Rush Event / Call of War Skewing Metrics

[Gotejjeken.1267]

This should be obvious but, in case it isn't--your rush event created artificial q's and matchmaking metrics based on PvE players doing only said rush event then leaving WvW until they need their next GoB.

Call of War continues to skew metrics for people only playing because of increased rewards.

I get PR and all, but maybe run the events after this thing launches? 

Edited January 17 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Dawdler.8521]

Ok so the true solution to WvW is... delete all rewards. 

No PvE leechers, only true WvWers!

... right?

[Gotejjeken.1267]

3 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Ok so the true solution to WvW is... delete all rewards. 

No PvE leechers, only true WvWers!

... right?

When testing a balancing system supposedly based on WvW guilds...yes? 

[Dawdler.8521]

52 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

When testing a balancing system supposedly based on WvW guilds...yes? 

Wait, the WvW guilds filled with hardcore WvWers upsetting the balance?

But... your argument was that PvErs change the balance due to more rewards.

Are you saying that WvWers are really into PvE and are in fact PvErs coming into WvW?

[Gotejjeken.1267]

42 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Wait, the WvW guilds filled with hardcore WvWers upsetting the balance?

But... your argument was that PvErs change the balance due to more rewards.

Are you saying that WvWers are really into PvE and are in fact PvErs coming into WvW?

The better question is, do you just like to hear yourself talk? The post count would suggest yes...

In case somehow you are actually confused; the point is when you are testing a system, you should test it with the target audience in mind.  That would be the hardcore WvW guilds as those are what the bulk of the matchmaking will be built upon, as theoretically they will be the largest and most consistently active. 

Having PvE guilds come in because of rewards will throw the week-to-week matchmaking off, assuming they still are re-doing matches every week throughout the beta.  Even if they aren't, it will still throw the overall metrics off from a true population amount.  

tldr; if WvW is dead and they need rush events to make it seem like this restructuring is doing something--then fix WvW.  

[Dawdler.8521]

23 minutes ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

The better question is, do you just like to hear yourself talk? The post count would suggest yes...

Mmm surely I’m the only one here, especially with all the threads I make.

Either way you still haven’t explained what that skew means.

Do you consider WR a failure like so many other threads with rush skewing the metrics and having no rush ie normal rewards WvW would make WR better?

I mean… sounds fine then? 🤷‍♂️

And if you consider WR a success but only due to rush, doesn’t that mean more rewards is better for WvW?

Edited January 17 by Dawdler.8521

[Teknomancer.4895]

1 hour ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

when you are testing a system, you should test it with the target audience in mind

ANet preferred to push the entire userbase into its beta, voluntary or not. I'm mostly sitting it out until the thing is over; I'm off the clock so unpaid software testing in my leisure time isn't on the agenda. I can find other things to do in-game for the duration, which considering the reaction the thing is getting so far seems like my best option.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Mmm surely I’m the only one here, especially with all the threads I make.

Either way you still haven’t explained what that skew means.

Do you consider WR a failure like so many other threads with rush skewing the metrics and having no rush ie normal rewards WvW would make WR better?

I mean… sounds fine then? 🤷‍♂️

And if you consider WR a success but only due to rush, doesn’t that mean more rewards is better for WvW?

Ah; yeah to clarify on my end, I think it's a tainted beta, so really no conclusive evidence.  

As I'm not sure they can know if the population balance is working or not when a portion of the overall test population is rewards driven. 

Basically, most of the frustration seems to come from long time WvW players and this beta isn't about them, not when an event (or multiple events) is going on.  I noted in the OP maybe its PR driven so overall it is a win if they get traffic in WvW, but the topic is just more informational 'hey, you are peeing in the pool here' type deal.  

Just now, Teknomancer.4895 said:

ANet preferred to push the entire userbase into its beta, voluntary or not. I'm mostly sitting it out until the thing is over; I'm off the clock so unpaid software testing in my leisure time isn't on the agenda. I can find other things to do in-game for the duration, which considering the reaction the thing is getting so far seems like my best option.

