Would you like a WvW Home team Big reset?

[SoulGuardian.6203]

For those who play mostly WvW, know what I'm refering to in terms of some home teams being full, against teams that are under populated. 

However, one factor we need to take into consideration is that, just because a "Home" is full, does not necessarily mean that the potential number of WvW active players equals the same amount.

For instance, Aurora Glade may have a High population, but the number of WvW players might be just a fraction of it; or a certain percentage. 

 

It is fact that some weeks we might face teams in WvW which are able to gather full squads at any given time, versus others, which can only do this at certain times during the day; giving the other team always the possibility for content, whereas low population teams can only sit back and watch in desperation.

 

The worse is when certain teams, enjoy making a mockery out of the other teams and will sit there in your keep and your towers, and will not let you recapture them, making the few players quit WvW.

 

If Arena Net ever considers making a home team big reset, in which every single players gets transfered to a random home;

and apart from guilds, could and/or should change players around in order to make the teams balanced and in equal numbers?

A One of "big reset", in which every single player gets transferred to a random "Home"  in order to balance population. 

In case you have a guild or are in one, A Net would try keep you all in the same home team... or not.

 

Please further comment on this.

Edited April 14, 2023 by SoulGuardian.6203

[Ashen.2907]

The population level listed for a server, such as Aurora Glade's High listing, refers specifically to WvW players. Players who do not participate in WvW do not count when calculating a server's population. 

[Sandzibar.5134]

Stuck head into a wvw map for 10secs.. then ran away never to return again = 100% participation for that user account?

 

Is that how the calculation works?

 

Sure seems like it if the deso population is any indication.

 

[MarzAttakz.9608]

Their population calculations are messed up and need to be rethought and reset. The link system in EU especially is messed up and needs to be reworked. The transfer system is messed up and needs to be reworked. The rewards system is messed up and needs to be reworked.

What actually works properly today?

Most systems are in various states of borkedness with very little will from the developer to fix them. Quick to nerf, slow to fix, snail pace to balance.

Alliances are a meme at this point.

I'm sorry for being so negative but that's what ten years of WvW treatment does to a person.

[Dayra.7405]

28 minutes ago, Sandzibar.5134 said:

Stuck head into a wvw map for 10secs.. then ran away never to return again = 100% participation for that user account?

No 0%, the total sum of the accs wvw-playtime within the averaging period (my guess: ~4weeks) is what is counting towards population of a world

Edited April 13, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Dayra.7405]

The only thing we need till alliances is a restriction of transfers to the 2 weeks before relink, it doesn't really make sense to balance teams with relinks, just to let players destroy it directly afterwards by transfers..

Or probably doing more or less the same: No rewards in WvW (no pips, no rewrds track, no drops, no event rewards) after a transfer till the end of the link period.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[Mabi black.1824]

It all depends on the ''time'' factor '' in the last communication we were told that perhaps they will be able to launch a beta of the Alliance by the end of the year, if I am not mistaken. It would be nice to have a rough indication of when you might think you have the ''finished product'' we are still talking about 1 year or talking about a few years? If it's the second one I said, then are we all sure how healthy it is for the mode Leave everything frozen in the current state?

Just so tired of seeing the balance between servers so compromised and never any initiative taken into consideration.🥱

Edited April 13, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dayra.7405 said:

The only thing we need till alliances is a restriction of transfers to the 2 weeks before relink,

This is also why it depends on the roadmap to get the new mechanics , if it were around the corner, absurdly , they would have to do the exact opposite. Make all transfers free, so you can get groups of players to organize themselves better, get to know other groups, and so on. We are already in chaos, we enter total chaos. And let's see how it ends.

[Dayra.7405]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

they would have to do the exact opposite. Make all transfers free

I don't see the opposite. They could be restricted to the last week of a linking and free  (or there is relink every week or there are some weeks of continous alliance beta with relink every week). But any (free or paid) transfers at the beginning of a longer link period are bad.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Dayra.7405

[joneirikb.7506]

Quote

For instance, Aurora Glade may have a High population, but the number of WvW players might be just a fraction of it; or a certain percentage. 
 

Server population = the number of total hours player from a server spend in WvW only. This was changes many many years ago.
 

Quote

Before the July 28, 2015 update, a world population was determined by the population levels from across all game modes. Currently, only the WvW population determines the world population.
 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#Trivia
 

Quote

It is fact that some weeks we might face teams in WvW which are able to gather full squads at any given time, versus AG, which can only do this at certain times during the day; giving the other team always the possibility for content, whereas low population teams can only sit back and watch in desperation.
 

This is basically entirely normal. This is a 24/7 system, which has a lot of problems like these. WvW will never be able to work like a PVP match, where you wait to fill up before starting the match in order to make it "fair". 

