Finally done with this dead gamemode

[The Boz.2038]

This game mode is absolutely abhorrent. The match-making makes games entirely void of content for an entire month, as is the situation right now for UW. Getting participation up because random stuff synced wrong is absolute agony when there's nobody on your team around. Seeing your teammates on the map might help, but that's just one possible suggestion among an entire alphabet of those that this detestable game mode needs.

Managed to claw my way to 1850 Skirmish Tickets. Bye!

Edited August 4, 2022 by The Boz.2038

[misterman.1530]

I sort of agree with you. Am on ET, and no way should we be a Host Server, and no way does an ET/AR link work. This has been a horrible link, and except for the one week of hopefully successful Alliance Beta testing starting Aug 12th, there will be little joy to be found until the next relink.

I would love to see how Anet's world linking algorithm works: I suspect it's just someone tossing rusty darts at a dried up husk of a dartboard, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[Sahne.6950]

5 minutes ago, misterman.1530 said:

I would love to see how Anet's world linking algorithm works

They monitor activity of all the servers and then create equal matchups. 🤡

Gunnarshold being teamed with WSR is another example..... Gunnars is/was kind of the new bandwagon server (went from medium to full in a few weeks) and WSR is another server that has alot of activity.....

for some reason... we are linked together and completly stomp T1 currently....

Edited August 4, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[subversiontwo.7501]

2 hours ago, misterman.1530 said:

I would love to see how Anet's world linking algorithm works: I suspect it's just someone tossing rusty darts at a dried up husk of a dartboard, but perhaps I'm wrong.

In broad strokes, I think most players are convinced it works like this:

You have main (alive) and link (dead) servers. These days there are few actual main servers lefts, so servers that should be links become mains because the system is relative. Those may look like loaded words, but it is meant to prove a point and not just be hyperbole: Servers tend to be alive as servers when they actively try to build their server communities and there are very few such servers left. Most servers do not build server communities, they either just go through the motions or have built other forms of community. In either case the server is dead as a server, but a community may still be built on in other ways.

These behave in different ways around a relink. Many main servers will begin to manipulate their numbers in the weeks leading up to the relink because they compete amongst themselves about who is going to draw the short straw of being locked and unlinked. It is usually better to tank for a few weeks than pulling the short straw for 8 weeks straight. The link servers (including those who become main servers but are populated to be links) tend to transfer after the relink is done. So the numbers the system sees before relink and the actual numbers after the relink are completely different. Both these things contribute to the system holding up worse than it could, but the system has also been broken for 10 years, has a fix meant to hold it in place for a year or two running for 6 years and we players just keep adapting and waiting for the problem to be solved.

So, in short, the ~3-5 main-server communities manipulate numbers to avoid being unlinked and the link-server communities simply transfer if they get a poor link. That's how we players have adapted to the state of development.

Edited August 4, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Sahne.6950]

4 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

You have main (alive) and link (dead) servers

and then you have Gunnarshold (STACKED) and WSR (stacked).

[subversiontwo.7501]

2 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

and then you have Gunnarshold (STACKED) and WSR (stacked).

Well, you have a number of such stacks every reset.

They are either composed of an actual main linked with a link that has been stacked after the relink (ie., a server community linked with a nomad community) or two links (two nomad communities).

The nomad communities simply behave like Alliances, while waiting for Alliances.

[subversiontwo.7501]

If you don't mind some musing (otherwise you can just skip past this entire post, heh) ...

To add to the above: One of the more interesting social peculiarities is the event of common links and fractured communities, where one server's community spans over about a server and a half.

Spoiler

 

If you look at links over a longer span of time you can see that certain servers have commonly been paired together. In the past these were usually a main and a link as intended. So the old main servers were usually unlinked or linked with the same server. Since it is so hard to come back to main servers if you transfer off them this developed into a situation where the link server is just an extension of the main server's old community.

You can see this with eg., FSP and UW or with Gandara and Ranik. Servers like UW and Ranik are full of players who originally were from those main servers or who are looking to get back on those servers but can't for one reason or another. Having had accounts on all those four servers at some point, almost half of UW and Ranik always just felt like FSP'ers and Gandarans in exile 😄.

Yet a third topic is all the alts, where Anet decided to outright kill built-up delete-to-transfer alts but has done nothing to curb create-to-play alts. So the mode is getting more and more littered with bypass- or throw-away alt accounts now. Either they make bank off of selling expansions to the alts (but even then they are played far less regularily than the old delete-to-transfer alts, further twisting numbers for the linking algorithms) or the alts are throw-away accounts that no-one is invested into which is just an invitation to certain behaviours and tend to equally spike activity on their servers only temporarily. It is an absolute mess that ArenaNet created and kept making worse as the players adapt to their changes.

