Let's discuss Battlegroups

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> One thing is for certain, WvW should not become a Guild only game mode. Battle Groups wouldn't be any different than Worlds are now functionally. The big difference would be fresh labels. These labels should have themes and lore.

>

> What WvW needs right now is the Dev's to stop trying to squeeze and spread out populations. They are going against the natural flow of human behavior and everyone perceives it, feels it, and hates it.

They wouldnt? How... how do you know? Nobody has described "battlegroups" in this thread. How do you know they wouldnt be any different? And where do the "fresh labels" come from? Nobody had said anything about labels. Especially not anything about lore or themes. Only the term "battlegroups" which is left unexplained.

 

So many questions.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > One thing is for certain, WvW should not become a Guild only game mode. Battle Groups wouldn't be any different than Worlds are now functionally. The big difference would be fresh labels. These labels should have themes and lore.

> >

> > What WvW needs right now is the Dev's to stop trying to squeeze and spread out populations. They are going against the natural flow of human behavior and everyone perceives it, feels it, and hates it.

> They wouldnt? How... how do you know? Nobody has described "battlegroups" in this thread. How do you know they wouldnt be any different? And where do the "fresh labels" come from? Nobody had said anything about labels. Especially not anything about lore or themes. Only the term "battlegroups" which is left unexplained.

>

> So many questions.

 

The OP is clearly referring to the old battlegroup proposal which was made public a while ago as an alternate option to linking. It was sort of a guild alliance system with 3 sides/factions.

[Brutal Augus.5917]

> @"Garrus.7403" said:

> RG farmed ppl because they knew how the game worked from their alpha acess. When ppl reached their level they quit the game. ;)

 

someone finally spoke the truth

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > One thing is for certain, WvW should not become a Guild only game mode. Battle Groups wouldn't be any different than Worlds are now functionally. The big difference would be fresh labels. These labels should have themes and lore.

> > >

> > > What WvW needs right now is the Dev's to stop trying to squeeze and spread out populations. They are going against the natural flow of human behavior and everyone perceives it, feels it, and hates it.

> > They wouldnt? How... how do you know? Nobody has described "battlegroups" in this thread. How do you know they wouldnt be any different? And where do the "fresh labels" come from? Nobody had said anything about labels. Especially not anything about lore or themes. Only the term "battlegroups" which is left unexplained.

> >

> > So many questions.

>

> The OP is clearly referring to the old battlegroup proposal which was made public a while ago as an alternate option to linking. It was sort of a guild alliance system with 3 sides/factions.

Wasmt that just a datamined rumour, not a fleshed out implementation?

[DeWolfe.2174]

 

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> How... how do you know? Nobody has described "battlegroups" in this thread.

 

because this idea was discussed previously.

[Leaa.2943]

So how is battle group idea stopping bandwagoning from happening? I mean this is what every other game is using and what happens is exactly bandwagon one of the servers/groups/faction/whateveryouwanttocallit farm the other until they give up and leave. Then the farming bandwagon can choose to either spread out on the other servers so that the remaining players on them also can be farmed until they also leave and now the bandwagon leave because the game sucks. It is the story of every other game. The only reason WvW did not follow the very same way as the rest of those games was because of server pride. Some servers still have that today, others just stopped caring and followed in the bandwagon trails and are now complaining about how bad the game is.

 

I still say remove the damn links and merge servers before trying anything else. People on the smaller servers get a free move and then stop making it so easy to move around after that. Not saying it should not be possible to move, but i mean come on, every other week? Really? And now when we have servers that are populated do the damn tournaments again. This will make servers work together and yes we were burned out the last time for good reasons, but why making them the same way as back then? Concepts can change to the better. Add some GvG's in to the tournaments so that it is not only about ppt but the best server and the best guild, give the guilds purpose with a leader board.

 

All this answers been there for years and yet it is like they never been suggested and instead we being pointed at for being so mean. If they want us to listen, then listen to us, and give us what we always asked for instead of trying to invent new siege or more ways to spew out conditions and corruptions. Give us the WvW we always wanted.

