Arenanet you must do something more to ensure proper server matchups

[Dawdler.8521]

31 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Let's try to think this way. The players allowed on a map can be a maximum of 70 (I think). Let's say that when Anet detects a disparity in flow that is no longer tolerable (30-40% ? it's to be defined) it applies a reduction of players allowed on the maps of 10-15% (also to be defined) to everyone.

So if all three servers have a full 70 vs 70 vs 70 fight for a while and suddenly one side border hop, are you gonna kick the others from WvW?

And how would 15% matter in that case, one side will still be heavily outnumbered by 50+ on both enemy sides. 

What if the enemy sides are like 30vs60vs5 are you gonna kick 15% of the 30 too?

TL;DR it would need so many checks, balances and rules it’s sometimes easier to just keep it open…

[Mabi black.1824]

5 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

So if all three servers have a full 70 vs 70 vs 70 fight for a while and suddenly one side border hop, are you gonna kick the others from WvW?

And how would 15% matter in that case, one side will still be heavily outnumbered by 50+ on both enemy sides. 

What if the enemy sides are like 30vs60vs5 are you gonna kick 15% of the 30 too?

TL;DR it would need so many checks, balances and rules it’s sometimes easier to just keep it open…

Let's not complicate things that aren't. When the disparity in flow (number of players and hours of play that Anet has declared to have under control) goes beyond a certain limit that is no longer tolerable, apply the reduction of players on the map. to all 3 teams and on all 4 maps.

With this we don't solve everyone as if by magic. If there are big differences in numbers, we will continue to have differences and balance problems in that match. But we're definitely also stimulating the player and redistributing. If you don't want to spend all your evenings queuing, rather than playing WVW.

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Let's not complicate things that aren't. When the disparity in flow (number of players and hours of play that Anet has declared to have under control) goes beyond a certain limit that is no longer tolerable, apply the reduction of players on the map. to all 3 teams and on all 4 maps.

That’s even worse if you want to mix in play hours. 

I am not complicating things - you are vastly over simplifying things without thinking on the practical implementation. 

The simple fact is that limit is already there. It is the current map cap. A guild can have 500 people wanting to get in EBG - they only fit 70 and then it’s queue. And it coincidentally apply to all 3 teams on all 4 maps.

No matter how much you lower it, it will always be “intolerable” to someone. Map cap of 5? Well my side only have 2 right now, lower the cap to 3 this is unfair!

Edited December 18, 2023 by Dawdler.8521

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

you are vastly over simplifying things without thinking on the practical implementation. 

Anet checks the T1 batch and finds flow differences of around 20%. Perfect, he doesn't have to do anything. When he checks T2 he notices that there are differences of more than 40%. In this case, it chooses to apply a reduction of x% of the players who can show up on the map. They're just numbers, parameters that you're going to apply. If you make it automatic through a feedback every 60min you're done. I don't deal with codes and programming. but I suppose it's not that complicated to do. except for my declared incompetence.😉

Edited December 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[Arctic.4875]

server problems

WSR - t5 - other servers have no population

WSR - t4 - other servers have no population

WSR - t3 - other servers have no population

WSR - t2 - other servers have no population

pve players don't want to fight against pvp players , this is nothing new. No commander no game. why learn about face / animation/ dodge/........ million other things / cry it's better to stand in a bomb and not move - because that's how pve is played. Because of downstate I left the game a long time ago for many years. this game would have been beautiful without this crap. Think or die, mistakes should be punished.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Arctic.4875

[DarkFlopy.8197]

I know it will make some stuff useless such as traits utilities etc and might require reworks for them but...

I don't think WvW should have the downstate mechanic, change my mind.

No downstate means even smaller numbers can win bigger numbers if playing good enough, as it is right now small number will at most cases get obliterated by the outnumbering side. (Example: WSR current and previous Matchups during the current link)

Edited December 18, 2023 by DarkFlopy.8197

[Dawdler.8521]

12 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Anet checks the T1 batch and finds flow differences of around 20%. Perfect, he doesn't have to do anything. When he checks T2 he notices that there are differences of more than 40%. In this case, it chooses to apply a reduction of x% of the players who can show up on the map. They're just numbers, parameters that you're going to apply. If you make it automatic through a feedback every 60min you're done. I don't deal with codes and programming. but I suppose it's not that complicated to do. except for my declared incompetence.😉

with 60m intervals that means you could end up in a scenario where the outnumbered side can’t compete for a long time if you don’t kick people out of WvW from the non-outnumbered sides - as you said the reduction apply to all sides, including the outnumbered one. So they wouldn’t be able to bring in people in because they hit the cap.