• Make only WvW have servers and paid transfers
• Promise to fix the issue for 9+ years
• Make WvW gain less gold, restricting access to gold-to-gem conversion
• Price main server transfers at roughly 30 bucks in gems
• Price expansion pakages at roughly 30 bucks (or 15 bucks at sales)
• Create F2P account options and allow them into WvW
• Create a temporary link system and keep it around for 6+ years
• Encourage transfering to links for far more ingame-attainable 200 gold
• Dangle a concept design of an actual fix to the problem for 4-6 years
• Murder delete-to-transfer options while we wait for that design (creating more F2P alts)
• Welcome to WvW, algorithms that look odd and "doubled player numbers" 🤡

This last bit is obviously just some clowning, but there is a serious underlying topic to it. It doesn't matter if these things were intentional or not, it is a mess either way and a real blemish on this game as a whole that the developer still does not seem to take serious enough, because while they keep aknowledging it they never seem to commit enough to resolve it. That goes for the past 1 year as much as the past 4, 6 or 9 years. A few years back I used to compare WvW to DaoC (since, you know, WvW was based on DaoC according to Anet themselves). Even if we only go by Grouch's latest comments, that a team has only worked on Alliances for the past year or so and that everything else said before were outright lies: Alliances still look to take more than the 18 months it took to have 25 developers create DaoC: The entire game.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501
Praise the almighty spoiler tag

[Esufer.8762]

1 hour ago, Sahne.6950 said:

They monitor activity of all the servers and then create equal matchups. 🤡

Gunnarshold being teamed with WSR is another example..... Gunnars is/was kind of the new bandwagon server (went from medium to full in a few weeks) and WSR is another server that has alot of activity.....

for some reason... we are linked together and completly stomp T1 currently....

Yeah, got linked with WSR while I was still on Vabbi. To say that the roaming was overpopulated and there wasn't much for me to do is an understatement.

But hey at least i played a lot of Elden Ring for that link

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Seeing your teammates on the map might help,

If only there was some way to form groups of players that can see each other on the map and talk directly within that group, hell maybe even a way for others outside the group to see where that group is on the map.

[Gorani.7205]

13 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If only there was some way to form groups of players that can see each other on the map and talk directly within that group, hell maybe even a way for others outside the group to see where that group is on the map.

I see what you did there 😉

The problem with creating a "roaming squad" for visibility is player mentality though. If you create a party or squad 9 out10 random players you encounter and send and invite will click that away. On the other hand, once PUGs form, the commander gets pushed to attack the big structures of towers & keeps, because he is the commander on the map. Also, it seems to be expected that supply for building siege does magically replenish, without picking up supply from the depots.

 

[The Boz.2038]

25 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If only there was some way to form groups of players that can see each other on the map and talk directly within that group, hell maybe even a way for others outside the group to see where that group is on the map.

You entirely managed to miss the point. Wow. Impressive, actually.

[MysteryDude.1572]

Dear OP, half of vabbi and wvw population is out for the summer. Go out , touch grass and return from September, just as people and guilds will.

Edited August 4, 2022 by MysteryDude.1572

[Morden Kain.3489]

19 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

You entirely managed to miss the point. Wow. Impressive, actually.

@The Boz.2038 Actually, looking at your main post, it seems you have not been in WvW for very long (especially as you have "Managed to claw my way to 1850 Skirmish Tickets").  If you have been in WvW for a long enough time (like some in this forum), you would understand the reason for not seeing your comrades on the main map (think invisi-commander).  Your comrades will show up on the mini-map as you get closer to them (think of it as Line-of-Sight). 

If you are a PvPer, yeah, all your team mates show up on the map.  If you are a PvEer, WvW acts just the same as that environment (in respect to the main map and seeing people).  So, I am not entirely sure how @Dawdler.8521 missed the mark for their sarcasm.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

3 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Seeing your teammates on the map might help

spies wouldn't have to leave spawn and it would make fight dodging even worse.

[The Boz.2038]

  

30 minutes ago, Morden Kain.3489 said:

If you have been in WvW for a long enough time (like some in this forum), you would understand the reason for not seeing your comrades on the main map (think invisi-commander).  Your comrades will show up on the mini-map as you get closer to them (think of it as Line-of-Sight). 

