Current server system is so bad and future is looking bleak

[Riba.3271]

From what I have seen is that alliances is that people will have even less incentive to tag up since all the commanders building their server or fighting to keep it alive will be gone. This leads to other commanders having less fights too and tagging up less too. It is same slow cycle towards death of WvW as links were.

 

For example, right now if I tag up it will be like 30% perma Jade seas (our link players), who I do not care about training or entertaining. With alliances it will be over 80% random people that I would have to stick my face to their face and say "WILL YOU JOIN MY ALLIANCE" to have any meaningful progress. We all know this will be followed by their alliance talking badly behind the scenes for trying to steal their members as if I knew they were already part of alliance. Lol... People..

 

Whereas linking system is 5/10 system at best, alliances are 6/10 at best as populations will finally be balanced. Original server system was 10/10, just held down by glicko rating and too many servers.

In the past if you wanted to transfer to stacked server, you not only needed to wait for the server to open up but then dish out 1800 gems. After that you fought other stacked servers in high tiers. Now you just go to the link for 500 gems and enjoy your megamonster server facerolling all low pop linkings.

 

What I am trying to say is that while alliances are terrible illogical system, at least it is fair and better than current system that allows unlimited transfers and has terrible matchmaking. Original server system was obviously the best and most polished since it was spent half a decade designing taking model from other succesful RvR games, not slapped together during some company meeting and announced day after for sales.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Maybe we are weird, but the guild I am in openly trains anyone involved in our links.  It serves three purposes:

1.  Makes the current matchup more fun

2.  Potentially gets people recruited for our guild and server if it opens

3.  Makes people better for all of WvW so that if they are part of the enemy server next time, we may get better fights.  
 

That ALL being said, the same can be said about alliances and their benefits, and we don’t have to wait until a server ‘opens up’. 

[displayname.8315]

If you like WvW and the nightcapping that comes with it than alliances is the best option.  Nightcapping will always decide the game and who wins.  All we can really hope for is fun fights when we log in.

[Cyninja.2954]

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

From what I have seen is that alliances is that people will have even less incentive to tag up since all the commanders building their server or fighting to keep it alive will be gone. This leads to other commanders having less fights too and tagging up less too. It is same slow cycle towards death of WvW as links were.

Most commanders which are semi active have WvW guilds. Most of the even more active ones have already alliances in mind or have created server guilds.

Quote

For example, right now if I tag up it will be like 30% perma Jade seas (our link players), who I do not care about training or entertaining. With alliances it will be over 80% random people that I would have to stick my face to their face and say "WILL YOU JOIN MY ALLIANCE" to have any meaningful progress. We all know this will be followed by their alliance talking badly behind the scenes for trying to steal their members as if I knew they were already part of alliance. Lol... People..

No, with alliances/guilds you have the option to have up to 500 players willing and able to follow your lead on top of which you get a random draw of players in the pool.

The stronger and more successful alliances will move up to face similar strong alliances, the less organized ones will drop down again to face more similar opponents. Strong in this case can also mean sensible coverage where alliances which do not stack all players in 1 time slot will prosper more. Which again actually benefits the game mode instead of limiting decent play time to evenings only and limiting access to the mode with queues.

Quote

Whereas linking system is 5/10 system at best, alliances are 6/10 at best as populations will finally be balanced. Original server system was 10/10, just held down by glicko rating and too many servers.

In the past if you wanted to transfer to stacked server, you not only needed to wait for the server to open up but then dish out 1800 gems. After that you fought other stacked servers in high tiers. Now you just go to the link for 500 gems and enjoy your megamonster server facerolling all low pop linkings.

 

What I am trying to say is that while alliances are terrible illogical system, at least it is fair and better than current system that allows unlimited transfers and has terrible matchmaking. Original server system was obviously the best and most polished since it was spent half a decade designing taking model from other succesful RvR games, not slapped together during some company meeting and announced day after for sales.

