Do you think the transfers every relink is bad or good?

[shiri.4257]

NA guilds have been stacking off prime hours since season 1. nothing new. just 3 time zone carry and be a god!

[Rampage.7145]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> "Skill" base matchup basically is translated to elo which is basically "fair" matchup, similar that of a dota, cs, spvp etc. In other words, population must be absolutely comparable, be it 5v5 or 10v10 or 25v25 or 50v50, it must be absolutely comparable. Even in games that support large scale matchup via ondemand basis with little to zero players' freedom will not allow more than 1 number difference, for example zero-k and fortnite.

>

> Problem with large scale gameplay is that it is near to impossible to get absolute comparable number without a strong and firm control and in this case, gw2 favor freedom over control. This freedom is then made worse with 24 hours design. With this combining factors, you usually end up with lopsided matchup due to players' on a whim decisions. Therefore, instead of aiming for "fair" matchup, it is much more realistic to aim for "most" fair matchup. Which in turn, accordance to the basic of "fair" matchup which is "comparable" population, gw2 should be aiming for "minimum" population disparity. Again, as of now, is not possible for gw2 as it usually messed up due to players' on a whim decisions

>

> The transfers do have "butterfly effects" such that it end up making matchup lopsided which include bolstering some servers while weakening some servers. This in general shake up the matchup balance **throughout** all tiers and it is painfully obvious it can be unenjoyable for many. As transfers accumulate ~~throughout every relink~~, this effect will no longer stop at just shaking up the balance but also displace the residing population which act as the last and final foundation for population balance. The moment the population is displaced, it can no longer be used as a building block for matchup balance, just count how many servers have fall to ruins. With that, you will end up with a very large groups of nomads which you have no control of and the matchup will continue to be lopsided while more servers slowly turn to ruins.

>

> Overall, to me, transfers are just bad. I can understand why people do it but it is still bad for WvW overall. Frequent transfers simply the worst evil and cause the most damage.

>

> PS: Fortunately, in real world, majority chose sendatry over nomadic life.

 

U do not need comparable numbers imo, u just need a scoring system that rewards u for fighting outnumbered and punishes u for blobbing like for example if you defend a keep with 20 guys vs a mapblob of 60 u should get rewarded huge for it, the lower the keep Tier the higher the reward should be since it would be harder to defend. In the other hand if you take a T3 keep with 20 guys vs 60 defenders u should also get rewarded huge the higher tier the keep the harder it is to take so the more reward. If you ktrain with 60+ vs 5 defenders u should get very low rewards since there is no challenge on doing so, that is how you counter coverage wars, score should focus the active PvP side of WvW no the passive per tick aspect which should still exist but very very minimal.

Score should reflect how hard to achieve a victory is for the numbers you have at the present time, it dosnt matter if the numbers are not fair, punish the blobbers reward fighting outnumbered that is how u reward skill right there.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Jeknar.6184" said:

> I think the issue about reducing the importance of PPT in the final score is that it affect the structure of the game mode... Theorically you are suposed to take objectives and hold them, and people are suposed to be fighting for the objectives... Right now we have turtling objectives and people PPT'ing empty structures on off-times because cracking a T3 structure that is being defended is actually terrible...

>

> But if you remove the importance of objectives, most likely people will simply just avoid any fight that isn't a sure win in order to preserve score and won't even try to defend objectives because "why bother?" if they aren't important anymore.

 

I think that the design of the game mode brings out the cowardly pragmatist in all of us. We all start thinking too strategically and tactically. At some point you realize that if you really want you can avoid fighting almost entirely. There have been several legendary commanders who I will not name but we all know who have taken this philosophy to an extreme. Never fight unless absolutely necessary. Only attack stuff when you know there's no one to defend it. Upgrade and siege up every objective to make taking them extremely tedious and unfun. But this playstyle is entirely consistent with the design of the game mode. Why ever fight if you can win with siege? Why ever attack defended structures when you can wait for your opponent to go to sleep?

 

I think that if the rules of the game are changed that it will change the way the game is played. If the only way to win is to fight and win those fights I think a lot of people will try their hand at that instead. You have to be a little suicidal and open to risk to want to fight and try fights that are low odds. You have to be willing to disregard the present strategic or tactical value of turtling in favor of fighting instead. For some people like myself fighting is always the best option because it's always fun. For others the incentives need to be in the right place for them to be willing to take the risk. Ultimately the design of the game determines how people will play and I think the design needs to change.

[subversiontwo.7501]

I voted neither (if it does not come up).

 

It isn't a question of good or bad anymore. It is now a question of content and access to content.

 

It started out as access to content for guilds but it has now devolved into access to content from the guilds that remain. Guilds = organized gameplay = content-producing commanders (and for some: transfering to win). What content is left is why the vast majority of players transfer now, they transfer for access to commanders much more so than to win or find guild-level content now. That's where years of counterproductivity lands, why would someone create a guild now? There is no encouragement to it, little content for it, little help to receive and no appreciation or reward. Thus, little to no rebirth.

