Server Balance???

[Shroud.2307]

To me SoS appears to have an unusually low population of capable fighters. They are extremely PPT-centric and often lose matches strictly because they cannot over power any objective that's being defended. They're easily stopped no matter how determined they are or how sneakily they try to snipe things. The irony of a good PPT server is that you need good fighters to do it however. If they're dying to every random roamer or AOE they're going to be very easy to counter pressure. Some servers just ignore SoS because they find them boring which lets them win matches they shouldn't. Other servers hard focus them because they're usually easy to wipe out and this kills off a lot of their active population due to players not wanting to bother for the current match up.

All of this is only observational and not factual however.Maybe this, combined with low morale from losing too many fights made a lot of players/commanders avoid WvW for longer than usual which in turn reduced their potential to win matches. They sunk to the bottom, the PPT heroes returned and they're out in full force in T4.

Although over time the "personality" of servers has diminished there's still visible differences between them. Players with similar interests congregate on the same servers and create core communities that you can see with frequent encounters. In the case of SoS, it's their focus on winning the match over winning fights. Websites like wvwstats.com or gw2stats.com also help to expand on that picture.

Guilds could have left or joined or any number of things could have happened to lead to the current situation. Sometimes it's more black and white like what happened with SoR - they were heavily bandwagoned in to a singular time zone then had a massive exodus shortly after. Other times, it's a sequence of events as simple as too many losing matches causing players to lose interest in WvW for a while.

ANet is responsible for balancing servers and many of us agree that their "algorithms" are less than reliable. Perfect balance can never be achieved however and more people need to realize that situations such as this one aren't always ANet's fault. Many of the reasons I listed above can be heavily attributed to lop-sided match ups - server drama being one of those influences.

Bad matches suck but they're always going to happen and sometimes it's subjective. Regardless of which it is, you just have to take it with a grain of salt and either make an effort to change it within your server (eg. becoming a commander and doing what you can) or take some time off to do better things.

[XenesisII.1540]

Frankly I don't think anet should be stepping in to do emergency relinks to fix the population problems when an idiotic guild or alliance decides things are not in their favor and move again. There needs to be consequences for the players action. Guilds bandwagoning, guilds getting paid to move, guilds stacking with other guilds, that's all the players fault, not anet. 6 years of complaints to learn a lesson and guilds still went and one time zone stacked SoR, how idiotic can you be? Naw naw man we were expecting to get linked with an off hours server to balance everything out, know what I'm saying, it was gonna be all good till anet screwed it up yo!

[SnowPumpkin.1809]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??Is quite new news, but not really good news.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

The only way to delay bandwagoning is to ramp up the cost for every transfer they made, it is the most logical deterrence since the more transfers, the more expensive it is, I doubt people will keep paying for inflated price. Just ask yourself if you willing to pay 5k gems to transfer.

By delaying bandwagoning, servers will have breathing time to stablise itself and enjoy a good bit of WvW instead of having the bandwagoners actions making more people quit wvw or even the game itself.

I personally don't think it requires major backend changes. I believe is simply just adding database count an date on transfers. Basically two additional tags on account.

How is it fair to people on a link server that want to play with friends. Of course they want to transfer when they get unlinked. Until Anet removes links and opens servers that is very unfair to raise the cost.

[Dante.1763]

@hunkamania.7561 said:

@Shagaliscious.6281 said:It's not just T4, look at T1, Kaineng has 2 T3 keeps in EBG

Well, we all said 2 months for linking was too long and we were correct. Anet does nothing

I didnt realize the time for relinks was two months, that makes me sad, really really sad :(

[Shining One.1635]

@"XenesisII.1540" said:There needs to be consequences for the players action.While I don't disagree with this, who is actually being "punished" at the moment: The ones who actually bandwagoned or the server "natives" who were there before and after the bandwagon?

[SkyShroud.2865]

@SnowPumpkin.1809 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??Is quite new news, but not really good news.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2

There is no new news. Is just what already mentioned and compiled into a new thread. Basically just saying "we are still here".

@"Balthazzarr.1349" said:Look at the scores in T4... This should be a clear indication (as if we didn't already know) that this linking simply doesn't work. Bandwagon still happens and so on.

ANet.. do you have any news on the new Alliance system? Please??