Original servers was best, while there was enough player numbers to sustain it. There hasn't been enough players in over 6-7 years. The original server system has the same issue the linked system has: it start failing at high or very low population numbers and benefits stacking servers.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Svarty.8019]

5 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Maybe we are weird, but the guild I am in openly trains anyone involved in our links.  It serves three purposes:

1.  Makes the current matchup more fun

2.  Potentially gets people recruited for our guild and server if it opens

3.  Makes people better for all of WvW so that if they are part of the enemy server next time, we may get better fights.  
 

That ALL being said, the same can be said about alliances and their benefits, and we don’t have to wait until a server ‘opens up’. 

I stopped training anybody when linking became a thing. What a pointless waste if they're just going to leave and become enemies!

 

... and no, I won't be training anybody when the World Restructuring comes either. It'll be just as bad.
 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Svarty.8019

[Riba.3271]

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

The stronger and more successful alliances will move up to face similar strong alliances, the less organized ones will drop down again to face more similar opponents.

This actually isn't true because strong alliances do not PPT. With linking system these "strong players" usually just log in for hour or two to smack at each other either at borderland or EotM. Well this is mostly due to how objective balance and anet making fights inside keeps unfair, but this is how strongest groups act in WvW. They do not tag up to night or morning PPT (because it is mostly objective fights).

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Most commanders which are semi active have WvW guilds. Most of the even more active ones have already alliances in mind or have created server guilds.

Well this is true but they will have less to fight for and even for those commanders reason for tagging up depends on the timezone. While right now some popular guild commander might do couple of hours of PPT for their servers to face better opponents, it will be even rarer in alliance system. Not to mention they will have less people willing to tag up to kill and less knowledge of what opponents are on which alliance linking which makes them even less incentivised to tag up.

5 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Original servers was best, while there was enough player numbers to sustain it. There hasn't been enough players in over 6-7 years. The original server system has the same issue the linked system has: it start failing at high or very low population numbers and benefits stacking servers.

Well of course it fails if there are too many servers for the amount of players and glicko system holding servers from going up and down tiers for months even if they win matchups. With 1-up-1-down and only 4 tiers of servers, old system will be improved vastly

[CrimsonRise.7650]

15 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Well this is true but they will have less to fight for and even for those commanders reason for tagging up depends on the timezone. While right now some popular guild commander might do couple of hours of PPT for their servers to face better opponents, it will be even rarer in alliance system. Not to mention they will have less people willing to tag up to kill and less knowledge of what opponents are on which alliance linking which makes them even less incentivised to tag up.

Well of course it fails if there are too many servers for the amount of players and glicko system holding servers from going up and down tiers for months even if they win matchups. With 1-up-1-down and only 4 tiers of servers, old system will be improved vastly

 

They did say they would work on rewards for winning weekly matchups and other things in this blog World vs. World Update: June 2022 – GuildWars2.com and also maybe bringing back Tournaments at some point, but obviously their priority is getting the Alliances up and running.

The Alliance Matchmaking Ladder won't be drastically different Studio Update: World Restructuring and the Future of World vs. World – GuildWars2.com, although a Season will last for we don't know how long yet, it won't be that hard to work out who you are up against either especially since we should have contacts with other Alliances, also  since Transfers should happen far, far less than we see now or even 10 years ago..

Edited August 26, 2022 by CrimsonNeon.6712

[Cyninja.2954]

7 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

This actually isn't true because strong alliances do not PPT. With linking system these "strong players" usually just log in for hour or two to smack at each other either at borderland or EotM. Well this is mostly due to how objective balance and anet making fights inside keeps unfair, but this is how strongest groups act in WvW. They do not tag up to night or morning PPT (because it is mostly objective fights).

Which would be irrelevant since if that is the case, "fight" alliances would not move up in the pairings thus getting paired with other "fight" alliances which is pretty close to what we saw in the past where staying in tier 2-3 was resulting in the best fight pairings (before border became an only blob guild thing). So even if only fight alliances are created, they would naturally gravitate to where other fight alliances are under the match-up system. Largest difference being players have a more direct way to affect this while the system its self is less susceptible to massive player movements via transfers.

The current system actually penalizes having a healthy mix of players (ppt, fight and off hour) by moving that group to T1 and requiring massive ppt, queues and over-stacking.

