Server linking results

[R E F L H E X.8413]

I didnt play around hot launch i quit like a month before hot released and started playing again right before pof release.

What I know is bg was winning then and its winning now.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@R E F L H E X.8413 said:well linked server also = extra numbers.

Extra number of playhours, not necessarily players. The algorithm doesn't much consider actual player numbers.

What I meant was you gotta get atleast a few people playing from that server so its more numbers. Whether or not what they used to link deals with numbers or not.

[X T D.6458]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:I am talking about people who quit the game and came back.

Me too.

Wouldn't it be nicer if those people who quit had to pick a new non-Full server if they had been gone for 6 or more months?

No, forcibly kicking people off a server because they are doing something else in their lives is not a nice thing to do. If a person wants to pick a new server they can do so anytime. Having anet forcing them off, is a terrible idea.

So then what is the confusion you have about my earlier post?

"Years of login blackouts sure do help with that."

Because it made no sense. You are trying to tie together two completely different things and pretend as if they are equal.

Linked servers were reported by Anet to have more playhours than BG, addressing what OP wrote of Anet "should be aiming for servers to be competitive with blackgate." They did attempt it by pitting BG against linked servers with more playhours. So why has BG still won? Playhours are not players and BG has a wealth of them, especially when inactive accounts come back to play. You are right; that is not equal.

I think you are confused about something. My first post that you quoted was about BG BEFORE and around the time of linking, not BG or linking as it is right now. In the period of time between HoT Launch and Linking being introduced, BG did not win every match, far from it...actually YB was winning most of them. Around the time that linking was implemented we had players that were already on the server start playing again. When linking was implemented all host servers were locked.

Hey, you remember too they changed the population algorithm since then to favor playhours?

If I recall correctly, they first changed it so that the pve population did not count towards a servers total populations. It would only be based off of a servers population and activity in WvW. Far as I know the current algorithm uses activity like rank gain statistics as the main measurement.

[Chaba.5410]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:I am talking about people who quit the game and came back.

Me too.

Wouldn't it be nicer if those people who quit had to pick a new non-Full server if they had been gone for 6 or more months?

No, forcibly kicking people off a server because they are doing something else in their lives is not a nice thing to do. If a person wants to pick a new server they can do so anytime. Having anet forcing them off, is a terrible idea.

So then what is the confusion you have about my earlier post?

"Years of login blackouts sure do help with that."

Because it made no sense. You are trying to tie together two completely different things and pretend as if they are equal.

Linked servers were reported by Anet to have more playhours than BG, addressing what OP wrote of Anet "should be aiming for servers to be competitive with blackgate." They did attempt it by pitting BG against linked servers with more playhours. So why has BG still won? Playhours are not players and BG has a wealth of them, especially when inactive accounts come back to play. You are right; that is not equal.

I think you are confused about something. My first post that you quoted was about BG BEFORE and around the time of linking, not BG or linking as it is right now. In the period of time between HoT Launch and Linking being introduced, BG did not win every match, far from it...actually YB was winning most of them. Around the time that linking was implemented we had players that were already on the server start playing again. When linking was implemented all host servers were locked.

Hey, you remember too they changed the population algorithm since then to favor playhours?

If I recall correctly, they first changed it so that the pve population did not count towards a servers total populations. It would only be based off of a servers population and activity in WvW.

There's a post from a dev, which you can probably find on the old forum archive, where they announced a modification to the algorithm to favor playhours.

[X T D.6458]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:I am talking about people who quit the game and came back.

Me too.

Wouldn't it be nicer if those people who quit had to pick a new non-Full server if they had been gone for 6 or more months?

No, forcibly kicking people off a server because they are doing something else in their lives is not a nice thing to do. If a person wants to pick a new server they can do so anytime. Having anet forcing them off, is a terrible idea.

So then what is the confusion you have about my earlier post?

"Years of login blackouts sure do help with that."

Because it made no sense. You are trying to tie together two completely different things and pretend as if they are equal.

Linked servers were reported by Anet to have more playhours than BG, addressing what OP wrote of Anet "should be aiming for servers to be competitive with blackgate." They did attempt it by pitting BG against linked servers with more playhours. So why has BG still won? Playhours are not players and BG has a wealth of them, especially when inactive accounts come back to play. You are right; that is not equal.