The only way to delay bandwagoning is to ramp up the cost for every transfer they made, it is the most logical deterrence since the more transfers, the more expensive it is, I doubt people will keep paying for inflated price. Just ask yourself if you willing to pay 5k gems to transfer.

By delaying bandwagoning, servers will have breathing time to stablise itself and enjoy a good bit of WvW instead of having the bandwagoners actions making more people quit wvw or even the game itself.

I personally don't think it requires major backend changes. I believe is simply just adding database count an date on transfers. Basically two additional tags on account.

How is it fair to people on a link server that want to play with friends. Of course they want to transfer when they get unlinked. Until Anet removes links and opens servers that is very unfair to raise the cost.

How is it fair to others for them to stack up a link which is pre-calculated to be "balanced"?

For their supposedly friends, they are punishing hundreds or even thousands of others on the suffering end for the unbalance they contributed in.

I personally think that anyone who used the word, "friends", are simply selfish for the very fact they could all very well transfer to a open server.

No matter how they justify themselves, they are evidently harming others with their actions.

[XenesisII.1540]

@Shining One.1635 said:

@"XenesisII.1540" said:There needs to be consequences for the players action.While I don't disagree with this, who is actually being "punished" at the moment: The ones who actually bandwagoned or the server "natives" who were there before and after the bandwagon?

The solution isn't to relink a week into a new relink just because some alliance decides to jump servers.That just encourages this behavior even more, it signals it's ok we can move whenever because hey anet will fix our mistake!Links are not even balanced in the first place anyways.

Yes it sucks for those servers that get abandoned, but SoR was a dead server before the bandwagon, they're back to being a dead server, not that much difference there, they got one last shot at glory.

Get mad at the players abandoning the server, not anet.

Transfer cost should be more harsh, and also probably should be pushed to happen at certain times like increase cost to transfer to 3000 gems for 6 weeks into a link, but then 1000 on the 7th week and back to 3000 on the last week, (of course open all servers for this). This way you give the jumpers a time period to jump and give anet time to calculate proper populations for the next linking.

But all this talk is not going to matter for the new system.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

Transfer cost was adjusted to scale accordingly to WvW before server links started, which makes perfect sense to incentivise moving down tiers. We are now reaching the end of linking system and it still hasn't been fixed... I'm not sure if this is just incompetence, terrible bureaucracy, money grabbing, or simply a lack of care.

[Dante.1763]

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:Transfer cost was adjusted to scale accordingly to WvW before server links started, which makes perfect sense to incentivise moving down tiers. We are now reaching the end of linking system and it still hasn't been fixed... I'm not sure if this is just incompetence, terrible bureaucracy, money grabbing, or simply a lack of care.

Its all of them, this game mode and pvp get the least attention in the entire game, unlike pvp though wvw had a chance to be a decent game mode.

[subversiontwo.7501]

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:Transfer cost was adjusted to scale accordingly to WvW before server links started, which makes perfect sense to incentivise moving down tiers. We are now reaching the end of linking system and it still hasn't been fixed... I'm not sure if this is just incompetence, terrible bureaucracy, money grabbing, or simply a lack of care.It's likely a little bit of everything but none of them is the root issue. The root issue as with everything else is the underlying imbalances (rather than the superficial population imbalance that we all see) and the lack of content for organised player groups. If guild groups in their respective timezone can not affect score while dominating primetime they will to a higher degree just look to fight other guild groups. With guild groups leaving this becomes more difficult and without other convenient ways to meet other guild groups it becomes even more of an issue.

The way all of these things combine to create content makes it very difficult to match up the way you are supposed to (with those who create similar content at similar hours). Server linking provided that option even if just in a crude form for guilds to hop on a link server and be flushed to higher tiers until the link-server becomes stacked enough to be unlinked. This worked for a while but as guilds are the lifeblood of almost all servers in the game you started to see the issues we now see appear where more and more servers just becomes husks of themselves when guilds either quit (to merge) or pay to take a climb to where the other guilds are (only to see wagoneers follow them whether those are individual players or player-groups who are incapable of creating content). As always, this is the culture in EU, I have no idea about the US.