Quote

Well this is true but they will have less to fight for and even for those commanders reason for tagging up depends on the timezone. While right now some popular guild commander might do couple of hours of PPT for their servers to face better opponents, it will be even rarer in alliance system. Not to mention they will have less people willing to tag up to kill and less knowledge of what opponents are on which alliance linking which makes them even less incentivised to tag up.

and your explanation for this being rarer is? You are essentially saying: commanders will tag up less even though they have more influence over the players they are matched with. That does not make in any way sense nor is it reflected in the general anticipation for the alliance system and preparation for it (which if it was this large of a detriment in many players eyes would not see as much work ahead of time by parts of the community).

Quote

Well of course it fails if there are too many servers for the amount of players and glicko system holding servers from going up and down tiers for months even if they win matchups. With 1-up-1-down and only 4 tiers of servers, old system will be improved vastly

So you agree that the past server system has inefficient but fail to give any suggestions how to fix the issue?

Please don't give those band-aid temporary fixes of "let's close down servers and that will solve the issue" because it doesn't. Linking is essentially closing down servers and it faired no better in that regard. We did have 1 match-up of only 4 tiers right before corona hit on EU, it was a disaster in case you were not active back then.

Not to mention that closing down servers, or reopening them in case of a flood of more players, is vastly more difficult under the current system than the alliance system as it is intended.

The interesting thing here: you even admit that there is "to many servers", yet criticize a system which is better at managing amount of opponents generated (with breaking down and recreating "servers", that's what the alliance system basically does: rework the total amount of different servers it can produce while keeping the mode healthy population wise).

Edited August 26, 2022 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

On 8/25/2022 at 9:21 PM, Cyninja.2954 said:

~said stuff~

Issue with alliances is that while you can bring an organised alliance and have control of players you play with, you will be relying on enemy servers to bring groups to fight you. As all groups that aren't in these alliances, ones that care slightly or lot about server or score, will be considerably less active thus there will be less fights. There will also be no incentive to train random people. It will most likely end up with groups running invisible closed tags with only their alliance in it, as every teammate outside their alliance will be gone next alliance linking, with very little enemies and WvW population diminishing over time.

 

But alliances do fix matchmaking which is better than current server system which doesn't.

 

Old server system also allowed player control since your servers playerbase was somewhat stable and transfers to higher tiers cost more. And you had better matchups and you could publicly get pug commanders to stop or increase PPT just by communicating with them. With random servers or alliances with you, you have no power which servers you face.

 

Essentially current servers systems issues are that 1) links have different transfer cost and population status from main server, 2) it disincentivises people from logging in during hard times, 3) The matchups are completely lopsided 4-5 weeks out of 2 months and 4) almost 40% of playerbase changes every 2 months so any reaching out to new players will be very ineffective. In fact I would claim that in both current system and alliances people dislike anyone that is focused on public progress and teamwork rather than being only entertainment with a core carrying them.

 

So current server system is worse than alliances but alliances aren't without a fault since while they do give you power to choose who you play with and fix matchmaking, they also make the gamemode rather dead since scoring and trying to improve future playerbase doesn't matter. Improved old server system (less servers and 1-up-1-down) would nurture WvW overtime.

 

I am not against alliances as they will be improvement over garbage we have right now but original single server system with slight adjustments would be vastly better and keep WvW and multiple scenes alive longterm.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Riba.3271

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

A full alliance was going to be about 500 players or so they said before, which also only would constitute about 25% of a single new server, meaning the other 75% is out of that alliance's control. Yall keep saying people will have more control of who they play with but that is less control than what we have now.

 

Take the training into consideration based off of matchup length. Long term matches would have more people potentially train(also if they have room to recruit), but short term has very little incentive to. If you played an Spvp Match andhad 2 teammates who were terrible causing you to lose badly would you slow/stop your playing to train them up, continue fighting in the match because combat is fun, kitten and curse at how bad they are, or find a way to end the match faster/afk/log.

 

Don't just answer that question for yourself, think how  our wvw community would likely handle a situation like that

[Mabi black.1824]

I also add my opinion in this post,

alliances are necessary to give arenanet the opportunity to build teams that are very similar to each other. however this is not enough for our favorite game mode. players, small guilds, large guilds and future alliances within this new teams will need a common goal. this mode is world vs world , you need a leaderboard or a tournament or call it whatever you want for these worlds.

