Karagee.6830 Posted June 20, 2022 Share Posted June 20, 2022 And so we deserve to be locked to transfers and without a link for a year, unlike every other server, including BB. 1 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svarty.8019 Posted June 20, 2022 Share Posted June 20, 2022 (edited) The account switchers are messing the system up good and proper now. They let their account go dormant and then all activate on the same server when there's a relink. The server cap won't stop them activating if their account is already on the server. So the populations can go way hey hey over the cap. Funny thing is, the convoluted Alliance Restructuring system won't be able to adjust for that behaviour either. lol. What a waste of time and effort. Edited June 20, 2022 by Svarty.8019 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Svarty.8019 said: The account switchers are messing the system up good and proper now. They let their account go dormant and then all activate on the same server when there's a relink. The server cap won't stop them activating if their account is already on the server. So the populations can go way hey hey over the cap. Funny thing is, the convoluted Alliance Restructuring system won't be able to adjust for that behaviour either. lol. What a waste of time and effort. I just want some Anet figurehead or placeholder to lie to me, so I can be at peace that they will never be honest about it or confirm they live in denial. Edited June 21, 2022 by Karagee.6830 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonRise.7650 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) At least you got some 'good' transfers in when you opened once last year, although one of the guilds who transferred to you, left a couple of months later iirc. Like, rather than how Deso dropped to high while linked to WSR last year and winning T1 by 100 points, so the majority of the transfers was made of bandwagoners. So basically, for the past 3-4 months, or even the over the past 2 years, every Guild on the server had to leave, for it to drop to high in T5 this year. So basically there's no community left from the past few years and with the shrinking population of active WvW guilds and their players; who join open tags and Open field by Guilds (not inc the majority of the remaining GvG guilds left, who mainly play in EoTM), it's hard to recover from that, without a decent link to carry it in terms KDR at least. Having a link is not always positive though, due to the population imbalances, between link and host servers; due to transfers and how the Population Algorithm and Thresholds keeps changing inconsistently. At least part of the reason for so many transfers this past relink, must be because Alliances are no where near ready, apart from the betas, which we haven't seen since January sadly. Edited June 23, 2022 by CrimsonNeonite.1048 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MedievalThings.5417 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 It's very unlikely alliances will be this year. That said, they won't solve any of the population issues. Even if we get alliances, it will look just like it looks now, with new names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arky.3072 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 It's funny to observe how Gandara is being treated. Most active server due to algorithm? Full status, and no link for 10 months so they can be stuck in tier 5. People stop playing for 3 weeks straight because the server is always full? Manually set to full because ANet suspects population manipulation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luranni.9470 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, CrimsonNeonite.1048 said: Like, rather than how Deso dropped to high while linked to WSR and winning T1 by 100 points, so the majority of the transfers was made of bandwagoners. So basically, for the past 3-4 months, or even the over the past 2 years, every Guild on the server left, for it to drop to high in T5, so basically there's no community left from the past few years. Good news! Deso is full again! Edit: ...and another 2 servers made full today (SFR and GH) so that's like.. 11 servers closed? Chances of Gandara opening? = LOL Edited June 21, 2022 by Luranni.9470 full full full full full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arky.3072 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Just to show some comparisons: Gandara activity the past two weeks:https://i.imgur.com/1ddfHer.png Fort Ranik (medium population server) activity the past two weeks:https://i.imgur.com/F3C56v4.png How on earth does this justify being "full"? Some transparency in how the algorithm works would be appreciated here, ArenaNet. Sources: https://gw2mists.com/worlds/Gandara and https://gw2mists.com/worlds/Fort Ranik 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 4 hours ago, CrimsonNeonite.1048 said: Having a link is not always positive though, due to the population imbalances, between link and host servers; due to transfers and how the Population Algorithm keeps changing inconsistent. I don't disagree with this, I have said that bandwagoning transfers can make it challenging for long term residents of a server. But that's 2 