Anet cannot count participation and this is a FACT

[Karagee.6830]

Gandara has tanked brutally for 3 weeks, like really no tags, no major guilds playing or raiding, a few disjointed roamers doing dailies for 10 minutes, spawn towers owned by other servers with watchtower on them most of the time. Gandara is still full 3 and a half weeks later. Nobody, NOBODY in his right mind can argue that Anet assess participation in WvW in any rational way anymore.

 

That said these are the servers that are currently Full on EU:

Augury Rock 

Piken Square (linked to RoS also full)

Desolation (linked to Ring of Fire, very high)

Ruins of Surmia (linked to Piken, full)

Elona Reach (unlinked, will be in T5 in 2 weeks, like clockwork)

Drakkar Lake

Riverside (linked to AM, Very High)

Far Shiverpeaks (linked to GH, Very High)

Gandara

 

Ok out of these only Gandara (over a year) and Desolation have had a number of unlinked sessions in the last year. So how about next relink you start by giving no link to Piken and the bandwagoners on RoS? After that AR and DL and then wrap it up with Riverside and FSP.

 

Since you can't count at least rotate the Full servers.

[adammantium.8031]

Amen.

There may be internal metrics which Anet has, but from what all our player see anecdotally, we should not be considered even close to full. It's hugely discouraging.

And in this state, the game punishes you for playing the game mode, in that continued participation keeps the server full.

I've been impressed by the discipline of the community in keeping out of wvw, and do hope that once we do open up, guilds still have players. 

Or that the relatively small number of players staying out of the game has been enough to move the needle in terms of 'voting with your feet'.

[DEL.9468]

This situation is beyond stupid and goes to show how vapid the "cornerstone gamemode" comment really was. No solutions and more importantly not even an acknowledgement of this situation whatsoever.

Bad look all around.

Edited June 20, 2022 by LexIcon.2819

[Dawdler.8521]

I'm sure Gandara has never had a period of being constantly top tier, right?

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I'm sure Gandara has never had a period of being constantly top tier, right?

How many years do you need to go back for that? Before the current system was implemented?

Last time we sniffed T1 (1 week or 2 in 2 months, that is) was when other servers were actually tanking because Deso+WSR was unplayable and won 320 consecutive skirmishes in T1, so people were trying to avoid T1 and feeding kills to get to T2. We had Fort Ranik as a link at the time (a small server) and the following linking period Fort Ranik went to Desolation and WSR became host and got its own link.

 You should know all of this: you are on Desolation, aren't you? Desolation should be next after the other 6 mentioned above.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

Only 3.5 weeks?  Wait a bit longer.  It takes a full 30 days for an account to drop out of the playhours rolling average, assuming it's the same system used for World Restructuring playhours.

[Zyreva.1078]

They might determine player activity over longer periods of time than just a few weeks to prevent players from exploiting the system by deliberately tanking. So the only way for a server to drop in population quickly would be to transfer off.

(Also if gandara had less players dedicated to chasing solo roamers all over the place on their home map, maybe you wouldn't be outnumbered so much elsewhere ...)

Edited June 20, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Karagee.6830]

5 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Only 3.5 weeks?  Wait a bit longer.  It takes a full 30 days for an account to drop out of the playhours rolling average, assuming it's the same system used for World Restructuring playhours.

Ok so according to you people not playing for the last 3 weeks should make us not full next Monday, is that right?

[Chaba.5410]

3 minutes ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

They might determine player activity over longer periods of time than just a few weeks to prevent players from exploiting the system by deliberately tanking. So the only way for a server to drop in population quickly would be to transfer off.

Yes, they use a long period of time to discourage players from gaming the population system.  I don't think transferring off works to circumvent that either, but it might.  In the past it still took a long time for a server's population to drop after groups have transferred off.  Yet there have been other instances where it seemed that world status corrections might have been done by hand.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

1 minute ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Ok so according to you people not playing for the last 3 weeks should make us not full next Monday, is that right?

Yes, but it's based on an assumption so don't shoot me if it doesn't happen.

[Karagee.6830]

14 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Yes, they use a long period of time to discourage players from gaming the population system.  I don't think transferring off works to circumvent that either, but it might.  In the past it still took a long time for a server's population to drop after groups have transferred off.  Yet there have been other instances where it seemed that world status corrections might have been done by hand.