[Swamurabi.7890]

The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > > One thing is for certain, WvW should not become a Guild only game mode. Battle Groups wouldn't be any different than Worlds are now functionally. The big difference would be fresh labels. These labels should have themes and lore.

> > > >

> > > > What WvW needs right now is the Dev's to stop trying to squeeze and spread out populations. They are going against the natural flow of human behavior and everyone perceives it, feels it, and hates it.

> > > They wouldnt? How... how do you know? Nobody has described "battlegroups" in this thread. How do you know they wouldnt be any different? And where do the "fresh labels" come from? Nobody had said anything about labels. Especially not anything about lore or themes. Only the term "battlegroups" which is left unexplained.

> > >

> > > So many questions.

> >

> > The OP is clearly referring to the old battlegroup proposal which was made public a while ago as an alternate option to linking. It was sort of a guild alliance system with 3 sides/factions.

> Wasmt that just a datamined rumour, not a fleshed out implementation?

 

The developers at the time had written up a detailed proposal, they admitted that.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Leaa.2943" said:

> So how is battle group idea stopping bandwagoning from happening? I mean this is what every other game is using and what happens is exactly bandwagon one of the servers/groups/faction/whateveryouwanttocallit farm the other until they give up and leave.

 

Wrong, it doesn't happen in ESO at least not to a large extent.

 

 

[Optimator.3589]

I think you'd do better to dynamically cap the population of each WvW map based on the smallest world's population. So for example, limit BG and Mag to however many players SoS has in EBG.

OFC, you can't do anything about players already in the map when a world's in-zone population drops, but adjusting queues to somewhat autobalance populations would make fights more fair, as well as making it less of an excuse for worlds to tank out of T1. There's still the argument that BG is a tedious bunch of siege-humpers, but they wouldn't have the frequent 2 to 1 numerical advantage.

Just my 2 cents. This is obviously just a rough outline of an idea, but I think it'd be more useful a solution to bandwagons than any sort of battlegroup system would be.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > So how is battle group idea stopping bandwagoning from happening? I mean this is what every other game is using and what happens is exactly bandwagon one of the servers/groups/faction/whateveryouwanttocallit farm the other until they give up and leave.

>

> Wrong, it doesn't happen in ESO at least not to a large extent.

>

>

 

This I completely agree with. But then again ZOS actively supports Alliance War mode, and add and remove servers accordingly.

[Leaa.2943]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > So how is battle group idea stopping bandwagoning from happening? I mean this is what every other game is using and what happens is exactly bandwagon one of the servers/groups/faction/whateveryouwanttocallit farm the other until they give up and leave.

>

> Wrong, it doesn't happen in ESO at least not to a large extent.

>

>

 

Why do i see posts in forums about it, i think there even was one on this subreddit a few days back complaining about exactly this in ESO.

[Leaa.2943]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

> Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

> The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

 

Well if a servers being merged the people on the servers being removed must ofc get a chance to decide were they want to be. If a server getting full then they have to pick another one i mean that is rather obvious.

 

Also it is really annoying with the huge differences between the WvW in EU and NA. In NA time zones are a thing. In EU there are not really much time zones to talk about. In NA you have servers buying their community, manipulating servers to open up by not playing for weeks to get more players in to a already full server, to stay in the top. On the other hand in EU we manipulate links and use them as bandwagons. And when bandwagon link becomes host we manipulate the matchups so that some of our servers fall down to the same tier and can do blob verses blob fights all day long not caring about the rest of the WvW which causes a imballance for the rest of the WvW.

Battlegroups in EU would really not solve anything it would be manipulated as it would in NA but in different ways. In NA to be the number one, in EU to get the two groups who want to make blob fights against each other all day long.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

> > Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

> > The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

>

> Well if a servers being merged the people on the servers being removed must ofc get a chance to decide were they want to be. If a server getting full then they have to pick another one i mean that is rather obvious.

>

> Also it is really annoying with the huge differences between the WvW in EU and NA. In NA time zones are a thing. In EU there are not really much time zones to talk about. In NA you have servers buying their community, manipulating servers to open up by not playing for weeks to get more players in to a already full server, to stay in the top. On the other hand in EU we manipulate links and use them as bandwagons. And when bandwagon link becomes host we manipulate the matchups so that some of our servers fall down to the same tier and can do blob verses blob fights all day long not caring about the rest of the WvW which causes a imballance for the rest of the WvW.

