Anet cannot count participation and this is a FACT

[Chaba.5410]

10 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

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.

And it's a good time to express those thoughts since they are soliciting feedback on the whole system while it's in development.

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

@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.

So what about what's written privately or internally?  You had to qualify: "if those chats are legit".  No one can verify such "evidence" since it isn't externally facing and usually presented completely out of context.  That's one reason why I didn't even try to provide any private chat proof on the size of Gandara, only hinted that you can hear about it word-of-mouth.  Anyone can make a case out of bad data.

Why would you think or expect others are supposed to treat private chats as equal to official, company-sanctioned publications?  How would one know what's legit?

Edited June 25, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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.

Look the bottom line is: I can prove Gandara has been locked for 2 years (and counting) save for a glitch when all the servers became open and has been without a link for 10 months, you cannot or are unwilling to prove the same thing for Kodash. Try back when you can, thank you.

[Karagee.6830]

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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.

 

As usual you move the goalposts. I did not accuse you of saying the use the full threshold to link worlds, I quoted back to you that they claim to link servers to balance population and we have 2 Full+Full and 2 medium servers linked to not full servers. Now to beat the dead horse and repeat for the 110th time: either the medium to full grading is not in line with what Anet said or the linking procedure is not in line with what they sayd. The quote doesn't say that high population servers are the benchmark.

 

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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

 

lol this is either delusion or wilful ignorance, mate. I've already explained how full servers and linked servers have double and sometimes more the K+D that Gandara has. Let's be generous here and, for the sake of argument, say Gandara is the highest population server (it's not, but we will entertain the thought) valued at 10 and the other full servers are with 10% of its population. You are claiming that 9+9=18 and 4+7=11 is a match that fulfils the requirements Anet said they follow? OK...

2 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

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."

 

I'm sure you can understand those quotes. Based on those quotes Anet has ever claimed they use 1 server as the benchmark, they explicitly used the plural there. And the servers with the bandwagoners always exceed that threshold and in fact we have now 2 links that are full. All of those servers have a population at least similar to Gandara and most likely higher and deserve to be without link just as much as Gandara and more, seeing they never have been without a link or have had no link for a very long time.

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

So what about what's written privately or internally?  You had to qualify: "if those chats are legit".  No one can verify such "evidence" since it isn't externally facing and usually presented completely out of context.  That's one reason why I didn't even try to provide any private chat proof on the size of Gandara, only hinted that you can hear about it word-of-mouth.  Anyone can make a case out of bad data.

Why would you think or expect others are supposed to treat private chats as equal to official, company-sanctioned publications?  How would one know what's legit?

lol alway the nitpicking and always the chicanery. Have you read the chat? Do you think someone would write 73,000 words (140 pages in MS Word without formatting) using names of actual people we know and recognise (none of whom has come out and denied this btw) because they are content creators, making an entire chat up? Alright, keep believing in fairies.

And that is not out of context: it's the whole dump of a discord chat.

I see you are not worth spending time on, you are a like a covid denier or a flat earther. I still have hope that one day, at some point in your life, you will stick to facts and logic.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

19 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

They said ... they compare every server to that threshold.

It's literally what you wrote, not an accusation.

Here's the Anet quote again for your reference:
high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds

They did not say they compare every server to the threshold.  They said they compare every server to the high population servers.  That includes servers which are larger than the threshold.  They said NOTHING about comparing to the threshold.  Stop making things up.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Look the bottom line is: I can prove Gandara has been locked for 2 years (and counting) save for a glitch when all the servers became open and has been without a link for 10 months, you cannot or are unwilling to prove the same thing for Kodash. Try back when you can, thank you.

Says the person who also uses the outnumbered buff as "data" then gets upset when people don't accept that as evidence for anything.

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

I still have hope that one day, at some point in your life, you will stick to facts and logic.

