Wasted resources on Alliances that we'll never see. (Updated)

[Chaba.5410]

5 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

That's the point. BLP's suggestion is really interesting. Let's try it. We reduce by 50% the limit of all servers (including BB) we get twice as many current servers. We give Anet the ability to build teams with 4 smaller pieces. This inevitably leads us into a better condition in terms of more similar flows. Communities are already ready for this. We have already seen during betas that people have created community guilds.

able to group the largest number of players who want to be together (500). It really would be something to organize and try, in the general interest of this modality. However you want to put it would be a nice step forward. If only Anet wants to give us some transfer updates that would be perfect.

Anet, development guys, please, how about scabiare 4 words on this topic? It is an open dialogue, we are doing it in the interests of this modality and in the interests of the work you are carrying out. One hand washes the other. Let's give each other a hand and give us an exchange of ideas with someone in the field. Help us help you.😉

 

I too wonder how you expect us to try it.

Did you also read the old forum posts I linked?  No one really wanted to transfer to smaller servers willingly.  That's certainly still the general mood.  There's plenty of low populated servers now.  Very rarely does anyone transfer to them.

[blp.3489]

14 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Have you read these old threads at all?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds/page/1
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds

I've gotten a start on reading them.

The first conclusion is that that the first thread is honestly a little silly.  Creating some small servers while keeping the big servers unchanged, especially when there are already small servers available, isn't going to accomplish anything other than making it a little easier for anet to create more even matches, and even then only if there are players willing to move there that weren't willing to move to one of the existing small servers.  In order to deal with server stacking you need to "destack" the stacked servers, i.e. split them up.  WR is one way to do that.   Smaller max sizes is another.

The second conclusion is that there are clearly different parties in the community that have different interests, any solution you propose is going to be at the expense of the interests of some parties and they are likely to be vocal in denouncing it.  I highly doubt that there is any solution that won't get resistance.  Beyond even individual and group interests there are people who fear or just don't want change.

The third conclusion is that the time zone issue is a BIG issue.  It struck me that there might be a simple partial solution: divide scoring into a few time zone clusters.  Most players and servers have times of day, sometimes depending on the day of the week, when their player base is active.  Trying to develop 24/7 coverage is difficult to impossible, especially given that time depends on geographic location, which can affect things like latency, and it's not something we should really ask players to put effort into.

Instead of trying to be all things to all people, which is almost certainly impossible, accept the reality that a preponderance of people on, for example, the NA servers, want to play during NA prime time.  That's basically the definition of prime time.  So why not create a scoring system that takes that into account?  Even if you keep the current 24/7 scores add a new score that only depends on scores during NA prime time.  Not only do you create a new competition segment, and at least partially address the current issue of discontent about everything you worked for being lost during off hours, but you gather data on time of day coverage which can be useful during the matching process.

The ideal for a player is matchups where the number of players on each side is just below map capacity when the player is playing so that there are always lots of enemies to fight but you don't have to sit in queues, and that is what the matching algorithms should be designed around.

Presuming that NA prime time is a valid concept, i.e. that there are more NA players playing during NA prime time than during off hours, a system that has enough room for players during prime time is going to have a sparse population during the off hours, that's just an unescapable reality that shouldn't be ignored or papered over.  During a non prime time period that has half the number of players as during prime time the ideal would be to have half as many maps active.  The state of having half the maps just below full and half the maps completely empty is actually the ideal in that case.

If you want to move toward that goal the obvious path is to specialize servers toward playing in specific time slots.  If you want servers to specialize in specific time slots you should have a scoring system that rewards specializing.  Servers that specialize in prime time shouldn't care much what happens outside of prime time, servers that specialize in off hours shouldn't care much what happens during prime time.  If you sign up on a prime time specialist server you should expect dead maps if you sign on outside of prime time.  For people that play at varied times you want to join a non-specialist server.

If we all want to be happier we have to move toward a system that is less blind to time of day.  There will of course be trade offs and there will be people who won't like it, that's the cost of the greater good.😉😉😉 😁

[Chaba.5410]

8 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

In order to deal with server stacking you need to "destack" the stacked servers, i.e. split them up.  WR is one way to do that.   Smaller max sizes is another.

Ok, reduce all current servers to 500 players.  Now what?  How do you get them to move?   I asked in an earlier post: "How do players get redistributed? "

Anet does exactly this (keep it marked as Full and wait for players to transfer off on their own) and it's been 5-6 years and some of those same servers still are mostly Full.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

I don't care if they put them in or not, I just don't think they will do it based on the fact of server community will suffer, but I have to admit, I haven't seen all that much of server community in a long time. But, there will be some that will not accept the current iteration of alliances based off the beta we have experienced and from what I have heard from players while playing it. 