The only difference between now and two years ago is that there are fewer guilds creating content (ie., wagons) while there are more servers turning to husks, freefalling through the tiers and the wagons grow or are more impactful on the day-to-day gameplay. Guilds transfering or merging is nothing new, it happened well before linking. They just leave bigger holes now as there is little to no rebirth. Servers as high up in the tiers as T1/T2 can be reliant on as little as single guilds for the majority of their higher order content. If you pay attention it is really easy to see which servers sail up to dominate prime and why to track that. In the EU it's easy to see why WSR is WSR or why RoS attract players now (I'm sorry if I added to the wagons now, but I'm beyond caring deeper).

The solutions are the same as we have been harping on about for years and years. Fix scoring and by extension population balance. Provide guilds with content and access to oneanother. This adresses the overarching issue by way of both underlying issues as the solutions are not mutually exclusive at all.

[Shining One.1635]

@XenesisII.1540 said:Yes it sucks for those servers that get abandoned, but SoR was a dead server before the bandwagon, they're back to being a dead server, not that much difference there, they got one last shot at glory.There's a difference between being a dead link attached to a stable host and being a dead host with no link. The only ones facing consequences are the server natives. None of the bandwagoners responsible are facing consequences.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Steadily tiered transfer costs. Regardless of population status of the server you are moving to.

First in 6 months: 1800 gemsSecond in 6 months: 3600 gemsThird in 6 months: 5400 gemsWith an increase by 1800 gems for each additional transfer in a rolling 6 month period.

Want to move pay for it.

[Kilo.2539]

Server transfer is how Anet makes money off WvW players... you think they’re going smash that golden egg?

[Caliburn.1845]

Alliances will yes.

[Kilo.2539]

@Caliburn.1845 said:Alliances will yes.

Maybe that’s why world restructuring is a one man, part time project?

[LetoII.3782]

@Kilo.2539 said:

@Caliburn.1845 said:Alliances will yes.

Maybe that’s why world restructuring is a one man, part time project?

And the reason it's a slow-cooker project is; because besides ESO, they've got a captive audience and Mark Jacobs cancelled his beta xDWhat's to rush when whole servers are transferring around every relink?

[Habanero.4035]

@gebrechen.5643 said:I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning.

Sure you can. It's called a ~~high ~~ low pass filter. Amplitude is the number of players and frequency is the same.

Either prevent migration with a low pass filter or link gem price to a high pass filter.

[Neural.1824]

@"Kilo.2539" said:Server transfer is how Anet makes money off WvW players... you think they’re going smash that golden egg?

This^^^^ The money people at Anet love it when servers have mass transfers. Seems the same with the "current meta". Instead of balancing things, they just let things get really out of hand, then do a heavy hitting balance patch, and thousands of WvW players open their wallets to buy new gear.

[Israel.7056]

Time to start deleting servers. Seems a fair bet to me at this point that alliances aren't going to be a thing and that even if they are they're so far away in terms of time as to be functionally irrelevant.

[Djamonja.6453]

First of all, most people who server transfer just use gold to buy gems. Second of all, how much do you think it costs in $$ to transfer servers? Five dollars? Do you think a company like Anet is going to make a fortune making $500 for 100 people transferring to a new server? You guys need to rethink how much it costs to transfer and how it would influence Anet's decision making process.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

@Habanero.4035 said:

@gebrechen.5643 said:I don't really know what you guys expect? Anet can't stop the behaviour of bandwagoning.

Sure you can. It's called a ~~high ~~ low pass filter. Amplitude is the number of players and frequency is the same.

Either prevent migration with a low pass filter or link gem price to a high pass filter.

Sorry. Your elec analogy only makes it harder to understand.

[Gemnaid.4219]

Plaease. Just stop

[Roxory.9854]

Server balance, Muhahahahaha! Yes, yes we will fix this with... ALLIANCES yes, yes... tell them to form an alliance with other guilds and once you find them, everyone should transfer to a new server! Cha Ching! AWESOME, I'm on the super stacked server, my que is 45, I did get into a game yesterday after 45 min in que and when the squad was fighting the zerg, the server had so much skill lag, weapon skills would not even work even with a ping of 50. So I transfered back, (Anet Cha Ching! again) On the other side, got right into the game, YEAH outnumbered pips, I just ran around with 10 people for 3 hours, ran into 2 groups of 50 people 30 times and got tons of pips and died 30 times, o well guess I'll try EoTM, wait.... there's nobody here....