The Verdict is in: Restructuring sucks

[Dawdler.8521]

4 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:

We're not talking queues. That is shifting the goalposts. We're talking unbalanced sides. And you are assuming that both 250-person guilds get put into the same shard.

Mabi talked about 500 man guilds being too large considering 70 can fit on a border. That’s what I quoted and then you quoted me. What do you think I’m talking about?

[Mabi black.1824]

25 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Mabi talked about 500 man guilds being too large considering 70 can fit on a border. That’s what I quoted and then you quoted me. What do you think I’m talking about?

We're talking about distributing content in the best possible way so that you get a better balance. I pointed out that a map fills up with 70 players. Allowing a grouping of up to 500 players, when the goal originally was to have smaller fragments to mix, just to better distribute the contents, it seems clear to me that it is not exactly the best method to obtain it. We must also consider that a guild of 500 players today is not like the pre-WR one. These guilds today are something like 6 guilds of 80 players, where each one has already done the house cleaning to make sure they are both good players and active players.

The result is to obtain a sort of ''balance monster'' as a tool made specifically to make the environment more unbalanced. Hence all the complaints you see about the balance result that WR has brought.

[Dawdler.8521]

19 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

We're talking about distributing content in the best possible way so that you get a better balance. I pointed out that a map fills up with 70 players. Allowing a grouping of up to 500 players, when the goal originally was to have smaller fragments to mix, just to better distribute the contents, it seems clear to me that it is not exactly the best method to obtain it. We must also consider that a guild of 500 players today is not like the pre-WR one. These guilds today are something like 6 guilds of 80 players, where each one has already done the house cleaning to make sure they are both good players and active players.

The result is to obtain a sort of ''balance monster'' as a tool made specifically to make the environment more unbalanced. Hence all the complaints you see about the balance result that WR has brought.

In order for you to meaningfully fragment that far so a map can’t be stacked or zerged and assume 100% effectiveness, you have have to limit guilds to like 20 players.

Some people might have issues with that.

 

[Mabi black.1824]

18 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

In order for you to meaningfully fragment that far so a map can’t be stacked or zerged and assume 100% effectiveness, you have have to limit guilds to like 20 players.

Some people might have issues with that.

 

You are always from one extreme to the other. The word compromise doesn't really exist in your vocabulary. 🙃

[Dawdler.8521]

7 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You are always from one extreme to the other. The word compromise doesn't really exist in your vocabulary. 🙃

So what not too much anymore? Cant be 250 or something like that - they can still easily stack a border. Or 200. They can also stack a border. Or 150. In fact they can still stack two borders since we assume 100% efficiency when looking at 500 as well. What are we supposed to compromise down to?

[idolin.2831]

Domain of Torment, it's been at least 2 weeks of you either cloud/zerg in EBG or you get outnumbered in the borderlands. Very hard to solo roam, small groups aren't doing much better due to the enemies having multiple tags that can handle multiple maps. Waiting for next week when we're down to tier 4 to see if it improves.

[Cuks.8241]

9 minutes ago, idolin.2831 said:

Very hard to solo roam, small groups aren't doing much better due to the enemies having multiple tags that can handle multiple maps. 

I'll never get this argument. Due to population cap there can be only one zerg per side per map. And they can only be at one place at a time. And you have the whole map. You can see orange swords where zergs are clashing. If youre constantly running into zergs, the only realistic explanation is youre intentionally going towards them. 

Usually just staying outside of 1200 range is completely safe though. Chasing random roamers on most squad builds is an idea that will get you killed very fast. And annoy your squad fellows. So unless the comm is really bored or you are annoying them enough they will leave you alone (or offer some easy bags if they are a disorganised group that likes to chase randomly).

[Zyreva.1078]

20 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I'll never get this argument. Due to population cap there can be only one zerg per side per map. And they can only be at one place at a time. And you have the whole map. You can see orange swords where zergs are clashing. If youre constantly running into zergs, the only realistic explanation is youre intentionally going towards them.

Some zergs do go after roamers, and the warclaw (and now also uncontestable waypoints) made it much easier and effective for them to do so. And if they aren't huntingr roamers, they might still lag out the entire map or simply don't leave any space for enemy roamers, so the map still ends up being dead for roaming because of zergs.

