kafka.1657
-
Posts
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by kafka.1657
-
-
@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:i mean, probably there are weird people that try to do sth like this... but that sounds pretty much effort for basically nothing outside of... beeing annoying? like if somone would do this intentionally. which surely might be... competitive ppt would kinda create such ways of behaviour, i suppose.
Your server might not be full, in which case there would be little reason for players from rival servers to boost your population ahead of the relinking. My server is nearly always full and often finds itself without a link.
Last week was when play-hours would be measured for the upcoming relink. Sure enough, there were plenty of strangers showing up with low achievement points and some even repping guilds from other servers. That week in which play-hours were measured ended Sunday, so I looked to see if our server's WvW performance would drop as all those visitors left. Well, that's exactly what happened. We went from being a dozen points ahead to a dozen behind in just 2 days. Only 1 of the 8 skirmishes in which our kdr was over 2.2 occurred after Sunday. I very much expect that we will be without a link again after this Friday.
Consider yourself lucky if this is not happening on your server.
-
@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:i'm nearly sure that population is sorta counted not by number of accounts, but by played hours per matchup, ergo this does not work alike.You are correct about play-hours raising a server's active WvW population. So, if a player puts in play-hours on an alt/ftp account on a rival server then they've raised that rival server's active WvW population, thereby reducing that rival server's chances of getting a strong link.
-
@bigo.9037 said:
only one problem.. this would just encourage vets to make alt accounts and bypass the pip measurement system and now you have higher population than other server full of vets who don’t use this bypass strategy.
but if it can somehow prevent that, yea it would be a good idea.Sadly, this sort of thing is already happening. Players make alt or ftp accounts on rival servers to boost their populations in the week prior to when links are reassessed. This can leave those rival servers with a weaker link or, in Europe, no link at all. Even though, using pips instead of play-hours to set population thresholds would be a step in the right direction, it would not keep many players from gaming the system. ...Of course, neither would alliances.
-
@medivh.4725 said:Will I keep recieving my WVW interval ticks on reward tracks if...A) If I change a toon, and went to another map/meta event?B ) I change a toon, and come right back at WVW?C) If I get disconnected?D) Get kick out of WVW due to inactivity?
Are you're asking this about my pips-into-pops post above? I'm not suggesting that the current pips and participation system be changed. With that said, the extra pips we get for playing on an outnumbered borderland probably should not affect a server's population threshold.
-
Question: Instead of play-hours, why not determine server populations using pips?
Surely a significant number of PvE players contribute to a server's WvW play-hours by merely completing WvW dailies. What has such a player contributed to a server's WvW strength when all they've done is wait 10 minutes to kill a veteran warg? By counting pips intead of play-hours such PvE players would add much less to the population tally.
Furthermore, player experience would finally matter because veteran players gain pips faster than novices. A server full of novices would therefore have a higher population threshold than a server full of vets. Wasn't this one of the goals that ArenaNet hoped to achieve with alliances?
Similarly, commanders also earn pips faster, so a server with fewer commanders would naturally have a higher population threshold.
Bottom line: Who needs alliances when a mechanism already exists that could achieve many of the same benefits? ArenaNet merely needs to set server population thresholds using pips instead of play-hours.
-
I keep wondering how the EU roster will look after the relinking, given that there are 15 primary servers and 12 links.
Assuming that the strongest links will go to the weakest primary servers, that means the 3 strongest servers (atm: Deso, SFR and WSR) will get no links at all. Conversely, the strongest links, like maybe AG, RoF and GH, would likely go to Riverside, Kodash and RoS in tier 5.
How does everyone else see this?
(Please, let's try to keep this discussion about how the language restriction removal will affect the links we can expect and avoid any personal preferences and other emotional minefields.)
-
@"Dawdler.8521" said:It makes perfect sense in the context, "... the language [preference of the worlds] wont be used during the next world linking".
Ok, all attempted humour aside, in no English dictionary or context does the word "language" mean "preference of the worlds." The term "language restriction" could have made sense in that context, but instead, the word "language" was used. I really hope this makes sense now, but if your aim is to continue arguing over such trivia until one of us is exhausted then I'll gladly give up, you win. :s
@"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said:... "Yes the change is happening at the end of next week" ...