months. Now please think about it: is it better to suffer for 2 months due to transfers who will eventually move out and be able to compete at some level wherever it may be or be permanently closed to transfers and permanently outnumbered without a link? I'd trade in a heartbeat, that's a small price to pay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoguSpatzialu.7948 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 "WvW has always been a cornerstone of the game" lol As a side note, Dark Ages of Camelot (the originator of the WvW system) currently has a F2P program, and has actually held up quite well over the years. I'm actually quite amazed by how well the devs interact with the community. Just saying 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoranium.6481 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 3 hours ago, Arky.3072 said: Just to show some comparisons: Gandara activity the past two weeks:https://i.imgur.com/1ddfHer.png Fort Ranik (medium population server) activity the past two weeks:https://i.imgur.com/F3C56v4.png How on earth does this justify being "full"? Some transparency in how the algorithm works would be appreciated here, ArenaNet. Sources: https://gw2mists.com/worlds/Gandara and https://gw2mists.com/worlds/Fort Ranik They will not disclose their algorithm due to its human defining component. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 4 hours ago, Arky.3072 said: Just to show some comparisons: Gandara activity the past two weeks:https://i.imgur.com/1ddfHer.png Fort Ranik (medium population server) activity the past two weeks:https://i.imgur.com/F3C56v4.png How on earth does this justify being "full"? Some transparency in how the algorithm works would be appreciated here, ArenaNet. Sources: https://gw2mists.com/worlds/Gandara and https://gw2mists.com/worlds/Fort Ranik Poor comparison since its a 3rd party site only showing data for those registered. If you wanna compare at least use actual data from the WvW matchup. Funny enough Gandara has almost as many kills on DBL as my full+full link, but the other borders... not so much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arky.3072 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Just now, Dawdler.8521 said: Poor comparison since its a 3rd party site only showing data for those registered. If you wanna compare at least use actual data from the WvW matchup. Funny enough Gandara has almost as many kills on DBL as my full+full link, but the other borders... not so much. This is as good a data set as GW2Efficiency is. In smaller numbers, I agree. But only 390k players out of how many millions? use GW2E. Out of how many players in GW2's entire population play WvW? This is the best data set you're going to get without yourself having to include more or less relevant data to a joint calculation. Number of kills doesn't conclude population activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 21 minutes ago, Arky.3072 said: This is as good a data set as GW2Efficiency is. In smaller numbers, I agree. But only 390k players out of how many millions? use GW2E. Out of how many players in GW2's entire population play WvW? This is the best data set you're going to get without yourself having to include more or less relevant data to a joint calculation. Number of kills doesn't conclude population activity. GW2Efficency is just as bad, I was talking about matchup data. Kills+death week to week is literally the activity of WvW. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said: GW2Efficency is just as bad, I was talking about matchup data. Kills+death week to week is literally the activity of WvW. Funny how you creatively use the data, don't you think. Which server has by far the lowest K+D? As in 25% less than the second lowest which is also an unlinked server. Pray do tell. Edited June 21, 2022 by Karagee.6830 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subversiontwo.7501 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) On 6/21/2022 at 7:35 AM, Arky.3072 said: Most active server due to algorithm? /.../ Manually set to full because ANet suspects population manipulation. The devil sits in those details. The system doesn't measure whether it is the most active server, it measures whether it is the most populated server. The activity threshold is only there to determine whether you should count as population or not. With that in mind it isn't really that much of a stretch to see that Gandara with its 16 guilds of 900 players, with its 4k player Discord (even if its full of people from other servers or players who have left the game), its roots as a PvX server that sat in low-gold to high-silver already in 2013 or the fact that most other larger or equally-sized communities in WvW have already collapsed far more... is full. I mean, you can still ask Anet for the data if you want, but it just surpises me a bit that we don't make these logical connections. Gandara may have a bunch of login sleepers that just loves threads like these, but it doesn't really need it, it has enough natural sleepers already by being a once fairly well populated server, with a standing casual community and plenty of more anonymous players that may occassionally grab a GoB or two. On 6/21/2022 at 10:08 