The bottom line here is that:

a) the way they count participation is not fit for purpose. Forget about having no queues ever, Gandara is almost always outnumbered on home or EBG or both outside of the weekend. That is in T5. Whatever metric they use is just clearly not able to assess the total participation over a 2 month period. 1 player playing 400 hours of WvW in 2 months and one playing 1 hour shouldn't be counted the same way.

b) the problem with Gandara is the combination of having no link and being full. If they wanted, they could make us like Baruch Bay: always open and always without a link. It wouldn't be ideal but at least it would be less unfair. Right now we always have no link and we are always full and closed to transfers. 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

8 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Yes, but it's based on an assumption so don't shoot me if it doesn't happen.

Anecdotally last time this was done it took...3 weeks (which would have been today this time).

[Chaba.5410]

5 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

1 player playing 400 hours of WvW in 2 months and one playing 1 hour shouldn't be counted the same way.

 

They're not counted the same way though.  One is 400 hours and the other is only 1 hour.  So the "population" over 2 months is totaled to be 401 hours.

As for what those players are doing with their playtime and whether it's true participation or not is a different matter.

[Karagee.6830]

19 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

They're not counted the same way though.  One is 400 hours and the other is only 1 hour.  So the "population" over 2 months is totaled to be 401 hours.

As for what those players are doing with their playtime and whether it's true participation or not is a different matter.

That is not possible. Unless I see data, even anonimised data, I won't ever believe that Gandara has more total hours played than stacked servers where the bandwagoners go (see RoS right now). I would even bet confidently we have fewer hours played than Desolation as a matter of fact, as they outnumbered us 5 days a week for 2 months during the previous link period. And the 'outnumbered' buff is anecdotally very accurate: when you have it, you almost always see or encounter much larger enemy groups on the border.

To address your point about 'true participation'. Note that the 'outnumbered' buff is independent of whether someone is afk in WvW or trying hard, you get it based on simple numbers. I can also tell you that when I play there is almost nobody sitting still at spawn on any border. The participation changes implemented in relation to alliances make it much harder to play and maintain participation without actually playing.

What I believe is that Anet count accounts that log into WvW irrespective of hours played. Then it could conceivably make sense. It would be a travesty, but it could explain the Gandara situation.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

3 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

That is not possible. Unless I see data, even anonimised data, I won't ever believe that Gandara has more total hours played than stacked servers where the bandwagoners go (see RoS right now). I would even bet confidently we have fewer hours played than Desolation as a matter of fact, as they outnumbered us 5 days a week for 2 months during the previous link period. And the 'outnumbered' buff is anecdotally very accurate: when you have it, you almost always see or encounter much larger enemy groups on the border.

What I believe is that Anet count accounts that log into WvW irrespective of hours played. Then it could conceivably make sense. It would be a travesty, but it could explain the Gandara situation.

Well that's what Anet told us is how population is counted for years now.

Also, you can't compare Gandara to RoS because the "Full" status just means the World hit an unknown threshold, not that the worlds have similar populations.  We don't know what the threshold is and it definitely seems to change over time.  To illustrate: RoS can be 5000 playhours and Gandara can be 3500 playhours but they're both marked Full because the threshold is 3000 playhours.

[Karagee.6830]

17 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Well that's what Anet told us is how population is counted for years now.

And that's where the problem is. It is an impossibility for this to be true and Gandara to be full and without link endlessly.

17 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Also, you can't compare Gandara to RoS because the "Full" status just means the World hit an unknown threshold, not that the worlds have similar populations.  We don't know what the threshold is and it definitely seems to change over time.  To illustrate: RoS can be 5000 playhours and Gandara can be 3500 playhours but they're both marked Full because the threshold is 3000 playhours.

The people who transferred to RoS, paid and transferred there...to play WvW. So RoS had a large inflow of people with a high WvW hour count. Note that server status change once a week (not Gandara's) so during that week you can go way way over the treshold as long as enough people transfer. The stacked servers full of bandwagoners should always be without a link the following 2 months, if the population count is carried out as you believe it is because Anet said so. Those are server that are full because of high intensity accounts that transferred all together before the server hit the threshold (and largely exceeded it) and got closed up.

17 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

RoS can be 5000 playhours and Gandara can be 3500 playhours but they're both marked Full because the threshold is 3000 playhours.

Perfect. In your example who should be without a link the following 2 months? Somehow they randomly select 2 servers above the threshold (plus BB) and Gandara has lost 10 times in a row with 1/4 1/5 chance? Because this is the core of the issue: 3.5k to 5k+2k from linked server you will be outnumbered 2:1 on average. That's math. So why does the 3.5k server end up without link for a year and a half?

