Riba.3271

Answer: Algorithm isn't broken, it just doesn't work with 2 servers together. Cause: Population status & Transfer cost not being calculated by total of players on the linking Result: People transfer to links for cheap ----> Main servers have less people ---> Highest populated main server has less people --> Full status is reached easier Now I am very familiar with your server, and all I can say is that almost all you have left are ineffective players since most effective players transfer around. Effective players just can't fit there anymore which is sad considering any server is reliant on those. Now we have previously empty servers (WSR, FoW) that are full from those same effective players transferring in, whereas Desolation is full of ineffective players that never transfer (or learn to play better). Relinkings don't help your case either as you don't have enough to time to fix your problems before next one, and people just mass transfer away leaving you underpopulated without even giving you a chance.

This is common misconception caused by lack of experience. Any situation where you have opportunity to chase owner of gliding bonus to high ground or wall, is affected by gliding. SM roof, bay south gate, hills, ruins or Anza Hill are some good examples where couple of attackers can never finish off similar number of defenders. It also affects large groups since attackers cannot spread out as much as defending group due to lot of defending players being safe due to gliding being available nearby. The verticality you want will greatly benefit only defenders. So attackers will stay away from those spots. If you want verticality to matter, gliding needs to be removed in combat.

One of our WvW devs is a purely guardian main. I don't think Willbender is getting nerfed. But yes, it and cele need to be nerfed.

To be honest how is that an argument. Gliding and mounts improved the maps by a lot, especially Desert and EBG. Additionally saying something wasn't designed with x in mind works for all features. "GW2 fighting system wasn't designed with three dodges on thief in mind" "GW2 siege system wasn't designed with Shield Generators in mind" Things change over the time which is quite normal not only for GW2 but most things like in "Humans weren't designed with full access to carbohydrates in mind that spike your insulin" still nobody thinks we should go back living in caves. There isn't much high ground advantage in GW2 more like the opposite since AoE are ball shaped and ignore LoS and make walls a death trap. The only advantage is that the range changes a bit. While gliding especially in Desert is mostly an defender advantage anyway because of the keep design. Actually, your counterarguments are on quite unsteady ground as my public opinion opinion has been that shield generators is something that should be removed or reworked. (Proof in comment history) If I summarize the reason it is that shield generators force ram/guild golem siege meta that is immune to siege and all other strategies are unviable as long as attackers and defenders utilize shield gens. Gliding being available in combat, obviously affects the map balance. Simple to see examples are trebbing or cataing from high spots, even continously bombing catapults, pulling people off cliffs, wall safety, scouting. All these effects together will make map smaller and smaller for attackers that weight their options. Also do not misunderstand. I never claimed that gliding should be completely removed, just from situations where you're already in combat. The recommended system would still allow players to utilize it for getting from one place to another, much like mounts. And yes, I have thought the effects of the changes through. With current balance the defenders have too many advantages, and attackers are too shoehorned into certain strategies. After all, my suggestions are always towards better balance and more fun. It is easy to get stuck into doomer point of view but if you die from not being able to glide, then your opponent has good time. Gliding in combat ends up being just space limiting factor that benefits the side that does not need more benefits. I would prefer if now on comments were about whetever gliding should be available in combat, as every reply seems to be under misconception that we are talking about gliding being removed completely.

You would get much more opportunities to knock enemies off ledges if they didn't have gliding available. Also CC skills don't last long enough to finish when gliding high enough. I do agree that falling damage deaths are hilarious, and actually without gliding you would see 3+ times more of them with both sides being unable to glide and more teams opting to fight at such locations... Also do not worry as they can still start gliding out of combat. So you can still do your favorite activity at iconic locations such as NE and NW tower. Did you miss the in combat -part? You will get best of all worlds, knocking people to their death when attacking or defending and when they're gliding. This is asking Arenanet to make your enemy stop running so you can hit them. I played the gamemode back when gliding wasn't part of it, and I can confidently say that combat situations are more alluring if defenders don't have gliding available. I do not get your logic since I also defend and the change wouldn't only affect enemies. I just think the game would be better, and I wouldn't actively try to make game I play regularly worse would I? Also, please, when quoting replies, please include the messages replied to as context is very important. I added the missing part to avoid further misunderstandings.

