Dawdler.8521 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything. > > Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/ > > > > I think we'll see three. Problem is, with one up one down, matchups will get boring. Also feel many of them will join three main alliances. > > And I don't necessarily blame them for that. They will actually want to fight more than doors, but it will essentially leave the other 9 worlds kinda flat. But with whats basicly a complete glicko reset to zero every 8 weeks... how do you know which the "three main alliances" are? Worlds are random. Even if you see a trend and pay to move to one, how do you know that world and its random alliances would be even remotely as strong the next 8 weeks? This really just comes down to one thing: can a single alliance carry a world? I have my doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeolus.3615 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 @Dawdler.8521 that's an interesting question, cause i doubt that ocx/sea, eu and us players can fit all in one alliance, but they all be stacked in the same world right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovu.7560 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. I mean, if all else fails you could let guilds _select_ which timezone(s) they predominantly play in for purposes of sorting. The honest ones will be sorted appropriately and the dishonest ones won't be doing their alliance any favors as they're only weakening the time they claimed to play. Not saying its perfect, just better than nothing. ~ Kovu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir BIGCAT.6391 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 its the best step to a stale tier 1 wvw where servers avoid the match-up where blackgate/blob wars don't suit everybody. give a bonus to winning (like skirmish tickets for the old wvw tourenaments) will get people will try to win with now with a fairest chance to win than ever before. the system overall will guaranteed fairer than the current system of blackgate nearly always winning. most servers can keep their server identity via alliance (hopefully custom alliance name) and is not an issue. anet get to work hyped for this update B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunkamania.7561 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > > > I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything. > > > Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/ > > > > > > > Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight. > > I am definately sure that will make their day. /S > > It's also why they can't tie rewards to winning. Then what's the point of PPTing if winning means nothing? might as well get rid of the score and the keeps then since PPT is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"hunkamania.7561" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Euryon.9248" said: > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > > > > > I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything. > > > > Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/ > > > > > > > > > > Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight. > > > > I am definately sure that will make their day. /S > > > > It's also why they can't tie rewards to winning. > > Then what's the point of PPTing if winning means nothing? might as well get rid of the score and the keeps then since PPT is meaningless. Lol.. I don't know. But everyone states winning doesn't matter now. A stacked alliance will carry a world. If rewards are tied to it, people focused on that will form an alliance that covers 'off hours'. Just like was done with the current system. Now, re rolling every 8 weeks will help some, but let's say an alliance of 250 OCX and 100 Sea players form with a solid NA guild/ com. You are not going to see the guilds that like to fight do this, but let's face it, when rewards and winning matter, others will. So, it'll be on a smaller scale, and if people want to stop it, they can easier than now, but, let's not fool ourselves into thinking it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Kovu.7560" said: > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > I mean, if all else fails you could let guilds _select_ which timezone(s) they predominantly play in for purposes of sorting. The honest ones will be sorted appropriately and the dishonest ones won't be doing their alliance any favors as they're only weakening the time they claimed to play. Not saying its perfect, just better than nothing. > > ~ Kovu True, but likely the other alliance in a world along with the non aligned groups will make up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > > > I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything. > > > Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/ > > > > > > > I think we'll see three. Problem is, with one up one down, matchups will get boring. Also feel many of them will join three main alliances. > > > > And I don't necessarily blame them for that. They will actually want to fight more than doors, but it will essentially leave the other 9 worlds kinda flat. > But with whats basicly a complete glicko reset to zero every 8 weeks... how do you know which the "three main alliances" are? Worlds are random. Even if you see a trend and pay to move to one, how do you know that world and its random alliances would be even remotely as strong the next 8 weeks? > > This really just comes down to one thing: can a single alliance carry a world? > > I have my doubts. > If it's an alliance of SEA and OCX on a NA world, it could. But it will be harder than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylden Ar.3724 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. I thought they already addressed this (tried to) before in 2k16 around the time they changed into victory points. >Skirmishes will keep the winning and losing scores closer together, allowing the losing worlds a better fighting chance. Skirmishes