17 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

We don't know what the threshold is and it definitely seems to change over time. 

Yes and the only time Gandara went below that threshold was when they increased it and all servers were open or when the a large part of community stayed away from WvW for 3 weeks.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[bigFM.8642]

59 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Yes, they use a long period of time to discourage players from gaming the population system.  I don't think transferring off works to circumvent that either, but it might.  In the past it still took a long time for a server's population to drop after groups have transferred off.  Yet there have been other instances where it seemed that world status corrections might have been done by hand.

 

So let me get this straight, they use these time periods to prevent active tanking, while at the same time they have absolutely no restriction for transferring whereever you want right after relink. From these two options the latter one is what destroys any kind of sense in the whole relink system, since any and all calculations they did ahead of time get changed INSTANTLY and ENTIRELY by the PLAYERS. Meanwhile the people who chose to stick to their server get punished by spending another two months in T5. The irony here is just sickening...

[Chaba.5410]

8 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

during that week you can go way way over the treshold as long as enough people transfer.

Which is exactly the criticism of the system which I gave back when it was first implemented.  A player's playhours should follow them immediately when they transfer.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

It is an impossibility for this to be true and Gandara to be full and without link endlessly.

We've seen other servers in a similar circumstance.  There's really no proof you've presented to say that the way Anet counts population is not what they say it is.

[Zyreva.1078]

39 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Perfect. In your example who should be without a link the following 2 months? Somehow they randomly select 2 servers above the threshold (plus BB) and Gandara has lost 10 times in a row with 1/4 1/5 chance? Because this is the core of the issue: 3.5k to 5k+2k from linked server you will be outnumbered 2:1 on average. That's math. So why does the 3.5k server end up without link for a year and a half?

I don't think they select unlinked servers randomly. But besides total populartion/activity, things like stability of their population might possibly play a role and be one of the reasons why gandara ends up without a link and other servers not, even if they temporarily have more players. Because if they unlink a bandwagon server like RoS - whether it actually has currently a higher population than gandara or not, we don't know - that world has a very high chance of dropping from full to dead "medium", ending up in an even worse position than gandara. Because all those bandwagoners won't hesitate to leave again. Meanwhile not many players seem to leave gandara, so the risk of having a completely dead server unlinked is much lower this way.

It is also not impossible that they are monitoring "unusual" drops in activity, identify those as attemps of players to exploit the system - and deside to not reward those unintended behaviours (or adapt the calculations to factor in longer periods of time than previously). Just saying.

Not saying the system is actually fair and balanced tho, but that's mainly because transfers render any attempt to balance population via relinkings null and void. Also because player activity will always be volatile, by choice or due to other circumstances.

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Which is exactly the criticism of the system which I gave back when it was first implemented.  A player's playhours should follow them immediately when they transfer.

 

 

We've seen other servers in a similar circumstance. There's really no proof you've presented to say that the way Anet counts population is not what they say it is.

There is no other server that I know of that has been in this situation: 2 links in 2 and a half years, but you're welcome to provide proof another server has had this treatment before. I'll gladly concede.

 

There's really no proof you've presented or Anet has presented to say that the way Anet counts population is what they say it is. Agree? My evidence is anecdotal, based on total absence of queues and outnumbered buff, but neither you nor Anet have presented even anecdotal evidence of the contrary. Agree?

[Karagee.6830]

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

I don't think they select unlinked servers randomly. But besides total populartion/activity, things like stability of their population might possibly play a role and be one of the reasons why gandara ends up without a link and other servers not, even if they temporarily have more players. Because if they unlink a bandwagon server like RoS - whether it actually has currently a higher population than gandara or not, we don't know - that world has a very high chance of dropping from full to dead "medium", ending up in an even worse position than gandara. Because all those bandwagoners won't hesitate to leave again. Meanwhile not many players seem to leave gandara, so the risk of having a completely dead server unlinked is much lower this way.

It is also not impossible that they are monitoring "unusual" drops in activity, identify those as attemps of players to exploit the system - and deside to not reward those unintended behaviours (or adapt the calculations to factor in longer periods of time than previously). Just saying.

Not saying the system is actually fair and balanced tho, but that's mainly because transfers render any attempt to balance population via relinkings null and void. Also because player activity will always be volatile, by choice or due to other circumstances.

As I said, it would be ok to be in the same situation as BB: leave us open to transfers or greatly, and I stress greatly, increase the population cap and don't ever give us a link. Hell, do the same with Desolation since they are almost the same as us.

