Anet cannot count participation and this is a FACT

[Yakez.7561]

11 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If Anet *is* using Gandara as a population benchmark like they've done with BG in NA, opening Gandara would mean reversing the general trend of the last few years of trying to get players to spread out into other worlds.  In other words, it could have an unseen impact across all of EU and not only for Gandara.  It would be better for a small link to be added instead.

Like you still in the mindset where you get hundreds of active players and deny them basic functionality to recruit new players and play with friends in 2 month. Like I get it if situation was like: "Gandara wins every skirmish in T1", but it is quite an opposite. This is a fact. Why one of 15 teams should be a lab rat of Anet with no real possibility to win matchup in T4 and higher? Like lets do lab rat rotation. Your server next relink becomes full and unlinked for next year, since we are playing big game and doing 15 year rotation.

[Player.2475]

Playing WvW on Gandara is depressing as kitten.

 

I wish it was possible for people to at least guest on Gandara so people could experience what's it like to simultaneously play on the most populated server and feel like you're the only person on the entire server.

 

I liked WvW when I first started but constantly being outnumbered 1:5 and not being able to hold a single objective for longer than Righteous Indignation is active for 3 consecutive months is just miserable.

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Yakez.7561 said:

Like you still in the mindset where you get hundreds of active players and deny them basic functionality to recruit new players and play with friends in 2 month. Like I get it if situation was like: "Gandara wins every skirmish in T1", but it is quite an opposite. This is a fact. Why one of 15 teams should be a lab rat of Anet with no real possibility to win matchup in T4 and higher? Like lets do lab rat rotation. Your server next relink becomes full and unlinked for next year, since we are playing big game and doing 15 year rotation.

Like @Chaba.5410was just giving a scenario.  
 

I don’t believe they were arguing that you should be unlinked.  
 

[Luranni.9470]

16 minutes ago, Player.2475 said:

Playing WvW on Gandara is depressing as kitten.

 

I wish it was possible for people to at least guest on Gandara so people could experience what's it like to simultaneously play on the most populated server and feel like you're the only person on the entire server.

 

I liked WvW when I first started but constantly being outnumbered 1:5 and not being able to hold a single objective for longer than Righteous Indignation is active for 3 consecutive months is just miserable.

 

Doesn't really help I guess that anet basically deleted any reason to fight outnumbered or defend against off-peak ppt blobs....

 

They even removed pips from outnumbered and forgot to revert the functionality of outnumbered to actually display when you're outnumbered (after they changed it to only update with tick so as not to be abused for pip gain *nods wisely*). It's always nice to see outnumbered pop -after- your t3 gari just got flipped.

 

Only reasonable thing to do while outnumbered now is to grab those synths while checking every server discord for an active tag to fair-weather-alt to, then come back when it's Cormac O'clock! Hooray! *stares*

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

16 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Like @Chaba.5410was just giving a scenario.  
 

I don’t believe they were arguing that you should be unlinked.  
 

And as if it's "my mindset" rather than a comment based on what is known or has been described publicly as design decisions. The closer in population that servers become over time, the easier it is to create teams closer in size to each other, which is a major feature of world restructuring.

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Yakez.7561 said:

Like lets do lab rat rotation. Your server next relink becomes full and unlinked for next year, since we are playing big game and doing 15 year rotation.

When I previously posted that there does seem to be a lab rat rotation by mentioning Kodash and how this seems to be a result of specific design decisions, it wasn't believed. Can you guys stop shooting the messenger for once? I wasn't hot on the design when Gandara wasn't the lab rat. Were you? Did you even notice before it became Gandara's turn?

Edited June 24, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Karagee.6830]

24 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

When I previously posted that there does seem to be a lab rat rotation by mentioning Kodash and how this seems to be a result of specific design decisions, it wasn't believed. Can you guys stop shooting the messenger for once?

Again backpedalling and changing the goalposts: you used Kodash as an example of a constantly full server and with no link for a year, without providing any evidence whatsoever about your claim. And you used Kodash to say Gandara shouldn't complain that much because one other server was in exactly the same situation (failed to prove this, despite repeated requests, but yeah) years ago.

So please, spare us this kind of narrative.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

I want to mention another interesting fact. Tonight we'll welcome Blacktide+Miller's Sound to T5.

Blacktide (the host) is a medium server that just dropped from high and MS (the link) was high until Gandara started tanking and is now very high. I'm sure there is a logical explanation for this pairing considering the multiple Full+Full teams that @Chaba.5410, or some other brave Anet's defender, will be able to explain to us based on logic and the stated Anet's policy...

