WvW population

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

You have to understand something, massive PVP differs from PVP on a small scale - this one, fast, fast objectives. What I've observed over the years both at ESO and here (I'm very new here) is that the areas of massive PVP are also large social areas, of social interaction.

 

When PVP ends up being something 'frantic' (quick achievements) the 'rotation' of people is apparently greater, an impediment to this more social coexistence between those niches that like the Player x Player activity.

GW2 WVW was designed for this. If you are here recently with time you can check it personally, and you will find many different contents within it. We must make a consideration together based on what you have written. The mode contains quite a number of players. 70/80 for each server and for each map. We have a potential of 240 players x 4 different maps. That's a lot of players. A real large-scale PvP.

WWW is best expressed when you have the 3 sides of the game with rather similar numbers. If you have this luck, you can spend hours and hours conquering a double-perimeter fortress. I personally defended the Keep as half a day from two servers in attack. too nice. And it happens more and more rarely in recent times. It is not made to rotate quickly.

This happens when you have a broken WVW. 1 super crowded server with 3 maps queued vs two servers emptied by the same players crowding the other.( problem of out-of-control transfers )

You also have to consider that things have gotten worse in recent months. Because Anet finally decided to put work and development into our favorite game mode, and when beta testing became a thing, transfers got even more out of control. What was left of the servers, community, bias, purpose, ranking, suffered another bad blow.

The result is what you can see today. We are in the middle of the work in Cosro. And until we have a first draft of alliances - WR we will remain under the storm. Unless Anet wants to share some information, a roadmap and if it is appropriate to give its players some little news / update to give more fun to everyone.

This waiting transition period could turn . We can choose not to suffer it alone and make it constructive. Anet could bring a series of small changes even just to numbers and game parameters to see how players react, how things can change etc etc.

Arenanet and its development team can do it. You just need to communicate with the player base to give information about what you are going to change and what you want to verify. They just have to have confidence and have a vision, a dream of what you want to achieve. Everything else comes by itself.

[Iskras Femme.1693]

19 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You just need to communicate with the player base to give information about what you are going to change and what you want to verify

This is really missing.

[Biermeister.4678]

10 hours ago, xDumplinx.7983 said:

I think you will find part of the “problem” at this particular time of year is that a lot of Oceanic players are on holiday and out enjoying the summer weather.

 

Who really cares if Mag are running the maps this week? Let them no-life it, while you take a break and enjoy the real world.
 

Go out and get some fresh air, and turn the game off for a week.  Better out in the real world then stuck in the game world.

The only MAG t3 we did not get today was their Garri and no they are not running the maps 

[Biermeister.4678]

8 hours ago, xDumplinx.7983 said:

How absolutely brain dead boring would that be for them?   It does seem pretty crap that the situation is evolving the way it is.   Is it Mag’s fault? Not really. They are playing the game - some of their tactics are pretty kitten though - and in this current matchup, winning.

 

should ArenaNet step in and do something about it?  If it is going to kill the game mode beyond any salvation then yes.  If it is going to cause Mag (even though I can’t stand them) to be penalised unjustly for playing the game how it is intended by the Devs (by design) to be played, then no.

If Mag want their beloved game mode to survive (and have opponents that bother to log in) they need to alter their approach.  Can’t hurt to let another team win some if it keeps the game mode alive right?

 

MAG had to adjust their play to fight the Boon Ball and it works I respect them for that, and it makes for good fights and for their builds they are some of the best in the game, But their server is stacked population wise in all time slots except late SEA,

[Biermeister.4678]

14 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

You misunderstood.  I'm saying there's enough non-NA players on SoS to mark the server as Full.  This means NA players can't transfer there and make their NA timezone more active.  Then they get in a match with another server that also has the same issue (JQ) and the result is the OP's screenshot.

If players on SoS (and JQ) want to be more competitive during NA timezone, they need to either play during NA timezone or transfer off so their server opens up for NA timezone players.

Historically, it's the NA timezone players that transfer off that server.
 

Chaba you have been around for a long time and can remember when the top 6 servers could run 20/7 and have a map queue on all maps with their Algorithm now the servers are unbalanced, people who want to play at a higher level can not transfer to the servers they need to be on, and newer players can not get in a decent server to experience the game mode.  I have seen large Guilds leave a server because it was full and the server never opened up due to the Algorithm. 

[Kal Durak.2830]

15 hours ago, Iskras Femme.1693 said:

A bad, flawed system, resulting in empty maps where only one server benefits for 16 hours (out of 24 hours).