 

Alternatively, prove that we have a higher 8 week total population playtime in WvW than any other server. Show us some sort of data, we have no way to check that data ourselves, but we'll take it at face value.

 

Regarding RoS, 80% of people in WvW don't give a rat's kitten about bandwagoners. I understand inflows of bandwagoners may in fact be a nuisance to long term players on a server, but there are obvious advantages from being overstacked, so if you can enjoy outnumbering everyone for 2 months, you can also suffer the reverse situation the following 2 months. Currently only one server is in permanent purgatory, month after month after month, incorrectly as I have argued, with no way to change the situation.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Zyreva.1078]

Quote

Alternatively, prove that we have a higher 8 week total population playtime in WvW than any other server. Show us some sort of data, we have no way to check that data ourselves, but we'll take it at face value.

Why? I just explained that total population might not be the only factor when links (or the lack thereof) are considered.

Quote

Currently only one server is in permanent purgatory, month after month after month, incorrectly as I have argued, with no way to change the situation.

If players would actually play normally instead of trying to artificially tank the server's population, that alone might already improve your situation. Would you steamroll in T1? No, ofc not, but you could be competitive against other lower populated servers instead of being outnumbered everywhere at any time then complain about that self inflicted situation. It's not like T5 can't be fun.

Edited June 20, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

There is no other server that I know of that has been in this situation: 2 links in 2 and a half years, but you're welcome to provide proof another server has had this treatment before. I'll gladly concede.

 

There's really no proof you've presented or Anet has presented to say that the way Anet counts population is what they say it is. Agree? My evidence is anecdotal, based on total absence of queues and outnumbered buff, but neither you nor Anet have presented even anecdotal evidence of the contrary. Agree?

So still no proof?  Anecdotes are just stories, not proof of anything.  You're welcome to look up the old Anet posts on how the population system works and further comments by devs on forums and reddit about it (a dev comment is where I got the 30-day cutoff from).  There's even a dev-generated chart comparing the sizes of all the servers floating around.

Anyway, Kodash was the original server that got the Full/no-link/stuck in T5 treatment.  They fell to T5 after having never been given a link since the linking system began and still didn't get a link after going on strike and Anet changing a policy on linking language-based servers.  Bunch of them left and caused Kodash to lose it's host status.  There's been a few others over the years too.
 

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Karagee.6830]

 

1 hour ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Why? I just explained that total population might not be the only factor when links (or the lack thereof) are considered.

If players would actually play normally instead of trying to artificially tank the server's population, that alone might already improve your situation. Would you steamroll in T1? No, ofc not, but you could be competitive against other lower populated servers instead of being outnumbered everywhere at any time then complain about that self inflicted situation. It's not like T5 can't be fun.

lol you failed to understand some elementary concepts here. We are outnumbered when all the guilds are playing and they are tanking because the server has been locked up for a year despite being outnumbered every week and 0 links.

Now as you put it, it's not like being outnumbered week in week out in T5 can't be fun. So let's rotate the full servers or open the ones that are permanently without link. Agree?

Edited June 20, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

So still no proof?  Anecdotes are just stories, not proof of anything.  You're welcome to look up the old Anet posts on how the population system works and further comments by devs on forums and reddit about it (a dev comment is where I got the 30-day cutoff from).  There's even a dev-generated chart comparing the sizes of all the servers floating around.

Anyway, Kodash was the original server that got the Full/no-link/stuck in T5 treatment.  They fell to T5 after having never been given a link since the linking system began and still didn't get a link after going on strike and Anet changing a policy on linking language-based servers.  Bunch of them left and caused Kodash to lose it's host status.  There's been a few others over the years too.
 

 

So you presented no proof.

No proof about the fact Anet calculates numbers as you (and they) say they calculate numbers. The premise of this thread is they the do not do what they say they do. So no, words from Anet are not proof. Charts with the size of the servers are like doodles on toilet paper if they are not calculated in any rational way. But I would be happy if someone at Anet at least grew a pair and lied straight to my face that Gandara is the most WvW populated server by a country mile. 

No proof that there has been a server Full and without a link for a year. Your quote is no proof of this. Getting a link 50% of the times like Desolation does is not the same situation as Gandara, not even close. Don't offend my intelligence. The Kodash situation after the people left is the situation Gandara is in every weekday, so thank you for proving my point that we are in a similar situation to a server after it suffered a mass exodus.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Karagee.6830