AM, GoguSpatzialu.7948 said: As a side note, Dark Ages of Camelot (the originator of the WvW system) currently has a F2P program, and has actually held up quite well over the years. I'm actually quite amazed by how well the devs interact with the community. I've seen some GW2 friends play private server Warhammer Online too. It is a scary thought that WvW in GW2 holds up because any newer game has failed to create any better or even just somewhat compelling Battlegrounds or open PvP. While at the same time, Anet manages GW2 WvW so incredibly poorly that people from here are exploring even older options and that those options actually look appealing to us. If my energy and situation would allow it, I would probably be off playing those games too by now. My friendships in this game are just so scattered by now that we don't really have the energy to play anything together. Yeah, the thought is, well, just scary 🥶. Edited June 22, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said: Poor comparison since its a 3rd party site only showing data for those registered. If you wanna compare at least use actual data from the WvW matchup. Funny enough Gandara has almost as many kills on DBL as my full+full link, but the other borders... not so much. Very amusing. Assuming you are on FSP+GH this is how the numbers stack up between Gandara and your link at the moment: EBG: 6625 v 16401 (40%) Green: 2346 v 6243 (37%) Blue: 2370 v 9429 (25%) Home: 3922 v 4224 (93%) Total: 15263 v 36297 (42%) Now let's help you out a little and assume your 2 full servers are exactly 50% of the total numbers. This means that both your server and the linked one are larger than Gandara based on your proposed metric. Alternatively if one is smaller than the other one must be much much larger than Gandara. Simple math isn't it? Now keep in mind FoW+Kodash is at 47959 and SFR+RoS is at 45964, both more than three times the size. Edited June 21, 2022 by Karagee.6830 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arky.3072 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said: GW2Efficency is just as bad, I was talking about matchup data. Kills+death week to week is literally the activity of WvW. May 20th - May 27th (before strike started - just to humor you with a somewhat normal comparison):https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.05.20-2022.05.27-desolation-underworld-gandara/ May 27th - June 3rd (before strike started):https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.05.27-2022.06.03-desolation-gandara-augury-rock/ June 3rd - June 10th:https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.06.03-2022.06.10-augury-rock-gandara-baruch-bay/ June 10th - June 17th:https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.06.10-2022.06.17-baruch-bay-gandara-vabbi/ June 17th - June 24th (current matchup):https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.06.17-2022.06.24-baruch-bay-gandara-aurora-glade/ These are the numbers you asked for, clearly reflecting the fact that Gandara was playing before, hasn't been playing during the past 3-ish weeks, and are stuck in a tier 5 limbo without any chance of getting opened no matter the player activity. Edited June 21, 2022 by Arky.3072 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Arky.3072 said: May 20th - May 27th (before strike started - just to humor you with a somewhat normal comparison):https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.05.20-2022.05.27-desolation-underworld-gandara/ May 27th - June 3rd (before strike started):https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.05.27-2022.06.03-desolation-gandara-augury-rock/ June 3rd - June 10th:https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.06.03-2022.06.10-augury-rock-gandara-baruch-bay/ June 10th - June 17th:https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.06.10-2022.06.17-baruch-bay-gandara-vabbi/ June 17th - June 24th (current matchup):https://kills.werdes.net/#/matches/2022.06.17-2022.06.24-baruch-bay-gandara-aurora-glade/ These are the numbers you asked for, clearly reflecting the fact that Gandara was playing before, hasn't been playing during the past 3-ish weeks, and are stuck in a tier 5 limbo without any chance of getting opened no matter the player activity. It also shows Desolation going from 40k to nearly 83k one week (no link) to the next (with link). Note that the top K+D server is usually in the region of 85k so roughly double the size of a normal Gandara. And it shows BB consistently at 60k+ (lowest at 55k highest at 70k) every week with Gandara typically around 44k-45k. So to level with BB (perpetually Very High, never Full) Gandara should be gaining a third more players than it currently has. And this might be an explanation: people on servers with no link are just going to either transfer or play on an alt account elsewhere. Except Gandara. And this de facto tanking by every other server without a link ensures that we remain without link. Unless we want to claim that Ring of Fire accounted for more participation than Desolation when they more than doubled in size. Edited June 21, 2022 by Karagee.6830 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Karagee.6830 said: Funny how you creatively use the data, don't you