should also help lessen the severity of runaway matches caused by off-hour coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korgov.7645 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Korgov.7645" said: > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. > > I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. > > As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. > > Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon. > > So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korgov.7645 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"DemonSeed.3528" said: > > @"Korgov.7645" said: > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > > > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > > > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > > > > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. > > > > I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. > > > > As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. > > > > Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon. > > > > > > So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already. True. Then rotate which map gets closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archranis.2375 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Could we please have a breakout of Guild Permissions for using WvW items from other consumables? I'd like to separately give permission for someone to be able to use items in the War Chest (and any other WvW-specific items), but not have that tied to using consumables (as in Scribing things that consume items from the Guild's consumables inventory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"DemonSeed.3528" said: > > @"Korgov.7645" said: > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > > > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > > > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > > > > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. > > > > I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. > > > > As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. > > > > Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon. > > > > > > So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already. Its not like primetime players get to play the map they "want" either, you get whats left over. Either we have suggested this many times before (dynamic map count based on total population, much like how megaserver instances close) and the failure to have made all maps true 3-way really put a stick in the wheels. They missed such a chance with DBL design. It could have been a second EB in the desert. Without modifying maps I think a WvW activity state that affect PPT and PPK would be easier. Ie if its "night" in WvW due to <= 25% total pop all sides get -% PPT but also +% PPK (with absolutely no consideration to real time, fair is fair). Well or they *could* just fucking remove tier based PPT so uncontested objectives dont rake in points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSeed.3528 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"DemonSeed.3528" said: > > > @"Korgov.7645" said: > > > > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"Celsith.2753" said: > > > > > > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. > > > > > > > > > > For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other > > > > > > > > > > Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, > > > > > > > > > > Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. > > > > > > > > > > There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. > > > > > > > > > > It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. > > > > > > > > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > > > > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > > > > > > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. > > > > > > I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. > > > > > > As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. > > > > > > Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon. > > > > > > > > > > So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already. > Its not like primetime players get to play the map they "want" either, you get whats left over. > > Either we have suggested this many times before (dynamic map count based on total population, much like how megaserver instances close) and the failure to have made all maps true 3-way really put a stick in the wheels. They missed such a chance with DBL design. It could have been a second EB in the desert. > > Without modifying maps I think a WvW activity state that affect PPT and PPK would be easier. Ie if its "night" in WvW due to <= 25% total pop all sides get -% PPT but also +% PPK (with absolutely no consideration to real time, fair is fair). > > Well or they *could* just kitten remove tier based PPT so uncontested objectives dont rake in points. Technically they could if they queued for it (and they still have choices for other maps), whereas the other scenario there is 0/limited choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celsith.2753 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 > @"Kylden Ar.3724" said: > The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.' > But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. > > Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. I guess the scoring is important. But what concerns me more is the play experience of people playing in off hours. If you aren't on the world that sea stacked, it's miserable to play that tz. If you're ON the stacked world and really dont enjoy running over people and ktraining it's not fun either. Balance to me has always been about the feeling when playing that it wasn't hopeless and that I had a fun experience. Whether offhours effects scoring unduly or not, what makes people log off and makes things worse, is the lack of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diku.2546 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Anet...whatever you do... Please FIX the Top 3 Chronic Problems of WvW since it ORIGINALLY launched. 