[bq pd.2148]

40 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Anet checks the T1 batch and finds flow differences of around 20%. Perfect, he doesn't have to do anything. When he checks T2 he notices that there are differences of more than 40%. In this case, it chooses to apply a reduction of x% of the players who can show up on the map. They're just numbers, parameters that you're going to apply. If you make it automatic through a feedback every 60min you're done. I don't deal with codes and programming. but I suppose it's not that complicated to do. except for my declared incompetence.😉

how exactly does the adjustment happen?
as dawdler pointed out, if you dont kick people off the map(s) it will be exploited.
if you do however kick people (and how would the game select which) off the map, that would make for some interesting drama to read in armistice bastion when all the unworthy are told to leave more so than with queues.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, bq pd.2148 said:

how exactly does the adjustment happen?
as dawdler pointed out, if you dont kick people off the map(s) it will be exploited.
if you do however kick people (and how would the game select which) off the map, that would make for some interesting drama to read in armistice bastion when all the unworthy are told to leave more so than with queues.

So my suggestion is not to kick anyone. Reduce the limit and that's it. If we consider 15% we are talking about 10 players. I'm sure like all of us you've faced a queue of 15 players. It is normally disposed of in a few minutes. Theoretically, let's say that after 30 minutes all maps will settle at 60 players compared to the previous 70. And those in the queue will stay in the queue even longer.

The aim here is not to fix the terribly unbalanced matches. but to stimulate the redistribution of players. or stay in line all evening.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

with 60m intervals that means you could end up in a scenario where the outnumbered side can’t compete for a long time if you don’t kick people out of WvW from the non-outnumbered sides - as you said the reduction apply to all sides, including the outnumbered one. So they wouldn’t be able to bring in people in because they hit the cap.

When you're playing games with terrible flows, because things have gotten out of control for Anet, you'll find your opponents with 70 players on the map while you have 40 if you're lucky. My suggestion will bring that 70 to 60 while that 40 unfortunately has no hope of growing.

but again. The aim is not to repair a broken game. The goal is to discourage overloaded servers. Because the consequence is to stay in the queue forever.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, DarkFlopy.8197 said:

I know it will make some stuff useless such as traits utilities etc and might require reworks for them but...

I don't think WvW should have the downstate mechanic, change my mind.

No downstate means even smaller numbers can win bigger numbers if playing good enough, as it is right now small number will at most cases get obliterated by the outnumbering side. (Example: WSR current and previous Matchups during the current link)

Of course, they could grant weeks of '' no state  down'' , more often and more frequently, so that communities can give more considerable feedback on what they see.

Think carefully if you want to go out with your glass construction, because it will cost you very dearly.🤭

Edited December 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[bq pd.2148]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

So my suggestion is not to kick anyone. Reduce the limit and that's it. If we consider 15% we are talking about 10 players. I'm sure like all of us you've faced a queue of 15 players. It is normally disposed of in a few minutes. Theoretically, let's say that after 30 minutes all maps will settle at 60 players compared to the previous 70. And those in the queue will stay in the queue even longer.

The aim here is not to fix the terribly unbalanced matches. but to stimulate the redistribution of players. or stay in line all evening.

a queue of 15 is disposed quickly if the groups on the map are jumping borders for example to defend something or if they keep wiping. but if they have content and tend to win, it can take upwards of an hour easily.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

When you're playing games with terrible flows, because things have gotten out of control for Anet, you'll find your opponents with 70 players on the map while you have 40 if you're lucky. My suggestion will bring that 70 to 60 while that 40 unfortunately has no hope of growing.

but again. The aim is not to repair a broken game. The goal is to discourage overloaded servers. Because the consequence is to stay in the queue forever.

But how do you get those 70 to 60?

[XenesisII.1540]

19 hours ago, Ubik.8315 said:

Allowing server transfers AFTER relink is insane. Transfers should be open at the tail end of each "season" (relink). 

Allowing server transfers AFTER posting the link pairs before the reset is insane.

That part should have been kept a secret, and anyone who wants to move after the relink should pay full priced transfer fee(not dead server cheap fee) and suffer the two weeks without skirmish rewards.

But it's too late to correct any of this, and also doesn't matter for some of these issues that will be cleared up with WR anyways.

[Ubik.8315]

5 hours ago, Arctic.4875 said:

server problems

WSR - t5 - other servers have no population

WSR - t4 - other servers have no population

WSR - t3 - other servers have no population

WSR - t2 - other servers have no population

pve players don't want to fight against pvp players , this is nothing new. No commander no game. why learn about face / animation/ dodge/........ million other things / cry it's better to stand in a bomb and not move - because that's how pve is played. Because of downstate I left the game a long time ago for many years. this game would have been beautiful without this crap. Think or die, mistakes should be punished.