Doesn't have anything to do with WR tho.

Edited October 10 by Zyreva.1078

[RisingDawn.5796]

Roamers used to complain, about too many zergs and blobs 10 years ago, when there were solo servers, with no links too, especially during the tournaments. Some just transferred to the lower tiers, but it was only temporary, because they would transfer if there was just empty maps most of the time.

So it's not an problem based on the system used at least, but you have people here complain about a lack of open tags, while there are roamers who will happily cloud along side a tag, especially nowadays. 

There are more classes and elite specs, capable of switching builds, rather than the core specs and builds from before 2015.

I personally don't mind solo roaming, to also scout around, but of course I usually run into bigger groups, the few actual roaming and havoc guilds left small ganking groups and the usual roaming classes. Yet actual scouting is not worth the effort most of the time anymore and you have other tools and ways to scout now.

 

Edited October 16 by RisingDawn.5796

[idolin.2831]

5 hours ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I'll never get this argument. Due to population cap there can be only one zerg per side per map. And they can only be at one place at a time. And you have the whole map. You can see orange swords where zergs are clashing. If youre constantly running into zergs, the only realistic explanation is youre intentionally going towards them. 

Usually just staying outside of 1200 range is completely safe though. Chasing random roamers on most squad builds is an idea that will get you killed very fast. And annoy your squad fellows. So unless the comm is really bored or you are annoying them enough they will leave you alone (or offer some easy bags if they are a disorganised group that likes to chase randomly).

No I'm not saying I'm running into zergs, I'm saying while our team's only tag is on another map (most of the time EBG), our stuffs on home BL are getting taken by only a small group of ~10 people, yet we still get outnumbered because we only have 2-3 people and we can't do anything. I don't only roam aimlessly looking for fights, I also scout and defend, but that has been very difficult these past 2 weeks. What I meant was it is difficult to do anything more significant than taking a camp unless you're with the only tag, and most of the time the tag is on EBG and I despise EBG.

[Cuks.8241]

9 hours ago, idolin.2831 said:

No I'm not saying I'm running into zergs, I'm saying while our team's only tag is on another map (most of the time EBG), our stuffs on home BL are getting taken by only a small group of ~10 people, yet we still get outnumbered because we only have 2-3 people and we can't do anything. I don't only roam aimlessly looking for fights, I also scout and defend, but that has been very difficult these past 2 weeks. What I meant was it is difficult to do anything more significant than taking a camp unless you're with the only tag, and most of the time the tag is on EBG and I despise EBG.

Well when someone specifically states "solo roaming" I don't expect he meant taking or defending objectives in small to medium groups. Solo roaming for me is running around solo, taking small objectives and looking for fights.

[gerberlyfe.9736]

Ok, derail aside: 

It's time to go back to single permanent servers. Those servers move up and down tiers every month. Allow 1 expensive transfer per 90 days. Allow 2 cheap guest passes (7 days) per 90 days. 

That's it. Let the cards fall where they will. This will allow large guilds to slowly reshuffle, friends to play together on demand. It's that simple.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, gerberlyfe.9736 said:

This will allow large guilds to slowly reshuffle

And if they stack the same servers?

7 hours ago, gerberlyfe.9736 said:

friends to play together on demand

Your idea mention no such thing. That ”guest pass” thing which would just be temporary and very restricted, not on demand.

[Wolfhound.4381]

The only way I would be OK with going back to server links is if they limited transfers to 1 per month with the last week of the link locked for relinking.  You can transfer anytime during the first 3 weeks of a link but you don't actually move until the next link starts. No more Friday transfers when you find out who your linked with. No more stacking servers. If they did this transfers would drop as you wouldn't be able to bandwagon a server. Of course it would cause as much outcry as world restructuring because matches would be as fair as Anet could make it, much like the current system. It's not perfect but it is more fair than the alternative.

Of course if you really wanted it to be as fair as possible you'd also have to factor in alt accounts. There are games where having a second account is considered cheating unless you follow their more strict rules. Restrict them to the same server as the main account. If you transfer one, you have to transfer them all.

But many players don't really want fair play. They want to game the system to their advantage.

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Wolfhound.4381 said:

No more stacking servers.

