Riba.3271

I'm not sure how guilds can be distributed evenly without having some sort of overall WR performance data for them over months and months. Or how you can even know the distribution. How do you know that you dont have a guild with 500 peeps of 5000 play hours on your team, but to balance it there are like 2000 players with the same 5000 play hours on the enemy side... but they are more spread out causing outnumbered constantly. I mean what even is "even distribution"? It certainly wouldnt be 500 vs 500 in this case, would it? That would cause vastly differing play hours.... Or its just what they've done and it's not possible to do better without more performance data. The funny part is this system is as easy to get numbers advantage as the old one. You make 500 man guild and just have each guild member have 2 accounts. You put 1 account in one guild with the other ones on another, and play one guild this restructuring, then the other one the next restructuring. Then if you happen to face the server your last restructuring team was supposed to be on, you suddenly have 1000 wvw player advantage. You can also get massive numbers advantage simply by only playing WvW every 2nd month.

That's one wild stretch. Both Teams I have been matched into are basically dead after 10 pm. Outnumbered on EBG is a very common sight at later hours. The other maps are even more dead. Yep, that is how WvW will be when people aren't given chance to learn their servers timezones. You don't know when your server has people, so you don't know when to log in. You cannot choose server that befits your timezone either. I have been telling long-time that 12 solo servers are the way to go since at least the links and relinkings won't ruin the matchmaking and transfer costs. I am not saying Restructuring is good system, but it is fairer than having links. There is finally server environment that allows competition, and it isn't just about where 1000 people transferred to right when relinks where announced.

And here is where your logic fails. Your original math was from all 4 mathups, but then you cherry picked 1 matchup later. Actual numbers (NA, couple hours before reset) Green BL | 76 902 kills Blue BL | 71 943 kills Red BL | 52 267 kills Now the numbers there is slightly better than in Europe with desert map having 70% of kills of average of 1 alpine map. But what this does not take into account is alpine borderland players are split into 2 maps and difference would be higher if it was 1 alpine vs 1 desert map. So the actual numbers are probably around 60%. Well, it is still better than Europe, but alpine map still has at least 60% (1.6*60% = 96%) more enjoyers. And if you combine the fact that 60% more people choose to go to alpine map over desert map with the reality that alpine map and desert map have completely different design, it is quite obvious that having desert map as home map is noticeable advantage or disadvantage.

Well I guess it only becomes apparent to you only you experience facing a server that never goes to desert map. Not a single group. If you actually played for score in past 7 years, you would have noticed this behaviour already. Since you do not ever play for score, it is natural you do not care about it. But yes, people are often oblivious to anyone elses behaviour. Source of the data that they use? You can use Gw2stats, gw2intel or any similar website and they will all show same data for ongoing matchup. They all use GW2 AI and they're still maintained after almost decade of being up. It is hard to believe these websites would be still be used and maintained if they just showed random data. Overall, rest of your comment is dismissing the proof and numbers, so idk, maybe talking to you is waste of time? I based my whole comment on actual numbers that no one has reason to doubt, and you still somehow managed to make your whole comment about bananas not being yellow. Desert map numbers are atrocious regardless of if you're in EU or NA. Which you would know if you actually used any source to back your claims up. And the issue with desert map is that there are different borderlands for different servers in same matchup. Transferring will hardly solve this problem and you should practice reading comprehension. I literally bolded it for you. Overall, somehow you managed to comment on my whole comment, and even had source to prove that transferring to NA does nothing to improve the numbers. And you learnt absolutely nothing about me or popularity of desert map. It just proves you're not very smart because thought transferring to NA solves anything with absolutely no basis behind it. You don't learn and incapable of understanding even most basic sentences. Did I ever say that NA doesn't have same number problem? No. It does. Did I say my main issue with desert map was the numbers? No. It was the advantage or disadvantage owning it provides. Desert map also exists in NA. I can tolerate people being misinformed but thinking NA servers are any kind of solution is pretty much dumbest thing one can do because you just got informed before it.

