Official Anet response: WvW population, Class balance

[jul.7602]

Since anet for some reason decides not to post on their official forums, here is a summary provided by Dulfy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/74re46/pof_developer_ama_summary/

[Blodeuyn.2751]

Thanks for linking, here's the wvw-related bit:

WvW• Max number of players in a wvw map is fixed and same for all worlds on a map ( can’t give out numbers). Players have already figured its in the ballpark of 100 per team. This isn’t far off.• Wall Health in WvW – We recently did a pass on all the walls and they should all be the same health. If you have found a specific wall that is different then report it using “/bug” in game please ????• Regarding closed WvW servers – We weekly monitor world populations and adjust them as WvW players move around• We’re looking at the condition damage issues that are inherent to the scaling number of players in WvW. Major mode-centric changes are a major part of balance patches and we’ll be iterating through several potential changes specifically for WvW. I wouldn’t expect huge mode-specific balance changes before the first post-PoF balance patch.• We calculate a Worlds “fullness” based on the amount of WvW playhours over a period of time. Specific details about world populations is something we don’t discuss externally. Both JQ and FA are within 10% of BGs playtime stat. Many of the hosts with links have a larger total population play time then BG.• Distinguishable Winds of Disenchantment, ie different colors for friendly and enemy bubbles – Looking into it.

[LordThroat.7890]

So I guess if players can't move around then there's no need to adjust populations?

[Silver.2076]

So the players on server balance is in order and the algorithm works fine. WOULD YOU FOOL US? Have a look at the reality in the community - not your statistics! A lot of players are frustrated and trapped in a system you consider correct!

Will you WvW players ever take seriously? And to comment on the damage to the condition, I'd rather not comment on that.

[FXLEACH.9436]

Absolutely disgusting how they completely disregard the population imbalances. Shameful.

[rotsono.9176]

I guess its fine as it is. People have to learn to move to lower servers and not try to overstack again. If you want it to be balanced then spread and dont try to join the overstacked servers, try to join the low servers with as much people as you can. For example there are 15 servers opn in EU but no one is gonna move from the overstacked servers. It's a player problem not a system problem, everyone just wants to stick to the team that rolls over lower servers.

[Offair.2563]

@FXLEACH.9436 said:Absolutely disgusting how they completely disregard the population imbalances. Shameful.

Profession balance is something anet can do about it. Population balance is purely player driven.

[Vermillion.4061]

Instead of complaining about servers like BG/JQ being locked cough certain people on JQ/BG cough just transfer off to another server to even the population imbalances. This is a player caused problem and I don't see why anet should be at fault for this.

[Ragnarox.9601]

no nerf to scourge and spellbreaker..pfff....

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

@Offair.2563 said:

@FXLEACH.9436 said:Absolutely disgusting how they completely disregard the population imbalances. Shameful.

Profession balance is something anet can do about it. Population balance is purely player driven.Yeah, that. Anet can't do anything directly about population balance without forcibly moving people (you can imagine how well

that

would be received by the playerbase), and things they could do indirectly are what they're already doing (locking down overpopulated servers, linking underpopulated ones together so they're not completely outmatched, etc).

[Spurnshadow.3678]

You overlooked this gem:

"Sorry – it is NOT intended that stacking multiple shades compounds their effects. We’re going to make changes while keeping a close eye on the power of the Scourge across game modes and adjust it over time accordingly. Frankly, the Sand Shades were one of the most controversial (and dangerous!) mechanics we added with the Path of Fire Elite Specs."

How could that possibly be NOT intentional. Kinda obvious design feature. Anyone who plays the class for 2 minutes sees it and it's in the skill descriptions. And if it wasn't intended, it just goes to show how much of a rush they were to get this crap out there rather than delaying the release so this stuff was right.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

And there's also this:

"What is the long-term goal for power vs. condi balance in PvE – Power is intended to be more spike damage-centric. Condi more ramping sustained damage. Currently there are some issues with how quickly condition damage can be spiked up, negating the benefits of power damage. If I presented you with a power skill that dealt 1,000 damage instantaneously and a condition one that dealt 1,000 damage over 4 seconds there wouldn’t be a question about what build to choose; you’d go with the instant option every time. Not counting other effects, condition skills must inflict more damage over their duration in order to make power vs. condi into a real choice. [snip]"

Notice how it's PvE specifically mentioned.

I mean, duh. The point is not to balance to the DPS per actual second, but over a longer period of time. I don't think anyone anywhere was advocating that. Kinda simple, but for a game that's been out for 5 years, I don't see why this is revisited again and again. Why is is so hard to see the dps of these condi builds. I mean, my firebrand does over 20K ticks of burning plus its power damage for a few seconds then drops down to 12K bruning plus power damage when I have full might stacks. What power profession even comes close to that? none.

