WvW population

[Chaba.5410]

11 minutes ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said:

If it is worth winning, people will take every advantage, just like they do with the current system.  No system that retains 24 hour a day matchups or that bases world construction on historical average playtime will ever result in consistently fair or even interesting matches.  Both need to go away for a new system to be worth implementing.  Especially if you want anet to reward people for winning the matchups.

 

Competitive people will attempt to gain every advantage.

I'm sure players will find ways under WR to gain those advantages too.  So far we've seen Anet use the playhours metric for the betas even though they advertised adding in other metrics like timezone and language.  I'll wait to see what we get.  The new system may even facilitate the use of new metrics like individual and guild-based KDR.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I admit after this thread the numbers geek in me would love to get access to ANets database to check MAC addresses versus account logins to get a directional feel for the number of people with multiple accounts playing on different servers. I suspect its low overall but would be curious about it.

This is a oversimplification on how networking works. This method wouldn't be able to differentiate between a internet cafe or a household with multiple users on different PCs or the case you mentioned (one PC using multiple accounts). Most people do not connect their PC directly to the internet, but rather connect behind a networking device.  In these cases mac address will not be the user's direct computers, but rather will be the mac address of whatever network device is visible to the outside world because of (NAT). A different type of identifier must be used by the client itself on people's PCs if there were to be a crack down on multi accounts. Moreover MAC addresses can easily be changed.

Also I would imagine the geforce now would make things even more complex depending the cloud network setups are handled.

PS. I do not really like it when people have multiple accounts.

Edited January 5, 2023 by ZeroTheRuler.7415
clarity

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, ZeroTheRuler.7415 said:

This is a oversimplification on how networking works. This method wouldn't be able to differentiate between a internet cafe or a household with multiple users on different PCs or the case you mentioned (one PC using multiple accounts). Most people do not connect their PC directly to the internet, but rather connect behind a networking device.  In these cases mac address will not be the user's direct computers, but rather will be the mac address of whatever network device is visible to the outside world because of (NAT). A different type of identifier must be used by the client itself on people's PCs if there were to be a crack down on multi accounts. Moreover MAC addresses can easily be changed.

Also I would imagine the geforce now would make things even more complex depending the cloud network setups are handled.

PS. I do not really like it when people have multiple accounts.

 

The oversimplification was on purpose for the sake of brevity as some of my friends have pointed out to me that at times is something I must practice more. Hence why I also used directional for a number of reasons and for those not in IT used MAC for a more commonly used term to get the point across faster. I agree with what you have and more considering other options in routers now. That said would still be interested if they had someone run the data points they do capture.

Edited January 5, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624
spelling

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

The oversimplification was on purpose for the sake of brevity as some of my friends have pointed out to me times is something I must practice more. Hence why I also used directional for a number of reasons and for those not in IT used MAC for a more commonly used term to get the point across faster. I agree with what you have and more considering other options in routers now. That said would still be interested if they had someone run the data points they do capture.

XD I also simplified what I said too. In any case it is most likely that multiple pieces of data are used for form a dataset. Terms that are even more top level for a user might be 'client fingerprint' vs mac address. Oh, and yes 100% it would be very interesting indeed or on the flip of a coin maybe it could be disappointing. I doubt it would be disappointing though. I have found with code or systems you never know until the veil is lifted.

I don't want to change the topic on hand. I was thinking about WvW population the other day. It seems a little lower than I remember it being, but my server used to be paired with the #1 server forever. I am on Ebay and we used to be paired with Fergusons Crossing when they dominated. WvW seemed a little more active then. We are currently paired with Jade Quarry and it seems a little less, but it is still good. Right now we are matched up vs Maguma. I logged one of the earlier days of the matchup and we had maybe 7%? At the end of the night we were at 158 points for the matchup (1st per tick) and had taken a hefty portion of the maps back. I woke up the next day and we were at a low % again which was quite disappointing. It's been like that for the rest of the week now. It's been a battle and there are a lot less people online for the team I am on due to the matchup imbalance population wise.

I hope alliance matchups will prevent imbalances like this.

Edited January 6, 2023 by ZeroTheRuler.7415

[SweetPotato.7456]

On 1/3/2023 at 6:57 AM, Sho.5791 said:

I would like to know how is division in WvW?

 

https://postimg.cc/LnxJ4tT8

 

The server I am on has been like this for 3 weeks, simply ridiculous, so if you want to have fun on another server you have to spend 1800 gems again

This is not a problem of  population, 
It is a problem of players' attempt at steering the tier their server is on. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, ZeroTheRuler.7415 said:

I hope alliance matchups will prevent imbalances like this.

It might, but that may take a while and a lot more coding. In the first passes they said they aren't accounting for coverage time and if so we could end with this scenario repeating where one side packs a time zone leaving little room to get more people into other time zones. So when people log into whatever their normal time zone suddenly they can't find people and the other side seems packed. 