Even if you completely destroyed all existing servers, and mashed players together entirely random every friday night, this would happen, all the time during the week. Because the mode is trying to work with a very huge number of players over a 24/7 framework. Where each player can and will play as long as they want/can.

Which leads us back to the same three main problems WvW has had since the very start: Population, Timezone Coverage, and Fairweathers. And just reserting servers/teams won't fix those. It would make it seem/feel fresh/random for a few days, and then the same patterns develops.
 

Quote

The worse is when certain teams, enjoy making a mockery out of the other teams and will sit there in your keep and your towers, and will not let you recapture them, making the few players quit WvW.
 

Which leads to this, which largely happens when one side starts dominating, causing fair-weathers on the other side to flee because they no longer have fun/enjoy the content. Thus leading the winning team to try to find ways to make "content". Often by trying to provoke/taunt/bait the losing side to action. 

(Naturally, there exist a few pure trolling guilds as well.)

In the long term, the best way to combat this is for ANet to insert more reasons/motivations to actually have server 2+3 gang up on the server 1 (leading). There's many ways this could be done, but a couple of quick examples would be to increase the points you get from fighting against the top server, and also increase the rewards/participation you get from fighting them. 

In the short term, your best strategy, as always in WvW, is to make the enemy lose motivation/get bored. Ignore them, go to other maps, run around and take camps or towers they aren't defending, and run away before they catch up to you. They'll get frustrated and bored and leave. It's the most effective way to reduce enemy numbers, unfortunately, as it's also just as bad for the game as spawn-camping etc.
 

Quote

If Arena Net ever considers making a team reset, and apart from guilds, could and/or should change players around in order to make the teams balanced and in equal numbers?
 

Essentially, this is what World Restructure/Alliances is trying to do. The primary goal is to make Population as close to even as they can manage, and stop the Transfer/Stacking problems we've had for 10 years.

And as ANet themselves have said, this won't fix everything. They specifically said that WR/A won't solve Time-zone Coverage, but that it is something they hoped to look into later on when they had the system in place (Translation, they might be able to slightly tweak it, but not by much).

And unfortunately, there's absolutely nothing they can do about Fair-Weather effect. They simply can't force players to play the game/mode when they're bored/don't like it.

---

I personally still think the WR/A system is worthwhile to implement, it's still an overall improvement to the 3 main problems with WvW. But also because it's long term dynamic implications, as the populations of the games grows or decreases the WR/A system will self adjust the number of worlds to the number of players. Thus we won't end up with say 5 server per link in 3-5 years time (And just imagine that with half the players trying to stack onto a single server).

Despite how long it's taken them to get to even this point with it, it would just take even longer for them to ditch the project and start from scratch on another plan at this point.
 

[subversiontwo.7501]

Beyond the good stuff that Joneirik already brought up: How there is little point in replacing Alliances with Alliances-light, or how the issue with Alliances is not to buy-into the whole big-complex issue charade and rather observe that the developer is refusing to put sufficient resources onto the project. After all, whole RvR games have been built by 25 devs in 18 months and Anet themselves are on record saying that building WvW from the ground up took 36 months, likely with far less devs than 25.

There are a couple of other fundamental things to point out: I don't want to shoot down the topic as a whole, I think it is good that people care about the topic and bring these things up. However, when making polls and things like this it is important to figure the demography out and look at what is negotiable and what's not. What type of content do players posting here want - and - what type of content do they represent or produce? WvW is all of its typical subcontent all at once. That is what WvW is, what it always has been and what the developer envisions going forward. That means WvW is: 1) both offensive- and defensive clouds and open pickups, 2) closed raids of all kinds, 3) roaming of many different kinds, 4) duels and GvG's of differeent kinds (including skirmishes). That isn't really negotiable but will at the same time affect your polling. How many people here care about that sum or has experience with it? How many people who do, are here?

Edited April 14, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[Johje Holan.4607]

I wish I could put a Thanks on joneirikb's whole post 1000 times.  I really hope someone from Anet with some power reads this and takes heed because its spot on.  I will quote this one section though:

5 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

In the long term, the best way to combat this is for ANet to insert more reasons/motivations to actually have server 2+3 gang up on the server 1 (leading). There's many ways this could be done, but a couple of quick examples would be to increase the points you get from fighting against the top server, and also increase the rewards/participation you get from fighting them. 

This should have happened a long time ago.  I would really really like to know why Anet never tried this.  They acknowledge that this is the design intent of 3 way nature of WvW but refuse to encourage it in any way. 

