A Server Held Hostage by its Population

[PabbyGaul.9682]

I keep seeing posts anout server populations. They all revolve around the same thing. "I dont like losing/winning all the time please predict and fix on a costant bases the inconsistencies of an entirely player-driven problem"

 

I suggest 2. Or make a 4th option where you are responsible for finding people to play in wvw. Anet could just log ppl directly into wvw, they could entice people with more rewards. These are terrible ideas and Im sure Anet could manufacture a hundred ways to get people into wvw and all would have unintended consequences. Please stop asking Anet to fix your problems.

[Xillllix.3485]

Can't you just merge everything in 3 factions and let me play with or against my friends? It needs tweaking (maybe more ebg maps instances and adding eotm to WvW score) but seriously it's a shame not being able to play with friends in a MMO.

[Basti.3698]

> @"PabbyGaul.9682" said:

> I keep seeing posts anout server populations. They all revolve around the same thing. "I dont like losing/winning all the time please predict and fix on a costant bases the inconsistencies of an entirely player-driven problem"

> Please stop asking Anet to fix your problems.

 

It's not about winning or loosing, It's about not having a competition at all.. and thats what wvw is all about.. competing against others.. It's not because you get outnumbered during the whole week.. i actually feel kinda sorry for our enemies because we CANT fight or Split push against them.. if i had to play without enemies i would not see any benefit in playing wvw at all.. i.e. you dont dont play chess as long theres no one to play against..

 

Best

B.

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Xillllix.3485" said:

> Can't you just merge everything in 3 factions and let me play with or against my friends? It needs tweaking (maybe more ebg maps instances and adding eotm to WvW score) but seriously it's a shame not being able to play with friends in a MMO.

 

You can already do that depending on your current server color in EotM. Generally as an mmo with Megaserver you can play any time you want with your friends in PvE.

 

I don't see a problem...

[Jana.6831]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

>(OP)

GW2 lost it when it comes to especially wvw but PvP is suffering as well as far as I know. All of what you describe are the symptoms of a very bad balance. And by that I don't mean population wise. We did get along pretty fine before the merges, even the lowest servers. If people were more into roaming they chose the lower tiers, if they wanted blobfights they went to gold. That isn't anymore. The population of this game was declining because there is no profession balance, as far as I know there's no good other large scale pvp game out there.

They tried to fix it with the pips but a large influx of PvE players always hurts more than it helps - plus trying to learn anything about combat/wvw is rather moot.

Also: You can't really force anyone to play, no matter how good your population estimation programs work: there will always be population imbalance. The fix for it would be to make smaller with skill = equal with larger and no skill. but we've had that in the past and people didn't want to learn.

In the end: It is what it is and it's unlikely to change.

My buddies and I left because there's no balance and it's therefore no fun to play, not because the game is ageing.

 

 

[BIGSPLAsH.4570]

I play WvW on Elona and we have the same problems, many other servers have. We dont have enough ppl to be successfull. So where is the Problem? I guess the Problem is, that the game is getting older and older, ppl stop playing this game and wvw is the game mode which is suffering the most! So my suggestion is, Anet has to close some servers and transfer its players to the other servers. I know very well that anet is earning a lot of Money with this transfers of ppl and guilds. But Anet has to decide what is more important, earning money and let servers like elona die (elona is just a synonyme for the german community) or they start to concentrate all active ppl on only a few servers, maybe with new names. The terrible Serverlinkings already destroyed most server identitys, so where is the problem to close the lowest ones?! Maybe its hard in the first months, but it will help to bring success back in this gamemode. Anet pls be not so greedy and give the right impulse to get us back in good times!

 

Yours sincerely Consta :3

[Biermeister.4678]

Go back to the original GW HoH model for server wars and bring GvG into the game

[Lithril Ashwalker.6230]

> @"Chris Cleary.8017" said:

> This is something that we are having chats internally about quite often. Essentially server population is a self perpetuating problem and layer on top of that problem region specific time zone population density and you end up in a situation like we have right now. It's not an easy problem to solve, and not a quick one. I can't yet comment on potential outcomes of the internal discussions, however I can comment specifically about this situation in EU.

>

> With BB topping participation and Kodash surging this week, the difference between the Worlds in 3rd and 9nd (for participation) is only between 5% and 15%. That's actually a good spread if those worlds matched up against eachother... however.... BB isn't listed as FULL and Kodash is. The idea of "Full" server status can mean a number of things, but mostly it's in attempt to balance WvW populations so that servers that get matched together have a equal paying field of participation. That's clearly not working if BB isn't FULL atm when it should be.

>

> I'll dig into it significantly more over the next few days (on the population/Server Status situation as a whole). Ideally I'd like at least server status updated (and working properly) before the winter break, but it might happen after. Solving the overarching self perpetuation of population unbalance is a larger issue to tackle, that's not a "soon" thing.