´ I've never seen any elitism in WvW where someone in game references ArcDPS. Damage usually seems pretty consistent where the same group of people always end up in the top 5, and those players tend to be the type to not brag or disparage other players. I usually see toxicity from players newer to the game. You can click on them and they tend to be on the wrong professions or builds, running oddball stacking sigils, or condition food. Deadeyes seem especially popular in this regard. There is some if you play with people that know you already. Try making DPS build that is more focused on providing boons to allies, CCing or tanking enemies (tank berserker/herald, staff catalyst, etc) and you can sometimes witness weavers and bow berserkers laugh at you for your lower damage. Even though you absorbed ton of enemy damage or boosted your allies damage a lot. For example Catalyst has lower personal DPS benchmark than Weaver, but grants permanent quickness/fury/might to 5 people, has access to CC abilities on demand, can provide pulsing protection fields, and has much higher personal survivability. But for some reason, people still promote weaver and think it is more meta. Even though it is less total damage, CC and survivability. Why? ArcDPS.

So this system is terrible. And obviously the linking system is terrible too considering this system is deemed necessary. Monoservers back when? I don't think anyone outside ones too cheap to transfer complained about that system. Stacked servers fought stacked servers, and you had options to go to lower tiers to fight guilds or less players. Time to bring back good old WvW (with less servers)!

*Then goes on to ignore the numbers of this poll and continues to lecture peers* Well what about the numbers of this poll huh? This thread has 84 voters. That is less than 10% of 1 servers playerbase. And were talking about 27 servers. So less than 0.3% of WvWs playerbase polled on it. Why results of this poll don't matter: Majority is often wrong: They do not understand importance of competitive balancing. Polling everyone is akin to asking generic population if using nuclear energy is safe, when they don't know how it works. Forum users are different from generic playerbase. If you go in room of prisoners, asking them if laws should be more lenient, will give you completely different results than asking everyone. Less than 0.3% of playerbase (<100 people) polled on this. That is hardly reliable result. How do we know someone just didn't vote no on 50 accounts? People wanting to be "just". People vote No, even if they know desert map is too unpopular to be healthy for gamemode, just because they think it is morally correct choice. Wanting to be good will often lead to bad decisions or self sacrifice. Often these people are misinformed about how 3 alpine WvW is different from 2 alpine WvW (they think it is the same). Ask people if butcher should provide vegetarian options giving them only 5 seconds to answer, and most would vote yes because they think just the wording "vegetarian options" makes that choice morally correct, even though it logically does not. Everyone who voted no is just misinformed and wrong. Competitive gamemode needs competitive environment. Not only regarding fights, but also regarding scoring and maplayout. Imagine if your server got double points from towers and keeps, would that be fair? Wouldn't that mean scoring and matchup outcome is completely meaningless? And how is you having desert map and enemies not fair? Not saying you aren't allowed to not care about matchup outcome, but rather that those who want to, should be allowed to do so in a setting that is fair to all competitors.