1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups 2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds 3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves --- Hmmm...Instead of doing this complex World Restructuring... Why not just make 5 simple changes to our current WvW that addresses the Top 3 Chronic Problems? 1. Assign 1 Map to each Server. 2. Re-purpose the 3 Spawn Points on these assigned Maps. Allow Players to enter any map through their (Player has only 1 Red-Home Spawn), OR enter All Other Servers (Green/Blue-Enemy Spawn Points). Players are free to visit both NA & EU servers, but should expect slow performance if they're geographically distant. 3. Re-purpose the existing Server Guesting mechanism & tailor it to keep track of a Player's fight choices. Then...Let players visit other Servers using these Re-purposed Spawn Points with Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that they can fight on. 4. Adjust Player Rewards based on their Home Server Rank & the Rank of the Server that they attack. Reward More if the Enemy Server is Ranked Higher. Reward Less if Lower. 5. Re-purpose the WvW Panel to Show Top 3 Servers in a random order that is attacking a Player's Home Server. --- **Critical - Re-purposing our existing Server Guesting mechanic & specifically tailoring it for WvW will fundamentally change the game mode.** WvW Tiers = ANet pick 2 enemy servers FOR PLAYERS to fight weekly CHANGES INTO King of the Hill = PLAYERS pick which enemy servers FOR THEMSELVES to fight weekly Server Guesting details found here: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guesting-is-coming --- Set up a Map Max Cap to Reserve Seating for Players & ANet Home – 45% Enemy – 45% Dev Team – 10% Players will queue into respective lines to enter any highly ranked & popular servers once their Map Max Cap is reached. Players are encouraged to make wise choices on which servers to visit & fight on. Players that only pick the most popular servers can expect to be stuck waiting to fight based on their Server Choices & the accompanying Weekly Limits that's controlled by ANet. --- SERVER STACKING Over-stacked/Popular servers that keep winning will ultimately become the King of the Hill where everybody below them will want to simultaneously Target to kill. FRIENDS & FAMILY Players are free to fight on both NA & EU servers. There are no WvW Tiers. OFF-PEAK CAPPING In-Game "Verbal-Alliances" between players from different Time Zones are encouraged to help with their coverage issues. This allows for Off-peak capping, but lets players to work out a solution themselves. --- For simplicity...the above can even be made into a Haiku. Haiku Syllables Count - 5/7/5 "WvG - World vs Globes" Re-Purpose 3 Spawn Use Server Guesting for Match Reward If Higher --- I can't post often...so please give a vote for Helpful or Thumbs Up if you like this...or feel free to reference this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eramonster.2718 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 The idea won't work? It shares the same fundamental flaws on coverage? Just say if server A have a lower population/coverage for certain time zones, it's a disadvantage for them in the game mode you're introducing since they barely can defend nor attack. > @"Diku.2546" said: > Hmmm...Instead of doing this complex World Restructuring... > > Why not just make 5 simple changes to our current WvW? > > 1. Assign 1 Map to each Server. Creating more worlds(maps/server) will just create more fluctuation. Not all world will function at 100% which is the current problem. > 2. Re-purpose the 3 Spawn Points on these assigned Maps. Allow Players to enter any map through their (Player has only 1 Red-Home Spawn), OR enter All Other Server's (Green/Blue-Enemy Spawn Points). Players can visit both NA & EU servers, but should expect slow performance if they're geographically distant. > 3. Re-purpose the existing Server Guesting mechanism & tailor it to keep track of a Player's fight choices. Then...Let players visit other Servers using these Re-purposed Spawn Points with Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that they can fight on. You can track players behaviour but you can never control. Just because server A kept attacking server B, it doesn't mean they won't shift their attention to server G on the following week. What purpose was the tracking for? When "limiting & monitoring" intervention was mentioned here, you know the system is flawed, *subconciously.* > 4. Adjust Player Rewards based on their Home Server Rank & the Rank of the Server that they attack. Reward More if the Enemy Server is Ranked Higher. Reward Less if Lower. Rewarding hardwork with low/no rewards... :worried: > 5. Re-purpose the WvW Panel to Show Top 3 Servers in a random order that is attacking a Player's Home Server. Top tier server A is attacking bottom tier server Z...how will that info help? Retaliate against a force that overwhelms? > Set up a Map Max Cap to Reserve Seating for Players & ANet > > Home – 45% > Enemy – 45% > Dev Team – 10% :sweat_smile: I don't think any gaming company will hire staffs to play the game, just to fulfill the numbers of each server to solve population imbalanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diku.2546 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 > @"Eramonster.2718" said: > The idea won't work? It shares the sane fundamental flaws on coverage? Just say uf server A have a lower population/coverage for certain time zones, its a disadvantage for them in the game mode you're introducing since they barely can defend nor attack. > > :sweat_smile: I don't think any gaming company will hire staffs to play the game, just to fulfill the numbers of each server... I think you misunderstood the post. The game mode design is King of the Hill. Coverage isn't a thing. Over-stacked/Popular servers that keep winning will ultimately become the King of the Hill where everybody below them will want to simultaneously Target to kill. The reserve seating for ANet allows them to access the live map to referee/develop & not play...the 10% is just an open seat for them to use for this purpose. --- **Critical - Re-purposing our existing Server Guesting mechanic & specifically tailoring it for WvW will fundamentally change the game mode.