[Xenesis.6389]

Only thing alliances will do is spread out the pug players, the organized will clump together as usual, kind of the point of alliances. But time zones don't count, so off hours servers like SoS will still be able to get a community of ocx to dominate if they wanted, Mag will still have it's ebg hive. Big 50 squad running boon ballers will still be around running maps over, and smaller guilds will run to desert to hide. All these imbalances will continue to exist.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Only thing alliances will do is spread out the pug players, the organized will clump together as usual, kind of the point of alliances. But time zones don't count, so off hours servers like SoS will still be able to get a community of ocx to dominate if they wanted, Mag will still have it's ebg hive. Big 50 squad running boon ballers will still be around running maps over, and smaller guilds will run to desert to hide. All these imbalances will continue to exist.

I keep going round and round on what it may be. Still a server pride side peep myself. But if I can't get other changes till after WR, so lets get it done. I back MAG on threads since after linked to them I get the feel they are the same and it's about everyone and not just a guild doing a thing but everyone working together. Its about all of us, which to me has been the server side of the back and fourth.. Have seen the times on servers when it's an issue when multiple guilds are get off map we need our peeps, and then seen them break and just exit leaving everyone else to deal with the open issues. Saw a bit of that this week I took as a joke asking all PUGs to leave map or exit game. That was a thing back in the day in T1 that I think we might see once the WR drops. What I am concerned with is going back to day of exit game, we need more of our peeps, even though less could have done more. We will have to see,

[Xenesis.6389]

26 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Have seen the times on servers when it's an issue when multiple guilds are get off map we need our peeps, and then seen them break and just exit leaving everyone else to deal with the open issues. Saw a bit of that this week I took as a joke asking all PUGs to leave map or exit game. That was a thing back in the day in T1 that I think we might see once the WR drops.

This still happens all the time on most servers. And now it's a matter of combat evolved to the point that fighting boon blobs requires a boon blob, not a cloud, not a 20 guild and 30 pugs, fully organized boon blob of 50.

What sucks is when your own team of 50 blob decides to come to home map for enemies half their size, tells people to get off so their people can get in, but then attract the other two sides blobs from the other maps, then they fight, lose, and either tag off or log off, leaving anyone hanging defending against two blobs that they attracted to the map in the first place.... 😕

 

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

What sucks is when your own team of 50 blob decides to come to home map for enemies half their size, tells people to get off so their people can get in, but then attract the other two sides blobs from the other maps, then they fight, lose, and either tag off or log off, leaving anyone hanging defending against two blobs that they attracted to the map in the first place.... 😕

Because when commanders/players say they want fights what they actually mean is they want to win.

[kash.9213]

8 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

This still happens all the time on most servers. And now it's a matter of combat evolved to the point that fighting boon blobs requires a boon blob, not a cloud, not a 20 guild and 30 pugs, fully organized boon blob of 50.

What sucks is when your own team of 50 blob decides to come to home map for enemies half their size, tells people to get off so their people can get in, but then attract the other two sides blobs from the other maps, then they fight, lose, and either tag off or log off, leaving anyone hanging defending against two blobs that they attracted to the map in the first place.... 😕

 

Time is a compounding factor. Your usual alert pugs with WvW spidey sense can work on dismantling their composition but there's almost always that group or blob who feel the press of time more than the rest of us I guess and covering them after they go for it without scoping the area out some or pan camera to feel map lag creeping around them is where our usual pugs normally get locked down and burned. 

I wouldn't mind that blob you're talking about rolling up on our map even if they burn out, but they kind of scoop up the vibe you might have had going on pretty often and that can be hard to move into again.

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

16 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

It might, but that may take a while and a lot more coding. In the first passes they said they aren't accounting for coverage time and if so we could end with this scenario repeating where one side packs a time zone leaving little room to get more people into other time zones. So when people log into whatever their normal time zone suddenly they can't find people and the other side seems packed. 

Yeah, but I was thinking forward to the possible future based off of what was communicated. The alliances system allows for barriers to be taken down while adding a better semblance of balance if it is well maintained. Who knows, maybe it will lead to specialized guilds that are in alliances that could possibly reshape the overall meta. Moreover if a better carrot is added (rewards) perhaps the carrot and stick method will make more PvE players try WvW out which could result in higher population overall. If casual players are matched with casual players then perhaps they will enjoy things better. I will most likely stay with my guild that is mainly a PvE one (so casual WvW). If that isn't satisfying then I will try to convince my guild in joining a good alliance.

16 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Only thing alliances will do is spread out the pug players, the organized will clump together as usual, kind of the point of alliances. But time zones don't count, so off hours servers like SoS will still be able to get a community of ocx to dominate if they wanted, Mag will still have it's ebg hive. Big 50 squad running boon ballers will still be around running maps over, and smaller guilds will run to desert to hide. All these imbalances will continue to exist.