Do you want to try this again? So it takes 4 players to paper ABL keeps. 4 players can do the same to DBL, but for two of three keeps it takes twice as long since they need to work thru both walls. Now move up the numbers. It's even easier to just paper ABL. DBL is like SMC, you worry about inner and ignore outer unless inner is built up. DBL like SMC was created in the idea that there would be more fights between the two walls. ABL just encourages more karma trains, least effort highest rewards. My argument didn't say which map is easier or harder to defend, just that the maps are too different, so it impacts outcome of scoring, thus outcome of matchup. How you counter my argument is not pointing out differences, as this strengthens my claim, but by saying how differences don't impact scoring and same server will beat another regardless if they have desert map or not. What 4 popular maps? Even when it was EBG and 3 ABL, that's just two maps. ? There is difference if you go to blues alpine map or greens alpine map. Especially off primetime, if you go on green map, you will mostly fight greens, on blue map you will mostly fight blues. Or reduce their score. You should try commanding, or choosing between borderlands, sometime: There is a lot to factor in what will be most fun, productive and challenging. Map with much lower chance that enemies or allies want to play in, hardly is the choice. Want to expand on this? Is this in class skill balance or something else? WvW has massive amount of groups that never go to desert map (you can witness this behaviour in stat websites such as https://gw2mists.com/matches/eu). This in addition to different map layout, leads it to being large competitive advantage or disadvantage, several time larger than asymmetrical EB, to have desert map. Imagine matchup where one server isn't allowed to play revs, 2nd server eles and 3rd server warriors. With such balance, you cannot say winners are true winners. Same applies to desert map. Owner of desert map losing or beating alpine map owner, is meaningless, since they played completely different game. Agree, remove an ABL and replace with a EotM map. This wouldn't make game more competitive. All servers in same matchup need to have same homeborderland. If it is bad map, then let it be. It just shouldn't doesn't affect matchup outcome much. Issue is not desert map itself, it is the fact that we have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map in same matchup. For example more competitive system would be everyone having desert map this week, and alpine map next week. But since there are so few that enjoy Desert map, WvW would be pretty much ghost town those weeks. So thats why removing Desert map is better choice than Alpine map. But WvW would still competitively make sense even if everyone had less popular maps. It isn't about personal preference, if desert map was even remotely popular, I would be fine with replacing 2 alpine maps with desert map. As long as all 3 borderlands are the same. Now if playerbase want to experience different borderlands, then rotate borderlands between weeks. Don't put them all in at the same time. It ruins scoring. You can even have half the matchup with desert map (3.5 days) and the 2nd half with alpine map (3.5 days). As long as it is fair. I agree removing DBL would make the game mode worse for 80% of the players. Again joking aside if I was asked what drove most of the players I know away, it would be ABL and its design and lack of map options. This is hard claim to prove since if you look at statistics and we compare ABL and DBL: Time. WED 24/01/2024 12:30 (GMT) EU WvW. Source Gw2mists Map | Total amount of kills (T1+T2+T3+T4+T5) Alpine (blue) | 77 125 Alpine (green) | 83 770 Desert (Red) | 47 447 So Desert map has less than 60% of the kills of 1 alpine map. You claim most prefer this map, but very few actually play it. It is all words. And this was against map which popularity is split between 2 maps. We can conclude according to numbers that at least two thirds of the people prefer alpine borderland over desert. Now of course these numbers don't tell everything, since every home border has baseline that people have to play them. Baseline meaning that even worst map that everyone hates would have some kills since the scoring forces you to play it. You would have to substract this number from each borderland. Realistical estimation of the portion of playerbase that prefer alpine maps is around 70-80%, maybe even as high as 90% (we know it is at least 66.66%). Giving them extra map and returning competitive balance which benefits everyone is much better option than what we have right now. Unfortunately, while desert map isn't terrible map, the numbers just are not your side. You can't argue that desert is popular because very few choose it over other maps. You can't argue people like it, because very few play it. You can't argue that it is better because very few play it. You can't argue it makes WvW better because very few play it. Having desert map is like allowing smoking in restaurants: One person smoking will bother and make the experience worse for all the remaining customers.

2 reasons to remove desert map: Scoring: Having completely different map beats the purpose of scoring and balance. In no way is it fair that someone has desert map to defend, and other team has alpine Unpopularity: WvW is completely different with 4 popular maps compared to 3 popular maps. Whose map you're on makes a difference. I get it, some people like Desert because there aren't many enemies there. But Id rather see devs prioritize competitive balance. I am not saying there shouldn't be environment for those who prefer to meet less players as this is achievable without bad map distribution. It just doesn't make sense to remove all the competitiveness and make the gamemode worse for 80% of the players so you can have small improvement to 20% of players.

