Great server organization is killing WvW ... What do you think?

[XANRAT.9367]

It had to happen that one day players on a server would become really super organized in WvW. However the same super organization is killing WvW. It is what humans belive that well organized and focused is ultimately efficient yet look at our planet. Ultimate domination is inferior and self destructive as it lacks the checks and balances of the ultimate force of chaos.

Unless all wvw servers do the same level of organziation and focus as Dzagonur (DE) what remains of WvW will be killed off.

[Dayra.7405]

That is what I liked on EotM: an escape from organization.

[Cyninja.2954]

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WorldDzagonur (DE) Full + Gunnar's Hold Medium

The server is completely overstacked atm. When you field a 30-40 mann squad with 5-15 randoms at 10 in the morning while other servers barely have 30 people on all maps together, that's population advantage. Now add in the winners advantage of people on losing sides logging off, and you multiply the advantage even more.

[Dayra.7405]

The Dzagonur Problem will at least reduce on Friday (and then fade away over time), when they loose their link.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@"Cyninja.2954" said:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WorldDzagonur (DE) Full + Gunnar's Hold Medium

The server is completely overstacked atm. When you field a 30-40 mann squad with 5-15 randoms at 10 in the morning while other servers barely have 30 people on all maps together, that's population advantage. Now add in the winners advantage of people on losing sides logging off, and you multiply the advantage even more.

You should check na T1And that's 1 server

[Cyninja.2954]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@"Cyninja.2954" said:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World

Dzagonur (DE)

Full

+ Gunnar's Hold

Medium

The server is completely overstacked atm. When you field a 30-40 mann squad with 5-15 randoms at 10 in the morning while other servers barely have 30 people on all maps together, that's population advantage. Now add in the winners advantage of people on losing sides logging off, and you multiply the advantage even more.

You should check na T1And that's 1 server

Sure, let's check NA T1:

Blackgate Full + Kaineng Medium - total dominanceFerguson's Crossing High + Jade Quarry Medium - second with 50 points behind (similat to EU T1)Borlis Pass Medium + Henge of Denravi Medium - last with 70 points behind first

Exact same situation. Blackgate+Kaineng are overstacked and crushing the other 2 servers. Where is the difference?

[Dayra.7405]

Ah the short Blackgate open period worked well. :)As long as ANet fails to fix the transfer system (https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/82410/should-the-transfer-system-be-fixed) linking is useless for balance and there is only 1 way to handle that: Boycott the match and let them sit on completely green maps, till they got bored.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World

Dzagonur (DE)

Full

+ Gunnar's Hold

Medium

The server is completely overstacked atm. When you field a 30-40 mann squad with 5-15 randoms at 10 in the morning while other servers barely have 30 people on all maps together, that's population advantage. Now add in the winners advantage of people on losing sides logging off, and you multiply the advantage even more.

You should check na T1And that's 1 server

Sure, let's check NA T1:

Blackgate

Full

+ Kaineng

Medium

- total dominanceFerguson's Crossing

High

+ Jade Quarry

Medium

- second with 50 points behind (similat to EU T1)Borlis Pass

Medium

+ Henge of Denravi

Medium

- last with 70 points behind first

Exact same situation. Blackgate+Kaineng are overstacked and crushing the other 2 servers. Where is the difference?

Kainengs pretty dead atm and bg has mapq ktrains 24/7 and check WvW stats its enough to not tick Below 220

And while you there check the globale dominance in player timezones...you notice gh+dzag to be in top for everythingBg Just to be first in everything

[enkidu.5937]

@"XANRAT.9367" said:It had to happen that one day players on a server would become really super organized in WvW. However the same super organization is killing WvW. It is what humans belive that well organized and focused is ultimately efficient yet look at our planet. Ultimate domination is inferior and self destructive as it lacks the checks and balances of the ultimate force of chaos.

Unless all wvw servers do the same level of organziation and focus as Dzagonur (DE) what remains of WvW will be killed off.