 

is there a way to determine each player's most active hours then recommend servers with similar time or pool them into that time so all servers are active?

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Pretty Pixie.8603" said:

> > Previous RvR games have shown that just two or three factions lead to one faction being stacked and dominating the other ones. No one likes to be on the losing team. Populations aren't a fixed thing, new players join, old one takes break or retire. Unless you manually assign populations, this will remain a likely problem, and manually assigning populations come with a heap of problems of their own.

>

> This does not happen with ESO.

>

>

 

No it does not. However ZOS, don't monetize their Alliance War mode at all. ZOS also balances ESO from a PvP perspective. ESO is also nowhere near a casual MMO. ZOS also actively communicate and supports it's Alliance War mode.

 

Also the biggest one is. Numbers and coverage which Daggerfall Covenant has in droves over the Ebonheart Pact, does not give it a sure win due to actual in place game mechanics. They do everything omni faction blob, nightcap, and every time to time use cheat engine in mass. Yet they have not won a single 30 day campaign in the last 3 or 4 months.

 

Dev teams in other MMOs are taking clear notes from ANet. On how not to run their RvR-like modes.

[Basti.3698]

So,

New Linkings on Friday 22. Lets see if there are any changes to the population calculation...

Did ANET announce any other dates for WvW-Updates?

 

I like that many new discussions connect to ideas we mentioned in here... at least people are talking to each other..

 

... praying for changes

 

 

Best,

B.

 

 

[Spurnshadow.3678]

> @"Lithril Ashwalker.6230" said:

> > @"Chris Cleary.8017" said:

> > This is something that we are having chats internally about quite often. Essentially server population is a self perpetuating problem and layer on top of that problem region specific time zone population density and you end up in a situation like we have right now. It's not an easy problem to solve, and not a quick one. I can't yet comment on potential outcomes of the internal discussions, however I can comment specifically about this situation in EU.

> >

> > With BB topping participation and Kodash surging this week, the difference between the Worlds in 3rd and 9nd (for participation) is only between 5% and 15%. That's actually a good spread if those worlds matched up against eachother... however.... BB isn't listed as FULL and Kodash is. The idea of "Full" server status can mean a number of things, but mostly it's in attempt to balance WvW populations so that servers that get matched together have a equal paying field of participation. That's clearly not working if BB isn't FULL atm when it should be.

> >

> > I'll dig into it significantly more over the next few days (on the population/Server Status situation as a whole). Ideally I'd like at least server status updated (and working properly) before the winter break, but it might happen after. Solving the overarching self perpetuation of population unbalance is a larger issue to tackle, that's not a "soon" thing.

>

> is there a way to determine each player's most active hours then recommend servers with similar time or pool them into that time so all servers are active?

 

See my thread here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/21469/idea-to-help-population-balance#latest

[Basti.3698]

thanks for messing EU linkings up.... Not that it was good before but the fact that higher Tier Server getting linked while T5 server unlinked and full........ I actually interpret this as an attempt to close our world..not even mad about it, just hurry before you loose the last players down here.. Im not jealous at higher servers, but i don't see the consistency in here..

[atheria.2837]

> @"Chris Cleary.8017" said:

 

"so that servers that get matched together have a equal playing field of participation. "

 

This, specifically, is not happening.

 

If the numbers were 'equal' not many would be concerned about the state of WvW.

 

50vs25 isn't 'equal'.

 

10v2 isn't 'equal'.

 

I will be waiting for a true resolution and some help for WvW.

 

One way to help, now, is to undo the links.

 

They are disallow loyalty to not only servers, but also to people.

 

One can't get to know anyone even in an MMO in two months.

 

The links were a mistake - and they do harm WvW as much as the inequity of numbers.

 

*addendum When a server can hold all properties of one server and never touches the other - something is amiss. Very amiss. I have screenshots galore if

anyone needs to see a 'not equal' participation set of maps.

 

The links, if they were to be done 'correctly', all links would have the opposite 'problem' that the server it is linked to has; if Server A has a 'low daytime' population, the B linked server should have a 'low nighttime' population.

 

As it is, the links add to an already bad problem of 'time zone' inequality.

 

And in the case of BG? How about putting adding servers, one at a time, into one pot, and see who comes out on top if they are never to be challenged in any way...

[Basti.3698]

Reset Night... loosing +50 against 250 tick.. Ty ANET

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> Reset Night... loosing +50 against 250 tick.. Ty ANET

 

guess jq still tanking.

[Sabre.8251]

So far can i personally only see 2 solutions to rebalance the population of servers. But both probably not a single person will like. From Community itself, by people willingly to spread over the servers. Something we all know it would never ever happen, because alot of people will follow other people (Bandwagoners). So this solution is out, but leaves the other solution only. A recalculation of server populations, reducing amount of servers and force transferring people to spread them on the left servers. Then lock up servers, to avoid population inbalances. That again can not happen aswell, people will mock up, overload the forums with rageposts and finally make them leave the game. I have a hard time finding a better solution then those i called and i don't like these ideas aswell.

[Seis.4736]

Can't Anet just make wvw more about something else? say... more about guilds? This will fix the 'my toon is from another server, we can't play wvw together' problem.

Give guilds the option to choose from 3 factions, you already have those - Vigil, Priory, Whispers. To lessen bandwagon mentality, limit the factions by the number of guilds, and the guilds by the number of their members. Reset the faction every week or so - you would have a dynamic population for wvw.

 

What about loyalty? That's what the guilds are for. Anet can definitely cook some upgrades/improvement/advantage from being with a 'tenured' guild. Reward guilds depending on how their faction during the matchup perform (you can put your skins, wvw unique rewards here - even customize them depending on faction). Anet can even add a rank-ladder of some sort.

 

I agree about merging NA and EU for wvw, that will definitely solve some timezone problems. Also, they can add in a 'decay' system to objectives. Say if an objective does not get any influx of people within given time, it gets a penalty. Anet can make this happen thru events, like supply runs, repairs, etc. They already have those incorporated with Guild missions. My point with this suggestion is: if a faction is so stacked during a given timezone, unless they really have good coverage all day, they won't be able to keep the upgraded objectives vs factions that may have a thin coverage. E.g. Vigil is stacked during NA but is thin during SEA, Priory who has decent NA will still be able to give Vigil a hard time capping but lose nonetheless during NA but if they have more during SEA vs Vigil then they will be able to get some ppt in during that time even with less people due to the decay. On the other hand, Whispers who has an overall decent coverage all day, will give the other factions a hard time during their prime and will be able to get some ppt during their downtime.

 

I am no expert but IMO this will also make the game live up to its name - Guild Wars.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Sorry, but any system that is for general WvW that prioritizes guilds over general players is not something I'd support.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Seis.4736" said:

> Can't Anet just make wvw more about something else? say... more about guilds? This will fix the 'my toon is from another server, we can't play wvw together' problem.

> Give guilds the option to choose from 3 factions, you already have those - Vigil, Priory, Whispers. To lessen bandwagon mentality, limit the factions by the number of guilds, and the guilds by the number of their members. Reset the faction every week or so - you would have a dynamic population for wvw.

>

> What about loyalty? That's what the guilds are for. Anet can definitely cook some upgrades/improvement/advantage from being with a 'tenured' guild. Reward guilds depending on how their faction during the matchup perform (you can put your skins, wvw unique rewards here - even customize them depending on faction). Anet can even add a rank-ladder of some sort.

>

> I agree about merging NA and EU for wvw, that will definitely solve some timezone problems. Also, they can add in a 'decay' system to objectives. Say if an objective does not get any influx of people within given time, it gets a penalty. Anet can make this happen thru events, like supply runs, repairs, etc. They already have those incorporated with Guild missions. My point with this suggestion is: if a faction is so stacked during a given timezone, unless they really have good coverage all day, they won't be able to keep the upgraded objectives vs factions that may have a thin coverage. E.g. Vigil is stacked during NA but is thin during SEA, Priory who has decent NA will still be able to give Vigil a hard time capping but lose nonetheless during NA but if they have more during SEA vs Vigil then they will be able to get some ppt in during that time even with less people due to the decay. On the other hand, Whispers who has an overall decent coverage all day, will give the other factions a hard time during their prime and will be able to get some ppt during their downtime.

>

> I am no expert but IMO this will also make the game live up to its name - Guild Wars.

 

why not. hope they beta test this.

[Woaden.9425]

The problem with "World vs World vs World" is and will always be the concept of 'servers vs servers'. It's stuck on semantics.

 

Is the core concept of WvW "server vs server", or is it massive open area pvp? Server vs Server (or groups of servers) is not engaging, as seen by the massive transfers that have been a tail the devs have chased since release.

 

GvG should exist, as goes the common refrain: Isn't this "Guild Wars"? The massive maps in which we can pick and choose our desired PVP style (raid, roam, gank, etc) should exist, yes. Server vs server? Why? Who cares?

 

The core concept, IMO, is massive pvp, it has nothing to do with 'worlds/servers'. Trying to solve the problem from that viewpoint will never succeed; the players simply don't care about server loyalty, and why should they? I log on to WvW to find action, to be able to casually PvP without a timer, so that I can AFK for a phonecall or to take out the trash without bringing my team down or being accosted for not 'playing right'. I do it so I can come up with wacky builds and have a great time all while competing against other players. Other players play it for other reasons, and that's great! But I'd bet a dollar they don't play it out of a sense of arbitrary server pride (which we all did try to embrace in the early days, for sure, but... c'mon).

 

Big maps with a bunch of pugs mixed with guilds, capturing strategic locations and battling for street cred on a big map? Absolutely! Start from there, solve problems that make that possible. Ditch the concept of servers in massive PVP altogether.

 

And yes, I realize this concept has been toyed with in EoTM, and like all half-measures it was doomed to mediocre results (at best). Don't half-ass two mega-map pvp concepts, whole ass one.

[ToPNoP.2493]

Maybe kdr should play a bigger role in points. This would be better to stop servers from tanking because they just want to attack players in mass. The strongest can go to the top with the populations that can resist their fight easier. It is rumored that some servers purposely tank to get the easier fights, I feel this erodes already weaker servers by demoralizing zergs before they can gain momentum. Holding towers is kinda boring, maybe weaken the walls a little on towers that don't have a waypoint, that way the population can feel like they are progressing more.

[Sovereign.1093]

just kills. because of the ratio, some decide to hide.

[Kamara.4187]

Anet must really like whatever its doing on the cash side because any real meaningful change to server/team balance (which has been screamed from the roof tops by the player base for 2 years at the least) hasn't been touched other than to lock servers...Servers which have no point in any other aspect of the game except in wvw with the introduction of the super-server...which btw hasn't been all that super for the wvw game mode.

 

Wvw has been hobbling along. Its broken at its core by not addressing server migration, and the introduction of the super server. Truth be told migration was also a player driven problem before the super server.

 

Its true there is no real meaning behind doing wvw other than we are all nuts for the game mode.WvW doesn't even fit in with any of the lore or storylines. It is considered that little by development yet it is closer to the competitive roots of the original "GUILD WARS". The reward changes were nice but not even close to what can be achieved in pve in terms of gold, and materials. It is better, but still pretty stingy.

 

As far as being an old game? That really don't matter until someone kicks out a winning mmo. Until then people will play GW2 till that something better comes along, or the next rage quit which can last days, months, or years, till they drift back.

 

Unless Anet can be prompted to rethink wvw I don't see the players fixing anything. Sadly I see them continuing to server-stack and face roll till they cannibalize all the smaller servers and roamers in the race for coverage.

 

 

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Sabre.8251" said:

> So far can i personally only see 2 solutions to rebalance the population of servers. But both probably not a single person will like.

 

It can move to being a more alliance based system. Their battlegroup proposal thats been talked about was along those lines.

 

 

[Redponey.8352]

Hi here,

 

As Commander and player on national server ,

Linking to rebalance the population was a good mecanism until the 2th linkage, where we lost most of our population for higher server. We went from mid-top tier from the bottom with this.

 

To rebalance population ,this might be good if we are just looking at number of player that connect on WvW. But actually this system destroy most of all WvW Communities through put and remove or switching server. Theses communities were created during 3 years, now there are ash and dust.

 

WvW population will always be unbalanced ( some people want to play with less people , others want to zerg etc...). Trying absolutly to balanced without any regard on WvW communities as a whole might be a mistake. (I think, it was)

 

I think that the most important part of WvW is communities (that will keep and bring people to play WvW) and challenging part (Tournament were great).

Actually, we lost most of WvW communities , Forums (not GW2) are dead, new player will not get involve or less involve than before.

Current WvW player get bored to not have challenge ( to be in top tier or bottom tier is the same except the fact ennemies are different) and leave the Game.

 

Creating a GvG system would be great if it would be done as soon as possible. (Twitch streaming GvG etc would be great to give good entertainment to people and others)

(I remember Team Aggression [TA] Vs [LaG] Callous Philosophy, Obsidian sanctum were full and with Q , we were easily more than 500 people to watch the stream)

 

I can give some idea , i hope that Anet will read this.

 

I propose, is to stop linkage system and put each server is alone. After that, offer to everyone a 1 free migration ticket for "mid population server"

This may attract guilds to leave higher tier to lesser tier.

With this i would have bring some idea that will keep guilds on mid server:

-Increase from 1 to 2 or 3 weeks, the migration possibility

-Bring some challenging guild achievement ( killing xx or xxx K during 1-2months, Capture and upgrade xxxx structure during 1-2 months etc)

Finishing this achievements will reward guilds (member of this guild) with special loots (WvW armor/weapons skin, hall stuff and an exclusive emote for 1-2 month (as /Guild /Ladder in GW1)

 

- Put season( as PvP season) (4-5 seasons/year) instead of month as i spoke earlier. (Winter , Spring , Summer and Autumn would have been great)

With this , some challenging conditions could be bring to create more diversity of gameplay. (as Gw1 PvP has) something like " when you die , you will put down a package that will give a random buff" or " when you die , a minions appear" etc....

 

 

All We ask from anet now is to do something. Not only check stats... We need you ANET to get involve in your WvW Mode!! :)

 

Thanks for reading ,

You may apologize my english...