Well, only thing that seems to be missing are open tags with decent amount of people on voice. Which isn't surprising now that everyone and their moms are using different discord. Plenty of activity on maps tho. This system makes much more sense and Id rather see WvW die on this hill than go back to the illogical linking transfer garbage we had before.

So you're saying it is impossible to tell the reason why you lost without ArcDPS. Well I guess there are people who play WvW without having any clue how WvW works.

Id like there to be global rewards based on server activity (killing dollies, capturing things, killing players, escorting dolyaks), but unlocking the checkpoint rewards would require 1% of the checkpoints score. So for example if your server unlocks a reward after killing 50 000 players, you would need to be part of 500 kills. In addition to this, all servers would be facing against each other on leaderboards about same things (even if not in same matchup), earning small to medium amount of extra rewards for their server if they place in top 5 of the regions WvW. To qualify for the servers tournament victory rewards, you need to max out your personal checkpoint for the activity your server won. On global leaderboards, there would also be personal section for top 10 players with bigger rewards, so if you're the top 1 dolyak or player killer in your region that week, you will get decent amount of rewards (50 goldish?) Why such a system? It is because even when players max out their personal rewards, they still need to keep playing to ensure their server actually hits those global rewards. And if you get a server that is bad at group fighting, then you can aim for example top place at camp flipping or dolyak killing.

Agreed. There's probably many reasons why this appeals to players brains the way it does, but the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that players will always look at games in some manner as a puzzle. So when you have a rigid finished but balanced game, the puzzle tends to get "solved" and the players lose interest in interacting with the balancing. Where if the balance is constantly shifting and things will get better/worse, more players get invested and enjoys the hunt for finding the next broken thing etc. No I am fairly certain it is because if the game is balanced, then it tends to attract competitive and smarter playerbase. Then the dumber playerbase dies a lot and enjoys other games more. Where gaming companies get their revenue is from dumb people who buy lot of things from ingame due to lower impulse control. They might spend 2000 euros or dollars on useless cosmetics, because they simply cannot estimate expected value from purchase. Why are P2W games utter garbage? Precisely because of this. Worse game => People spend more. They could add the P2W features to where it makes sense, or make them cost reasonable amount, but that wouldn't make as much money. For same reason GW2 was made worse game, so people spend more money.

I agree, Tournament system is best for World Restructuring. 1-up-1-down is too slow at finding good matchups. I don't think rewards should be center point but because Tournament system has good matchmaking and incentivises teams to work and communicate together. People should realise that since there is no server to fight for, then tournaments will be quite casual. After all, your server name will be different after tournament is over.

I care very little about some streamers that just play the gamemode for viewers, but I do agree that lot of design choices were just bad. Desert is still very unpopular, why is it still in the game and we are playing 3 map WvW instead of 4 map WvW? Why is gliding allowed in combat reducing spots people or groups are willing to fight in? Why do defenders have so many stats that no blob on map can take keep from another? Why are outnumbering servers open through links and cost less to transfer to?

You're right. But as commander I already have to manage map promotion, voice promotion, scout reports, strategy, player assignment, siege placement, communication, build promotion, fight analysis, food timers etc. So it isn't that simple to start arc nerding and digging up certain names from squad list. I also want to play the game. Of course if there was decent balance and I had incentive to manage sizeable guild with players I can trust, then I could somewhat distribute the tasks. All I can say is that the least the followers can do is bring enough firebrands and supports that we can play the game. You're playing DPS when there arent enough firebrands for everyone, so you're part of the problem.