This is also another reason to split PvP/WvW from PvE as PvE does not have the condi clears of PvP/WvW. Another no brainer, but they keep trying to balance for all. I'd even argue that over time, All classes should do the same dps, condi or power. That's how, well, pretty much, all games are. Then it comes down to more player skill or the situation. You choose condi, power, one classes skills or another depending on what you're fighting. For example, Power professions are supposed to have some skills that hit hard to exploit opportunities. If one has to spend a lot of down time away form an enemy, then condi is better. But if they want condi to do more damage than power, then PvE raids will continue to just want condi dps. It has to be even over a long period.

I swear. I'm so tired of this.

[Dusty Moon.4382]

But the way A.Net has condi now, IT IS THE SPIKE damage (when you get hit for 20K condi damage that is a spike not raped sustain) and power is the ramping sustain damage. I guess they don't play the same game or play it with ROSE-Coloured glasses on.

[SkyShroud.2865]

There is nothing new, they didn't assure us they have plans on how to improve it.

[Jski.6180]

For world pop. they need to factor in covages into there pop. time played. If every one is playing during one time zones but not during others then there pop. is smaller then say a world who pop is only playing part of the time all the time.

For balancing you cant comply fix it but dropping numbers from 5 to 3 on major condi dmg attks would go a long way.The thing is by having wvw balancing tide to pve is messing up the point of burst dmg and dps over all because pve is all about dps as mobs can last much longer then any player could so the numbers are comply off in that type of set up. The best trick would be to tide wvw balancing to spvp to a point if not comply.

[SugarCayne.3098]

@Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

@Offair.2563 said:

@FXLEACH.9436 said:Absolutely disgusting how they completely disregard the population imbalances. Shameful.

Profession balance is something anet can do about it. Population balance is purely player driven.Yeah, that. Anet can't do anything directly about population balance without forcibly moving people (you can imagine how well

that

would be received by the playerbase), and things they could do indirectly are what they're already doing (locking down overpopulated servers, linking underpopulated ones together so they're not completely outmatched, etc).

Think they should anyhow. Start punting people off overcrowded servers based on time served.

[ich.7086]

@Jski.6180 said:For world pop. they need to factor in covages into there pop. time played. If every one is playing during one time zones but not during others then there pop. is smaller then say a world who pop is only playing part of the time all the time.

It's a good idea but how ? That's the major problem : accounting for timezones differences is really hard. Because mixing metrics is an art : if you got a low pop but evenly distributed server, how high a "EU prime focus" server's pop must be to rank higher / lower ?

And whatever metrics Anet uses, there is one sure thing : balance can't be reached with players free to move, you only get a "close enough" balance. Links are the tool for Anet to move population without putting people of their server.

[Dusty Moon.4382]

Well, TC is supposed to be one of the highest population servers. BUT, if you actually play WvW, we are outmanned on every map 24/7. I don't know how A.net can possibly keep TC that way.

Again, A.Net thinks one thing but reality is something else.

[Sovereign.1093]

anet needs to beta a three way spvp

[kmfart.7480]

Last week NA T1 had a massive -50% less kills recorded compared to the kills recorded in both T1 & T2 (NA & EU) matchups (we are talking about approximately a 50,000 kills difference. Thats disturbing!). That's about as far from balance as you can possibly get ingame while still being logged on.

[Pancake.3092]

IMO, here's how Anet can use their population manipulation powers to fix WvW:

Kill overstacked servers: At the moment these are BG and Mag, with BG being (very comfortably) the more stacked of the 2. Keep A closed and B open for a LONG time, and eventually A will die out. After A dies out, keep them closed for a while to make sure they weren't just hibern(g)ating. The reason this works when Mag is B is because 75% of Mag would leave the server on (literally) a dime, whereas the people on server A have a "sense of community" (aka have an easy time (forget the esports terms for that)). Once A is dead, players on B would leave purely out of boredom (honestly cannot think of a single major guild on mag that would stay just to ... man that word eludes me ...)- Now Anet has a playground where no-one is bigger than anyone else, and all their population algorithms (probably developed by a marketing intern) can actually work! WvW fixed, send PoF code as payment thnx!

BTW, no MU thread, no copyright intended, no offense intended to hibergate and baguuma. Not my fault if this thread gets locked...

Edit: "Fairweather" that was it...

[Titan.3472]

lol @ Pancake.3092 WTF xD

[Malerian.8435]

@SugarCayne.3098 said:

@Hyper Cutter.9376 said:

@Offair.2563 said:

@FXLEACH.9436 said:Absolutely disgusting how they completely disregard the population imbalances. Shameful.

Profession balance is something anet can do about it. Population balance is purely player driven.Yeah, that. Anet can't do anything directly about population balance without forcibly moving people (you can imagine how well

that

would be received by the playerbase), and things they could do indirectly are what they're already doing (locking down overpopulated servers, linking underpopulated ones together so they're not completely outmatched, etc).

Think they should anyhow. Start punting people off overcrowded servers based on time served.

So what about the gold or RL money someone used to buy gems to transfer? You think Anet will refund everyone? I do not ever see this happening lol