Thanks Stephane. :)
-
@Dawdler.8521 said:Arguing the structure of sentences is pointless.Arguing that arguing the structure of sentences is pointless while arguing about the structure of sentences is indeed pointless. ...And a bit ironic. ;)
-
@"Rhiannon.1726" said:I understand Stephane's sentence like: "..., it's about the language and the fact that it (=the language) won't be used during the next World Linking"In English, "...the language won't be used during the next World Linking" doesn't really make much sense. :/
-
@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:I think ANet could have rephrased their statements. They could have said more simply: "the next linkage won't use language as a criterion; any EU world can be matched with any other, just as it's done in the NA region."The subject of Stephane's sentence was "the change" and technically "it" referred to the subject. Therefore, "it won't be used during the next World Linking" should mean that the change won't be used. Nonetheless, your explanation has clarified the matter. Thanks. :)
Somewhat ironic that a language-usage issue should crop up in this of all threads. ;)
-
@Stephane Lo Presti.7258 said:
@kafka.1657 said:So, can we please get clear indication from an ArenaNet representative in THIS thread about whether or not this change will take effect in 8 days?That is correct.LOLNow you are just trolling me. :s
-
@"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said:I want to make a specific statement about the part of this discussion where players' feedback address countries: this change is not about the countries, it's about the language and the fact that it won't be used during the next World Linking.Your "specific statement" then proceeded to say nothing about the second issue; "the fact that it won't be used during the next World Linking." Meanwhile, according to what others have seen elsewhere, this change actually WILL be used during the next World Linking.
So, can we please get clear indication from an ArenaNet representative in THIS thread about whether or not this change will take effect in 8 days?
-
@"Dawdler.8521" said:
The question was, is there free transfer. The answer was yes with a delay.
Indeed, with a brief 2-month "delay" it would be free. ;)
-
@Euryon.9248 said:
@kafka.1657 said:@Chaba.5410 said:@kafka.1657 said:players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends?lol :)No, the transferring player is not necessarily friends with all 500 alliance members. However, breaking up a large long-standing community intoat least5 or 6 separate alliances will force many players to buy transfers.OR, maybe they can make do with a couple hundred of their closest friends and make some new ones too. Why would they have to buy transfers to a world that may be full anyway for an 8-week period?I like Guild Wars 2 well enough, but I primarily play for the fun of being with a very active server community that even organizes real-life meet-ups a few times each year. I almost envy you if the restructuring is not affecting your community as it is ours.
Sure, many of those left out of their friends' alliances will likely seek new friends rather than pay a transfer fee. Although, many will just as likely seek a new game while they're at it. ...A game where large thriving communities are supported, or at least allowed to remain intact.
-
@Chaba.5410 said:
@kafka.1657 said:players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.Possibly, but realistically, 500 friends?lol :)
No, the transferring player is not necessarily friends with all 500 alliance members. However, breaking up a large long-standing community into at least 5 or 6 separate alliances will force many players to buy transfers.
-
My cynical side sees this restructuring as a lucrative means of earning gems from players transferring to stay with their friends. I can't think of any other reason to cap the alliance size at a mere 500.
We are told that the WvW player population averages 2000 - 2500 per server. My above-average server's WvW population is easily double that which means that only ~15% of us will be able to stay together. The other 85% will either accept their relocations or pay a fee to transfer and, if there's space, remain with friends they've run with for 6 years.
Of course, there will always remain that 3rd option of moving on entirely from Guild Wars 2. :'(
-
@"brianmiguel.8517" said:So will guilds need to kick inactive members in order to not take up alliance slots?
Of course, a "WvW community guild" might not welcome non-WvW players or those who have designated an entirely different guild for WvW play.
-
PROBLEM: Our server's WvW community guild is already full (500 members), and yet I know of some members who are still planning to declare a different guild as their WvW guild. Ideally, such members would leave the community guild to make room for players who will actually commit to that guild for WvW, but I suspect that large numbers will remain.
SOLUTION A: I suggest that ArenaNet create a means for guild leaders to designate that their guild is flagged for WvW. Then, after that flag has been set, all uncommitted members would be given ~7 days to designate that guild for WvW, or they would automatically be kicked out.
SOLUTION B: If solution A seems too ruthless then perhaps a new WvW-guild marker could be introduced next to each member's name in the guild roster, showing whether or not they've designated that guild for WvW. It could then be left up to the Guild leaders to cull uncommitted members as they see fit.
Edit: Doh!! I've just read a post by Raymond Lukes on the previous page stating that they will be introducing new Guild UI elements along the lines of Solution B above.
World Restructuring - possible exploit?
in World vs. World
Posted · Edited by kafka.1657
What if 500 players in a guild each create alt accounts and form a second 500-player guild. Odds are the main guild and alt guild would end up in different worlds.
The players then let their alt guild hibernate for a season while playing their main accounts. At the end of that season, the sleeping alt guild would have a VERY low strength rating in the eyes of ArenaNet's algorithm and would be placed into a relatively strong world in the following season. At the start of that new season, those 500 players would hop to their alt guild and enjoy an overpowered world while letting their main guild hibernate.
Back and forth they'd go from season to season, each time deceiving the algorithm and getting into a relatively strong world.
Food for thought.
.