I can see that--this is the annoying approach they always have used with balancing and such as well.  Guessing that boils down to far too late for a test server so we become the testers. 

It only somewhat makes sense to me in this WvW beta because you need a live population, otherwise they'd have to generate a bunch of bots or something and that's most likely way worse than simple event skewing is.  

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Ah; yeah to clarify on my end, I think it's a tainted beta, so really no conclusive evidence.  

As I'm not sure they can know if the population balance is working or not when a portion of the overall test population is rewards driven. 

Basically, most of the frustration seems to come from long time WvW players and this beta isn't about them, not when an event (or multiple events) is going on.  I noted in the OP maybe its PR driven so overall it is a win if they get traffic in WvW, but the topic is just more informational 'hey, you are peeing in the pool here' type deal.  

I can see that--this is the annoying approach they always have used with balancing and such as well.  Guessing that boils down to far too late for a test server so we become the testers. 

It only somewhat makes sense to me in this WvW beta because you need a live population, otherwise they'd have to generate a bunch of bots or something and that's most likely way worse than simple event skewing is.  

But WR would repeat balancing every month. It’s not a one off. Whether WvW has 50K+ players now because 20K are only leeches from PvE that won’t play again after this week is irrelevant - WR is designed just for those population swings far better than worlds could ever be. It is the entire core concept of WR.

They know how to see if it’s “working” because they’ve told us - the population variance between teams was far lower than the link worlds last time around.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But WR would repeat balancing every month. It’s not a one off. Whether WvW has 50K+ players now because 20K are only leeches from PvE that won’t play again after this week is irrelevant - WR is designed just for those population swings far better than worlds could ever be. It is the entire core concept of WR.

They know how to see if it’s “working” because they’ve told us - the population variance between teams was far lower than the link worlds last time around.

Would see this as highly disputable.  I play WvW nightly for ~2 hours at same general time and population swing has been huge.  This past weekend was 64 Q on EBG, but once the rush event ended, we are left with basically nothing and now 20+ points behind.  

This tells me the algo linked a bunch of PvE guilds together, which I have no idea how we see as 'working'.  This I also know to be true as no one defends, no one engages anything that isn't an NPC, and there are a lot more questions about really simple things in WvW / fighting in team chat than would be typical on my server (such as the difference between team and map chat being a big one).  

So, how is it better designed for population swings, when it hasn't even been a week and it's a chore to play as seemingly all that is left now are 1-2 small roaming guilds and a bunch of clueless new people?

Can say 'oh but week 2+', however I for one most likely am just going to go out of WvW as the novelty has worn off for me too, and carrying PvE players is not on my new year's wish list.   

[Mell.4873]

I really enjoyed both the rush and beta events.

The rush was defiantly crazy, so many players you really had to boon ball to survive being outnumbered.

The beta has been great with much more activity than people just jumping on when a server is offline to flip everything. That sort of toxic playstyle doesn't exist since no want an predict who you are matched with.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Would see this as highly disputable.  I play WvW nightly for ~2 hours at same general time and population swing has been huge.  This past weekend was 64 Q on EBG, but once the rush event ended, we are left with basically nothing and now 20+ points behind.  

This tells me the algo linked a bunch of PvE guilds together, which I have no idea how we see as 'working'.  This I also know to be true as no one defends, no one engages anything that isn't an NPC, and there are a lot more questions about really simple things in WvW / fighting in team chat than would be typical on my server (such as the difference between team and map chat being a big one).  

So, how is it better designed for population swings, when it hasn't even been a week and it's a chore to play as seemingly all that is left now are 1-2 small roaming guilds and a bunch of clueless new people?

Can say 'oh but week 2+', however I for one most likely am just going to go out of WvW as the novelty has worn off for me too, and carrying PvE players is not on my new year's wish list.   

What’s disputable, that’s how WR works with the shuffles.

They’ve said it’s possible to sort guilds based on coverage too (and a whole bunch of other factors) but I highly doubt it’s in the current algorithm.