> Battlegroups in EU would really not solve anything it would be manipulated as it would in NA but in different ways. In NA to be the number one, in EU to get the two groups who want to make blob fights against each other all day long.

 

I'd rather see battlegroups as 60-70% guilds and 30-40% pugs, separated by timezone so you don't have a coverage or population issue.

[Brigand.9502]

The solution is to SPREAD OUT. Honestly, if people loved this game mode as much as they claimed and wanted to see it survive (possibly thrive?) they would spread the eff out.

 

Either you want to "play with your guild alliance" (i.e. have unfair overpowered matchups and care only about yourself) or you want to make WvW a great game mode. One of these is part of the problem and one is the solution. So we all have to ask ourselves, are we the problem or the solution? Consider moving to a lower tier server and fighting the guilds that you were formerly friendly with. YOU CAN STILL BE FRIENDS EVEN IF YOU'RE MATCHED AGAINST SOMEONE. This is called a FRIENDLY rivalry. If everyone would just spread out we could all be equally populated (time zone coverage issues aside) and ALL of the matchups would be very competitive.

 

This may be overly optimistic but if we could just get this sorted out amongst ourselves, anet wouldn't have to dedicate resources to resolving this specific issue and could instead focus on other things in the WvW game mode. Once the population became more or less balanced, they might also be able to integrate a balancing system. We just need to get it balanced-ish first.

 

edit:

I'm also not against closing lower tier (5-8) servers and giving the members a 1-time free transfer to a non-full server.

The system also should check before EVERY SINGLE TRANSFER to see if a server has reached its cap. Opening on a Monday, for example, and allowing a ton of people to transfer before the system reevaluates the population shouldn't be a thing. Request a transfer. They system checks to see if there is an opening, and allows or denies on a case by case basis. That way bandwagoning is entirely eliminated.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

> > > Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

> > > The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

> >

> > Well if a servers being merged the people on the servers being removed must ofc get a chance to decide were they want to be. If a server getting full then they have to pick another one i mean that is rather obvious.

> >

> > Also it is really annoying with the huge differences between the WvW in EU and NA. In NA time zones are a thing. In EU there are not really much time zones to talk about. In NA you have servers buying their community, manipulating servers to open up by not playing for weeks to get more players in to a already full server, to stay in the top. On the other hand in EU we manipulate links and use them as bandwagons. And when bandwagon link becomes host we manipulate the matchups so that some of our servers fall down to the same tier and can do blob verses blob fights all day long not caring about the rest of the WvW which causes a imballance for the rest of the WvW.

> > Battlegroups in EU would really not solve anything it would be manipulated as it would in NA but in different ways. In NA to be the number one, in EU to get the two groups who want to make blob fights against each other all day long.

>

> I'd rather see battlegroups as 60-70% guilds and 30-40% pugs, separated by timezone so you don't have a coverage or population issue.

So what you are going to tell a guild that they have been assigned to play 02:00-08:00 with no break every day because the population schedule demands it? Or tell that guy which didnt rep his guild yesterday that now by definition he is a pug so he has been slotted in 16:45-17:55 and 21:30-23:25 and no, you dont care that he is the raid commander on the guild that was slotted in 20:10-21:25 because his presence would upset the balance of pugs and guilds, the pug quota at that time is filled.

 

And _heaven forbid_ someone backs out and cant play on one of the sides that day because then all population schedules must be remade.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

> > > Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

> > > The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

> >

> > Well if a servers being merged the people on the servers being removed must ofc get a chance to decide were they want to be. If a server getting full then they have to pick another one i mean that is rather obvious.

> >

> > Also it is really annoying with the huge differences between the WvW in EU and NA. In NA time zones are a thing. In EU there are not really much time zones to talk about. In NA you have servers buying their community, manipulating servers to open up by not playing for weeks to get more players in to a already full server, to stay in the top. On the other hand in EU we manipulate links and use them as bandwagons. And when bandwagon link becomes host we manipulate the matchups so that some of our servers fall down to the same tier and can do blob verses blob fights all day long not caring about the rest of the WvW which causes a imballance for the rest of the WvW.