Edited June 24, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

41 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Again backpedalling and changing the goalposts: you used Kodash as an example of a constantly full server and with no link for a year, without providing any evidence whatsoever about your claim. And you used Kodash to say Gandara shouldn't complain that much because one other server was in exactly the same situation (failed to prove this, despite repeated requests, but yeah) years ago.

So please, spare us this kind of narrative.

I used it as an example to illustrate the lab rat rotation concept (or as I had put it, "shafted") and you rejected that.  I provided references about it in the form of old forum and reddit posts talking about how it was Full and unlinked for a very long time because no API website goes back that far with that kind of data and you still didn't want to believe it.  That's ok.  That's your personal narrative though, not everyone else's.

Are you really truly trying to now say that this lab rat rotation does indeed exist and that I was correct about Kodash because you're rushing to counter my response to another guy talking about the lab rat rotation?   I wonder who really is backpedaling and moving goalposts.

Just of note, you never answered when I asked why you didn't remember what happened with Kodash.
 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Karagee.6830 said:

So please, spare us this kind of narrative.

Also, I helped another Gandara person tease out a possible answer to your question on the locked thread regarding how big in population the system thinks Gandara is relative to other servers from an unnamed Anet source.  Not going to share here though because you're too emotionally wound up in the subject to consider more objective views and have some sort of weird focus fire on me.  You probably wouldn't believe it anyway without some proof which wouldn't be proper of me to give here and could just lead to more anger unfairly directed at that specific source.  Maybe you can find out through word of mouth from others.  You're welcome.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Karagee.6830]

17 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I used it as an example to illustrate the lab rat rotation concept (or as I had put it, "shafted") and you rejected that.  I provided references about it in the form of old forum and reddit posts talking about how it was Full and unlinked for a very long time because no API website goes back that far with that kind of data and you still didn't want to believe it.  That's ok.  That's your personal narrative though, not everyone else's.

Are you really truly trying to now say that this lab rat rotation does indeed exist and that I was correct about Kodash because you're rushing to counter my response to another guy talking about the lab rat rotation?   I wonder who really is backpedaling and moving goalposts.

Just of note, you never answered when I asked why you didn't remember what happened with Kodash.
 

Seems like we're going in circles and I'm honestly mesmerized that almost a week later you still haven't grasped the overall problem. Anet using a benchmarking system based on 1 server out of 27 would only explain why we're permanently locked, the problem here is being locked and without a link for the longest time.

Admittedly there is anecdotal evidence that Anet is doing that as strange things happen when we lower our population and it appears people think they did the same in the US. You have presented no proof Kodash was this server before Gandara and that they were always unlinked. All of this, if proven, would simply strengthen the case for anet not assessing populations as they claim they do and they link servers in irrational ways. So be my guest and provide evidence.

I wasn't reading forums or playing wvw when you say this happened probably. I have no recollection of someone, anyone, ever, mentioning that Kodash was permanently full and unlinked for 10-12 months at a time before you made this claim.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Luthan.5236]

Well ... the alliance system will change this - when servers become obsolete. So I do not think anyone really cares about using manpower to develop changes regarding the calculation of the number of players actively playing on the servers (worlds).

We'll see how good this works in the alliance system though. At the beginning - when only the active players actually check the "WvW guild" box ... it might be more balanced. Later when the players and guilds and alliances get re-matched and new matchups get made ... it might lead to problems again. When people that have not really played (or just were only sometimes) ... get counted as "1"

- though you'd actually expect them to be split equally into the teams. (Some that play more ... some that play less. At least with total random splitting per player without alliances this would work. With the alliances ... it is up to them though - to gather the best people.)

Edited June 25, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[Karagee.6830]

Just now, Luthan.5236 said:

Well ... the alliance system will change this - when servers become obsolete. So I do not think anyone really cares about using manpower to develop changes regarding the calculation of the number of players actively playing on the servers (worlds).

They can manually rotate who gets a link or they can create 2 or 3 new servers to use as link if they can't fix more troublesome issues regarding population. Alliances will happen in 5 years if we are lucky.

[Luthan.5236]

No. They have a new developer. And already shown pics of how they want the UI windows ingame to look. I think it might only take about 2-3 more years. Not 5.  🤣

(Fairly sure though that they'll stay in place less time than they took time to be developed. :D)

Edited June 25, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[Karagee.6830]

49 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Seems like we're going in circles and I'm honestly mesmerized that almost a week later you still haven't grasped the overall problem. Anet using a benchmarking system based on 1 server out of 27 would only explain why we're permanently locked, the problem here is being locked and without a link for the longest time.