 

Why get a tag? It's 300g without praise or reward, the people who could help you learn were in guilds, the people who could form a core for your group were in guilds, the people you could learn from by following were in guilds, etc. The few that remain now are on the servers that people flock to and they are not enough to spread out for everyone anymore. So all in all, you transfer if you want that specific content (or reliable access to it) otherwise you are happy with the occassional content that gets tagged for, the unsupported players who may tag or creating your own content by roaming or clouding in ways that require no tag or tactical organisation.

 

Incidentally, if you want to start commanding you should transfer to a stacked server because that is where the players who let themselves be lead are, who can help you, who will appreciate your work and give you the resources you need. That is where the other commanders to cooperate with are. It's pretty backwards, isn't it? It is, however, true. It will remain true until Anet starts to encourage the formation of new guilds (to support new commanders, etc).

[Tiny Doom.4380]

There is no in-game reason to have any special "transfer" system whatsoever. Everyone can already transfer servers at will. All you have to do is buy a new account and level up. If you really want to "play WvW with your friends" or play on a specific server then there's your option.

[spectrito.8513]

> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> There is no in-game reason to have any special "transfer" system whatsoever. Everyone can already transfer servers at will. All you have to do is buy a new account and level up. If you really want to "play WvW with your friends" or play on a specific server then there's your option.

 

Thats exactly what i'm trying to do, but everytime we transfer to a server soon or later the server fills with zerg zombies or we get linked with a t1/t2 server

It's just a matter of time

Bandwagoning is killing WvW

[Trittium.9104]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"LetoII.3782" said:

> > I'd rather pay a sub but I'm in the minority.

> >

> > No such thing as a free lunch Bois

>

> I'm down to pay a sub

 

If subs will help (Which I think it would) I'm also willing to pay a sub.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Rampage.7145" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > "Skill" base matchup basically is translated to elo which is basically "fair" matchup, similar that of a dota, cs, spvp etc. In other words, population must be absolutely comparable, be it 5v5 or 10v10 or 25v25 or 50v50, it must be absolutely comparable. Even in games that support large scale matchup via ondemand basis with little to zero players' freedom will not allow more than 1 number difference, for example zero-k and fortnite.

> >

> > Problem with large scale gameplay is that it is near to impossible to get absolute comparable number without a strong and firm control and in this case, gw2 favor freedom over control. This freedom is then made worse with 24 hours design. With this combining factors, you usually end up with lopsided matchup due to players' on a whim decisions. Therefore, instead of aiming for "fair" matchup, it is much more realistic to aim for "most" fair matchup. Which in turn, accordance to the basic of "fair" matchup which is "comparable" population, gw2 should be aiming for "minimum" population disparity. Again, as of now, is not possible for gw2 as it usually messed up due to players' on a whim decisions

> >

> > The transfers do have "butterfly effects" such that it end up making matchup lopsided which include bolstering some servers while weakening some servers. This in general shake up the matchup balance **throughout** all tiers and it is painfully obvious it can be unenjoyable for many. As transfers accumulate ~~throughout every relink~~, this effect will no longer stop at just shaking up the balance but also displace the residing population which act as the last and final foundation for population balance. The moment the population is displaced, it can no longer be used as a building block for matchup balance, just count how many servers have fall to ruins. With that, you will end up with a very large groups of nomads which you have no control of and the matchup will continue to be lopsided while more servers slowly turn to ruins.

> >

> > Overall, to me, transfers are just bad. I can understand why people do it but it is still bad for WvW overall. Frequent transfers simply the worst evil and cause the most damage.

> >

> > PS: Fortunately, in real world, majority chose sendatry over nomadic life.

>

> U do not need comparable numbers imo, u just need a scoring system that rewards u for fighting outnumbered and punishes u for blobbing like for example if you defend a keep with 20 guys vs a mapblob of 60 u should get rewarded huge for it, the lower the keep Tier the higher the reward should be since it would be harder to defend. In the other hand if you take a T3 keep with 20 guys vs 60 defenders u should also get rewarded huge the higher tier the keep the harder it is to take so the more reward. If you ktrain with 60+ vs 5 defenders u should get very low rewards since there is no challenge on doing so, that is how you counter coverage wars, score should focus the active PvP side of WvW no the passive per tick aspect which should still exist but very very minimal.

> Score should reflect how hard to achieve a victory is for the numbers you have at the present time, it dosnt matter if the numbers are not fair, punish the blobbers reward fighting outnumbered that is how u reward skill right there.

 

Having more or less reward aren't punishing. It is just less incentivised to do certain things. This doesn't stop people to blob. Furthermore, didn't WvWers say this before, "wvwers don't play for rewards".

[Optimator.3589]

NA needs to go down to 3 tiers with relinks every 3 or 4 weeks. It's that effing simple. Anet just refuses to look at the reality in front of them.