How do players get on these new servers? What if they all try to stack onto specific servers? If these are new servers, any incentives to go to lower pop servers don't do anything. Well, as long as higher tiers have queues large enough to be a bother, people will go to other tiers. Then while Tier 4 will most likely have only queues around primetime or weekend, that sounds exactly what some players or guilds might prefer. There is no particular reason why tier 4 server must have same population as tier 1 server. They're not facing against each other after all. All population differences is add you as a player option to choose between tiers with different activities. Main thing is that there will be no purely dead servers like back when we had 9 tiers. Now, will people manipulate populations, to stack a particular server? Yes, exactly like they do with World linking system. But difference with monoserver system is that all they will do is face rank 2 and rank 3/4 servers, so other servers that are doing similar stacking, instead of ravaging through all servers every 4 weeks. And as player, you have option to avoid them: You don't have to worry about them being matched against you every 4 weeks if you choose to chill at lower tiers with less activity. Or you can join them, or go do some giant killing, if you find that fun. For single player or guild, monoservers offer you most choice and best matchmaking, thus it is best system. Do you need to care about some random Andy, that refuses to move from tier 4 server even though he prefers tier 1 activity? No, it is his problem. You should just desire a system that maximizes your own fun and influence.

Delete all servers and rebuild them every time an adjustment is needed but it also means worse matchmaking? Yes, because if you it give enough time, some of those servers will end up in tier 1 because they have more efficient players. But at start, they will face servers from tier 3 or below, that hold no candle to them. Overall, initial matchmaking will always be bad. Even if done fairly ranking systems always need data to access teams level and place them against right opponents. It is akin to taking 12 random men off the streets and making them fight each other one-on-one. While there is expected average level, some of them will still get destroyed. The fights only start to be close once you start to have some idea how strong each person is and start placing them against each other.

You see players coming here on this forum and complaining about how WR is destroying their server community. Tell them now that only some servers are going to be deleted and they are going to be forced to pick a new server and it's a crap shoot as to whether they will be able to keep playing together because their new server goes Full and they don't have all their guild or friends together yet. Is that really all that fair? Fair is deleting ALL servers and forcing players to pick who they want to play with through guilds with a limit of 500. The limit applies to everyone equally. Why do the servers where players stacked/bandwagoned for easy wins get the special treatment of remaining? Yea, you can delete all servers and rebuild them. I don't really care. We are at the point where logical system is much bigger priority. School system functioning properly is much more important than memories someone has at particular school. Now imagine a system that adjusts the number of servers dynamically based on total playing population. Does it need 12 server or 15 servers? If there's a seasonal low, maybe it reduces down to 3 tiers. If there's a WvW rush event, maybe it expands to 5 tiers. The only way to accomplish this well is programmatically reshuffling the entire total population. It is possible to change the amount of tiers or players on a server, but this also means worse matchmaking first few weeks. So you can't do it too often. You really don't want to end in a situation where over half the matchups are landslide victories.

Nah, they're probably dividing the guilds equally. Lot of the guilds are just filled with random rubble like morning crews, non voice pugs and PvE communities. What you're seeing is alliances that are made from combination of several raiding guilds. Obviously if one alliance brings 5-7 guilds then that server is going to have more than an average server.

Add following changes to the patch and I am happy: Willbender - Flowing Resolve charge count reduced from 2 to 1 in WvW Holosmith - Photonic Blasting Module damage power coeffient reduced from 3.5 to 3.0 in WvW Holosmith - Crystal Configuration: Zephyr: Allied target limit of 5 added Engineer - Flamethrower: Flame Jet power coefficient reduced from 2.5 to 2.3 in WvW Revenant - Hammer: Coalesensence of Ruin power coeffient increased from 0.91 to 1.05 in WvW Revenant - Hammer: Phase Smash power coefficient increased from 1.0 to 1.15 in WvW. Elementalist - Staff: Lava Font power coefficient increased from 0.454 to 0.5 in WvW.

