Zok.4956

> @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > > @"Gudradain.3892" said: > > > You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene. > > > > The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights. > > > > You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode. > > > > No. I'm quite sure you just need more competitors to create healthy competition. Given enough competitors, it doesn't matter what the competition is because you will be able to match opponents of similar levels together. No, that is definitely not enough. You need rules for fair fights for a healthy competition. Three servers fighting against each others at the same time can often be fun, but it is not fair. Never was. That is the reason, why in team sport (i.e. soccer) usually only two groups fight against each others in a match/game. And to be fair there must not be any population imbalances. Thats why in team sport (i.e. soccer) there is a fixed and equal amount of players on both sides and removing one or more players from one side is used as a penalty (because it is usually a big disadvantage). In New World, for example, this is solved in a way that there are only two groups fighting each other at the same time and before a battle begins the groups collect/invite players until the groups are full (50 players per group), so the fights/battles will always be 50v50. And then: Do you remember the time when Anet tried to go into eSports with sPVP? There was a competitive scene for a while. But then Anet did not really understand how to balance the different classes (hint: balancing also is important for fair and skill based fights) and that was one of many reasons why that was a big failure. Alliances in GW2 are not a solution for this. To have fair fights in WvW the mode has to be changed so much that it would be more or less a new game mode.

> @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it. > Except what you describe as a critical flaw is... well... *competition*. A competition who can game the system best or a competition who is more organized and can dominate its alliance/guild members and steamroll unorganized servers/players better? As long as we do not have all the details (and see the whole system) its only speculation if there will be critical flaws that Anet has not adressed/solved.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > > > **An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild.** It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics. > > > > Guild leaders (and their officers) can kick players from a guild. And because Alliances are like a Guild of Guilds, Alliance leaders (and their officers) can kick/remove guilds from their alliance. > > > > And because there will be limits (i.e. players per allliance, per server, etc), the guilds that are now regularly bandwagoning to create the biggest and overstacked linked-servers will make sure, that in their alliance only likeminded guilds exist, to have a bigger advantage against other servers/alliances. > > Why is that a problem? Working with guilds to improve yourself and work WITHIN the confines of the rules to be successful is a bad thing? > > > > > And all players, that are not in those alliances/guilds, will be placed randomly on other servers, that can not compete with the organized-big-alliance servers. > > Why would you want to be a part of an alliance where your views don’t align with them? And there is nothing stopping you from putting your guild in another alliance. > > > > > So yes, players can't be kicked from a server. But they (and their guilds) can be kicked from Alliances. And probably will be assigned to other servers after the next relinking/reshuffling. > > Yes, that is why it exists which allow people to align (alliance) with people that view the game in a similar fashion. Why is that bad? I responded to "Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server.". However, big guilds/alliances dominating a server could be a bad thing, because it will change the game mode a lot. Because players that join the game mode but do not want to join those bandwagoning-guilds could be assigned to servers where they probably only will be cannon-fodder for the other servers. Like it is today on some servers, but this could be worse with alliances. It is a pattern sometimes seen in other games with openworld-PVP (and WvW is Anets version of openworld PvP): If mega guilds lock a server down the gameplay stagnates and then players, that do not want to be in those mega-guilds, leave the game-mode. > If they are on a host world, the link players can’t stay with them unless they bandwagon multiple times. (Incidentally that is why I don’t think we are going to see alliances) it continues to create imbalance in matchups despite links. Just look at the fact that BG has a full link server now. And they aren’t alone in that. CD was medium pop when the link took place. server-links were a band-aid for population imbalance. but they did not really solve the population imbalance problem (because of massive bandwagoning after each server relinks) and they have created new problems (links and massive bandwagoning after server relinks destroy the remaining server communities). For this reason, I do not trust Anet blindly to solve the problem of population imbalance with alliances before Anet shows us all the details of how it works and I can see it with my own eyes.

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > **An alliance, the proposed entity in the system, is just a guild.** It is a way to stick 5 guilds into one piece or to divide your guild into 5 pieces, however you choose to see it. The Alliance on a World is just like a Guild on a Server today. There is no major significant difference. Alliances can't kick players off Worlds anymore than Guilds can kick players off a Server. That is just nonsense. Whether its authority or power is just semantics. Guild leaders (and their officers) can kick players from a guild. And because Alliances are like a Guild of Guilds, Alliance leaders (and their officers) can kick/remove guilds from their alliance. And because there will be limits (i.e. players per allliance, per server, etc), the guilds that are now regularly bandwagoning to create the biggest and overstacked linked-servers will make sure, that in their alliance only likeminded guilds exist, to have a bigger advantage against other servers/alliances. And all players, that are not in those alliances/guilds, will be placed randomly on other servers, that can not compete with the organized-big-alliance servers. So yes, players can't be kicked from a server. But they (and their guilds) can be kicked from Alliances. And probably will be assigned to other servers after the next relinking/reshuffling. A lot of details about the alliance system are not communicated yet and we can not be sure if and how it will be implemented in the end. But there is a high risk that it could kill the game mode finally, instead of revitalizing it.