Nobody wants to fight WSR because they have 3x the population of any other server with the possible exception of FOW. WSR is the MAG of EU, everyone is gonna log off and let them enjoy their queues.

[TheGrimm.5624]

10 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Let's try to think this way. The players allowed on a map can be a maximum of 70 (I think). Let's say that when Anet detects a disparity in flow that is no longer tolerable (30-40% ? it's to be defined) it applies a reduction of players allowed on the maps of 10-15% (also to be defined) to everyone.

When the flow differences become acceptable again, the original limit of players allowed on a map also returns. What will happen? All the servers suffering from numbers, they won't even notice. All servers overloaded with players will spend hours and hours queuing. So what? So we're spurring player redistribution.

It would be to see Anet take a new active attitude, as opposed to the passive one he has now.

Do you want to take action or do you just want to watch the problems? That is the real question we should be asking. And when you choose to take action, there's no need to make the revolution. delete a mode to make a new one. We just need to do, try, verify, and correct. Small things, often just numbers or parameters. constantly because the player will try to abuse again and again (especially if the player is PVP) so the action, the doing must be constant.

Any solution would need to factor in both is this is a stacked situation or a player one, which may need more refinements to fix in the WR. Example is they weren't considering time of play to try and help balance time zones but Anet indicated they now are. With or without that we will probably still have matchups where people are just not running the same numbers across a group of hours.

Another caveat of any solution is it would need to consider people looking to game the mechanic to an advantage and how to not allow that to happen. Lastly if its an issue of players choosing not to play, then there shouldn't be any issues that prevent the side that is looking to do so from being able to still play.

So solutions that aim at encouraging people to still go for it is the key. Example outnumbered, less people but people still look to fight while outnumbered, be for lots of varied reasons, so reviewing options along those lines that draw people in might be more of a way to go versus locking others out from playing.

In either case if we are close to initial WR as they indicate this might be moot or we might be seeing something brand new, so theory crafting is good but I wouldn't expect any devs spending time on it since their target goal is addressing at least the over stacked issue. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, DarkFlopy.8197 said:

I know it will make some stuff useless such as traits utilities etc and might require reworks for them but...

I don't think WvW should have the downstate mechanic, change my mind.

No downstate means even smaller numbers can win bigger numbers if playing good enough, as it is right now small number will at most cases get obliterated by the outnumbering side. (Example: WSR current and previous Matchups during the current link)

I am all for testing various changes to downstate before I would say no downstate. And yes I like no downstate weeks it always been fun to me to give you a starting reference point. So skipping all the ones that I know I would counter with will stick to the main one:

• It adds another level of strategic play for various scales of play, keeping choices in the players hands during a fight makes for a more interesting and fun game experience. Giving players less choice in the actions they take just dumbs it down. Example: do you choose to help get that player up before they are dead? Do you set up a reviver build to fill a medic role for a group? Did leaving those downed now just lose that fight since they were able to rally from the choice you made. That's from the side with the downed, now spin the camera, do you spike the players to finish them, do you leave them downed to use them as bait? From this side its a mechanic to use to try and encourage an outcome in the fight.

Removing downstate reduces complexity that could still be there but with changes to downstate where as remove it just flattens the complexity and the risk/reward. Now we can have a whole other conversation about downstate changes and I hope we can have things considered in the future. Most simple example, shouldn't there be more impact for spiking a player versus them just bleeding out or cleaved down? One requires a lot more risk on the player that is still standing. But again whole other thread there. 😉 

[XenesisII.1540]

47 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

do you spike the players to finish them, do you leave them downed to use them as bait?

Using them as bait is good, but because of the speed of group res, and insta skill res, there's little use for that other than on pugs.

 

Now for down state in general...

I don't fully agree with no down state, I like getting my finishers off sometimes, if finishers were auto proc on kills then I'd have no problems here. I think finishers really should be a flasher part to end combat, wrestlers have finishing moves to hype the crowd, sports have celebrations on scoring. I wish we had bigger and more whacky finishers in gw2, unicorn, chicken coop, golem stomp, are some of my favorites.

I don't think warclaw stomping was a bad thing either, really useful to use on groups.

Res skills I think should be removed, or much more limited, it only benefits groups, and they already have support spam, and insta group F res, like how much chances while running in tank mode should people be given.