Sure, there will be powerful alliances, however I don't expect it to be a clone of the current server system is setup (mag being one alliance). After all there probably are a large portion of pugs in Mag. I do not like 25+ boon blobs either and not many players who are introduced to WvW do either, however they will exist regardless. Honestly, I think the Blue/Green/EBG maps should be modernized a little bit, but that's a different conversation.

Edited January 6, 2023 by ZeroTheRuler.7415

[Xenesis.6389]

8 minutes ago, ZeroTheRuler.7415 said:

Sure, there will be powerful alliances, however I don't expect it to be a clone of the current server system is setup (mag being one alliance). After all there probably are a large portion of pugs in Mag. I do not like 25+ boon blobs either and not many players who are introduced to WvW do either, however they will exist regardless. Honestly, I think the Blue/Green/EBG maps should be modernized a little bit, but that's a different conversation.

Oh but it will be a clone, there are plenty of guilds that run as alliances already, for years now, and all the alliance system will do is allow even more guilds to freely join together, especially if they also manage to improve rewards, giving everyone more reason to stack again to win. I doubt we'll have just one alliance per world, I wouldn't underestimate magswag alliance not bring their usual effectiveness in ebg, while another alliance (like their current link servers) can patrol the borderlands.

[kash.9213]

42 minutes ago, ZeroTheRuler.7415 said:

Yeah, but I was thinking forward to the possible future based off of what was communicated. The alliances system allows for barriers to be taken down while adding a better semblance of balance if it is well maintained. Who knows, maybe it will lead to specialized guilds that are in alliances that could possibly reshape the overall meta. Moreover if a better carrot is added (rewards) perhaps the carrot and stick method will make more PvE players try WvW out which could result in higher population overall. If casual players are matched with casual players then perhaps they will enjoy things better. I am a little sweaty at times, but I will most likely stay with my guild that is mainly a PvE one (so casual WvW). If that isn't satisfying then I will try to convince my guild in joining a good alliance.

Sure, there will be powerful alliances, however I don't expect it to be a clone of the current server system is setup (mag being one alliance). After all there probably are a large portion of pugs in Mag. I do not like 25+ boon blobs either and not many players who are introduced to WvW do either, however they will exist regardless. Honestly, I think the Blue/Green/EBG maps should be modernized a little bit, but that's a different conversation.

Whatever structure they land on, it's still the same guilds and blobs and it's still the World vs World mode. It will be lit for a month or a few months but the limitations of the mode itself and its maps are going to boil it down to a hopeful prolonged fight on a lane between SMC and one of the keeps during your login or prime time. 

There's no lived-in aspect to the mode or maps and no social or explorative downtime, so it all really does come down to getting into at least one good semi perpetual fight per a day even at the cost of points because that's as close as WvW will get to open world or the rest of the game. I can't fault those blobs for taking advantage of numbers and player login times because that's all there is to do in WvW and we all have to beat the clock or we lose stuff, so we have to deal with them. Plus, we all want fights but given that attacking and defending near paper structures is all there is to do, the only real specialization without an open world aspect is creating the best buffer for the core of your squad, and so a boon blob is born. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by kash.9213

[TheGrimm.5624]

23 hours ago, ZeroTheRuler.7415 said:

Yeah, but I was thinking forward to the possible future based off of what was communicated. The alliances system allows for barriers to be taken down while adding a better semblance of balance if it is well maintained. Who knows, maybe it will lead to specialized guilds that are in alliances that could possibly reshape the overall meta. Moreover if a better carrot is added (rewards) perhaps the carrot and stick method will make more PvE players try WvW out which could result in higher population overall. If casual players are matched with casual players then perhaps they will enjoy things better. I will most likely stay with my guild that is mainly a PvE one (so casual WvW). If that isn't satisfying then I will try to convince my guild in joining a good alliance.

 

I am expecting that the 1up1down system will mean that the first 4 weeks of each new world restructure will mean imbalanced game play as the calculations used to sort the new worlds will require more work and mismatchs will occur until the groups are sorted into the right tiers. I also expect the groups that self organize the best will be in the top tiers and those that leave themselves to be auto shuffled will be in the lower tiers. Now note I am not saying the largest sized Alliances will be in the top, that is different. A group can be large but not be efficient which is why we need both PPK and PPT. But groups that make sure they do handle coverage versus hope for the lucky draw will probably do better even if they don't dominate a particular time zone. But if people do stack one time zone, that's all on them if they still end up losing because they didn't have space or coverage for other ones. 