First off no, you remove reasons to control areas and reduce strategic options to control various part of the maps. Maps were designed without defenders having gliding available. On the contrary, one could argue those strategic aspects are reduced, such as how much high ground benefits attacker by gliding being available only to defenders. Since attackers, especially small groups or solo players that lack burst damage, can't finish opponents on high ground, they will always opt to stay away from that high ground. Gliding only being available to one side actually leads the map to have less complexity, as lot of the area won't be opted to be played in. Vast majority of CC skills are ground targeted or melee so CC finishing is limited to only couple of weapons... And even then the CC, such as iconic ranger bow 4, won't last long enough if the player is high enough to die from falling damage. You would get much more opportunities to knock enemies off ledges if they didn't have gliding available. Also CC skills don't last long enough to finish when gliding high enough. I do agree that falling damage deaths are hilarious, and actually without gliding you would see 3+ times more of them with both sides being unable to glide and more teams opting to fight at such locations... Also do not worry as they can still start gliding out of combat. So you can still do your favorite activity at iconic locations such as NE and NW tower. Did you miss the in combat -part? You will get best of all worlds, knocking people to their death when attacking or defending and when they're gliding.

Suggestion was not to remove gliding completely, just in combat situations. Having always gliding might be better than not having gliding at all, but it doesn't mean it is better than only having it available out of combat. Such system will still allow fast traversal.

Tbf, you can't mount up while fighting or to escape from a fight. So mounts are quite different and don't ruin combat situations as much

Gliding should be disabled in combat permanently... .. Because it is both fun and fair

This was because reduction of tiers. It had nothing to do with linking system being better. Same would have occured if they just deleted lower tier servers and distributed them to high tier servers. After all, it isn't like linkings magically added players in the game, everyone just enjoyed playing with more players and commanders. There were just too many servers, so commanders struggled finding players, and players struggled finding commanders that already had players. Yes, transfers are main problem. If server (or linking) outpopulates all other servers, they should be blocked for transfers until this isn't true anymore. Something monoserver system does succesfully. There are ways to improve WR, it just wasn't topic of this thread. I will summarize some of them here: Matchmaking enemies: 1-up-1-down is very slow at finding good matchups. If they want good matchups to occur faster, they need to put winners against winners and losers against losers.. At least during initial weeks. 4 weeks isn't long enough time period for tiers to matter. Matchmaking allies: Main driving force World Restructuring is balancing the population across teams. For this to stay consistant, it should occur as frequently as possible: every week. And transfers should be disabled. Communications: As server voice chats are currently discord and teamspeak based, the numbers there are also dependant on how many people already have the adress in the past. Squad wide voice communications needs to be implemented in the game. Options: There should be option for players to not face against premade teams. Players should have choice of avoiding premade teams, so commanders without premade team vs commanders without premade team. After all, couple of tiers of only solo players, will improve experience of both premade teams and solo players.