Ignoring for a moment the "you don't know what you are talking about" stuff... you do realize that it is a problem to not even see where your allies are, right? You enter a map and have no idea if anyone is even on it, let alone where they are at.

32 minutes ago, Morden Kain.3489 said:

If you are a PvPer, yeah, all your team mates show up on the map.  If you are a PvEer, WvW acts just the same as that environment

In PvP, you need to coordinate with your entire team. In PvE, you don't care one bit about what anyone else is doing on the map, 95% of the time. In WvW, knowing where your friends are and where to go is absolutely critical to your experience there. 

But do go off, tell me how I'm so unworthy of a pleasant game experience because I have less than 500 hours in WvW.

27 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

spies wouldn't have to leave spawn and it would make fight dodging even worse.

If ANet were competent, they'd have not designed something so vulnerable to spying. It is not impossible. Worse games have solved this issue, and most often by actually implementing a baseline detection system, such as seeing enemies within your borders.

[Karagee.6830]

1 hour ago, The Boz.2038 said:

You entirely managed to miss the point. Wow. Impressive, actually.

Don't worry: that's normal for dawdler, but it may yet get much worse from here.

[Morden Kain.3489]

@The Boz.2038 well, welcome to WvW, an amalgamation of PvP and PvE.  You don't like it, you don't have to play it.  So, please go on about how awful this game mode is, as ANet has not listened to this community for the past 10 years, why would they start with you?

[The Boz.2038]

1 minute ago, Morden Kain.3489 said:

You don't like it, you don't have to play it.

I mean.

Thanks?

I suggest you reread the OP, tho.

[Karagee.6830]

3 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

In broad strokes, I think most players are convinced it works like this:

You have main (alive) and link (dead) servers. These days there are few actual main servers lefts, so servers that should be links become mains because the system is relative. Those may look like loaded words, but it is meant to prove a point and not just be hyperbole: Servers tend to be alive as servers when they actively try to build their server communities and there are very few such servers left. Most servers do not build server communities, they either just go through the motions or have built other forms of community. In either case the server is dead as a server, but a community may still be built on in other ways.

These behave in different ways around a relink. Many main servers will begin to manipulate their numbers in the weeks leading up to the relink because they compete amongst themselves about who is going to draw the short straw of being locked and unlinked. It is usually better to tank for a few weeks than pulling the short straw for 8 weeks straight. The link servers (including those who become main servers but are populated to be links) tend to transfer after the relink is done. So the numbers the system sees before relink and the actual numbers after the relink are completely different. Both these things contribute to the system holding up worse than it could, but the system has also been broken for 10 years, has a fix meant to hold it in place for a year or two running for 6 years and we players just keep adapting and waiting for the problem to be solved.

So, in short, the ~3-5 main-server communities manipulate numbers to avoid being unlinked and the link-server communities simply transfer if they get a poor link. That's how we players have adapted to the state of development.

You know what creates a community (probably the only one left of a pretty good size)? The fact that you get screwed over and over and over by Anet with no link and that triggers a mentality of us v everybody. The only thing we ask is: if you give us no link for 8 months (8 weeks pffft), at least have the decency of not locking us thoughout that period. There are 2 quick fixes for this: remove 3 or 4 servers (depending on whether you want BB to be alone) or make 3 servers all like BB (i.e. always unlinked but also always open).

Transfers should be managed very differently of course and this can be done irrespective of the overarching game mode structure. When I saw they are thinking about transfers in alliances I genuinely wanted to throw up. They never learn...

Edited August 4, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Morden Kain.3489]

3 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

I mean.

Thanks?

I suggest you reread the OP, tho.

Why, all you are doing is complaining about the game mode.  The only suggestion you have is to allow everyone on the same team to see each other.  This is where the commander icon comes in.  Problem with that, is that most people flock to that tag, though the commander is trying to do something with their guild/friends.  So, ANet allows the commander to go invisible.  Now we are back to the same issue you are currently seeing (no one on the map).  Your suggestion would take away the option of that commander going invisible.... So, your suggestion further eliminates the need for a commander at all, after all everyone can see where everyone is.

19 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

If ANet were competent, they'd have not designed something so vulnerable to spying. It is not impossible. Worse games have solved this issue, and most often by actually implementing a baseline detection system, such as seeing enemies within your borders.