Here is an example of what I'm referring to. Let's just say there is a server that has a certain way of playing like Mag for example, and they have kind of trained everyone to sort of play the same way on the server and you can count on that kind of reliability from that particular server, you know what to expect when you play for Mag or against Mag. You absolutely destroy that when bring in alliances because a large part of those alliances will not run same builds or use the same tactics, and this goes for every server that kind of has their own way about them. Now, on one side of the coin, that is great, especially if you have a dead server that just doesn't know what they are doing, then great, win win on the alliances, but if you are one of the servers that has their own way, then not so good. I think for a lot of elitest guilds it doesn't matter because they just think about the fights and pick and choose those, but for the other 75% of the population <----Just a guess) it kind of matters where you are because there is a sense of comfort within the community as well as established social communications. So, I do think it will have a negative impact down the road, but this is just my opinion, and you know what they say about those 🙂

On the other hand, servers tend to be at an all-time low right now, so, maybe it's time to roll the dice and bring them on 🙂

[Chaba.5410]

10 minutes ago, blp.3489 said:

accept the reality that a preponderance of people on, for example, the NA servers, want to play during NA prime time.  That's basically the definition of prime time.  So why not create a scoring system that takes that into account?

A change that was never added.  Scoring just deals though with how matches are determined and not necessarily does much for player content.

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring

Potential (controversial) additional change:

• While the above change takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line, there’s a good chance it’ll still be overvalued. If that’s the case (and we’ll eventually poll on this), then we have plans for an additional system.
• This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
  • This system would multiply the Victory Points awarded by Skirmishes based on map populations and time of day.
  • During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.
  • During off hours, the multiplier might stay at 3 or drop to 2 or 1, depending on on activity level.
  • It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW

[blp.3489]

12 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Ok, reduce all current servers to 500 players.  Now what?  How do you get them to move?   I asked in an earlier post: "How do players get redistributed? "

As I have said a few times, use brute force, create two new servers and at worst randomly assign each player on the stacked server to one of the two new servers, then delete the server that was stacked.  If you are feeling kind, use a splitting algorithm that keeps guild members together and perhaps take into account whether the player has been on the server for a long time or joined in the last bandwagon migration.  Will some of the players scream bloody murder?  Of course.  Some sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. 🤯

Edit: and as I have said before, allow the players who have been separated from their loved ones arrange with said loved ones to mutually transfer to a server, not necessarily one of the two newly created servers, that has enough room for all their loved ones.

Edited March 21, 2023 by blp.3489

[Chaba.5410]

5 minutes ago, Crazy.6029 said:

I think for a lot of elitest guilds it doesn't matter because they just think about the fights and pick and choose those, but for the other 75% of the population <----Just a guess) it kind of matters where you are because there is a sense of comfort within the community as well as established social communications.

The day will come when [MAG] will be known as an elitist guild and you're not in it.  Using Maguuma is kind of a bad example.  The players who created that playstyle and established Mag's current reputation aren't going to just let anyone in their guild/alliance like the current server system that allows just anyone to transfer in.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

1 minute ago, blp.3489 said:

If you are feeling kind, use a splitting algorithm that keeps guild members together and perhaps take into account whether the player has been on the server for a long time or joined in the last bandwagon migration.

A splitting algorithm, eh?  Now it's more development time to implement?  What kind of articles do you think the game media is going to write about brute force?

[blp.3489]

3 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What kind of articles do you think the game media is going to write about brute force?

That probably depends on how often Anet places ads in their particular publication 🤑 

If the majority of players are supportive the majority of game media writers will probably also be okay with it.  I don't read game media so I'm probably not the best person to ask.

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

35 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

The day will come when [MAG] will be known as an elitist guild and you're not in it.  Using Maguuma is kind of a bad example.  The players who created that playstyle and established Mag's current reputation aren't going to just let anyone in their guild/alliance like the current server system that allows just anyone to transfer in.

I was referring to Mag the server, not MAG the guild. I don't give 2 squirts about MAG the guild and is completely off my point. Using Mag as an example is the perfect way to describe how a particular server community has come up with its own way of fight and social community and your response just proves my point of the importance of community by your own words. Thank you, not sure if it was intentional though. lol

[Chaba.5410]

3 hours ago, Crazy.6029 said:

I was referring to Mag the server, not MAG the guild. I don't give 2 squirts about MAG the guild and is completely off my point. Using Mag as an example is the perfect way to describe how a particular server community has come up with its own way of fight and social community and your response just proves my point of the importance of community by your own words. Thank you, not sure if it was intentional though. lol

It's not off your point because MAG consists of a lot of the core players who created the server's reputation.  Remove them and the server community of Maguuma is relatively nothing, just another server like any other.  You think they wanted a bunch of bandwagoners transferring in to leech off them and claim that reputation they didn't make?  Why do you think they also have a reputation of being toxic in chat towards those players?

Edited March 21, 2023 by Chaba.5410

[subversiontwo.7501]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It's not off your point because MAG consists of a lot of the core players who created the server's reputation.

Out of interest, for us in EU who are not keeping up, what would you say the background of those players are?

Even in EU I'd say we tend to see ongoing trends as playing like Mag, but would you say that those trends has had the same kind of development in the two different regions? Here we (or at least I) tend to see them as the results of waiting for the changes and giving up attempts of trying to do something more constructive in the face of ArenaNet's lack of urgency. Much of what makes what those servers do at the moment depends a fair bit on who is there. To put it in very general (or vague) terms 😋. At first it was just a logical way of playing the maps, but now its becoming less of a strategy and more of an overall content thing.