8 weeks ago Dazgo lost players to e. g. Abaddon and got a massive influx of ppl from different servers, leading to a huge overstacking. Many of them are well-known to jump servers on a regular basis. And now you want to tell us, that they magically turned into a "super organized" community? Uhm, highly doubt that. Looks more like the usual bandwaggoning. If you want to call that "organized", its at least true for organizing transfers :p

To meet your question in general: with usually more than 1000 players on every server, a loose organization level seems to be indispensable for WvW. But we also know those "there-is-only-one-Lord-of-the-Rings-and-he-doesn't-share-power-"guys ;)

[Dayra.7405]

Haha, you may continue discussing what's more worse NA or EU. In fact both are very similar and have a similar reason:The population-status does not react immediately to transfers, but is only periodically checked. Plenty of time to overstack server.

[Cyninja.2954]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World

Dzagonur (DE)

Full

+ Gunnar's Hold

Medium

The server is completely overstacked atm. When you field a 30-40 mann squad with 5-15 randoms at 10 in the morning while other servers barely have 30 people on all maps together, that's population advantage. Now add in the winners advantage of people on losing sides logging off, and you multiply the advantage even more.

You should check na T1And that's 1 server

Sure, let's check NA T1:

Blackgate

Full

+ Kaineng

Medium

- total dominanceFerguson's Crossing

High

+ Jade Quarry

Medium

- second with 50 points behind (similat to EU T1)Borlis Pass

Medium

+ Henge of Denravi

Medium

- last with 70 points behind first

Exact same situation. Blackgate+Kaineng are overstacked and crushing the other 2 servers. Where is the difference?

Kainengs pretty dead atm and bg has mapq ktrains 24/7 and check WvW stats its enough to not tick Below 220

And while you there check the globale dominance in player timezones...you notice gh+dzag to be in top for everythingBg Just to be first in everything

Yes, Kaineng probably just as dead as Gunnars, which still makes them probably provide 20-30% more WvW population.

You are also comaparing a single langauge, similar time zone matchup against a multi language, multiple time zones machtup. You do realize that especially Baruch Bay in EU for example sees a lot of night play from spanish speaking players from accross the world?

I'm just tired of this nonsensical flexing of "oh we are so organized" bs. It's population advantage. Always has been.

[Sovereign.1093]

its not players fault they want to organize. it should be in fact encouraged

[Baldrick.8967]

Bandwagon guilds saying they are 'looking for the fights' but all stack the same server..t'was ever thus.

[Swamurabi.7890]

@XANRAT.9367 said:It had to happen that one day players on a server would become really super organized in WvW. However the same super organization is killing WvW. It is what humans belive that well organized and focused is ultimately efficient yet look at our planet. Ultimate domination is inferior and self destructive as it lacks the checks and balances of the ultimate force of chaos.

Unless all wvw servers do the same level of organziation and focus as Dzagonur (DE) what remains of WvW will be killed off.

Instead of looking at population or score, maybe Anet should also look at skirmish victories to help with locking and linking.

In EU, T1, T4 and T5 have similar dominance OP is complaining about, around 30+ 1st place skirmish victories and the other 15 skirmishes split between 2nd and 3rd. But this doesn't even come close to Blackgate's NA T1 dominance of 41 skirmish wins in a row. 41-0-0. That's some competition.

WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

[Dayra.7405]

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for less than one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Baldrick.8967" said:Bandwagon guilds saying they are 'looking for the fights' but all stack the same server..t'was ever thus.Fight guild group on map.

Finds lone ele running to group, engages. Nope, he telelports way and run because he doesnt want to fight.

Find lone rev running to the group, engages. He dies while running because he cant fight sustain.

Find lone firebrand running to the group, engages. Doesnt want to fight because minstrel cant fight, just keep running.

Brings the cloud onto the group to defeat it. "Noobs you cant fight us 1v1 so you only bring a blob, kitten pugs!".

[Swamurabi.7890]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@"Swamurabi.7890" said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

[Stand The Wall.6987]

it wouldn't matter if smaller groups could deal with bigger ones.

[Dayra.7405]

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

I would explain it with: BG has many more player-hours per week, maybe 10000 hours instead of 6000.

What is your assumption of equal hours is based on? BG was open a days 2 weeks ago, and in the forum there was a call for transfers to BG. and it looks like enough people followed the call to destroy any kind of balance in player (and player-hours) that it had after relinking.

[Swamurabi.7890]

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

I would explain it with: BG has many more player-hours per week, maybe 10000 hours instead of 6000.