 

It's simple. ArenaNet needs to change WvW urgently. I feel underprivileged not being from a US based server which has the highest population in the NA time zone.

 

Maps are, so to speak, 'dead'.

Word to the wise

[Kal Durak.2830]

14 hours ago, jaif.3518 said:

The bad part about all this for me is that ANET is hung up on using math and points to make things "fair".  It's not necessary, there are simply not that many servers - it shouldn't be that hard to line up some SEA heavy guilds with some NA heavy guilds and make a solid server.  Do that 3 times, and you have a solid tier.

 

There's only so many combinations here, they should be able to manage to make things a little more fair.

Except they are Know it Alls and won't listen.

[Kal Durak.2830]

13 hours ago, Sleepwalker.1398 said:

And we have a server in T2 tanking to avoid T1 🤣🤣🤣

Wooaa that is the new algorithm haha

[Xenesis.6389]

Is this now the Open SoS thread?

🤡

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Biermeister.4678 said:

Chaba you have been around for a long time and can remember when the top 6 servers could run 20/7 and have a map queue on all maps with their Algorithm now the servers are unbalanced, people who want to play at a higher level can not transfer to the servers they need to be on, and newer players can not get in a decent server to experience the game mode.  I have seen large Guilds leave a server because it was full and the server never opened up due to the Algorithm. 

If you recall, the only reason there were such servers that could run 24/7 like that is due to the draining out of the rest of the servers which caused those servers to be unbalanced.  It wasn't fun to be on such a server back then which further drove players to transfer to higher tiers.  As players have moved on from this game, such coverage issues would still occur even if there were no new algorithm.

When a server has all maps queued, that's actually a sign that the population is too big.  And the way that was created was from players transferring to a server outside of their normal timezone.  There was never any intent to allow players to transfer to a server if a timezone had all maps queued.  Servers were marked Full when the number of logins exceeded a threshold, remember?

There's nothing that prevents someone from playing on their server at any time of day outside of a queue.  Players used to create spreadsheets trying to assign play times and maps to guilds to try to manage the whole situation.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

9 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

This description of yours is perfect, and pretty much represents my personal concerns about what the new system of alliances and wr might bring. The unexpected result to which the new mechanics could lead us. you see and describe it clearly in this other ESO game but you can't imagine it in our GW2, when we will no longer have track of the server ranking.

I keep saying it ( with poor result ) but I just want to avoid bringing WWW to EOTM. I'm not saying that's the goal of the new mechanic, I'm saying it could lead us to that outcome in an unintended way. It is important to contextualize alliances within a logic of world vs world, with a medium-term logic, which is automatically renewed annually, season after season.

Could anyone from the development here really give us some guidance, if they considered this? What do you plan to embroider around alliances? What is the perimeter of its objective? Apart from having balanced servers, then how do we want to put them in competition?

When World Restructuring was first announced, players asked about tournaments.  The question about tournaments still comes up from time to time.

I personally think that the "seasons" lend themselves to future tournaments.  Instead of servers you have your seasonal team and it's performance gets ranked over the course of the season and you end up with rewards at the end based on how your team did.  This all, of course, is in the realm of "too many years away".

Here was one of the vague answers:

"Rewards/Tournaments/Leaderboards

If—and that is a big if—we do add/change rewards to be tied more directly to World success in matches, those changes would come later. The plan is to ship the core system and get all the kinks worked out and the teams balanced before we start trying to find new ways to give rewards or do tournaments or anything of that kind."

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[WeightTrainer.3219]

It happens in every Tier. I was in Tier 4 last week and jumped into EBG to see the entire map blue. Until arenanet finishes restructuring it will always be like this because wvw has been like this for years now.

 

As far as population goes, I haven't seen wvw regain its original population since anet had to start linking servers together so us down here at the bottom actually had some kind of content.  😂

[Xenesis.6389]

13 minutes ago, WeightTrainer.3219 said:

As far as population goes, I haven't seen wvw regain its original population

And most games never do, it's always expected a population decline will happen, only certain games are ever able to gain population after a period of time after release, wow and ff14 are two that did it. But it's up to the company to release new content/features/updates to maintain levels as high as possible for as long as possible. It's a miracle that wvw has remained this high in population for 10 years despite it's treatment, pve would be dead zones if it was treated the same way imo. Links gave wvw a boost, as did skirmish rewards and legendaries, but that was 5-6 years ago now, and everyone has been hanging on WR since, with betas to keep stringing them along...