Also, the emphasis on backcapping and off-hours PPT under the current system is asinine. In a game with a combat system as good as what GW2 has (and look, that's why most of us are still here in this godforsaken game mode), why would the emphasis be on anything but combat?

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> Essentially bloodie is right the matchups need to be weighted more heavily on kdr/kills not ppt. Ppt essentially tells you nothing useful about a servers overall skill on its own because it's too easy to get ppt by playing offhours and upgrading in dead zones instead of taking things from people when they're actually awake to defend them.

>

> Too many people expect the guilds left playing to shoulder some extra burden and place themselves on servers that are complete disasters in order to try to balance the matchups. Guilds are expected to carry the ppt in offhours by playing overtime forever. No one wants to do that.

 

I just feel the more based off of k/d ratio it becomes and the more people want to "win" the fewer fights one might find, as server A could just completely dominate the weekend and get enough of a lead to basically quit the rest of the week and nobody could potentially catch up because they can't get enough kills with Server A absent the other five days. Same as the more roamer types would build even MORE for mobility and escape than they already do which helps kill that scene as well. There must be some sort of balance between the two that would promote both at the same time.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Dinas Dragonbane.2978" said:

> I just feel the more based off of k/d ratio it becomes and the more people want to "win" the fewer fights one might find, as server A could just completely dominate the weekend and get enough of a lead to basically quit the rest of the week and nobody could potentially catch up because they can't get enough kills with Server A absent the other five days. Same as the more roamer types would build even MORE for mobility and escape than they already do which helps kill that scene as well. There must be some sort of balance between the two that would promote both at the same time.

 

They're kind of opposite focuses though, it's hard to balance them against one another.

[BadMed.3846]

Fights near or inside objectives should result in higher points per kill as an offensive or defensive mechanism. Open field fights should yield poor results in general irrespective of outcome.

Idle PPT should also yield poor rewards. In fact, PPT should be capped to limit off hours scoring. Capping without a fight should not be as rewarding.

There are many ways to manage the scoring better. These are just a few.

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"BadMed.3846" said:

> Fights near or inside objectives should result in higher points per kill as an offensive or defensive mechanism. Open field fights should yield poor results in general irrespective of outcome.

So attacking defended structures is even more discouraged and attacking undefended structures at night is even more encouraged?

 

As always, population balance is the key to everything in WvW. No one talks about PPT and PPK on reset nights because the maps are all populated and the two things stand out less. PPT is only ever an issue on under- or unevenly populated maps.

 

So the key to dealing with the PPT/PPK divide is to deal with score over uneven populations, coverages and (off-) hours.

 

It literally solves everthing and Anet already have the tech for all of it. The only reason it has not been done yet is that they want to design what they consider their game in their way so they deaf-mannered beat around the bush (possibly because milking gems out of transfers is lucrative, I don't know).

 

 

[BadMed.3846]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > @"BadMed.3846" said:

> > Fights near or inside objectives should result in higher points per kill as an offensive or defensive mechanism. Open field fights should yield poor results in general irrespective of outcome.

> So attacking defended structures is even more discouraged and attacking undefended structures at night is even more encouraged?

>

I'm a bit tired if that's sarcasm. I said fights near or inside objectives should reward more. Taking empty objectives should be less rewarding. The night capping is ruining this game mode. WvW needs to be about fighting for objectives. Not for afking in there and just holding them during dead timezone.

 

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"BadMed.3846" said:

> I'm a bit tired if that's sarcasm. I said fights near or inside objectives should reward more.

It's not sarcasm. Fights in or near objectives are also in defensive siege range. Those are fights stacked in favour of the defender so they are already fights you are discouraged to take. That's why people fight open field. If they also reward more score they will reward more score in favour of defenders and make attacking defended structures even less of an incentive. Your suggestion makes night capping better and score in primetime even less valuable and thus completely disregarded by the players who would initiate such content (primetime squads).

 

So people who don't care now would care less (spend even more time on open field, complain more about PPT and transfer more) and people who care enough to nightcap now would nightcap more and be more of a commodity for servers who care about score.

 

You are dividing the playerbase more and making score/rewards matter less. If you wish to mend the fences between PPT and PPK, and make rewards matter more, you have to make it balanced and appealing to both. Had you phrased it as "objectives captured or held on evenly populated maps should give more score" or "objectives captured or held on highly (and evenly) populated maps should give more score", I would have agreed with you :) .

 

 

[Nath Forge Tempete.1645]

Well I mostly pvp than Pve but still (OP racism there ! kidding kidding)

 

Ppl are free to transfer whenever they want ... what if they want to transfer to a less full server than their guildmates to spent less gems. or just changing guilds or mad cause the server sµcks ...

 

IMO I stopped French servers ... it was so childish and whining . French mentality is so bad in this game. but whatever. will change with alliance system and might be worse than this so ... you should probably go over it.

[Artaz.3819]

Server transfers increases the WvW population/participation and WvW population needs all the help it can get at this point.

 

Now should server caps be given to lower population servers based on the link server(s)? That's the real question.