of the original scores before the change. https://ibb.co/7NCF396