Edited January 3, 2023 by Xenesis.6389

[Tryfan.1457]

ANet's brilliant decision to open Maguuma to transfers has resulted in them getting an influx almost twice as high as the second highest server according to guild tracking websites.

 

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a human should be looking at these things rather than leaving it entirely to an algorithm that is clearly failing at every level?

 

[Corabelle.3254]

21 minutes ago, Tryfan.1457 said:

ANet's brilliant decision to open Maguuma to transfers has resulted in them getting an influx almost twice as high as the second highest server according to guild tracking websites.

 

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a human should be looking at these things rather than leaving it entirely to an algorithm that is clearly failing at every level?

 

 

Or maybe it's all the players that were transferring from link to link finally getting the opportunity to transfer to Maguuma?

[Chaba.5410]

23 minutes ago, Tryfan.1457 said:

ANet's brilliant decision to open Maguuma to transfers has resulted in them getting an influx almost twice as high as the second highest server according to guild tracking websites.

 

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a human should be looking at these things rather than leaving it entirely to an algorithm that is clearly failing at every level?

 

Which websites?

Hilarious!

[Asahi.1487]

Who is this Indo commander and why is my server so against him joining our server. I started wvw not too long ago and confused. Team chat keeps raging about this guy.  Im on MAG.

[Austin.2048]

2 hours ago, Tryfan.1457 said:

ANet's brilliant decision to open Maguuma to transfers has resulted in them getting an influx almost twice as high as the second highest server according to guild tracking websites.

 

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a human should be looking at these things rather than leaving it entirely to an algorithm that is clearly failing at every level?

 

Twice as high? Where did you pull this data from?

[slitherpuss.2854]

1 hour ago, Richter.4892 said:

Twice as high? Where did you pull this data from?

Source - Trust me bro

Edited January 4, 2023 by slitherpuss.2854

[Chaba.5410]

14 minutes ago, slitherpuss.2854 said:

Source - Trust me bro

Probably used gw2mists.com, which I didn't realize until today that it now tracks registered user transfers.

[roederich.2716]

one can only look forward to alliances i guess.

for me the topic "Multiaccount-Users" are getting a serious problem in WvW.

Like just as example the Maguuma guys login, take all structures, demotivate their enemy to play at all and then logon Alt-Accounts to also mess in other peoples matchups.

Is that a wvw I want to play in the future where in my matchup suddenly people from other alliances cause a false matchup result?

Is this what i want to give my time for.

Is it time for community to identify its own cause of distrubance?

[jul.7602]

6 hours ago, Corabelle.3254 said:

 

Or maybe it's all the players that were transferring from link to link finally getting the opportunity to transfer to Maguuma?

As someone that is currently on Maguuma, I can assure you that there are definitely new arrivals to Maguuma, not just the people following the vassal server.

[neven.3785]

30 minutes ago, roederich.2716 said:

Snipped 

Plenty of people have multiple accounts to play with different groups of people, and they have every right to.  It will become even more common once alliances hit

[roederich.2716]

8 minutes ago, neven.3785 said:

Plenty of people have multiple accounts to play with different groups of people, and they have every right to.  It will become even more common once alliances hit

doesnt change the fact that many question if they want to still take part in this show every day.

2 different matchups - same people involved.... why not let it die at all?

[neven.3785]

You are overinflating how impactful alt accounts are.  If someone regularly plays with a second group on a seperate account, they are not causing a "false" result, they are playing hours in wvw for that team.  Your example of mag is false, organized groups tend log off if there is nothing to do because an enemy (or both) chooses to sit out, they don't all switch to second accounts and try to mess up other matchups.

 

Originally I made my second account because I liked roaming with a very small guild on JQ who was linked to our server.  Relinking seperated us, so I purchased a new account to keep playing with them.  I still prefer organized guild raiding in wvw with my main guild.  Eventually the roaming guild died and the account became innactive.  Then another guild I ran 1-2 times a week with transfered off my main server, so I moved that second account to play with them.  Overall my time is still 90% on my primary account.  Being an extra body in a guild who doesn't bother with objectives will mean I am not impactful at all to a matchup scoring, but definately helps the guild out since they run 10-15.   This is just my personal example, but yet you are trying to make it sound sinister and negative.

 

We all know there is population balance issues, they have existed for 10 years.  It's not alt accounts causing it, it's the weighting they count off hour play hours compared to prime time NA, should never be 1 to 1.  If the server population algorithms and scoring both took it into acccount, then you would see less impact from overcompensating off hours and more NA slots open.  There is no point doing this to the servers now, just enable alliances permanently and work on balancing those properly instead.