I think you are confused about something. My first post that you quoted was about BG BEFORE and around the time of linking, not BG or linking as it is right now. In the period of time between HoT Launch and Linking being introduced, BG did not win every match, far from it...actually YB was winning most of them. Around the time that linking was implemented we had players that were already on the server start playing again. When linking was implemented all host servers were locked.

Hey, you remember too they changed the population algorithm since then to favor playhours?

If I recall correctly, they first changed it so that the pve population did not count towards a servers total populations. It would only be based off of a servers population and activity in WvW.

There's a post from a dev, which you can probably find on the old forum archive, where they announced a modification to the algorithm to favor playhours.

Edited. They modified it several times.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:I am talking about people who quit the game and came back.

Me too.

Wouldn't it be nicer if those people who quit had to pick a new non-Full server if they had been gone for 6 or more months?

I would agree that this would limit hibernation. I think it should be more related to WvW timeMyself, and 6 months is too long. I've wanted it to be more around 3.., but most responses have been about the forcibly being kicked like X T D noted.

Honestly, after 3 months, life can get in the way, but then choosing another server when you return would be a good option.

It's not perfect.

[Jonesy.9728]

@X T D.6458 said:We started investing more in small/havok teams, scouting, defending, etc. When I first came to BG over 3 years ago, we were much like MAG is today. We basically let our maps get ktrained every night and few people actually cared about scores.

Right from a BG player's mouth. Can we PLEEEAAAASE stop putting down defenders, scouts, and havoc, and start focusing more on training and improving them? We could be so much better if we did that!

[SkyShroud.2865]

If JQ get linked, we all should boycott wvw for 2 mths straight.

[Klipso.8653]

@diamondgirl.6315 said:

@"X T D.6458" said:We started investing more in small/havok teams, scouting, defending, etc. When I first came to BG over 3 years ago, we were much like MAG is today. We basically let our maps get ktrained every night and few people actually cared about scores.

Right from a BG player's mouth. Can we PLEEEAAAASE stop putting down defenders, scouts, and havoc, and start focusing more on training and improving them? We could be so much better if we did that!

As a Commander on BG, I find it ridiculous when people complain about a scout call because they 'didn't include what guild'.

Any call is a good call. Our scouts will eventually stop reporting if the server is putting them down, or flat out not responding because a certain guild isnt worth their attention.

If an objective needs defending and the call goes out- respond to it, or at least make it known that you can't due to circumstance.

But as a joke Ive been asking the scouts "how many of X class do they have?"

[Strider Pj.2193]

@diamondgirl.6315 said:

@X T D.6458 said:We started investing more in small/havok teams, scouting, defending, etc. When I first came to BG over 3 years ago, we were much like MAG is today. We basically let our maps get ktrained every night and few people actually cared about scores.

Right from a BG player's mouth. Can we PLEEEAAAASE stop putting down defenders, scouts, and havoc, and start focusing more on training and improving them? We could be so much better if we did that!

This^^.

Regardless of BG or JQ or MAG. Open servers are also getting new players. Those players often have the mentality of 'I want pips and loot'. But many of them actually start to like WvW.

Try to teach them. That is truly the only way to save the mode.

New blood, training and support. Servers nor guilds can survive without that support of their new players.

[Chaba.5410]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:I am talking about people who quit the game and came back.

Me too.

Wouldn't it be nicer if those people who quit had to pick a new non-Full server if they had been gone for 6 or more months?

No, forcibly kicking people off a server because they are doing something else in their lives is not a nice thing to do. If a person wants to pick a new server they can do so anytime. Having anet forcing them off, is a terrible idea.

So then what is the confusion you have about my earlier post?

"Years of login blackouts sure do help with that."

Because it made no sense. You are trying to tie together two completely different things and pretend as if they are equal.

Linked servers were reported by Anet to have more playhours than BG, addressing what OP wrote of Anet "should be aiming for servers to be competitive with blackgate." They did attempt it by pitting BG against linked servers with more playhours. So why has BG still won? Playhours are not players and BG has a wealth of them, especially when inactive accounts come back to play. You are right; that is not equal.

I think you are confused about something. My first post that you quoted was about BG BEFORE and around the time of linking, not BG or linking as it is right now. In the period of time between HoT Launch and Linking being introduced, BG did not win every match, far from it...actually YB was winning most of them. Around the time that linking was implemented we had players that were already on the server start playing again. When linking was implemented all host servers were locked.

Hey, you remember too they changed the population algorithm since then to favor playhours?

If I recall correctly, they first changed it so that the pve population did not count towards a servers total populations. It would only be based off of a servers population and activity in WvW.