> @"Gudradain.3892" said: > You need more worlds and smaller worlds to create an healthy and interesting competitive scene. The mode is WvWvW and three servers fighting against each other or together will always be more or less unfair. Which is fun sometimes. But for a healthy competitive scene you need fair fights. You can have GvG and 1v1 in WvW but these are only segments of the game mode.

> @"Sansar.1302" said: > Been solo roaming since 2 months after game went live ( have tried zerg play and smal scale too) > Now these days ppl seam to trie to ruin any 1v1 or eaven 2 v1. When I am running with a zerg we still ignore 1v1 duelists at the usual spots and also solo players and we don't care about them until they try to gank our tail or they try to take objectives we care about. So, your generalized statement is an exaggeration.

> @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > > @"Dondarrion.2748" said: > > > My guild(s) are all looking ahead to NW and AoC and preparing for these games because those games *are* publishing articles that give some insight into what's coming. > > > > New World is a good example, that you can use a lot of money and still make an uninspired game. The game was released, then un-released and put back to beta, than postponed ... last time I checked it looked like a stereotype of other already existing games. > > I believe you're talking about Crucible being released and then unreleased. Right developer though. Yes, your are correct. I mixed it up a little bit. New World was never publicly released. It was in May 2019 in Alpha stage and went from that back to development stage. After big changes in the game they entered Alpha back in 2020, but there was not much PvE endgame content. It will enter Beta stage in July this year, if it will not be delayed again.

> @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"mzmz.6289" said: > > > for healers can only heal for their team > > Agreed, healers should be able to heal the enemy as well. > > You know what they meant was that you constantly have to keep an eye on where your subgroup is (they are rarely sticky), which makes stuff like using your elite stability skill a pain in the behind, as it is applied only to those in front of you in a cone radius? ;) If your subgroup is not able or willing to be sticky, they deserve no healing/stability.

> @"Dondarrion.2748" said: > My guild(s) are all looking ahead to NW and AoC and preparing for these games because those games *are* publishing articles that give some insight into what's coming. New World is a good example, that you can use a lot of money and still make an uninspired game. The game was released, then un-released and put back to beta, than postponed ... last time I checked it looked like a stereotype of other already existing games.

> @"nthmetal.9652" said: > > @"Zok.4956" said: > > > @"nthmetal.9652" said: > > > If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. > > > > What exactely is the "duck" your are seeing? That the "full" and "very high" of Gandara are false and Anet has set Gandara intentionally to "full" because Anet hates Gandara? > > I don't think "hate" is any factor. I wonder what you're trying to achieve by putting me in that corner. Hate is something that actually takes a lot of effort, consumes and wastes energy, and I don't think this has any room for that. Ok, I rephrase "hate" to "does not like". My point was: Do you think that Anet runs their populations algorithm on all servers and then, intentially and manually, sets Gandara to "full" regardless of what their algorithm computes? > So no, I don't know. Maybe it's simply neglect? Yes, I think Anet probably neglects Gandara, like Anet neglects all other servers and the WvW-gamemode. > Maybe I'm completely wrong, and Gandara, despite all the hints we have pointing to the opposite, is actually full and our population just distributes very, veeeery evenly, so that there are never queues (well I am exaggerating here. Of course we sometimes have queues. Very small ones. During primetime, and not during the last weeks - but generally moving even big groups was pretty easy during the last months). And we're just so slightly above the full threshold, that moving between maps 50-man-zergs is indeed easily possibly. Yet somehow we never dip below the "full" threshold anymore, despite guilds transferring off the server and no one new being able to join. > And of course our players are all pretty bad, so that we can't win fights. That aspect is very easy to explain generally. There is a lack of commanders (we're not the only server suffering from that), which means a lot of activity is pretty unfocused. > And maybe, just maybe, the average Gandaran player is so bad, that even the PPT is bad, right? Bad enough to not make it past T4 when we have no link (but we can make T4 and even T3 when we do have one). > But you have to admit, that's a lot of factors that have to combine together to give the picture you imply, namely Gandara being actually a full server which does work exactly as I describe above. > > Or you take the simple explanation. The simple explanation would be, that your "anecdotal evidence" is not evidence and that your perception is biased, you expect too much, and you want to see a pattern/connection for unfairness against Gandara. Maybe you do not now when your fellow Gandarans are playing and where they are on the maps when you play and what they do. Some example: My server is "very high" and linked with a "high" server. Very often when I play I have the "Outnumbered" buff and often when there is an enemy ktrain blob we are not enough to defend and they just flip our garri. I do think sometimes, a linked-server that has very high+high should have more population. An when I was in matchups against Gandara, I felt as if there were a lot of Gandara players all over the map - more players than on my own server. This is also just a subjective observation, of course. But Gandara never felt like an empty server. >Or at least that this criterion of being "full" is inadequate for the gamemode. > And that doesn't only go for Gandara. A lot of things are inadequate for the gamemode and the link-system itself is not a good system and this leads to a lot of players/guilds bandwagoning after a relink to overstack servers to make bigger blobs. We as players do not know Anets thresholds for "full", "very high", "high", "medium" and "low". But I do think that (with the exception that BB will never be "full") Anet uses the same thresholds for all servers. I know it can s..ck if a server does not get a link. Been there. But I do not think that Anet treats Gandara differently than the other servers.