The knowledge that the bad situation is only temporary maybe? After all you don' have to worry about getting stuck in a bad matchup permanently anymore. Unlike in the past With the past system and 1-up-1-down, you could can easily change tier of servers. Or transfer. Currently, or with World Restructuring, even if you prefer activity of tier 2 and fighting tier 2 servers, there is extremely low chance your server will actually manage to do it. You will be lucky to get such action once per week. Do note that monoservers are more stable, so if you find a good server, it will stay as such. Right now, there is no good environment, it is a scrapshoot how your new linking will affect your server. And this is not even mentioning the fact that stable monoservers give your actions and voice ability to make the server better slowly, instead of resetting progress in most things everytime. How many players of your world are you actually interacting with? Probably much less than half. So instead of worrying so much about all those randoms, why not band together with those that actually share your playtime and playstyle, form a guild and voila - you have got a consistent team and won't have to worry that much about all the other randoms you can't influence much anyway. As for "fun" opponents - you can't guarantee those in a static system either and your fight server can easily get stuck against a PvDoor server that avoids any confrontation with your boonblob. Permanently. While organised group can overcome much of the problems with player quality, the best way to get frequently decent fights is controlling type of enemies so you want to face, so tier you want to be in, and stable environment. Both of which are not characteristics of linking or restructuring systems. Of course in static system if you choose to be in PvD server (tier 1), you should be willing to go inside keeps to do the same. I wouldn't say it is developers fault you expect Tier 3 (fight focused) behaviour from Tier 1 server (point focused). Choose a server that is close to tiers that provide fights. While choosing such server won't guarantee proper enemies will log in, it will still increase the odds of such behaviour compared to systems based on lot of randomness Servers you can transfer to would be limited and capped (Full status), more expensive, and leaving your original server can often backfire due to it getting full. So it still succeeds at controlling populations better than current system. Also if you're already at best possible server, and there aren't massive changes like relinkings, will it really change that often? While I do agree World Restructing is better regarding keeping playercount even across all servers, such a thing isn't necessary in tier based systems where tiers guarantee somewhat even matchups. It actually removes choice of how active they want WvW to be from the players. Are you saying seriously that a system where worst performing tier 1 server, facing best performing tier 3 server, has much more imbalanced matchups than whatever we have currently, or during restructuring? Tier 5 linkings facing Tier 1 linkings is hardly a great system. Same will happen after restructuring because alliances will go inactive, swap to alts or teams will just be less efficient at using their time. What was an unusually imbalanced linking period was pretty much a permanent situation during the old system. Servers at the bottom are bound to die sooner or later in a static server system and if you keep deleting servers - well, eventually there won't be any left. Despite all the flaws - that are certainly there - the linking system kept the WvW population relatively stable for years. Something that can't be said about the old server system. You must realise that the months required for tier 5 server to climb a couple of tier was at least half a year in the past. With 1-up-1-down it will be 4 weeks from tier 5 to tier 1 so the progress will be very controllable and visible. The systems are drastically different and you can't blame flaws of glicko system to monoservers. Reason groups didn't stay in lower tier servers despite the gem saving incentive, was because it was practically impossible to climb. Even if you won matchups. I have personally experienced this. People just ran out of fumes of beating dead servers and seeing absolutely no progress. Anyways, if we actually reminisce about the past, what caused people frustration was the glicko and matchmaking system. No one was saying the server system was illogical. Because they had choice of server.

You're wrong. If 10 people strip boons at same time, they can easily remove 10 boons from same target. They just need to reduce maximum boon duration. Easiest way without affecting builds without so many boons is to nerf concentration stat.

Actually they chose to not merge servers because low intelligence people would take it as sign of the game dying. It was just marketing move in expense of matchmaking balance. I refuse to believe they did not see how terrible current system is. Like the population status and transfer costs are right on your face. We even saw Full+Full linkings that won every skirmish for whole linking years ago. At that point it was obvious to anyone.

Even better. Lets delete all the server, and make new ones with somewhat equal populations. Just no linkings. If some server gets noticeable amount of transfers, make them full and block any future transfers. If some server loses people, make them cheaper to transfer to.. Wait, this sounds like a great system!! It is almost like it was.. the original suggestion after couple of months...

It seems you have never met a person or guild who transferred away from high tier to lower tier server because they wanted away from queues, lags or just more quiet roaming environment. Yes, there are many people who want to be in very populated server, but there are also quite many who want to be in less populated server. So let them. Not every server needs to have exactly same amount of people and it is enough to just be alive. Actually as long as transfers are enabled, it is preferable for playerbase if they have different choices. You're misunderstanding WvW with matchmaking games: You're not facing tier 1 server as tier 4 server, so you don't need same population. Part of why tiers are so great, is because they reflect the activity and entertainment provided in each server. True, but after WR score is meaningless, so 1-up-1-down is meaningless. You could argue score already is, but at least playing actively provides entertainment to your server mates and you can control future matchups. After WR, no one can keep track of what direction their server should aim to, and strangers will be even more strange. Even worse, you won't have any choice of what kind of server you want to be in, because they will all be pretty much the same. In hindsight, I don't think 1-up-1-down fits WR at all, wouldn't tournament mode converge to better matchups faster? Losers face losers and winners winners. But yes, I do completely agree servers actively tanking to avoid overpopulated servers or being unlinked is a big problem right now. But that won't be as big of a problem in mono server system because full servers will be mostly facing full servers. And tanking to avoid being unlinked will disappear all together, because it will be replaced with same wall of Full status.