Admittedly there is anecdotal evidence that Anet is doing that as strange things happen when we lower our population and it appears people think they did the same in the US. You have presented no proof Kodash was this server before Gandara and that they were always unlinked. All of this, if proven, would simply strengthen the case for anet not assessing populations as they claim they do and they link servers in irrational ways. So be my guest and provide evidence.

I wasn't reading forums or playing wvw when you say this happened probably. I have no recollection of someone, anyone, ever, mentioning that Kodash was permanently full and unlinked for 10-12 months at a time before you made this claim.

You didn't help anyone but what you quoted from Anet in that thread to make your point is:

Quote

"If a world is locked, it is because it has a larger population than our “Full” threshold."

"Yes, high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds. For example, if Blackgate has 10 players and it’s the highest populated server, then we try to link worlds so their populations are also around 10. We can’t be totally precise so sometimes worlds might end up with 12 or 9 but we try to get as close as possible."

As you can see, nowhere they even stated that one server is always full by default because it is used as the benchmark for all other servers. They said they have a threshold and they compare every server to that threshold. What Anet said there is very logical, but now you're claiming that some servers, including Gandara at present, are the benchmark or heavily influence it. If this is true, the statement by Anet you quoted cannot be true or at the very least it is misleading.

The quote about links also clashes hard with reality. Look at the alleged population of the EU pairings (medium to full) and tell me how it reconciles with balancing population. 2 very high+medium, 2 full+full and several other pairings are full+very high.

Again, something's gotta give: either Full v Very High etc are not really indicative of the actual population (i.e. Anet cant count population) or they have a monkey selecting the links. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

28 minutes ago, Luthan.5236 said:

No. They have a new developer. And already shown pics of how they want the UI windows ingame to look. I think it might only take about 2-3 more years. Not 5.  🤣

(Fairly sure though that they'll stay in place less time than they took time to be developed. :D)

You are sure the dev will be removed but you think it might take 2 or 3 more years even if he/she is removed? I'd like to know if I have to look forward to 2 or 3 more years of no link and perma full. Or 5  or 10.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Luthan.5236]

No. I meant the alliances system - that might get removed. (If people are unhappy and want to stay with their people all in one server ... should their alliances get matched to play with other alliances they do not like. Already have now people sometimes arguing between linked servers.)

In PvP they tried stronghold as a big thing and it is abandoned. (Not removed though. Cause the system allows it to just have it's own map in the unranked mode.) 😄

People always find somethign to complain - and I guess there will be big complaints about the alliances system - once it gets released and people find stuff to be unhappy about. (Trying to pressure the deves to give the old system with servers/worlds back.)

Edited June 25, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[Karagee.6830]

4 minutes ago, Luthan.5236 said:

No. I meant the alliances system - that might get removed. (If people are unhappy and want to stay with their people all in one server ... should their alliances get matched to play with other alliances they do not like. Already have now people sometimes arguing between linked servers.)

In PvP they tried stronghold as a big thing and it is abandoned. (Not removed though. Cause the system allows it to just have it's own map in the unranked mode.) 😄

People always find somethign to complain - and I guess there will be big complaints about the alliances system - once it gets released and people find stuff to be unhappy about. (Trying to pressure the deves to give the old system with servers/worlds back.)

Alliance is quite balanced. 500 people per alliance is enough for everyone to play with enough people they like. If they don't like the alliance they selected they can go solo and get assigned to a random team where they may meet and find people they like and join their alliance.

[Mabi black.1824]

10 minutes ago, Luthan.5236 said:

People always find somethign to complain - and I guess there will be big complaints about the alliances system - once it gets released and people find stuff to be unhappy about. (Trying to pressure the deves to give the old system with servers/worlds back.)

it's not a matter of finding a way to complain. mine is a legitimate thought, it's my fear, so I try to share it here among other players. I entered the forum just for this. understand if alliances can still work with a team system, understand how alliances will work, understand if all the actors involved have thought well of the project they are working on, understand if you are still in time to give another point of view / perspective.

[Mabi black.1824]

33 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Alliance is quite balanced. 500 people per alliance is enough for everyone to play with enough people they like. If they don't like the alliance they selected they can go solo and get assigned to a random team where they may meet and find people they like and join their alliance.

my personal concern for alliances is not its limit of 500 (even I am convinced that it is too high). my concern is to erase the concept of team competition. you are left with the guild or the group of guilds , I would say extremely limited and I would also add much more fragile , than that of being part of a team , a container that arenanet builds and that fills with players.

to put it with an example, it is as if in football the international federation decides to cancel the league of champions . you can continue to do your national championships of course, but it is still reductive. a reductive view could as a consequence, reduce the involvement of the player, reduce the ambitions of the player, reduce the motivations of a player.