> > Battlegroups in EU would really not solve anything it would be manipulated as it would in NA but in different ways. In NA to be the number one, in EU to get the two groups who want to make blob fights against each other all day long.

>

> I'd rather see battlegroups as 60-70% guilds and 30-40% pugs, separated by timezone so you don't have a coverage or population issue.

 

Again, killing VoIP. Unless you only care about your guild. And if that is the case, just move now to a server that can get fights. There are host servers right now, several in fact that are open.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

> > > > Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

> > > > The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

> > >

> > > Well if a servers being merged the people on the servers being removed must ofc get a chance to decide were they want to be. If a server getting full then they have to pick another one i mean that is rather obvious.

> > >

> > > Also it is really annoying with the huge differences between the WvW in EU and NA. In NA time zones are a thing. In EU there are not really much time zones to talk about. In NA you have servers buying their community, manipulating servers to open up by not playing for weeks to get more players in to a already full server, to stay in the top. On the other hand in EU we manipulate links and use them as bandwagons. And when bandwagon link becomes host we manipulate the matchups so that some of our servers fall down to the same tier and can do blob verses blob fights all day long not caring about the rest of the WvW which causes a imballance for the rest of the WvW.

> > > Battlegroups in EU would really not solve anything it would be manipulated as it would in NA but in different ways. In NA to be the number one, in EU to get the two groups who want to make blob fights against each other all day long.

> >

> > I'd rather see battlegroups as 60-70% guilds and 30-40% pugs, separated by timezone so you don't have a coverage or population issue.

> So what you are going to tell a guild that they have been assigned to play 02:00-08:00 with no break every day because the population schedule demands it? Or tell that guy which didnt rep his guild yesterday that now by definition he is a pug so he has been slotted in 16:45-17:55 and 21:30-23:25 and no, you dont care that he is the raid commander on the guild that was slotted in 20:10-21:25 because his presence would upset the balance of pugs and guilds, the pug quota at that time is filled.

>

> And _heaven forbid_ someone backs out and cant play on one of the sides that day because then all population schedules must be remade.

>

 

Guilds that play WvW regularly raid at the same time.

If there was even competition every night instead of the garbage WvW has had the past 5 years you might just see guilds raid more than a couple nights a week. My first WvW guild raided 5 nights a week, usually taking update tuesdays off as well as ktrain thursdays.

 

I would expect that the population calculations would be based on average time from previous week.

 

Are you really going to shoot down a proposal because of a single player not being able to play with their friends??? Seriously?

[shiri.4257]

Just let me know which battle group has the most organized eu/sea pop. so i can get carried in NA and feel relevant.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > @"Leaa.2943" said:

> > > > > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > > > > The problem with merging servers and free moves is that there still is no control over population distribution over the timezones.

> > > > > Merging servers could create a balanced population over several timezones OR create an overstacked queued timezone.

> > > > > The same thing can and has happened by allowing transfers.

> > > >

> > > > Well if a servers being merged the people on the servers being removed must ofc get a chance to decide were they want to be. If a server getting full then they have to pick another one i mean that is rather obvious.

> > > >

> > > > Also it is really annoying with the huge differences between the WvW in EU and NA. In NA time zones are a thing. In EU there are not really much time zones to talk about. In NA you have servers buying their community, manipulating servers to open up by not playing for weeks to get more players in to a already full server, to stay in the top. On the other hand in EU we manipulate links and use them as bandwagons. And when bandwagon link becomes host we manipulate the matchups so that some of our servers fall down to the same tier and can do blob verses blob fights all day long not caring about the rest of the WvW which causes a imballance for the rest of the WvW.

> > > > Battlegroups in EU would really not solve anything it would be manipulated as it would in NA but in different ways. In NA to be the number one, in EU to get the two groups who want to make blob fights against each other all day long.

> > >

> > > I'd rather see battlegroups as 60-70% guilds and 30-40% pugs, separated by timezone so you don't have a coverage or population issue.