And instead of deleting servers they could just stop links and leave the current pairs together forever, would serve the same purpose, really makes no difference. Not exactly, they would also need to make the population status and transfer costs based on total on the linking. Actually no, it would discourage transfers. Full status without open link would limit transfers and control player count better. Transfer costs to open servers would increase since there isn't a cheaper option in same linking. Even the possibility of the server you're leaving going full will make you think twice about leaving. Are you really saying people transfer now less than before linking system? And 1u1d can still force you into terrible matches because of gap of population between servers. Yes, 1-up-1-down isn't perfect but it fixed the 2 biggest issues glicko system had: Slow tier changes and stagnant matchups. 1-up-1-down is in use with linking and World Restructuring systems so its flaws isn't relevant to whetever monoservers are better choice. Just whetever it is better than glicko. Seems all your examples why monoserver system is bad are about glicko system. Can you focus on why monoservers with 1-up-1-down won't work (like being suggested)? I get it, you had bad memories about glicko but what makes 2 servers together better than 1? Is the current transfer system better than in the past? (in the past high tier servers were full or cost more) True, lot of people like to play on server that can gather 50+ people on map as at that point it isn't your servers but enemies fault for not bringing enough to the fight. But you also have to admit that Full status in monoserver system would limit their population a bit. And matchmaking would be much more fair with Rank 1 and Rank 2 servers staying in tier 1 facing each other instead of being shuffled around every month to faceroll over tier 5 and tier 4 servers. World Restructuring is decent matchmaking system. But if it was implemented with actual intent of fair matchmaking, it wouldn't have transfers and larger guilds would face against other large guilds with no pugs being around at all. Called premade queue or soloQ in other games. But since pugs and transfers will exist even in "fair matchmaking system", the developers are publically admitting that part of WvW is overcoming problems within the team you're given. Which World Restructuring fails to give time or reason for.

Been there, I can recommend them if you're looking for effortless wins or struggle from insomnia. You don't even need to press anything!! ⭐⭐ ⭐⭐⭐ experience. It is like being on vacation forever.

Not exactly, the server amount was originally designed for people who play the game on release. Obviously years after release months, playerbase will be halved or more focused on PvE. So the issue with the system wasn't the system, but the fact that there were too many servers I experienced it and its flaws as well. Glicko system won't be a problem, because 1-up-1-down is implemented now. And that is exactly the problem. What will keep you playing when your team is doing badly? You cannot influence groups outside your initial group permanently, because nothing connects you. Except they aren't: Average of half of your team will be from your link. Meaning they won't be permanent and will cause guilds, timezones, queues, commanders and player strength to vary a lot. Same applies to opponents which obviously means great fun timezone this month won't be great fun timezone next month Servers are always open through link and people move to fight with those servers. Even though they should be marked full already. Linking losing 20% of its population facing one that gained 20% more population, will be 80% vs 120%, so facing 50% more players or guilds. Matchmaking is a mess. Tier 1 server will take 4 weeks to climb to tier 1 from tier 5. For example this linking, there was an EU server that won over 90% of skirmishes and won't even reach tier 1 before next relinking occurs Since you lack experience, let me give you rather normal experience about how building great fun environment works out these days. Step1: Start by building a great timezone with decent fights and opponents. Train your people. Lot of effort, but what are the rewards? Step 2: Then relinking happens and suddenly 200 people transfer cheaply (500 gems) to leech that timezone causing massive queues even though your server already had enough players. Your new link has a chat commander that likes to tag up 30 minutes before that timezone and occupy the map with good fights. You get matched against servers that are 2+ tiers above or below your population. Your enemy servers with suitable opposition get thrown into complete opposite tier and experience massive issues with relinking as well. From this example even you can deduce, that having monoservers is much more suitable for keeping your preferred timezone competitive. You can just stay in tier you belong in without bouncing around facing servers that you don't stand a chance facing against, or vice versa. Even for guildplay monoservers would be great, they could avoid most queued servers and settle in staple tier 2 or tier 3 servers without having to worry about too many transfers ruining them over in 1 week.