Alliances are fine but they must be contextualized in this game mode, or as riba claims players will have no reason to play the game. I personally put the tag when I don't see it, but I do it exclusively for my server, my team, my teammates.

if your claim or if your solution for this mode is to give me a new team every 8 weeks, I will be one of those who will lose much interest in this mode and you will probably not see my tag anymore.

[Mabi black.1824]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:50 PM, displayname.8315 said:

If you like WvW and the nightcapping that comes with it than alliances is the best option.  Nightcapping will always decide the game and who wins.  All we can really hope for is fun fights when we log in.

this reasoning does not make much sense, even with alliances even with very similar teams you will always have different flows between the teams. late in the evening, in the morning or at any time you want. 24/7 should not be a problem but a beautiful feature of this mode. you should also ask arenanet to handle this game feature. What? counting the online players of the 3 teams constantly every 60 minutes and adjust consequently the coefficient of the war points that the teams can generate.

[Dawdler.8521]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:02 PM, Riba.3271 said:

I am not against alliances as they will be improvement over garbage we have right now but original single server system with slight adjustments would be vastly better and keep WvW and multiple scenes alive longterm.

Vastly better in theory. In an ideal situation that no longer exist and will never exist again. Its a pipe dream. Anet cannot magically create players out of thin air, which is what is required for single worlds to be healthy.

[Nymthalas.4019]

On 8/26/2022 at 5:35 AM, CrimsonNeon.6712 said:

 

They did say they would work on rewards for winning weekly matchups and other things in this blog World vs. World Update: June 2022 – GuildWars2.com and also maybe bringing back Tournaments at some point, but obviously their priority is getting the Alliances up and running.

The Alliance Matchmaking Ladder won't be drastically different Studio Update: World Restructuring and the Future of World vs. World – GuildWars2.com, although a Season will last for we don't know how long yet, it won't be that hard to work out who you are up against either especially since we should have contacts with other Alliances, also  since Transfers should happen far, far less than we see now or even 10 years ago..

 

As soon as they start giving winning rewards on the actual system they are gonna bleed players. Servers will start playing Gandara(EU) style, because it requires 0 skill, so it will cause that fights will be something completely rare, and it will be just servers having ppl 24/7 on structures using siege. There will be some people that like it... but tbh being online 24/7 using only a couple of buttons is more ogame than pvp.

 

People has cried a lot around structure buffs and siege, because they even want MORE advantages, its like when they nerfed warrior bubble, people just wanted a 1 button skill that was X times stronger than any other single button. When you introduce unfair mechanics (huge amounts of sieges and strong structure buffs) so people just avoids massive pvp, the message is clear, we dont want you to have fun and play with the game mechanics, we want you 24/7 online using (the super difficult and non repetitive) 3/5 siege skills for hours.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Nymthalas.4019

[Stand The Wall.6987]

old server system was 0/10 cuz there were 0 people playing the majority of the time. idk how people have that thick of rose tinted glasses. outside of primetime wvw was a ghost town for almost a year before links.

[Karagee.6830]

On 8/25/2022 at 4:00 PM, Riba.3271 said:

From what I have seen is that alliances is that people will have even less incentive to tag up since all the commanders building their server or fighting to keep it alive will be gone. This leads to other commanders having less fights too and tagging up less too. It is same slow cycle towards death of WvW as links were.

 

For example, right now if I tag up it will be like 30% perma Jade seas (our link players), who I do not care about training or entertaining. With alliances it will be over 80% random people that I would have to stick my face to their face and say "WILL YOU JOIN MY ALLIANCE" to have any meaningful progress. We all know this will be followed by their alliance talking badly behind the scenes for trying to steal their members as if I knew they were already part of alliance. Lol... People..

 

Whereas linking system is 5/10 system at best, alliances are 6/10 at best as populations will finally be balanced. Original server system was 10/10, just held down by glicko rating and too many servers.

In the past if you wanted to transfer to stacked server, you not only needed to wait for the server to open up but then dish out 1800 gems. After that you fought other stacked servers in high tiers. Now you just go to the link for 500 gems and enjoy your megamonster server facerolling all low pop linkings.