The second best thing they could to is to use game mechanics such as supply to help mitigate the natural population imbalance that occurs.  Its way too easy to drive deep into enemy territory and take their stuff and hold it.  The further you go into enemy territory the harder it should be.  It should be extremely hard to capture and hold an enemy home keep for example; and easy for them to take it back if it is taken.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Johje Holan.4607

[kash.9213]

26 minutes ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:

I wish I could put a Thanks on joneirikb's whole post 1000 times.  I really hope someone from Anet with some power reads this and takes heed because its spot on.  I will quote this one section though:

This should have happened a long time ago.  I would really really like to know why Anet never tried this.  They acknowledge that this is the design intent of 3 way nature of WvW but refuse to encourage it in any way. 

The second best thing they could to is to use game mechanics such as supply to help mitigate the natural population imbalance that occurs.  Its way too easy to drive deep into enemy territory and take their stuff and hold it.  The further you go into enemy territory the harder it should be.  It should be extremely hard to capture and hold an enemy home keep for example; and easy for them to take it back if it is taken.

WvW isn't 24/7. It's broken into a lot of time constraints throughout the day and match. It's not an open world mode. It actually does work like a large pvp match. 

 

4 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

observe that the developer is refusing to put sufficient resources onto the project.

There's ur problem. 

[Omega.6801]

A reset would fix nothing but the names. The large WvW guilds will still be dominating, no matter hat server they're on. Also a reset while ANet is working an alliances doesn't make much sense.

[Demonas.1083]

11 hours ago, Dayra.7405 said:

The only thing we need till alliances is a restriction of transfers to the 2 weeks before relink, it doesn't really make sense to balance teams with relinks, just to let players destroy it directly afterwards by transfers..

Or probably doing more or less the same: No rewards in WvW (no pips, no rewrds track, no drops, no event rewards) after a transfer till the end of the link period.

In EU,  transfers happen after relink tho. If anet pairs 2 servers that create que in all borders , that's when people leave , cause they wanna play the game not sit in T1 T2 20+ ques...

[Mabi black.1824]

6 hours ago, Demonas.1083 said:

In EU,  transfers happen after relink tho. If anet pairs 2 servers that create que in all borders , that's when people leave , cause they wanna play the game not sit in T1 T2 20+ ques...

They wanna  play the game, yes, but with twice as many players.

Look at the game I'm playing right now. weekend flow. 49000k+d vs 72000k+d

Are we giving similar opportunities to players on those teams? Are they playing PvP or are we playing a lot against a few?

Yes, better not to look at these numbers, because they will bother you, continue to pretend nothing. and tell us stories, which players transfer to fill empty servers.

Besides the damage also the mockery, because in EU we have this fantastic thing that you can stay without a link. So before the 8-week season even begins, you already know what your place should be. And woe betide you if you try to get busy, because then you will be punished for the next period of 8 weeks.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[eXruina.4956]

isn't what you are proposing the same as the system we currently have?

 

to my understanding alliances would do away with these problems. 🤔

[SoulGuardian.6203]

2 hours ago, eXruina.4956 said:

isn't what you are proposing the same as the system we currently have?

 

to my understanding alliances would do away with these problems. 🤔

Nope.

But maybe I should have explained better.

What I meant is a one of big reset, in which every single player gets transferred to a random "Home"  in order to balance population. 

In case you have a guild or are in one, A Net would try keep you all in the same home team... or not.

I'll add this to O.P.

---//---

Thanks @joneirikb.7506

For that reply.

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by SoulGuardian.6203

[Cuks.8241]

I doubt this would change much. Many guilds often transfer to avoid T1 or dead servers or just to fight/link up with specific other guild. Situation would shuffle quite soon. 

[Solvar.7953]

I can't see a massive reset/transfer of all players doing anything other than making a lot of players upset.

- Any player that paid to transfer to be with their friends will want that refunded if they are no longer with their friends

- Grouping by guilds may sound good, but what about players that are in multiple guilds?  maybe they only active WvW with one, but if they haven't chose that as the guild they use to WvW, how do these players end up in the world

- How long until through various transfers, things are out of whack again?

 

[Cyninja.2954]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:54 AM, SoulGuardian.6203 said:

Nope.

But maybe I should have explained better.

What I meant is a one of big reset, in which every single player gets transferred to a random "Home"  in order to balance population. 

In case you have a guild or are in one, A Net would try keep you all in the same home team... or not.

I'll add this to O.P.

---//---

Thanks @joneirikb.7506

For that reply.

 

 

Pointless if server transfers continue to exist because 1 minute after your "big reset", players would simply transfer again as they do each relink.

Even worse if they do not since now you've potentially fractured the player base without giving players the ability to affect their server/team.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Cyninja.2954