[Luthan.5236]

Yes, I understand. I also found it a bit less interesting with the linking already. No "server identity" anymore. (But there also had been people switching just servers and not caring.) With alliances it might change a lot to the worse - especially for people not organized in guilds. (That had similar players before - at least the ones from the own server/world.) Withot joining a guild ... they will have switching players each matchup ... not being able to recognize anyone anymore. (= less motivation/fun to play for the casual).

I meant more the people that wanted to alliances though. Sometimes it is not unusual to want something a lot - then when you get it you immediately dislike it. That is what I think ... might happen hear. Players that wanted the alliances a lot - disliking them as soon as they get implemented.

Not the players that already have worries already now.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

my personal concern for alliances is not its limit of 500 (even I am convinced that it is too high). my concern is to erase the concept of team competition. you are left with the guild or the group of guilds , I would say extremely limited and I would also add much more fragile , than that of being part of a team , a container that arenanet builds and that fills with players.

to put it with an example, it is as if in football the international federation decides to cancel the league of champions . you can continue to do your national championships of course, but it is still reductive. a reductive view could as a consequence, reduce the involvement of the player, reduce the ambitions of the player, reduce the motivations of a player.

ok but say you have 100-150 names you can recognise right now, because they join your tag at least once every couple of weeks, what would be different if all of them were and you were on a different server right now. You probably wouldn't see much difference at all tbh.

Like I said during beta for me it was very different because we ended up running with people we have fought hard against to the point of begrudging each other in the past. And I'm sure we all enjoyed not having the guys from the other server bothering us all night (sometimes in our favour and sometimes theirs). We took out tags of 20+ trying to defend with that combined group, something we'd never be able to do separately.

I'd be surprised if your experience was much different than it currently is if most people you know and usually play with are in the same alliance. And I appreciate you may have an open tag, but you'd have core people who are normally there and you could try to stick together with them.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

@Chaba.5410 I hope you have read carefully what ANet devs are saying privately on discord chats and you never ever bring up points on forums that read like 'but ANet's devs said this is how it works, so you need to believe it'. If those chats are legit nobody can make a case for that anymore and the glaring inability to assess participation and link servers in a rational way is only the tip of the iceberg.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

11 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

I wasn't reading forums or playing wvw when you say this happened probably. I have no recollection of someone, anyone, ever, mentioning that Kodash was permanently full and unlinked for 10-12 months at a time before you made this claim.

So what if you weren't reading forums or playing WvW back then?  That doesn't make the Kodash story not true.  It just means it's beyond your realm of experience and why you haven't noticed the long term trend of the lab rat rotation.  Others with more experience will tell you when there's things you haven't considered and urge you to try to move beyond the limitations of your shorter experience.  No one needed to tell you the Kodash story before because it was a non-issue until it became a Gandara issue.

[Chaba.5410]

11 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

They said they have a threshold and they compare every server to that threshold.

What Anet said there is very logical, but now you're claiming that some servers, including Gandara at present, are the benchmark or heavily influence it. If this is true, the statement by Anet you quoted cannot be true or at the very least it is misleading.

The quote about links also clashes hard with reality. Look at the alleged population of the EU pairings (medium to full) and tell me how it reconciles with balancing population. 2 very high+medium, 2 full+full and several other pairings are full+very high.

No where did they say in that quote that they use the Full threshold for linking worlds.  Why did you misunderstand the quote?  The quote says specifically that the high population servers are "usually" the benchmark and BG is the highest populated server.

In that quote BG was used because it was the highest populated locked world (in NA) well beyond their Full threshold.  The only other Full world at the time was FA, my server, and they elsewhere mentioned that FA's population was within 10% of BG's IIRC.  BG didn't have a link back then and not for a very long time until enough players quit or transferred off over the years.  FA had a small link practically always.  We remained in T2 while BG remained in T1 (still used Glicko-based matchmaking at the time).  There could be 5 servers marked Full and only 1 of them, the highest one, is used as a benchmark for linking.

I see nothing clashing with reality.  The quote says sometimes worlds might end up with 12 (larger than BG).  So if linking a Very High world with a Medium world ends up being larger than BG, they will do that because they can't be precise/get the populations balanced any closer.  Servers are like Duplo blocks when what's needed is Lego bricks.

And recall that it's a Gandara person on another thread claiming that Anet is using Gandara as a benchmark.  I only said it was possible and here is the reason why I think that's possible.

"If a world is locked, it is because it has a larger population than our “Full” threshold."

"Yes, high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds. For example, if Blackgate has 10 players and it’s the highest populated server, then we try to link worlds so their populations are also around 10. We can’t be totally precise so sometimes worlds might end up with 12 or 9 but we try to get as close as possible."

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Chaba.5410