There's a post from a dev, which you can probably find on the old forum archive, where they announced a modification to the algorithm to favor playhours.

Edited. They modified it several times.

"The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate." (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/page/1#post6513382)

Just can't win with the algorithms. The old one punished servers with lots of players who didn't play as much. The new one punishes servers with fewer players that play too much. I did not find it ironic at all when FA changed to Very High from Full after a single commander who had been playing roughly 10 hours a day trying to help the server when it didn't have a link down in T4 finally burnt out and stopped trying. I expressed my concern for him in a past post.

[X T D.6458]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:I am talking about people who quit the game and came back.

Me too.

Wouldn't it be nicer if those people who quit had to pick a new non-Full server if they had been gone for 6 or more months?

No, forcibly kicking people off a server because they are doing something else in their lives is not a nice thing to do. If a person wants to pick a new server they can do so anytime. Having anet forcing them off, is a terrible idea.

So then what is the confusion you have about my earlier post?

"Years of login blackouts sure do help with that."

Because it made no sense. You are trying to tie together two completely different things and pretend as if they are equal.

Linked servers were reported by Anet to have more playhours than BG, addressing what OP wrote of Anet "should be aiming for servers to be competitive with blackgate." They did attempt it by pitting BG against linked servers with more playhours. So why has BG still won? Playhours are not players and BG has a wealth of them, especially when inactive accounts come back to play. You are right; that is not equal.

I think you are confused about something. My first post that you quoted was about BG BEFORE and around the time of linking, not BG or linking as it is right now. In the period of time between HoT Launch and Linking being introduced, BG did not win every match, far from it...actually YB was winning most of them. Around the time that linking was implemented we had players that were already on the server start playing again. When linking was implemented all host servers were locked.

Hey, you remember too they changed the population algorithm since then to favor playhours?

If I recall correctly, they first changed it so that the pve population did not count towards a servers total populations. It would only be based off of a servers population and activity in WvW.

There's a post from a dev, which you can probably find on the old forum archive, where they announced a modification to the algorithm to favor playhours.

Edited. They modified it several times.

"The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate." (

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/page/1#post6513382

)

Just can't win with the algorithms. The old one punished servers with lots of players who didn't play as much. The new one punishes servers with fewer players that play too much. I did not find it ironic at all when FA changed to Very High from Full after a single commander who had been playing roughly 10 hours a day trying to help the server when it didn't have a link down in T4 finally burnt out and stopped trying. I expressed my concern for him in a past post.

Basically, there is no perfect solution so it is important to keep it flexible and adapt over time.

[X T D.6458]

@diamondgirl.6315 said:

@X T D.6458 said:We started investing more in small/havok teams, scouting, defending, etc. When I first came to BG over 3 years ago, we were much like MAG is today. We basically let our maps get ktrained every night and few people actually cared about scores.

Right from a BG player's mouth. Can we PLEEEAAAASE stop putting down defenders, scouts, and havoc, and start focusing more on training and improving them? We could be so much better if we did that!

Ego's get in the way of teamwork. Scouts, small guilds/teams and havok groups are vital, and can do amazing things. This is how I play half the time, I love the feeling of teamwork, where random players can come together and can function cohesively without a tag much of the time. It is a great feeling when calling for help, and you can rely on people to come from other maps to defend.

[shiri.4257]

Cloudfly alone logs in more play hours than T4 combined. algorithm is working correctly.

[Jonesy.9728]

@X T D.6458 said:

@diamondgirl.6315 said:

@X T D.6458 said:We started investing more in small/havok teams, scouting, defending, etc. When I first came to BG over 3 years ago, we were much like MAG is today. We basically let our maps get ktrained every night and few people actually cared about scores.

Right from a BG player's mouth. Can we PLEEEAAAASE stop putting down defenders, scouts, and havoc, and start focusing more on training and improving them? We could be so much better if we did that!

Ego's get in the way of teamwork. Scouts, small guilds/teams and havok groups are vital, and can do amazing things. This is how I play half the time, I love the feeling of teamwork, where random players can come together and can function cohesively without a tag much of the time. It is a great feeling when calling for help, and you can rely on people to come from other maps to defend.

We have a core of regular experienced pugs on my server who help each other out on the maps. We do pretty well with small ops, and call the current tag in when something looks like we can't handle it. I really enjoy when we are all on together, and I wish there were maybe just ten more of us.