It is a stage of a longer process here, and is perhaps the result of doing less rather than doing more to drive a change (or how to put it). I've just assumed it's something similar in NA, but is it really? I wish it could phrase it in a more direct way, but I'm tired and european, so bare with me.

Edited March 21, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

I too wonder how you expect us to try it.

Did you also read the old forum posts I linked?  No one really wanted to transfer to smaller servers willingly.  That's certainly still the general mood.  There's plenty of low populated servers now.  Very rarely does anyone transfer to them.

I believe that the general mood has changed quite a bit. Moreover, this possible proposal does not provide for some to move. We are considering redoing all the servers. reduce their capacity by 50% so we get twice as many current servers. They will all be randomly reassigned. And if we use the mechanics that reassigned us during all the 5 or 6 betas that we have already faced , we give the guilds a chance to stay together. Of course we know that the reallocation system It has some problems, in fact we have seen that someone ends up in the wrong place. But as I have already written the transfers will still exist. It is essential that they are reworked and brought under control, but they will still exist. If you ended up in the wrong place, with a little patience you will reach your usual friends with a transfer.

[Mabi black.1824]

19 hours ago, Crazy.6029 said:

I don't care if they put them in or not, I just don't think they will do it based on the fact of server community will suffer, but I have to admit, I haven't seen all that much of server community in a long time. But, there will be some that will not accept the current iteration of alliances based off the beta we have experienced and from what I have heard from players while playing it. 

Can we try to make a reasoning together in reference to what you wrote? So alliances and WR plans to delete all servers, also plans to make the server meaningless, both at the community level and at a competitive level, precisely because every 8 weeks you will do those same servers all over again.

Perhaps it is better to seriously consider the proposal made here by our friend BLP. At least it allows you to maintain this mode on a server-based basis. smaller and more numerous of course. but still servers. Small guilds or large guilds will still be together you don't have to separate them to get it. Community and players will suffer less. And they will still have the right environment to rebuild communities. Come to think of it, it would be an obligatory step to take.

So we see how the system reacts and how players react, rather than jumping directly to the alliances we have imagined so far. because it would certainly be a more invasive and more drastic change. Or not.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

19 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

A change that was never added.  Scoring just deals though with how matches are determined and not necessarily does much for player content.

I thank you for recalling this communication of Anet, I did not know it and it is very interesting. Of course it shows how much Anet is aware of everything. The only thing missing is the will to act, I would say. I have also already written it somewhere, I do not understand why to be afraid to change so many small things, while not to be afraid to make the revolution of this mode. I can't understand.

[Ya Ya Yeah.7381]

Quote

It's not off your point because MAG consists of a lot of the core players who created the server's reputation.  Remove them and the server community of Maguuma is relatively nothing, just another server like any other.  You think they wanted a bunch of bandwagoners transferring in to leech off them and claim that reputation they didn't make?  Why do you think they also have a reputation of being toxic in chat towards those players?

Edited 15 hours ago by Chaba.5410

Ok dude, good luck with your problems.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Crazy.6029 said:

Ok dude, good luck with your problems.

What an absurd response, totally devoid of an understanding that communities reflect those that create them. Remove the people who made that up and the community changes.

[Chaba.5410]

16 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Out of interest, for us in EU who are not keeping up, what would you say the background of those players are?

Even in EU I'd say we tend to see ongoing trends as playing like Mag, but would you say that those trends has had the same kind of development in the two different regions? Here we (or at least I) tend to see them as the results of waiting for the changes and giving up attempts of trying to do something more constructive in the face of ArenaNet's lack of urgency. Much of what makes what those servers do at the moment depends a fair bit on who is there. To put it in very general (or vague) terms 😋. At first it was just a logical way of playing the maps, but now its becoming less of a strategy and more of an overall content thing.

It is a stage of a longer process here, and is perhaps the result of doing less rather than doing more to drive a change (or how to put it). I've just assumed it's something similar in NA, but is it really? I wish it could phrase it in a more direct way, but I'm tired and european, so bare with me.

Tried to respond earlier but the forum had technical difficulties.

Maguuma has had a reputation as an anti-blob server since the first year of the game. Their playstyle wasn't some response to anything Anet did or didn't do. It was just the server where guilds like Starfleet Dental went to; players that had certain mindset towards PvP. Like early on, they used to be badly outnumbered, but didn't let that stop them like so many do today. Instead they would siege up north camp on Alpine and farm opponents there.  Players with a similar mindset transferred there over the years.

Most guilds avoid EBG just because fighting that cloud is boring, feels like trench warfare, with little incentive to do it. That's been happening for years now. It's just recently noticeable because as the years go by, the reputation has taken on it's own life. People see Maguuma and have a little freak out now instead of realizing the best ways to counter.

[Kassablanca.5821]

1, bring back the orbs

2, wvw rank abilities

3. leader board

4. rewards ( current rewards are useless for ppl with all 3 sets already)

5 queue bug

[jul.7602]

Seems like I was right.