> > So what you are going to tell a guild that they have been assigned to play 02:00-08:00 with no break every day because the population schedule demands it? Or tell that guy which didnt rep his guild yesterday that now by definition he is a pug so he has been slotted in 16:45-17:55 and 21:30-23:25 and no, you dont care that he is the raid commander on the guild that was slotted in 20:10-21:25 because his presence would upset the balance of pugs and guilds, the pug quota at that time is filled.

> >

> > And _heaven forbid_ someone backs out and cant play on one of the sides that day because then all population schedules must be remade.

> >

>

> Guilds that play WvW regularly raid at the same time.

> If there was even competition every night instead of the garbage WvW has had the past 5 years you might just see guilds raid more than a couple nights a week. My first WvW guild raided 5 nights a week, usually taking update tuesdays off as well as ktrain thursdays.

>

> I would expect that the population calculations would be based on average time from previous week.

>

> Are you really going to shoot down a proposal because of a single player not being able to play with their friends??? Seriously?

No, I'm shooting down the proposal because its a kitten failure from the get go. You _cannot_ control the population and when players play and you _sure as kitten cannot_ dictate what percentage of players play in a guild or are pugging across timezones.

[etiolate.9185]

People want an answer or explanation for Battlegroups and how it would improve the situation. I will offer an explanation of how this should work in a way that it has a chance to be successful. Battlegroups cannot solve all problems, of course. The two biggest problems are population loss and the view that ANet doesn't care about the game mode. One change won't fix population loss and the other issue is something ArenaNet can only solve themselves.

 

The Battlegroup System:

 

Tiers of play will be made. Each tier will have 3 battlegroups within(Red, Blue, Green). Each tier will also represent a style of play and level of play. Battlegroups will not move up or down in ranking between tiers. Battlegroups will stay in their tier. A different battlegroup may win the tier from week to week, but that won't push a Battlegroup up out of their tier. It may only shift their home Borderland from week to week.

 

Victory Tier or Tier A will be focused on PPT. I know people say nobody cares about winning, but apparently Blackgate does. So that's for the people who want heavy populations, heavy zergs and heavy sieges.

 

Tier B or "fight" tier will reward more points for kills. All structures except the home Keep will reset to tier 1 after a Skirmish.. This will be a tier for more back and forth conflicts.

 

Tier C or Casual Tier will be basic rules and be fit for more laidback play.

 

Tier D or Beginner Tier will be for new players. Players over Rank 500 can not choose this tier to prevent exploitative farming of new players.

 

As I said, each tier will have 3 Battlegroups. You can pick a Battlegroup in two tiers and belong to that Battlegroup exclusively for a period of time. (Let's say the current linking period.) At any time during a match-up you can hop between your chosen two Tiers, but you cannot hop Battlegroups within the tier. You (and your guild/friends/community) pick two tiers and one Battlegroup within each of those tiers to stick with.

 

So, to be more direct, my account may belong to Battlegroup Green in Tier B and Batttlegroup Red in Tier A. During the week, I can hop into tier A or B with the same account. I can't swap sides within those tiers though. I will always be Battlegroup Green in Tier B and Red in Tier A.

 

This system allows for player movement, which will happen anyways, but restricts it in such a way that won't tear apart groups. It also allows for population flow within a match-up. If Tier A or B has a huge population imbalance, then those players have the option to move to their other assigned tier for better match-ups. This creates a natural release valve of population.

 

This system also allows tiers to be more distinct and offer different flavors of play. You can experiment with rule differences between tiers to try to liven up the game.

 

Currently, Red, Green and Blue is just a default name for Battlegroups. I think you would have to allow Battlegroups to change sides from week to week because you have a difference in maps. Both in Borderlands and also EBG home Keeps.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"etiolate.9185" Thanks for posting an actual description of what the OP wanted to discuss. It wasn't at all clear to me.

****

As described, I'm having trouble seeing how "Battlegroups" works different from EotM, aside from the option to participate in two different match ups. Ignoring rewards, isn't that like having a second (free) account now?