Spoken like a true bandwagoner - the type of player anet definitely should not cater to. I have to choose a server anyways. Is everyone who installs GW2 and chooses a server bandvagoner? Even if they stay there for years? That ain't bandvagoning, bro. I am not going to stick to German server because I don't speak German. I will choose a fun server, because it is a game, and contribute to building it while fighting the evildoers and trolls.

Sure, I can always transfer to best suitable server after. And it will stay as such for a loooong time because there won't be relinkings or restructuring messing the environment up.

Delete excess ones, thank you. Let entertaining servers brim up to Full status, but not beyond that, and less entertaining servers be at the bottom. At least matchmaking will be somewhat fair. World Destructuring will be thrash arena game system. Imagine sPvP but there is high chance you face against only bronze ranked teams with platinum team. You can't arrange proper matchmaking, so stop trying. Let us have our communities. At least then our guilds and server can aim for a tier with decent opposition. I don't understand why first we moved to this terrible system (linkings) so you can farm maximum gems from transfers, and now you're minimizing transferring overall (World Restructuring).. Can't we just go back to the meaningful system with decent matchmaking where people were still transferring reasonable amount? WvW stayed popular because existance of servers. Stop letting devs with bad memory, that serverhop constantly and only attend guild raids couple times a week, to ruin it. We all know most devs have been avoiding WvW very actively quite soon after linking was implemented. So it is really not that hard to see that monoservers are pillars you should build upon on. No pillars will just lead to ruins.

I would suggest to learn to not mouseclick and use hotkeys. Even for younger people it gets several weeks to get used to. It isn't that elderly are unable to learn, they're just unwilling. Most of the time age is just an excuse.

Ofc not, how would bad ideas mix with good ones? Matching servers by KDR has nothing to do WvW scoring or playing hours. It wouldn't change any flaws anyways since servers are linked and people transfer anyways. People will just tank KDR like they're doing with score right now. Also KDR isn't implicative of servers activity since 1 person server can easily get 50 kdr, they just need to dive into blob fight, tag people, and die. My point isn't to get rid of transfers, it is to allow people to transfer to a server that fits them and make it so that server doesn't get ruined by periodical changes in playerbase. Of course servers will still lose or grain players gradually, but that will be much slower than relinkings and reflect how entertaining they are. The best server for a player or a guild would stay best server for years, rather than 1 or 2 months. This is the power of solo servers. System we already had. Asking for it, but with approriate amount of servers for the playerbase, isn't "wishful" but completely reasonable. They just need to copy paste and adjust some code from the past.

If you base your game on illogical decisions that allow playerbase to outnumber enemies as much as they want, you can't be surprised your playerbase becomes like that too. All competitive players that want actual fair gameplay, are already maining other games. It is developers fault. But maybe they do want this kind of playerbase because they spend more money on gems. You can't place bunch of people in fight to death with knives and guns on the table under rules that only knives are allowed to be used. it is developers responsibility to not place the guns on the table at all.

Although I think WvW has been neglected. The problem of population imbalance is primarily driven by player behaviour. That's why there isn't an easy fix, that's why world restructuring won't fix it. It was the devs made full servers open and cheap to transfer to through links. We have High + medium linkings fighting against Full + Very High linkings. Somehow player counts changed massively in couple of days, as if there was scheduled event that incentivised them to transfer to certain places for low cost. There is an easy fix: Solo servers (delete excess ones) so transfer costs and population status mean something. System we already had. Relinkings are not the way to balance populations, incentivising players to do it through systems and fair balance (another big problem) is. Yes, some not-so-entertaining worlds will still have less population, but they will face against other such worlds. And that is great, it gives player chose on how active environment they want to be in. The devs are just shooting themselves and the playerbase in the foot by trying to make every world same size. There aren't 12 great commanders with plenty of time in hand in 12 different places to make 12 big communities.