As far as casual, I would still recommend being out there looking for like minded groups or people you have fun with. Been doing the betas using the 'leaf on the wind' method and yeah some of the mixes have been rather bad. Doesn't mean you need to get fit into a group to meet the full 500 but finding other groups that you can get a long with might go a ways, and as a plus if you are a PvXer you might find others for other in game activities to game with be that raids or Fractals as an example.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

23 hours ago, kash.9213 said:

Whatever structure they land on, it's still the same guilds and blobs and it's still the World vs World mode. It will be lit for a month or a few months but the limitations of the mode itself and its maps are going to boil it down to a hopeful prolonged fight on a lane between SMC and one of the keeps during your login or prime time. 

 

Until they factor both play time and time zone into the equation this is where world size will be interesting to watch play out. Do we end up with less or more tiers when trying to find the balance in people playing and queue sizes. Hence one of reasons I natter on about getting a fifth map out there before we get to the WR launch.

[Mabi black.1824]

On 1/5/2023 at 11:13 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

My point is that these changes in population balance is probably far more widespread than we really know.  To narrow it down and blame it on multi-account users seems to be a focus on the wrong problem.

Because it is not a wrong problem, but it is a real problem, it is a fragile point of the alliance system, as they also explained to you with an example.

We are not talking about some players who can vary their personal flow for the most different reasons, labor, family, vacation, migraine etc etc. We are talking about organized groups, 200 players who prepare 2 or 3 accounts with the aim of sabotaging the games that Anet builds.

And this is indeed a problem, because it also affects all other honest players. We might as well talk about it and reason if we can get some sort of control of all these alts. so as to avoid the problem. Pretending it doesn't exist gets you nowhere.

[Cyninja.2954]

43 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Because it is not a wrong problem, but it is a real problem, it is a fragile point of the alliance system, as they also explained to you with an example.

We are not talking about some players who can vary their personal flow for the most different reasons, labor, family, vacation, migraine etc etc. We are talking about organized groups, 200 players who prepare 2 or 3 accounts with the aim of sabotaging the games that Anet builds.

And this is indeed a problem, because it also affects all other honest players. We might as well talk about it and reason if we can get some sort of control of all these alts. so as to avoid the problem. Pretending it doesn't exist gets you nowhere.

It is a minor problem which already exists within the current system and is far more of an issue now, than with the expected alliance system.

Currently, players with alt accounts face no penalties/downside for switching between accounts. They play 1 account (or multiple, it matters not for the assumption here) and accumulate a lot of play time on that account, thus promoting the servers they are on to appear more active.

Once re-links happen, they swap to an alt account, based around where they believe they will get better fights/content. The main account, which accumulated a ton of play time in the previous match-up now is dormant and any balance around those active hours goes out the window.

If you pair this with the amount of players changing servers after re-links, you get the huge compounding population issues we see now.

With guild/alliances this is not replicated in the same way. For one: any active guild/alliance interested in high activity players will remove players who become inactive regularly (and likely disallow alt accounts to begin with), which means players with alt accounts behaving in the aforementioned way will have a harder being part of an alliance they want to be with (again if the alliance is serious about getting the best amount of players they can, this will obviously be less strict in less serious alliances). Thus losing control over where they are playing primarily except if randomly matched.

Yes, technically if a player has enough alt accounts, he increases his chance to be on a world he wants to be on, aka one that is more to his liking in play style (while still relying on rng here and not being able to directly influence where he is, unlike the current server system where the only limiting factor is a server being "full"). It would require a significant larger amount of alt accounts compared to now. While still as a player accumulates time on any of his account, those accounts will get treated differently in matchmaking instead of the entire server they are on.

TL;DR:

Yes, alt accounts are an issue with the alliance system. They are also a far smaller issue within that system versus what we have now.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

30 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

TL;DR:

Yes, alt accounts are an issue with the alliance system. They are also a far smaller issue within that system versus what we have now.

That's a good thing.

Is there a logic that Anet could follow to monitor and manage players with multiple accounts?

[Cyninja.2954]

39 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's a good thing.

Is there a logic that Anet could follow to monitor and manage players with multiple accounts?

 

It depends on what and if they see this as an issue. My guess is, and this is pure speculation on my part:

1. they want to get alliances into a working state first and foremost

2. once/if alliance release and have been fixed into a state where they "work", improve on the system and see where there are loopholes, issues, etc. We know for example that some things are targeted for after the alliance release like reward structures, design, etc.

3. depending on where the game/mode/studio is at once alliances release, new priorities might be set

4. alt accounts might not actually be a primary concern, or they might be a huge concern given some of the players using alt accounts are among the most active (not judging here though I don't have WvW alt accounts myself)

 

In short:

the system would have to release first before any actual judgements and balance ideas can be made. It might be that alt accounts become a non issue within the new system. For example: if we do eventually get time zone based matchmaking (very doubtful in the near future), it be in a players interest to actually no play alt accounts to much, as to be matched with actual active time zones.