Reztek.7805 Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 20 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said: No they didn't. I literally added 4 immagined tiers with 0 activity to show how the values in your comparison change, making it read more dramatic when in fact, the only value of interest is the activity one. I refered to reality, not your vivid imagination. The pool of players was divided into 18 teams, now the same pool of players is divided into 15 teams which results in higher populations per team and more interactions. As long as there are no limiting queues, reducing tiers will always increase the K/D stats. 20 hours ago, Cyninja.2954 said: Time played versus activity around that time played are literally the only values of interest here. If the activity goes up around the same time played: good. If it goes down: bad. Number of tiers is of 0 consequence. Nope, time played is the only value of interest here. Which you can try to derive/assume from K/D as long as you compare the same amount of tiers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 42 minutes ago, Reztek.7805 said: I refered to reality, not your vivid imagination. The pool of players was divided into 18 teams, now the same pool of players is divided into 15 teams which results in higher populations per team and more interactions. As long as there are no limiting queues, reducing tiers will always increase the K/D stats. The first week of expanded tiers had the highest K+D activity for WR so far (think it's the third highest I've seen in WvW since about a year back, a couple old beta weeks has it beat). Shouldnt increasing tiers always reduce the K+D stats if the opposite always apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 (edited) 6 hours ago, Reztek.7805 said: I refered to reality, not your vivid imagination. The pool of players was divided into 18 teams, now the same pool of players is divided into 15 teams which results in higher populations per team and more interactions. As long as there are no limiting queues, reducing tiers will always increase the K/D stats. No, because you are assuming about the amount of players being the same. The entire idea behind reducing tiers is to funnel players better to increase interaction. This can lead to more activity with a similar or smaller pool of players (or even higher pool of players by activating players thanks to higher activity in the mode). You are also assuming about queues and limiting factors not being present. Queues are almost guaranteed with reduction of shards at a similar pool of players, yet activity is higher overall because off hour activity might be higher. This has nothing to do with imagination. I showed how comparing loss of shards is irrelevant when the only relevant factor is change in activity. Your insinuation that the gained activity being attained at a loss of shards being a bad thing is as such not correct. 6 hours ago, Reztek.7805 said: Nope, time played is the only value of interest here. Which you can try to derive/assume from K/D as long as you compare the same amount of tiers. No, because the comparison is not about tiers but rather how many interactions players have, which we can assume from K/D. How many tiers were present is secondary and without interest for this comparison. See @Dawdler.8521 comparison above for how your assumption is incorrect because it already did not hold up in the opposite direction. Which is rooted in the fact that the active player pool fluctuates. Edited August 4 by Cyninja.2954 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 (edited) On 8/3/2024 at 7:58 PM, Cyninja.2954 said: because you are assuming about the amount of players being the same. The entire idea behind reducing tiers is to funnel players better to increase interaction. This can lead to more activity with a similar or smaller pool of players (or even higher pool of players by activating players thanks to higher activity in the mode). You aren't really writing anything different from what Reztek wrote. Similar pool of players -> increase interactions. On 8/3/2024 at 1:48 PM, Reztek.7805 said: The pool of players was divided into 18 teams, now the same pool of players is divided into 15 teams which results in higher populations per team and more interactions. It's entirely reasonable to assume it's a similar pool of players because it's more improbable that removing a tier is going to suddenly make a statistically significant difference in the pool of players. It's a rolling average anyway and not exact numbers. Edited August 5 by Chaba.5410 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 50 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said: You aren't really writing anything different from what Reztek wrote. Similar pool of players -> increase interactions. I am disagreeing with the framing of the benefit coming at a disadvantage, which is why I gave an example of fictional tiers getting removed, spiking the % of amount of shards removed, yet still being meaningless. Amount of shards and tiers is inherently irrelevant for day to day WvW and only starts mattering at the extreme or for further balance purposes withing the 1up1down system, say if we end up with less than 3-6 shards, until which any increase in activity can be seen as a positive. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reztek.7805 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 On 8/3/2024 at 11:54 PM, Dawdler.8521 said: The first week of expanded tiers had the highest K+D activity for WR so far (think it's the third highest I've seen in WvW since about a year back, a couple old beta weeks has it beat). Shouldnt increasing tiers always reduce the K+D stats if the opposite always apply? Yes it should. And if it's true that the first week had the highest K+D for some time (i don't have the stats) then i would assume that either a lot of players came back to give it a try or/and the regular players spent more time in WvW during the first week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted August 5 Share Posted August 5 32 minutes ago, Reztek.7805 said: Yes it should. And if it's true that the first week had the highest K+D for some time (i don't have the stats) then i would assume that either a lot of players came back to give it a try or/and the regular players spent more time in WvW during the first week. I haven't checked the numbers either and I don't have a reference history. but can I testify that I personally reduced my playtime/playtime engagement to about 50%? approximately. and I have read many other players report a similar testimony. After all, Anet knew very well that it was investing a certain type and number of players. So I guess: everything normal up to here. Then as Cyninja suggested the solution is now ready, even if you reduce the players even by half of what you had before WR (just by imagination) the new system fits perfectly. Almost as if to say: Anet excellent job. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinas Dragonbane.2978 Posted August 6 Share Posted August 6 The first week of anything new always has a spike in activity. Honestly this could be added to that other "Things players should know" thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spadassin.4076 Posted August 6 Author Share Posted August 6 Why are we even talking about this? Anet just do it, megaservers! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now