 

Who decides the 'flavor' of each battlegroup? How does anyone enforce it? For example, what's to stop people in a "fight" tier from focusing on PPT? What's to stop "Victory" tier people from showing up in Tier Casual (as their second option) and proceeding to roflstomp?

 

What happens if 80% of people want to play in the "fight tier"? What if there aren't enough people for four maps in the tier? How does ANet maintain a population balance among Battlegroups within the same tier?

 

How do people get assigned a color? For example, T1 & T2 is always full of roamers/militia who do not run with specific guilds, but very much enjoy being part of a competitive and/or ZvZ environment. Are they to be forced to swap depending on population? If not, what's to stop the sort of bandwagoning we see in the current World versus World (as opposed to Battlegroup vs Battlegroup)?

 

****

It's an intriguing idea. I just don't see how it's a radical departure from the status quo _in a way which addresses the core problems_. Of course, I'm probably missing something fundamental about the proposal.

[SugarCayne.3098]

Not this stupid debate again.

 

Battle groups serve guilds. Nobody else.

 

There are minimal guilds compared to pugs.

 

Do this and you’ll have a revolt.

 

Look at the posters who are advocating this, know their history, and make up your own minds.

[etiolate.9185]

You can't solve all the problems with one change. I would also say my description is my proposal for Battlegroups and doesn't account for everyone's view of BGs.

 

As for how its different from EotM: EotM is a fill-up instance based version of WvW. It populates the same way a PVE map does. Battlegroups would be chosen like servers. Maps would fill up in same way they do in current WvW. It's not like EotM at all in that manner.

 

The rule sets will decide the flavor of each tier. For your Fight tier question: Focusing on PPT means less when PPK mean more. Sure, you can focus on that, but you may get hunted down and kill farmed by a fight group. It's not like Structures and Fights are separate. A structure taking can often lead to a fight. The rule set of higher PPK and skirmish reset will encourage people away from heavy siege wars, but you can't completely nullify that attempt.

 

80% of the pop may sign up for the "Fight Tier" or Tier B. They will also sign up for another tier. If they can't get into Tier B then they may play on their other tier instead. If fight tier is that much more popular than the rest, then there's no reason you cannot change one other tier into the same ruleset.

 

Maintaining pop balance between Battlegroups can not be perfectly executed. What you do want is natural forms of population shifts, which the two tier system allows. If a Battlegroup dominates, they may get bored by Monday. I've seen it plenty of times, so they may shift to another of their chosen tiers. Same, if someone who mainly plays on another tier gets bored and sees a mismatch elsewhere, they may move up to see if they can get something out of it. There will be natural shifts in population within a match-up within this system and players look for what suits them best at that time.

 

You also must realize that the current pop balance developed over the entire cycle of the game's life. Battlegroups would resort people into new populations with the current population limits on joining applied. The current imbalance is based on a shifting policy on population and server change, which has been manipulated over and over. So, in that manner, even though Blackgate may be closed for months, it still has years of population gain over other servers. It's "militia" pop or general pop dwarfs other servers. BG would then be redestributed with the change to Battlegroups, and population shifts would happen every X weeks or months, with the same limits on total active population when shifting Battlegroups.

 

Perhaps I should add that this would remove server transfers. You can change Battlegroups every X weeks. When a Battlegroup fills up it is then closed to new joins. You would have to adjust the math on "full" to account for the two tier system, since activity won't match potential pop. You can also, since people will have a second Battlegroup to belong to, change outmanned to a buff given when behind X many points, thus encouraging people to play on their other Battlegroup choice.

 

The idea of my system is that it allows movement while removing tier manipulation from that movement. It creates natural incentives towards population rebalance.

[X T D.6458]

> @"SugarCayne.3098" said:

> Not this stupid debate again.

>

> Battle groups serve guilds. Nobody else.

>

> There are minimal guilds compared to pugs.

>

> Do this and you’ll have a revolt.

>

> Look at the posters who are advocating this, know their history, and make up your own minds.

 

Yep. Nothing but an excuse for a bunch of elitists to stack a battlegroup which would have a smaller population threshold and shut out anyone they don't want to play with them. It's basically a playground for a bunch of kids that think everything belongs to them. I will never support this exclusionary bs.