 

What I am trying to say is that while alliances are terrible illogical system, at least it is fair and better than current system that allows unlimited transfers and has terrible matchmaking. Original server system was obviously the best and most polished since it was spent half a decade designing taking model from other succesful RvR games, not slapped together during some company meeting and announced day after for sales.

Are you the evil snowman commander?

[Riba.3271]

6 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

old server system was 0/10 cuz there were 0 people playing the majority of the time. idk how people have that thick of rose tinted glasses. outside of primetime wvw was a ghost town for almost a year before links.

Old server system had problems from glicko rating and too many servers. There were propably lot of willing players at lower tiers but no commanders or groups that could the critical mass of players to sustain income of more players. If we keep 1-up-1-down and reduce amount of servers, it will be vastly better than having links with transfer sprees and lopsided matchups every 2 months

Edited August 31, 2022 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

8 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Anet cannot magically create players out of thin air, which is what is required for single worlds to be healthy.

Single worlds will be healthy as long as it is possible to climb up in tiers, which 1-up-1-down and only 4 tiers enables unlike glicko system. So competitive environment where win matters no matter how small. In addition to this, transfer costs to Tier3-Tier4 servers will be much cheaper than in the past since 500 or 1000 gems to go there was a pipe dream in the past.

 

Issue is Anet had a great system but knew they had too many servers, but went with the carebear solution of keeping all servers around while destroying the great systems stable matchmaking, transfer costs and server communities.

 

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Single worlds will be healthy as long as it is possible to climb up in tiers

Which doesnt work with single servers since people leave and someone will be stuck at the bottom or people stack and will be stuck at the top and its just the middle moving about a little.

Single servers is just the link system if Anet stopped relinking. You're saying WvW has a great system today, right now.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

21 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Old server system had problems from glicko rating and too many servers. There were propably lot of willing players at lower tiers but no commanders or groups that could the critical mass of players to sustain income of more players. If we keep 1-up-1-down and reduce amount of servers, it will be vastly better than having links with transfer sprees and lopsided matchups every 2 months

that doesn't do anything to plug the massive gaps of coverage which is arguably a bigger (or more relevant) problem. both rating and server count can be addressed with alliances. will they be? no clue, but doing nothing is worse, and keeping the current system but doing modifications is inferior to just making a better system. also with the old system, since you said server count was a problem, whats the solution? to just dissolve low pop servers? that would be way too unfair to those servers and probably cause more backlash from players then making an entire new system. as for the tag thing becoming less incentivized with alliances, i think you may have a point there.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Stand The Wall.6987

[godfat.2604]

What if we run the same alliances for a whole year (or any other longer terms), and also allow players to re-pick the represented guild between seasons (potentially with varying costs, just like server transferring), so there's still a way to transfer like it is right now? Transferring is likely still needed, because some players might be stuck in a place where they are never going to enjoy. Need to give them a way out.

This way, it'll essentially be quite similar to the old worlds, except that we reshuffle everything every year. It should be long enough to build up a community, and when the time comes, they can also bring the community together to form a new alliance, so they can play together next year and form a new community with the old community.

Just some random ideas which I don't know if it'll work well or not. I feel a bit torn on having alliance or not. On one hand that I think it would definitely help with population balance, but I also much enjoy staying on the same world so that I can see familiar faces, familiar chats, and familiar culture. I do think the original idea really brought us together better. I so miss calling out in Lion's Arch, asking PvE players to help defend the keep! 😛 Honestly, that's really one of the reasons that WvW became my true end game.

[kash.9213]

1 minute ago, godfat.2604 said:

What if we run the same alliances for a whole year (or any other longer terms), and also allow players to re-pick the represented guild between seasons (potentially with varying costs, just like server transferring), so there's still a way to transfer like it is right now? Transferring is likely still needed, because some players might be stuck in a place where they are never going to enjoy. Need to give them a way out.

This way, it'll essentially be quite similar to the old worlds, except that we reshuffle everything every year. It should be long enough to build up a community, and when the time comes, they can also bring the community together to form a new alliance, so they can play together next year and form a new community with the old community.