> @"nthmetal.9652" said: > If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. What exactely is the "duck" your are seeing? That the "full" and "very high" of Gandara are false and Anet has set Gandara intentionally to "full" because Anet hates Gandara?

> @"nthmetal.9652" said: > gw2mists tells us, that not many registered players are on Gandara, compared to other servers. We have no reason to believe that the amount of registered players on gw2mists from Gandara is for some reason significantly lower than that of other servers. But of course you can draw that conclusion, despite no evidence given. Just because you do not see a reason for a statistical bias is no evidence that the numbers from gw2mists are adequate samples for all the population of all servers. People register accounts on gw2mist because they want to. As a result, registered accounts on gw2mists are not a random sample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sample for the whole WvW population because of selection bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias > I believe that's how you build a conspiracy theory exactely. seeing something in numbers without scientific evidence or by doing statistics wrong is a "good" starting point for a conspiracy theory like "Gandara is full because Anet hates Gandara". Apophenia is also typical of conspiracy theory, where coincidences may be woven together into an apparent plot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia >But if you accept the facts present as actually being connected they suddenly point to a population problem. You did not present a lot of facts that could prove your point. Maybe you have a different understanding of "facts". Added: But I do agree, that Gandara seems to have a population problem, because the server is so overstacked, that as a result it is "full" most of the time.

> @"Chips.7968" said: > > @"Faolain.2374" said: > > Meanwhile 30+ gandara players defended their nc for 4 hours earlier, then one hour later their night commander logged on to flip empty keeps all night with a different 40+ people and this is with a server organised boycott lmao. How can you even complain about numbers when you have 30 people defending a camp? The problem with gandara is that if they aren't massively outnumbering or able to cloud, they wp from fights and start complaining about fights that are easily winnable for a server which isn't 90% ranger. Instead of blobbing single roamers, you could have taken that 30+ squad to another map and actually done something both fun and useful for the server. The whole "boycotting to become open again" kills me everytime, because you are an overpopulated server, actively trying to become more overpopulated so that you can what? continue to waypoint from 50vs50 fights? Golem rush with 60 players instead of 50? guarantee that every gank on gbl is at least 10 vs. 1 whenever you leave spawn instead of 7vs1? Any serious player/guild would have left gandara years ago, and when you do eventually open up you're gonna attract the exact same people that are there now, which will not benefit gandara in the slightest > > They would *go* to defend NC when called for one simple reason. People want a fight and they wanted to hold objectives for once. The fact that they also defended... Bay, Hills, Water Camp, Vale, Briar, Lake tower, Mill and Quarry (for a total of about 2 hours actually) aren't highlighted in your post but ARE relevant; it indicates the player base were trying to have fights and defend objectives. Actually, you proved the point that the server is not empty and has lots of players and a lot player activity. > I think people get bored re-taking the same objective for 2 hours. Note, bored - meaning they'd prefer to play another game so do so. I've not played GW2 for 2 weeks. Really easy... I was playing other games and having a blast. Come back, some tidy fights (winning or losing), but inbetween I know in other games the enjoyment level surpasses GW2 WvW. It is not different on the other servers. Anet does not count how much players are on a server or what they do, but how much player activity (simplified: the sum of play time in WvW of all players that play WvW during the counted time period) and from this they group servers into "full", "very high", "high" etc. With one exception: Baruch Bay will never become "full" because it is the only server for the spanish language. If player activity on Gandara would drop substantial, the server population would go from "full" to "very high" to "high" to "medium" .... but as long as player activity does not drop a lot, the server will stay in "full" or "very high".

> @"Laurencius.9258" said: > @"Zok.4956" You say it wasn't locked prior to 5/18/2020 - source please - I don't remember it being open then. The source is the data from Anets official API. I use gw2gh.com that reads and collects the API-data, others use gw2mists etc. for this. > Gandara is not over-stacked and it is not over-populated. If a server is "full" then it is over-populated. > Whenever you go into WVW there are maybe 5 Gandara players vs 50 players on both the other servers. How does 5 people constitute a overpopulated? Please explain Zok, since you have all the answers. I think it is called cognitive bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias > I stand corrected and I stand proven correct. Gandara suposedly is full with 291 players Anet does not show the exact numbers. Anet only gives "full", "very high", "high"...

> @"Laurencius.9258" said: > Gandara has been locked for years. Not kidding - years. That is an exaggeration and you are wrong. Gandara is full since 2020-05-18. That is not even one year. And before that Gandara oscillated between "full" and "very high". Whenever the server population dropped to "very high" only a few days later it was "full" again. So, it looks to me that Gandara is overstacked and overpopulated and that is the reason why it is full. My guess is: As long as players do not play less on Gandara, or move to other servers, Gandara will continue to stay full.