You're inexplicably proposing what we had from launch to about 5 or 6 years ago without consideration being given at all as to why it was changed away from that in the first place. It was changed because there were too many servers. The system was not bad, there were just too many servers. And I know the reason, ANet just didn't want it to seem like the game is dying. So they didn't want to outright delete servers. They chose marketing over better system. Yes, it worked terribly. They were outnumbered by linked open servers. It just proves that you should calculate population status and transfer costs based on totals on linking. You do understand that people on linkings, lower the total population status cap? So a single server can fit less players since the playerbase is spread across 27 servers, not 12 or 15. Linking system just does not work, we have outnumbered full servers, we have open outnumbering servers, we have cheap transfers to higher tiers. Add to that the 4 weekly terrible matchmaking where you're guaranteed to have 2 or 3 weeks of bad matchups. You will never have all servers full, because full status isn't a static number, its based on most active servers activity. And that is the way to do it anyways: you can't have the game break if there is suddenly WvW boom of 10 000 players. Everything you said is why linking system is terrible. Why monoserver system with 12 servers is good: Server can fit more population before going full because playerbase is split across less servers Matchmaking is closer because there isn't 4 weekly throwing servers randomly around where lowest tier server might face the biggest server Highest populated servers will be full and not open through linking There won't be full unlinked servers being outnumbered by linked servers that are still open to transfers You can transfer to bottom tier for cheap and higher tier costs more or are full. You have a choice of less active WvW and lower queues, or more active WvW. If you want to play EB on primetime as a guild, you probably want to go midtier or lower tier server. You have a choice of type of server you want (Timezone, Guilds, Commanders). It won't chance based on linking. You choose best the 12 servers and it will stay the best unless your preferences change. Since enemy servers will also be more consistant, you can learn their timezones so you know when to log in for some good action. Due to more players being on your server and reachable by communication, you can easier control the tier of your server to face servers you want to face. No communication issues from having 2 different language servers linked You can improve your servers playerbase, communication and infrastucture without it being reset by randoms. For example linking refusing to use same discord, or linking guilds using same tag colour as open tags, are both pretty common problems with linking system. You will have higher portion of playerbase in your communication channels. So if there is something wrong with the server, you can communicate it. You can easily see that all these 12 very positive things, do not exist in linking system (some do but only if you're willing to transfer every 4 weeks). But yes, main thing is that you can choose best out of 12 servers, and since theres no linkings the queues, guilds, commanders, won't change much over 6 months or even longer period. And matchups will be closer since there every 4 weeks there won't be high chance you will face a server from completely different tier. If you have a choice of 12 completely different servers that don't change much, the best server for you there will be better than any server in a system where ton of randomness regarding teammates is included. And this applies to all players: Point is not to create same server for everyone, but that everyone has more fun server and closer matchups. If system is better for everyone, it is better. Cherry on top is more control over future of your server.

Best because it is what we already have and are used to? Let us recount all the ways this has been a terrible method over the years for the 20th. 30th, 100th time... ? We have linkings? And no full status because links are always open? Do you get filled with anger everytime you see my messages and thats why you can't understand them? Yes, we used to have the system 10 years ago, and main issue was that there were too many servers. Of course such a system wouldn't work with 10000000000... or 27.. servers

People stop playing often and for various reasons. One main reason is that they do not like their current server. Locking the gates will just mean players will quit and never come back. Best way to keep WvW active and fair is to have a cap on server population (Full status, no linking), and cheaper transfer costs to lower tiers. Of course people will still flock to servers that provide what most people want, but those servers will mainly face each other in higher tiers if there weren't relinkings to throw them around. Also it isn't necessarily bad if some servers have less population, because for a player or a guild it might be what they prefer. Some people just like smaller fights and no queues. So no relinkings, no link servers. Just 12 servers fighting to be the best. The less entertaining ones will have less people and be at the bottom, but they will face other such servers and it will have much fairer matchmaking than with world linking or restructuring systems. Main issue with the systems were dealing with now is that there is high chance that the largest server will face the smallest server on their way up to tier 1. Shuffling playerbase just doesn't lead to good matchups.

Problem: Everyone wants to play EB Solution: Add 2nd EB. Maybe remove 1 tier. Now start campaigning for this, not world linking system that had terrible matchmaking while being very unbalanced populationwise.