think. Creativly use what data? I said not to use sites which require registration that only few use and that kills+deaths is activity of a WvW matchup, because it is. We know this historically from comparisons. Did you think that was a claim of Gandara doing great at the obvious bottom of the barrel it is? The point was... show exactly what you did. Show the matchup data. Yet people apparently take that as a challenge of accurate data, cripes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 21 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said: Creativly use what data? I said not to use sites which require registration that only few use and that kills+deaths is activity of a WvW matchup, because it is. We know this historically from comparisons. Did you think that was a claim of Gandara doing great at the obvious bottom of the barrel it is? The point was... show exactly what you did. Show the matchup data. Yet people apparently take that as a challenge of accurate data, cripes. I genuinely can't understand what you wrote. I was referring to you mentioning K+D which you did twice, but carry on, whatever you are trying to say. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 42 minutes ago, Karagee.6830 said: I genuinely can't understand what you wrote. I was referring to you mentioning K+D which you did twice, but carry on, whatever you are trying to say. Yes I did. Where is the creative use of the data? What are you trying to say? That K+D is not the overall activity of a border, that the total K+D at the end of a weeks matchup is not how active that week has been? If you cant understand that I said use the live matchup data instead of numbers from sites which require players to have signed up (which only a small portion of WvW players will have done), I dont know what else to say really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said: Yes I did. Where is the creative use of the data? What are you trying to say? That K+D is not the overall activity of a border, that the total K+D at the end of a weeks matchup is not how active that week has been? If you cant understand that I said use the live matchup data instead of numbers from sites which require players to have signed up (which only a small portion of WvW players will have done), I dont know what else to say really. Those match K+D numbers are available via the API and don't require players to have signed up. I already posted on the other thread why cherry-picking the K+D datapoint is not a good metric to infer population from when used in isolation. Anet has told us in past forum posts that they found the most accurate measurement of population is playhours and have used WXP gain as a sanity check for playhours. Anyone can peruse the old posts linked in the pinned "WvW Library" thread or use Google to verify. Also, the most recent API data on Gandara is going to be infected by their tanking and rendered somewhat useless. The Full status is also a variable since we don't know when or by what amount the threshold changes. Edited June 21, 2022 by Chaba.5410 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said: I already posted on the other thread why cherry-picking the K+D datapoint is not a good metric to infer population from when used in isolation. Anet has told us in past forum posts that they found the most accurate measurement of population is playhours and have used WXP gain as a sanity check for playhours. Well I disagree. I think that the overall activity in WvW (ie K+D) is directly linked to it's active WvW population size, thus it can be infered. Of course, it's not *exact* - you'd have to consider the overall matchup and the other servers. For example if K+D was 100k+100k+90k week after week while 2 of the servers where full+full links and the third was a medium single server, would we argue that medium has so vastly fewer players in comparison? I dont think so. We would infer that the 3 sides are *roughly* equal in size. Not exact. But roughly. And in turn if the third server have 20k... yeah that's not particularly sizable. So IMO it's visible. Edited June 21, 2022 by Dawdler.8521 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karagee.6830 Posted June 21, 2022 Author Share Posted June 21, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said: Yes I did. Where is the creative use of the data? What are you trying to say? That K+D is not the overall activity of a border, that the total K+D at the end of a weeks matchup is not how active that week has been? If you cant understand that I said use the live matchup data instead of numbers from sites which require players to have signed up (which only a small portion of WvW players will have done), I dont know what else to say really. The K+D data comes from Anet's API, I don't give a rat's kitten about GW2 Mists player numbers, they are interesting, but that was not what I was criticising you for. What I asked you plain and simple was to compare K+D numbers for Gandara to that of linked servers. Since Gandara is usually around 45k (and typically in the bottom 2-3 among all 15 teams at that) and the top linked servers are around 85k what do you deduce from K+D numbers? Edited June 21, 2022 by Karagee.6830 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts