A Server Held Hostage by its Population

[Sovereign.1093]

mmm jq will probably get a link if players leave.

[Kron.6938]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> mmm jq will probably get a link if players leave.

 

They have been saying that for a few months now even after a few WvW guilds left. Then throwing matches to go down tiers because JQ server is held hostage for linking or even having an open server for transfers due to pve players.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Kron.6938" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > mmm jq will probably get a link if players leave.

>

> They have been saying that for a few months now even after a few WvW guilds left. Then throwing matches to go down tiers because JQ server is held hostage for linking or even having an open server for transfers due to pve players.

 

it means jq just has that many ppl.

 

we we new more abiut player caps per server

[Basti.3698]

BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just goddamn create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just kitten create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

 

That sounds like offense/defense imbalance. Two people can hold against 10? Seems to have always been balanced at 2x the attackers to defenders so you should've required about 5 people to defend against 10.

[KeyOrion.9506]

I also remember being able to down 1/2 a zerg with 2-3 cannon shots. Now you Cannon shot an enemy and they stop, /dance, /point, /laugh. When did siege become so ineffectual?

[Basti.3698]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Basti.3698" said:

> > BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just kitten create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

>

> That sounds like offense/defense imbalance. Two people can hold against 10? Seems to have always been balanced at 2x the attackers to defenders so you should've required about 5 people to defend against 10.

 

U kidding? just block the damn rams and use oil, cannons or acs^^ they didnt use shield generators or anything. U missed the point anyway^^ aslong people can missuse the tactics on other servers as soon they get tilted there no point in having them at all..

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"Basti.3698" said:

> > > BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just kitten create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

> >

> > That sounds like offense/defense imbalance. Two people can hold against 10? Seems to have always been balanced at 2x the attackers to defenders so you should've required about 5 people to defend against 10.

>

> U kidding? just block the kitten rams and use oil, cannons or acs^^ they didnt use shield generators or anything. U missed the point anyway^^ aslong people can missuse the tactics on other servers as soon they get tilted there no point in having them at all..

>

 

What you were saying basically is you couldn't hold 2v10 without tactics. My point then is that you're not supposed to be able to hold 2v10 WITH tactics. I'm not kidding about offense/defense balance. See for example this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/wuvtest/The-Long-Siege-and-Player-Interest/page/1#post5478813

 

And this prescient post: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/wuvtest/The-Long-Siege-and-Player-Interest/page/1#post5480372

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

On T2 in the EU, there's hardly any queues around here during prime time, but obviously, coverage outside those hours wins, hardly anyone, besides maybe 4 servers 'try hards' PPT.

 

I guess it's normal since how old this game is and what's left of the playerbase that still plays regularly.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"CrimsonNeonite.1048" said:

> On T2 in the EU, there's hardly any queues around here during prime time, but obviously, coverage outside those hours wins, hardly anyone besides maybe 4 servers try hards it.

>

> I guess it's normal for how old this game is and what's left of the playerbase that still plays available regularly.

 

That's interesting to know, means the overall gw2 populations is dwindling. Hope this is just the new year effect where everyone is busy at jan and will slowly return from feb onwards. However, I didn't seen similar effect in past years, thus this is quite worrying, maybe I should start thinking of my next mmorpg.

[shiri.4257]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"CrimsonNeonite.1048" said:

> > On T2 in the EU, there's hardly any queues around here during prime time, but obviously, coverage outside those hours wins, hardly anyone besides maybe 4 servers try hards it.

> >

> > I guess it's normal for how old this game is and what's left of the playerbase that still plays available regularly.

>

> That's interesting to know, means the overall gw2 populations is dwindling. Hope this is just the new year effect where everyone is busy at jan and will slowly return from feb onwards. However, I didn't seen similar effect in past years, thus this is quite worrying, maybe I should start thinking of my next mmorpg.

 

For you my man, I'd recommend hunniecam.

[Kamara.4187]

In terms of merging NA and EU servers it sounds like a perfect solution for 24/7 coverage in wvw from a players perspective. However from what I'm hearing about how some servers work in the EU states it would present more obstacles than many of us are aware of :/

[misterman.1530]

> @"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.

 

Am sure the solution will be to nerf Necromancers :)

[Basti.3698]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Basti.3698" said:

> > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > @"Basti.3698" said:

> > > > BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just kitten create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

> > >

> > > That sounds like offense/defense imbalance. Two people can hold against 10? Seems to have always been balanced at 2x the attackers to defenders so you should've required about 5 people to defend against 10.

> >

> > U kidding? just block the kitten rams and use oil, cannons or acs^^ they didnt use shield generators or anything. U missed the point anyway^^ aslong people can missuse the tactics on other servers as soon they get tilted there no point in having them at all..

> >

>

> What you were saying basically is you couldn't hold 2v10 without tactics. My point then is that you're not supposed to be able to hold 2v10 WITH tactics. I'm not kidding about offense/defense balance. See for example this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/wuvtest/The-Long-Siege-and-Player-Interest/page/1#post5478813

>

> And this prescient post: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/wuvtest/The-Long-Siege-and-Player-Interest/page/1#post5480372

 

We did defend it, but thats not the point. ^^ Just the pure possibility, that players have the option to logg into their second accounts and use tactics on other servers grinds my gears.

[zinkz.7045]

> @"Chris Cleary.8017" said:

> Solving the overarching self perpetuation of population unbalance is a larger issue to tackle, **that's not a "soon" thing**.

 

Not tackled in 6 years... I hereby award you the title of 'Master of Understatement".

 

 

[Baldrick.8967]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> > @"Redponey.8352" said:

>

> > 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.

>

> These were some nice fights. I also like the idea of GvG in the way it was in Guild Wars1 , but in Guild Wars 2 not implemented in WvW well still face the risk of loosing more people to GvG

>

> I agree with you that a more accurate population calculation in combination with free trans to mid-pop Server would help the momentum.

>

> Greets

 

Two balls of people running into each other isn't entertaining for long. To be interesting, GVG needs to involve tactics, splits, objectives, bonuses and something that makes the players have to fight each other. That's why Guild Wars was so good- GVG involved all those things.

 

There needs to be something for the audience to appreciate. Plus, the current auto spam skills in GW2 (just look at your combat log...) doesn't lend itself to clear commentary or indeed make for interesting fights from a spectator point of view. In Guild Wars, you could watch and see which skills were used when, what the effect was, counter play, build, etc. In GW2, it's just a mess of spam and condis.

[ReaverKane.7598]

Get rid of worlds, create 3 teams, guilds and players can pick their teams, having to pay Gems to switch.

Create mega-servers that work like PvE ones. But with a minimum queue of X (balanced for all 3 sides) to create a new instance of a map, score is aggregate of all the instances.

Have a permanent bonus that scales with time representing each team to discourage bandwagon.

Add guild bonuses similar to the old WVW world bonuses that depend on your team's standing.

 

Alternatively lower the maximum player cap on maps, add extra border lands (3 desert+3 alpine + EBG) and keep everything the same.

Or do server merges and reshuffle people to randomized servers. Shuffle Guilds first then allow players a month long grace period for them to have **ONE** free server change to the world where one of their guilds (at time of reassignment, not guilds joined after) was assigned.

After that improve the "server full" algorithm, and make it more expensive to change.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"Basti.3698" said:

> > > > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > > > @"Basti.3698" said:

> > > > > BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just kitten create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

> > > >

> > > > That sounds like offense/defense imbalance. Two people can hold against 10? Seems to have always been balanced at 2x the attackers to defenders so you should've required about 5 people to defend against 10.

> > >

> > > U kidding? just block the kitten rams and use oil, cannons or acs^^ they didnt use shield generators or anything. U missed the point anyway^^ aslong people can missuse the tactics on other servers as soon they get tilted there no point in having them at all..

> > >

> >

> > What you were saying basically is you couldn't hold 2v10 without tactics. My point then is that you're not supposed to be able to hold 2v10 WITH tactics. I'm not kidding about offense/defense balance. See for example this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/wuvtest/The-Long-Siege-and-Player-Interest/page/1#post5478813

> >

> > And this prescient post: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/wuvtest/The-Long-Siege-and-Player-Interest/page/1#post5480372

>

> We did defend it, but thats not the point. ^^ Just the pure possibility, that players have the option to logg into their second accounts and use tactics on other servers grinds my gears.

 

There's no reason to create such an AP restriction. You cannot tell if that player is someone's second account or a new player and creating a restriction like that would just punish new players. But that's also why, if your guild has the claim on the objective, you can turn off public activation of tactics so that only players in your guild can activate them.

[Basti.3698]

 

> There's no reason to create such an AP restriction. You cannot tell if that player is someone's second account or a new player and creating a restriction like that would just punish new players. But that's also why, if your guild has the claim on the objective, you can turn off public activation of tactics so that only players in your guild can activate them.

 

Sorry^^ but you can, if theres a player with ie. 400 AP theres absolutly no reason to pull tactics because he will have enough struggles to handle WvW anyway. So after you argumentation your just helpless when it comes to defend an tower, not claimed by your guild and an player with 400 AP without any guild comes into your tower, not gettin attacked by the enemy team, running straight to the tactics, pulling them all and jumping in front of you before logging out. Restriction for Players, IE. 500 AP to logg into WvW and 1k AP to be able to pull public tactics would hurt any players.. And im not describing a situation happening once a week^^, especially in the morning hours when theres bad coverage and small groups play against each other situations like these happen more often. ^^ WvW Restriction bound to AP would aswell handle a miscalculation of Smurf Accs for a Server. But nvm.. its not the main problem in WvW... sitll waiting for ANET to announce some stuff.....

[Kirnale.5914]

New players will most likely play PvE to lvl 80, getting to know their class and then decide to play pvp or not. And newbies usually have 800-1k AP (from my experience) at least, thanks to the story mode and some other first time AP. They also tend to farm their exotic gear before doing something else. If the AP is too low, then they most likely just powerleveled and get straight into WvW, which is something a veteran does. Newbies will also struggle how WvW works, like Basti mentioned.

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> BIG point that really grinds my gear is the fact that you can just kitten create a second account and use all Tactics on another server. Me and my mate were holding T2 tower against 10 ppl and outta nowhere a Player with 200 Account Points uses all our Tactics.. Why the hell theres no CAP, like1k AP to be able to use them.

 

I've seen that in T1-2 EU, where it seems PPT is more SRS BSNS, but I don't think you can do much about that apart from reporting the player, especially due to the links and transfer costs, some people do have legit 2nd accounts.

[Basti.3698]

Still think ANET shouldve tried to close small servers first.. and just create new servers so noone crys about their identity loss

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Basti.3698" said:

> Still think ANET shouldve tried to close small servers first.. and just create new servers so noone crys about their identity loss

 

First, that would still mean a large portion of the WvW population would be torn from their server's identity, so plenty of people would be complaining. It also doesn't seem fair that people on stacked servers should be free of the concern because they succeeded in gaming the system while those who stuck to their world get downgraded twice (once with linkages and again with that proposal).

 

Second, it doesn't solve the underlying issue: it's impossible to create fair match-ups because there's no way to create worlds with comparable amounts of participation. "World" is just too large an entity, whereas "Alliance" allows ANet to move more people around more easily to ensure that we end up with more even match ups. Right now, it's impossible to get a "fair" right between a T1 and T3 world; under the new system, it should even be likely, not just possible.