I also think downed skills(and base health) should be normalized across the board at this point. There's more than enough support skills and traits on every class to keep you alive if you wanted, and stats to increase your defenses. "Ele's need mistform cause they have to lowest health!" yeah well they have a mistform to use while they have health, there's no balancing need for one when they're already dying too!

[Mabi black.1824]

13 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But how do you get those 70 to 60?

You get them naturally after a few tens of minutes. Why?

Because one has to go to cook, one has to go to eat, one has to take the dog to pee one has to give retrieve the cat one has to put the children to bed one has to make a business phone call one has to go to work etc etc

[Dawdler.8521]

3 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You get them naturally after a few tens of minutes. Why?

Because one has to go to cook, one has to go to eat, one has to take the dog to pee one has to give retrieve the cat one has to put the children to bed one has to make a business phone call one has to go to work etc etc

Ok so what did this accomplish if there is no queue?

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

so reviewing options along those lines that draw people in might be more of a way to go versus locking others out from playing.

I understand what you're saying. But I've indicated a moderate reduction in players per map. I'm not kicking you out of WVW. I leave you there a little longer to wait, or the alternative is there on purpose, you move to a server with fewer queues. That is the objective. You're not denying the mode to anyone. You're trying to make it better.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I understand what you're saying. But I've indicated a moderate reduction in players per map. I'm not kicking you out of WVW. I leave you there a little longer to wait, or the alternative is there on purpose, you move to a server with fewer queues. That is the objective. You're not denying the mode to anyone. You're trying to make it better.

lol, ok my fault, 2:45 AM this is my bad my friend. 🙂 I was more going we need to have solutions that encourage players to jump in while outnumbered, a solution that encourages players to stay and fight, and a way that doesn't block players that are just playing under their normal time from not being locked out due to issues on the other sides. We need to ask why do servers stack and what encourages players to oppose them. That's the tricky part since there are varied reasons per player that makes them ask, stack or oppose when considering population, so its not a simple answer. But locking players out of content that has space due to other players choosing not to engage is something I question. Options will vary player by player when they choose to engage or not a server and or/time zone with more. Some will see it as a lost cause others will see it as a challenge and the middle group will see something else entirely. I just don't want to lock out players that are just looking to play to favor either servers that are over stacked nor those that would game the game to try and gain advantage. Set an even playing field and if players choose not to show up or those that have over-stacked, that's on them since WR, in an ideal sort, is intended to handle the over-stacked, and soonish coverage issues. So I tend to lean more towards set upper bounds and encourage others to get there. Now as point of reference I am saying this while outnumbered on a number of maps. I prefer more players to play versus more that avoid the fight. I don't agree that players that are willing to avoid fights should limit other servers populations, that doesn't solve population or coverage imbalance issues.

[KrHome.1920]

Server transfers are the problem, not different play times. People are pissed because they are getting destroyed 247 by the latest bandwagon servers, not because there are some minor population imbalances across the day which even out over the week.

1. Server transfers cost gems and gems cost money. ANets wants to earn money.

2. On top of that you are excluded from earning pips for the first two weeks after a transfer, which means the tryhard bandwagoner has less gold to exchange it for gems, which means a lot of people that transfer pay real money.

Do you see the issue?

[TheGrimm.5624]

10 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Using them as bait is good, but because of the speed of group res, and insta skill res, there's little use for that other than on pugs.

 

Now for down state in general...

I don't fully agree with no down state, I like getting my finishers off sometimes, if finishers were auto proc on kills then I'd have no problems here. I think finishers really should be a flasher part to end combat, wrestlers have finishing moves to hype the crowd, sports have celebrations on scoring. I wish we had bigger and more whacky finishers in gw2, unicorn, chicken coop, golem stomp, are some of my favorites.

I don't think warclaw stomping was a bad thing either, really useful to use on groups.

Res skills I think should be removed, or much more limited, it only benefits groups, and they already have support spam, and insta group F res, like how much chances while running in tank mode should people be given.

I also think downed skills(and base health) should be normalized across the board at this point. There's more than enough support skills and traits on every class to keep you alive if you wanted, and stats to increase your defenses. "Ele's need mistform cause they have to lowest health!" yeah well they have a mistform to use while they have health, there's no balancing need for one when they're already dying too!

lol, might be time to start another, not sure what number this would be after this time, on ups and downs to downstate. But I will have to reply to this one:

"I also think downed skills should be normalized across the board at this point."

My 4 Engi's shudder at the aspect that everyone else gets the, "GetOver here and spike me! I need to AFK like now, NOW, NAOH!"! 🙂