** WvW Tiers = ANet pick 2 enemy servers FOR PLAYERS to fight weekly CHANGES INTO King of the Hill = PLAYERS pick which enemy servers FOR THEMSELVES to fight weekly Server Guesting details found here: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/guesting-is-coming/ --- Weekly Limits on How Many & Which Servers that players can fight on are controlled by ANet. Players are free to fight on both NA & EU servers. In-Game "Verbal-Alliances" between players from different Time Zones are encouraged to help with their coverage issues. This allows for Off-peak capping, but lets players to work out a solution themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eramonster.2718 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 Coverage will still be the issue...players login and out. It will just be another form or similar to server relink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShionKreth.1542 Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 > @"Vegeta.2563" said: > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said: > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering? > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon. I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes). If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euryon.9248 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 > @"ShionKreth.1542" said: > > @"Vegeta.2563" said: > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said: > > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering? > > > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon. > > I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes). > > If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight. Hyperbole much? Precisely how is this going to be a "disastrous change"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eramonster.2718 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 > @"ShionKreth.1542" said: > > @"Vegeta.2563" said: > > > @"ShionKreth.1542" said: > > > What I'd like to get confirmation on is is this a sure thing that's going to happen, or just something the dev team is considering? > > > > It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon. > > I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes). > > If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight. When T1 &T2 start showing symtoms, indicates it's time for a change. Mid tiers are on life support, while the bottom tiers are "expected". All this new system offer is just gathering up the numbers to fill up as much worlds as possible. For better or worse, a change is needed because the old system is "dying". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbound.5610 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said: > There won't be a hard limit to the number of Alliances on a world. The limits will fall out of the match maker keeping everything balanced. We're going to try various things to get the worlds balanced and make the matches more even across the board Hi Raymond You guys are currently making a great effort to "restructure" World vs World... I would like to point out 2 major issues which will not change a thing with all the work you are doing unless it is addressed. Firstly, just this past Friday we had a new re-link for servers. I am not sure if you guys are aware of developments like these, but I play on Far Shiverpeaks and with the new re-link we lost no less than 3 core guilds contributing to more than 100 players who all transferred to another world. Now I am not talking about your average player who jumps into WvW for "30 odd minutes" to get some dailies etc, I am talking about players who form the backbone of the server community and contribute more than 20 hours a week in WvW. The impact of this migration is very obvious. We went from a world coalition who contends for Tier 1 to one who will now drop down to Tier 4. This is a big blow to us and we now have to wait until some other group decides to move over to us should that even happen. I completely understand that server transfers are very important to the game business model, but by allowing transfers after a re-link ruins the whole intention of balancing matchups to the point where you might as well not bother with it. Transfers should be allowed during a set window BEFORE re-linking. Secondly, core guilds as you should well know have a big impact on the result of your world. Yes, we did have the poll where many players voted for the Desert Borderlands to be part of WvW. As a prominent member of the Far Shiverpeaks community I can tell you that our players simply do not enjoy having Desert Borderlands as our home border. The core guilds avoid this border like the plague to the point where it is a struggle to hold our ground on it. With the Desert Borderlands being the allocated border during tier promotion, we are sitting with a situation on Far Shiverpeaks in particular where the core guilds and many players limit their effort for us to not promote. In my view it would be more ideal to instead assign Desert Border/Red Border to worlds that DEMOTE from their tier. This will server as motivation for communities to always try to play to win instead of manipulating a matchup's outcome and avoid being on this border. If you are not aware of these issues from where it you can actively strive to address it, you will only be wasting your energy with all the work you are doing for the new restructure, since the fundamental issues will still remain which cause unbalanced matchups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now