Now, lets take this.  There is no solution to spying in the games current state of F2P (or any game for that matter).  After all, I have 4 computers at my place, I can (if I wanted to) run 4 copies (with valid accounts) of <insert your favorite "non vulnerable to spying" game here>, all piped to a single set of monitors (not that I do this, god the headache it would cause).  Guess what, still spying.  So, what are these so called "baseline detection systems" you speak of?  Sure isn't IP addresses, as that would lock whole places out of playing the game together (game/coffee shops anyone?).  I have already eliminated the possibility of using a MAC address (4 different systems).  The spying everyone talks about inside this forum happens to be account based spying, not someone sitting in an outpost calling out numbers while they are invisible (though there are some thieves that do this if they are really bored).

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

. It doesn't matter if these things were intentional or not, it is a mess either way and a real blemish on this game as a whole that the developer still does not seem to take serious enough, because while they keep aknowledging it they never seem to commit enough to resolve it.

it is definitely a mess that arenanet did not want and did not imagine. but the biggest problem is not even this. the real problem that you have been dragging for 6 years or what they are , is the solution that anet has thought and proposed. too complicated too demanding and within it contains a change that is too radical.

refusing to make a series of small changes, to change only a series of parameters to see / check how the mode would react is the real and only problem.

we can say that we have lost something on the way but we have not yet lost everything, indeed the wvw community is still large, faithful, and passionate despite everything. so dear arenanet we are still in time, you still have the opportunity to change your programs, while you carry fore the great work of alliances you have to organize a series of changes to improve the construction of teams to improve the competition between teams.

we are talking about changing the parameters of control of transfers. we are talking about changing the limit parameters of the server. we are talking about changing in numbers of players who can have access on each individual map. we are talking about forcing the hand and forcing groups of players to move to spread in a more homogenous way. 

just like you're doing with alliances and its betas, just talk to your community, just say '' guys next week let's tweak these parameters for the next 4 months to check how the mode behaves. if we see any problem we return to the initial parameters ''

it's not that difficult. indeed I often wonder why it has not yet been done, why an analysis on the size of the various servers and how their populations react move change in relation to a series of modified parameters has never been done? mystery.

[Dawdler.8521]

44 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

In WvW, knowing where your friends are and where to go is absolutely critical to your experience there. 

Why didnt I think of friends too?! 🤦‍♂️

You're right, maybe if Anet had thought of some way to have a groups of friends before you even enter WvW it would have been amazing.

They could call the function... a Crew? A Club? Oh oh I know, a Chapter like in 40k.

I cant think of any other name for it off hand.

[The Boz.2038]

1 minute ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Why didnt I think of friends too?! 🤦‍♂️

You're right, maybe if Anet had thought of some way to have a groups of friends before you even enter WvW it would have been amazing.

They could call the function... a Crew? A Club? Oh oh I know, a Chapter like in 40k.

I cant think of any other name for it off hand.

Why are you making fun of upcoming features?

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

Just take a break, it'll be here when you get back from it.  The Boz.2038

I do agree with your complaint about the linking's, they FEEL broke.

They feel like Anet is picking the winners and losers for the matchups. I'm not saying they are, that would be crazy, but that is how they FEEL. 

They also feel like they are a way to pay to win, purely as a result of the fact that they FEEL Anet manipulated. The only reason I say that is because, well, Anet picks who links with who and sometimes the coverage is very lopsided.

My suggestion would be to just END the linkings and just offer free transfers for a month and let people settle where they want. I remember a time when it was free to transfer. You could even transfer multiple times in a day.  So, it isn't like it would be unprecedented.

[The Boz.2038]

23 minutes ago, Morden Kain.3489 said:

Now, lets take this.  There is no solution to spying in the games current state of F2P (or any game for that matter).  After all, I have 4 computers at my place, I can (if I wanted to) run 4 copies (with valid accounts) of <insert your favorite "non vulnerable to spying" game here>, all piped to a single set of monitors (not that I do this, god the headache it would cause).  Guess what, still spying.  So, what are these so called "baseline detection systems" you speak of?  Sure isn't IP addresses, as that would lock whole places out of playing the game together (game/coffee shops anyone?).  I have already eliminated the possibility of using a MAC address (4 different systems).  The spying everyone talks about inside this forum happens to be account based spying, not someone sitting in an outpost calling out numbers while they are invisible (though there are some thieves that do this if they are really bored).

Wow. Impressive inability to even think about what I wrote.

There is no point to a spying system if I can already see what the spy would tell me. Baseline detection such as "mark enemies on map if anywhere in own territory, or tagged by one of a dozen mechanics that are or are not in the game already". We literally have consumables for that, but they are barely functional.

But no. It is more important to you to talk to me as if to a child, pretending I don't know what spying means, just to live in the delusion of winning an internet argument.
Sad, tbh, but if it helps you cope...