And my hope for you is that one day you'll think more critically.  It's illogical to use the outnumbered buff to say something about any server's average population.  It's nonfactual to say that total K+D measures playhours.  It's illogical to compare the K+D of an unlinked team with the combined K+D of linked teams.  It's nonfactual to say Anet cannot count participation.  Ad nauseum.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Karagee.6830]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It's literally what you wrote, not an accusation.

Here's the Anet quote again for your reference:
high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds

They did not say they compare every server to the threshold.  They said they compare every server to the high population servers.  That includes servers which are larger than the threshold.  They said NOTHING about comparing to the threshold.  Stop making things up.

Wow either we are speaking a different language or one of us does not understand English. The quote you used says servers, servers not highest population server. And those servers are used to set the links, not who is open and who is closed. From the quotes the only things you can understand are: a) they have a threshold they set and every server is compared to that threshold to determine if it's open or closed. Nothing is said about one server's population being the number they use to set the threshold and therefore that server being full by default. b) population of servers is used to set link, to prevent high population server being linked together and low population servers being linked together (which we currently have multiple examples of)

As we know what they say may not be what they do, but here you are completely misrepresenting what they officially said as well.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Says the person who also uses the outnumbered buff as "data" then gets upset when people don't accept that as evidence for anything.

That is anecdotal data, which is better than the no data and hearsay you provided, and I don't get upset when people moan and whine and can't understand what they quote. At the end of the day, because you can't understand basic things, you are a useful tool bumping this thread. On Monday, if the situation doesn't change, I'll make a different thread and I look forward to you being the bumping tool once again.

[Karagee.6830]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

And my hope for you is that one day you'll think more critically.  It's illogical to use the outnumbered buff to say something about any server's average population.  It's nonfactual to say that total K+D measures playhours.  It's illogical to compare the K+D of an unlinked team with the combined K+D of linked teams.  It's nonfactual to say Anet cannot count participation.  Ad nauseum.

Still with the strawmen and moving goalposts, bumpingnman? The outnumbered buff doesnt tell you about server average population. A server which is full and is constantly outnumbered at home or EB, while taking a beating in the scoring, just tells you it has a far lower population than the opponents. And since we're talking T5, it means a far lower population than anyone else.

K+D and scoring are the only tools we have to account for participation. In a balanced matchup PPT scores of 250-450 by one server are unattainable (and yes we have seen 450).

It may be that Anet can count participation and fails elsewhere: e.g. keeping Gandara full and with no link, having multiple Full+Full playing Medium+VHigh is done manually rather than looking at population. Everybody can see something doesn't add up somewhere, but you. And the funniest thing is you haven't provided a shred of evidence about any of these possibilities to either prove or refute them. Keep going.

Btw, discord chat was confirmed to be true and accurate by multiple participants. How strange, who could have possibly seen that coming.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Chaba.5410]

9 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Btw, discord chat was confirmed to be true and accurate by multiple participants. How strange, who could have possibly seen that coming.

It is illogical to take at face value that chat.  No one has any way to verify the text (other than through hearsay).  No one has any way to verify which discord this was from nor understand the purpose of that discord (lack of context) and the biased interests of the participants of that discord.  And especially no one has any way to verify and understand how much influence what gets written on random third party online spaces have to what actually ends up getting implemented in-game.  It's logical to acknowledge that customer discord chats are not an internal business process (compare with official surveys) and that it serves only as personal opinions.

The real take away from that leak is the dev shouldn't be invited to any more pool parties since they talk so casually about work and I can almost guarantee any sense of transparency in communication from Anet devs the community has been hoping for is going to now dry up.  Beyond that it's just rumor and hearsay and a source of drama and entertainment.
 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

10 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

That is anecdotal data, which is better than the no data and hearsay you provided

Oh well in that case Kodash is also anecdotal evidence because I have an alt on Kodash from before the time server links were implemented so I can tell you it's from personal experience rather than someone else's experience.  Now you have to believe me, right, otherwise it invalidates your own anecdotal evidence?  It's only logical that you'd hold the same standards across the board when weighing evidence.  You do use logic and facts, do you not?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

10 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Wow either we are speaking a different language or one of us does not understand English. The quote you used says servers, servers not highest population server. And those servers are used to set the links, not who is open and who is closed. From the quotes the only things you can understand are: a) they have a threshold they set and every server is compared to that threshold to determine if it's open or closed. Nothing is said about one server's population being the number they use to set the threshold and therefore that server being full by default. b) population of servers is used to set link, to prevent high population server being linked together and low population servers being linked together (which we currently have multiple examples of)

As we know what they say may not be what they do, but here you are completely misrepresenting what they officially said as well.

From the quotes the only things one can understand is:
a) The threshold determines whether a server is open or closed. "If a world is locked, it is because it has a larger population than our “Full” threshold."
b) The population of high population servers is used to set links (nowhere do the quotes say anything about any prevention). high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds
c) The population of these high population servers may be a lot higher than the threshold. Blackgate
d) They usually use these highest population servers as a benchmark for world linking. high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds  ...  if Blackgate has 10 players ... then we try to link worlds so their populations are also around 10
e) Teams sometimes will be created which have populations higher than the highest populated servers and sometimes lower populations. 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

[Karagee.6830]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It is illogical to take at face value that chat.  No one has any way to verify the text (other than through hearsay).  No one has any way to verify which discord this was from nor understand the purpose of that discord (lack of context) and the biased interests of the participants of that discord.  And especially no one has any way to verify and understand how much influence what gets written on random third party online spaces have to what actually ends up getting implemented in-game.  It's logical to acknowledge that customer discord chats are not an internal business process (compare with official surveys) and that it serves only as personal opinions.

The real take away from that leak is the dev shouldn't be invited to any more pool parties since they talk so casually about work and I can almost guarantee any sense of transparency in communication from Anet devs the community has been hoping for is going to now dry up.  Beyond that it's just rumor and hearsay and a source of drama and entertainment.
 

The people in that chat confirmed it was true. What exactly do you want more lol? You need a written statement under oath by the developer? Not that statements under oath have any value for you americans seeing how even your supreme court judges openly lied under oath.

The dev was doing his job getting feedback on possible changes and talking to some well known members of the community for their thoughts and their advice. I see no problem there. The problem is the admitted incompetence on his part (like that he has to look for skills on the wiki because he doesn't know what they do, that he never played some classes he was going to 'balance' such as thief, warrior and ranger), the fact he disregarded or flatly ignored the advice being given to him and the total and utter lack of care and respect for you, chaba, my helpful bumper and also his valued customer.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Oh well in that case Kodash is also anecdotal evidence because I have an alt on Kodash from before the time server links were implemented so I can tell you it's from personal experience rather than someone else's experience.  Now you have to believe me, right, otherwise it invalidates your own anecdotal evidence?  It's only logical that you'd hold the same standards across the board when weighing evidence.  You do use logic and facts, do you not?

Alright I'll make it easy for you: provide a record that shows of how many months the server was locked and how many months it was without a link. Anyone can double check this for Gandara, this is a hard fact, this is not debatable, it happened. Once you provide the same for Kodash, we'll talk on how Kodash was Gandara, before Gandara and how ANet always failed at one thing or another, doing things directly in contrast with their own official policy.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

From the quotes the only things one can understand is:
a) The threshold determines whether a server is open or closed. "If a world is locked, it is because it has a larger population than our “Full” threshold."
b) The population of high population servers is used to set links (nowhere do the quotes say anything about any prevention). high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds
c) The population of these high population servers may be a lot higher than the threshold. Blackgate
d) They usually use these highest population servers as a benchmark for world linking. high population servers are usually the benchmark for when we link worlds  ...  if Blackgate has 10 players ... then we try to link worlds so their populations are also around 10
e) Teams sometimes will be created which have populations higher than the highest populated servers and sometimes lower populations. 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

Wow so you can actually understand what you quoted and you were just misrepresenting.

Now let's see if you can do an extra step and reconcile how we have 2 Full+Full pairings right now and 2 medium+vhigh and all of the above.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Leaa.2943]

On 6/25/2022 at 9:52 AM, 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).

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.)

Did you miss the post from Grouch on Reddit telling us Alliances is no where near finnished and in fact only worked on for the last year since he came back. So this means it can take a year or so before we get a real system. Do you seriously belive WvW in EU will last that long? Because if Anet finally break our comunity , then another server will take it's place.

What if that server is your server and you will now be locked for 370 days and 270 before that. And yes i am sure you will come up with the yeah but i can just move, sure you can but why do Anet need to break a server, why do you need to be forced to move, why is EU WVW not player driven as NA is and why is this ok over all? It is matchmanipulation in which you would have been terribly upset if you actually won something in WvW, but due to us not winning kitten people seem to be ok with it, which is just flabbergasting...

 

Also how will Alliances fix this problem? 

[Chaba.5410]

6 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Alright I'll make it easy for you: provide a record that shows of how many months the server was locked and how many months it was without a link. Anyone can double check this for Gandara, this is a hard fact, this is not debatable, it happened. Once you provide the same for Kodash, we'll talk on how Kodash was Gandara, before Gandara and how ANet always failed at one thing or another, doing things directly in contrast with their own official policy.

Why though?  The outnumbered buff is anecdotal evidence.  My Kodash story is also anecdotal evidence.  I don't need to provide that sort of data by your own logic.  I'm just following and imitating your methodology here since you stick to logic and facts.  Lead on.

Speaking about the discord leak, I hope you caught this snippet:
"My trick is I do WvW on the side on a laptop while I work. It's easy to get a solid 5-6 hours in, as it's very passive. Just flip a camp quick every 10m 🙂

Sometimes flip a tower if I have a few minutes and no-one stops me."

What do you think about that comment?   It must be true since some other people said it's true.
I hope for your sake that the solid 5-6 hours every working day with 0 K+D player isn't on your server.  That'd be great irony.  Get five of those and you're looking at maybe 125 extra hours a week pushing up your population with negligible contribution to K+D?  

"It is possible that what is hurting Gandara is, like on an NA server, that they have more players playing outside of EU prime time that is pushing their rolling playhour average up.  K+D would not show that because such activity level is always low outside of prime.  A single player isn't going to be able to see that from personal experience either.  That is the type of data I would pursue."
https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/116585-anet-cannot-count-participation-and-this-is-a-fact/?do=findComment&comment=1686181

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

I also like to be constructive when I post and not sarcastic all the time.

Trying to determine population by K+D alone is like trying to figure out someone's weight by knowing only their height.  Instead, averages have to be created out of measuring both the height and the weight of many many many people.  This allows a statistical relationship to be established between the two different data sources so we can start to do something useful with the data like find outliers that might indicate a health problem.  Or finding indication that there's a problem with the way Anet's population algorithm is working.  We need both the K+D and playhours, which is unfortunately impossible to obtain. 

Since that data is impossible to obtain we'd need to try to use other data.  A record of all objective flipping over 24/7 might help since that indicates someone playing WvW while not necessarily performing PvP activity.

We'd also have the added problem of being unable to separate the K+D and objective taking of combined teams so we'd need massive amounts of historic match data from when specific servers were alone on a team or how much they added/subtracted for different hosts.  And then we'd have to account for server status changes between Full/Very High/High/Medium.

It's a complex problem to be able to prove that the population algorithm isn't working as advertised given what data we have access to.  I'm not confident that others here are going to be able to work out.  It's a very large amount of work for very little reward.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Dawdler.8521]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I also like to be constructive when I post and not sarcastic all the time.

Trying to determine population by K+D alone is like trying to figure out someone's weight by knowing only their height.  Instead, averages have to be created out of measuring both the height and the weight of many many many people.  This allows a statistical relationship to be established between the two different data sources so we can start to do something useful with the data like find outliers that might indicate a health problem.  Or finding indication that there's a problem with the way Anet's population algorithm is working.  We need both the K+D and playhours, which is unfortunately impossible to obtain. 

But if K+D is height, then the population status is weight and we got 51 worlds to average with is the entirety of "many many many people". (well, not quite 51 since we cant separate the linked servers so 27 worlds)

So dont you have everything to do an average? 😛

If you then compare that average to something with very low K+D yet still full status... you get below average.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Dawdler.8521

[Karagee.6830]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Why though?  The outnumbered buff is anecdotal evidence.  My Kodash story is also anecdotal evidence.  I don't need to provide that sort of data by your own logic.  I'm just following and imitating your methodology here since you stick to logic and facts.  Lead on.

Speaking about the discord leak, I hope you caught this snippet:
"My trick is I do WvW on the side on a laptop while I work. It's easy to get a solid 5-6 hours in, as it's very passive. Just flip a camp quick every 10m 🙂

Sometimes flip a tower if I have a few minutes and no-one stops me."

What do you think about that comment?   It must be true since some other people said it's true.
I hope for your sake that the solid 5-6 hours every working day with 0 K+D player isn't on your server.  That'd be great irony.  Get five of those and you're looking at maybe 125 extra hours a week pushing up your population with negligible contribution to K+D?  

"It is possible that what is hurting Gandara is, like on an NA server, that they have more players playing outside of EU prime time that is pushing their rolling playhour average up.  K+D would not show that because such activity level is always low outside of prime.  A single player isn't going to be able to see that from personal experience either.  That is the type of data I would pursue."
https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/116585-anet-cannot-count-participation-and-this-is-a-fact/?do=findComment&comment=1686181

 

You haven't claimed that Kodash was outnumbered all the time. You claimed that they were the benchmark server locked for and almost always without a link. Are you backpedalling once more?

I already told you afkers are not the problem with Gandara. Virdo seems to have a problem with his server and since I respect him, unlike you, I believe him  but people chilling at spawn for 10 minutes is not my experience for Gandara, otherwise I would be complaining about it and asking to remove people leaking participation from the population statistics. I assume this is a more common problem with servers that outnumber others as most objectives won't change hands frequently and running for the north camps might be a chore, so people just wait for the south camp on alpine to come off cd. Notably those people do still enter the k+d probably more than me, as properly roaming involves a lot more running.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Since that data is impossible to obtain we'd need to try to use other data.  A record of all objective flipping over 24/7 might help since that indicates someone playing WvW while not necessarily performing PvP activity.
 

And I told you it's a very common occurrence for us to see PPTs split of 250+/50/30 where we either are the 50 or the 30 depending on who the linked server decides should be in 3rd to their benefit.

K+D numbers shouldn't be taken in a vacuum and I always reminded you that the PPT from objectives is completely lopsided as well. Besides when you have 20% lower K+D in the same match from 2 servers compared to the winner, that is undeniably indicative of participation disparity within the tier. And if a server easily wins t5 with 40k K+D and then has 70k K+D in T4 the following week that is also indicative of population disparities. It's like saying that being the shortest student by 8 inches in your class doesn't tell you anything about your overall height. And that if the tallest student in your class is put with different class mates and he's now average or the shortest person there, that also doesn't mean anything about you being short or tall. It doesn't tell you your exact height, but it does tell you you're way below average and quite likely the shortest in the school.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Mabi black.1824]

dear karagee, 

you know that I am completely on your side, after the experience of 6 months without a link , you can only imagine how much I can understand what you say. I would also add that only a blind man could argue that k+d of a week does not determine the flow and therefore the players of the teams of that week. that said. arenanet could actually consider participation and the gaming experience of gandare is determined precisely by the fact that teams are being built in consideration of the playing time.

 

I try to explain myself with numbers, and to make everything easier I pretend that the players are all the same in terms of time the difference in time is only that some play on the weekend compared to others.

example : gandara to 500 players who play online 7/7 but these 500 players only on Friday - Saturday - Sunday join another 500 players. in terms of time the latter players account for about 45% compared to the top 500. gandara could play against teams that have 500 players + 45% 7/7 and would be considered two identical teams. from Monday to Thursday you will be 45% outnumbered by your opponents. but the two teams are identical. 

 

the result is a very bad experience. anet considers participation but the result is still very bad. the enemy exceeds you by 45% you are destined to lose, the competition is missing, climbing a ranking no longer makes sense etc etc.

for this reason I suggested to build identical teams in number and manage the time in a different way, in a variable way. 1000 vs 1000 and you will have to constantly count the online players of all teams every 60 minutes and compare them with each other. this coefficient affects the points that the teams generate.

any + or - similar team you compare will have moments that are inferior to moments that are superior and moments that are very similar to their opponents. it is normal and does not have to be a problem.

in this way the competition remains guaranteed, even when the enemy exceeds you by 50% you have the awareness that the points generated by them are worth 50% less than yours. time is a variable , to solve it you have to apply a variable to the game mechanics.

only in this way 1000 players will be able to claim to have been better effective more effective more organized than other 1000 players.

[Karagee.6830]

57 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

dear karagee, 

you know that I am completely on your side, after the experience of 6 months without a link , you can only imagine how much I can understand what you say. I would also add that only a blind man could argue that k+d of a week does not determine the flow and therefore the players of the teams of that week. that said. arenanet could actually consider participation and the gaming experience of gandare is determined precisely by the fact that teams are being built in consideration of the playing time.

 

I try to explain myself with numbers, and to make everything easier I pretend that the players are all the same in terms of time the difference in time is only that some play on the weekend compared to others.

example : gandara to 500 players who play online 7/7 but these 500 players only on Friday - Saturday - Sunday join another 500 players. in terms of time the latter players account for about 45% compared to the top 500. gandara could play against teams that have 500 players + 45% 7/7 and would be considered two identical teams. from Monday to Thursday you will be 45% outnumbered by your opponents. but the two teams are identical. 

 

the result is a very bad experience. anet considers participation but the result is still very bad. the enemy exceeds you by 45% you are destined to lose, the competition is missing, climbing a ranking no longer makes sense etc etc.

for this reason I suggested to build identical teams in number and manage the time in a different way, in a variable way. 1000 vs 1000 and you will have to constantly count the online players of all teams every 60 minutes and compare them with each other. this coefficient affects the points that the teams generate.

any + or - similar team you compare will have moments that are inferior to moments that are superior and moments that are very similar to their opponents. it is normal and does not have to be a problem.

in this way the competition remains guaranteed, even when the enemy exceeds you by 50% you have the awareness that the points generated by them are worth 50% less than yours. time is a variable , to solve it you have to apply a variable to the game mechanics.

only in this way 1000 players will be able to claim to have been better effective more effective more organized than other 1000 players.

Originally they said they would try to smooth off-peak slots participation by adding people to teams based on their playtime. You know, when they select alliances or players to go in the same teams through their algorythms. Now it seems that won't be a feature at least at the beginning and that is such a shame. We will still have the 6am early bird open tags coming from German and French servers flipping and upgrading everything against no competition if they don't get spread out. 

Your proposal with adjusted scoring is smart, but seeing the reluctance to implement anything dynamic I wonder if that's something they would even entertain. Same with giving proper buffs to outnumbered people or at least removing downstate if you are fighting someone who is outnumbered. I think it's too complex for them to fine tune. But yeah if PPT scoring (and maybe even some rewards) were adjusted based on your % of population in the match at the time (and to a lesser extent on the border) it would be fair. The problem I can see is people would be immediately able to gauge by how much they are truly outnumbered, so you better be absolutely sure the difference in numbers don't veer into meme territory like they do now occasionally.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Karagee.6830