What is your assumption of equal hours is based on? BG was open a days 2 weeks ago, and in the forum there was a call for transfers to BG. and it looks like enough people followed the call to destroy any kind of balance in player (and player-hours) that it had after relinking.

BG dropped below a threshold in order to be open. BG gets a link also based on a threshold. Both thresholds are based upon player-hours.

What was BG's skirmish record before they got the link and were opened? Was it anywhere close to being competitive? Anyone have the data on BG's skirmish records going back to the beginning of skirmishes?

[Heibi.4251]

While this is a well intentioned thread it will be viewed by ANET as a so-called "match-up" thread.

So, to the moderator who will do this - Please look at what is actually being talked about. They are talking about the massive imbalance created by whatever algorithm is being used to set server population. Just because a server has X number of people playing a certain number of hours doesn't make it full. HOD is a pure example of this. HOD can barely queue a map on its most active day(and we have to have a link up to do it). Yet for the longest time we had this mystical very high or full rating. Hate to break it to you, but HOD does not have very many people. We finally were labeled as medium population, but that has come far too late. No one wanted to transfer due to the price of gems. They would always be waiting for the price to come down. They'd transfer to a link server to escape whatever large or dead server they were on hoping we'd get a drop in population.

So my proposal is to take any "full" server's link away. See how they perform. However, we all know that they can tank on purpose to skew your algorithm, so beware of this gimmick. Certain servers have done this many times, and they are very organized, just like the OP has said. They are causing some of the problems in WvW that everyone is talking about. Please find a new way to measure the population of a server or build in a skew-gap stopper. If a suddenly active server's population seems to be dropping rapidly it should be able to check transfers first and then view player time(discounting less than 10 minutes in game - i.e. dailies) and number of players(which should have a higher factor than actual time).

Anyway, that's all.

[Seductive.5741]

@"Cyninja.2954" said:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WorldDzagonur (DE) Full + Gunnar's Hold Medium

The server is completely overstacked atm. When you field a 30-40 mann squad with 5-15 randoms at 10 in the morning while other servers barely have 30 people on all maps together, that's population advantage. Now add in the winners advantage of people on losing sides logging off, and you multiply the advantage even more.

Oh u mean the Commander that does the exact same shift every day 10-12 for the last 5 years ? What a shocker that the ppl come online during that time period .

[Diku.2546]

@"Swamurabi.7890" said:

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

---

It's UN-HEALTHY competition & actually threatens ANet's long-term financial survival.

---

ANet’s is failing to skillfully manipulate Population & Score to nurture the Long Term health of the WvW Ecosystem.

Ignored - Difficult Task to Manipulate Population & Score warning for WvW over 3 years ago.2016-08-21Copy & Paste to use linkhttps://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-the-heck-happened-to-WvW/page/2#post6297129

We're still going down the same road of failure & repeating what server linking did to WvW, but instead we're now using Language linking & Alliance linking with these "improved" Team Creation mechanics to further encourage an already Toxic game mode into becoming even more Toxic in nature.

---

Caution - 800 pound Gorilla in the T1 room...IS the norm....and CONTINUES to be the norm

---

Players on the "NON-ORGANIZED...aka...under-stacked" teams are required to "Adjust" & play for the pure joy of SALT...or choose to TANK in order to get out of the "T1 room" with the 800 pound Gorilla in it.

History is doomed to repeat itself as we blindly continue on this forsaken path that we've been put upon.

There's a better solution to fix WvW & it only needs 5 simple steps...to turn our current Match-Up system...into a More Healthy Competitive game mode...imho

Can't understand why folks think it's so complex to fix WvW.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

[Chaba.5410]

The mod won't have been trained in what a match-up thread was originally so everything now is such a thread.

I wish they'd go back to the old forum archive and see actual match-up threads.

[SlateSloan.3654]

makes no sense to analyse the playerbase, the "problems" of wvw, to theorycraft how to "improve" the game or speculate what would help.

let the payed developers do this job, in the end its the job they get payed for. if their delivery doesnt fit your needs just leave the game be like many others did already.

the best to express your dissatisfactory as a player is to stay away. if the restaurant owner see he sells no food anymore he will change. or he is too dumb and has to close the restaurant. if thats the only solution he got, this shall happen.