This would assume everyone keep transferring every month. Otherwise, you know, they already stacked the first server they moved to and now it won’t stop being stacked.

[Kulvar.1239]

1 hour ago, Wolfhound.4381 said:

The only way I would be OK with going back to server links is if they limited transfers to 1 per month with the last week of the link locked for relinking.  You can transfer anytime during the first 3 weeks of a link but you don't actually move until the next link starts. No more Friday transfers when you find out who your linked with. No more stacking servers. If they did this transfers would drop as you wouldn't be able to bandwagon a server. Of course it would cause as much outcry as world restructuring because matches would be as fair as Anet could make it, much like the current system. It's not perfect but it is more fair than the alternative.

Of course if you really wanted it to be as fair as possible you'd also have to factor in alt accounts. There are games where having a second account is considered cheating unless you follow their more strict rules. Restrict them to the same server as the main account. If you transfer one, you have to transfer them all.

But many players don't really want fair play. They want to game the system to their advantage.

But also make transfers free so people can join their new friends/new guild when the next transfer date happen.

[One more for the road.8950]

2 hours ago, Wolfhound.4381 said:

 No more stacking servers.

Because the people that stacked before surely won't talk together about where to go stack anew.

[Wolfhound.4381]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

This would assume everyone keep transferring every month. Otherwise, you know, they already stacked the first server they moved to and now it won’t stop being stacked.

Even if they did that they're accounted for. Unlike the old system where players moved on Friday after links were announced and teams became unbalanced for that relinking. It would be much like the current system where your locked out of changing your WvW guild for the last few days.

For example, say a guild on 100 players "moved" the first week of the match. Their choice would stay in the system and they wouldn't actually move until the next relink. Their new server then could change to full even though they hadn't moved yet because it could accept no more transfers. So population could be adjusted as players transfer even if they don't get moved until the relink. It wouldn't be perfect but no system can be. And Anet could set a limit on how many transfers per month. So a large guild moving could be split making them have to decide if the risk is worth it.

Obviously I prefer the current system. But for all the people wanting to return to servers it's an example of how Anet could attempt to fix the bandwagon problem that links had.

[Dawdler.8521]

27 minutes ago, Wolfhound.4381 said:

Even if they did that they're accounted for. 

The basis for a stable world balancing system should not be "well as long as we know which world is stacked then 🤷‍♂️".

[Wolfhound.4381]

49 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

The basis for a stable world balancing system should not be "well as long as we know which world is stacked then 🤷‍♂️".

The idea is about knowing where people will be when relinking occurs and not getting the last minute transfers after links are set. A stacked server can be adjusted for with the pairings.

[Cuks.8241]

5 hours ago, Wolfhound.4381 said:

Of course if you really wanted it to be as fair as possible

I think lot's of people think fair means that they are winning. They don't consider that fair means not winning 2/3 of the time.

Sure completely balanced servers would be the most fair outcome. But that is probably impossible. So one way to make it more fair is what we have. Maybe you're getting stomped for a month but there is a chance it will be much better next month. At least you're not dead last or winning the whole time.

[Wolfhound.4381]

4 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

I think lot's of people think fair means that they are winning. They don't consider that fair means not winning 2/3 of the time.

Sure completely balanced servers would be the most fair outcome. But that is probably impossible. So one way to make it more fair is what we have. Maybe you're getting stomped for a month but there is a chance it will be much better next month. At least you're not dead last or winning the whole time.

I prefer the restructuring myself. That idea was just to try and make transfers easier to adjust for if they brought back the servers. I hope they don't. I do wish they would do something with alt accounts though.  Alts are the one weakness restructuring has.

[Cuks.8241]

8 minutes ago, Wolfhound.4381 said:

I prefer the restructuring myself. That idea was just to try and make transfers easier to adjust for if they brought back the servers. I hope they don't. I do wish they would do something with alt accounts though.  Alts are the one weakness restructuring has.

It's hard to judge how prevalent alt accounts are. I know lot's of players that have them but they still play with their main one most of the time. And the experience I have with other guilds, either being there or just talking to them, players stick to their main guild most of the time. 

The thing is if you're in a guild most problems are solved anyway. Because even if you got short end of the matchmaking there is a good chance you'll have a good time playing with your guildies.