Just some random ideas which I don't know if it'll work well or not. I feel a bit torn on having alliance or not. On one hand that I think it would definitely help with population balance, but I also much enjoy staying on the same world so that I can see familiar faces, familiar chats, and familiar culture. I do think the original idea really brought us together better. I so miss calling out in Lion's Arch, asking PvE players to help defend the keep! 😛 Honestly, that's really one of the reasons that WvW became my true end game.

The idea is good, but I don't think most people will remain tuned in enough to that mechanic to not still be lost and frustrated when the time comes to decide on staying or moving. Anet has to decide if they want to promote guilds and alliances lead by a guild or communities. 

[Mabi black.1824]

14 hours ago, godfat.2604 said:

What if we run the same alliances for a whole year (or any other longer terms), and also allow players to re-pick the represented guild between seasons (potentially with varying costs, just like server transferring), so there's still a way to transfer like it is right now?

that's what I keep asking in this forum, with the hope that someone can share and support the need to have a new team building mechanic (much more balanced) and find the way for the player to stay in that team for a normal 12-month sports season. and then remake the teams all over again and the tournament starts again. as far as transfers are concerned, I do not agree.

the mechanics of transfers that we have today , in my opinion are completely wrong, indeed if I have to say it all they are the real problem of this mode, as they are managed today they go in the opposite direction of any concept of balance. you can choose any logic of building the most balanced or similar teams that you want, that the transfer out of control that we have now  delete it in the most absolute way after only a few days, just enough time to decide where the usual groups of players want to stack better.

and the same problem also applies to all those who have more accaunt, too comfortable to play only the easy games and be able to choose to be in the team that wins. this is not competition is the little child who wants his candy , or at least that's what I think.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[godfat.2604]

14 hours ago, kash.9213 said:

Anet has to decide if they want to promote guilds and alliances lead by a guild or communities.

Even though this game is called Guild Wars, I would actually really prefer alliances being led by communities. Anyway, I suppose it will be the foundation moving forward, and actual alliance isn’t implemented yet. I think it’s still possible to build communities on top. Hope Anet can figure that out.

15 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

the mechanics of transfers that we have today , in my opinion are completely wrong

If we’re talking about today, then I think it’s completely wrong because people can transfer to guest servers to stack on a full server with a cheap price every time when they relink. Surely this is quite wrong and I don’t know why they couldn’t just fix this silly problem. Treat guest servers having the same population as the host server should fix it.

Originally, there’s no way to transfer to a full server, and if the population is high (usually lower than T2), it’s whooping 1600 gems, or $20. That’s not cheap at all. I think prices played a big role here, not to mention there’s really no way to transfer to a full server “back then”.

I think it’s really about price. Make it expensive so stacking will not be worth it. Make it liquid like trading post. If a lot of people transferred, make the price higher and higher. I think it’s perfectly reasonable if an alliance of 200 players want to jump to a low population server so they can build their community there, instead of getting stuck on a high population server, for example. We can even make it cheap to move to lower population server to encourage people do so. There are a lot of options.

[Mabi black.1824]

39 minutes ago, godfat.2604 said:

I think it’s perfectly reasonable if an alliance of 200 players want to jump to a low population server so they can build their community there, instead of getting stuck on a high population server, for example. We can even make it cheap to move to lower population server to encourage people do so. There are a lot of options.

this is something we must all think about together. with the new alliance mechanic we will get very similar teams, all teams will be very similar, you will no longer see full servers or empty servers, the alliance goal is to have + or - equal teams so that is what we will have. somewhere they have communicated that they are considering a small margin of 5% of free space to allow the movement of the latest arrivals or for those who have not connected for a few months etc etc. so with the new mechanic if you want to allow the displacement of an entire alliance of 200 or 300 players you need to define how to do it, I have already suggested to allow all the transfers you want only by reservation, I understand that you need to create an interface to open a transfer request then other work for anet and I understand that it will not be so easy as before because it is necessary whether on the other side someone wants to transfer to take your place, but after all a way must be found, or we will find ourselves again with a transfer mode that goes exactly in the opposite direction to the concept of balance.