Fatherbliss.4701 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 The only real info we as players have ever received has been around play hours spent in game dictate a status change. Its not possible for us on a map to see everyone at the same time or even see what they are doing. There have been a number of servers that don't appear to warrant the status of "Full" for incredibly long periods of time. Yes, this thread is about a specific server but we've had this same discussion before around a number of other servers also. Whatever the cause, I don't feel like the process is working accurately. Anet can't control player behavior. If too many folks play during multiple time zones just logging in to do dailies or flip camps, that counts for population and doesn't do much for the overall score. Not against T3 objectives if they are owned by one side. I think the question should still be asked that the OP brought up and I also am not certain that Alliances will solve for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 Probably one of the most constructive posts in the thread. > @"Fatherbliss.4701" said: > The only real info we as players have ever received has been around play hours spent in game dictate a status change. Its not possible for us on a map to see everyone at the same time or even see what they are doing. This is very true. The only thing we know is if we are ‘outnumbered’ on a map. Which may easily mean you main force is on other maps or that maybe the other servers are outnumbered on the other three maps.. >There have been a number of servers that don't appear to warrant the status of "Full" for incredibly long periods of time. Yes, this thread is about a specific server but we've had this same discussion before around a number of other servers also. And if someone asks about it, Often they are essentially ripped because the whole server MUST be up to something.. > Whatever the cause, I don't feel like the process is working accurately. Anet can't control player behavior. If too many folks play during multiple time zones just logging in to do dailies or flip camps, that counts for population and doesn't do much for the overall score. Not against T3 objectives if they are owned by one side. This is likely true and a part of the problem. The hard part is without a ‘hotjoin’ system, it will be very hard to fully keep that balanced. And with a hotjoin system, many of us who like to play mainly with their guildies would be quite irritated. Having it be squads allowed to hotjoin as a group would only allow for more imbalance.. >I think the question should still be asked that the OP brought up and I also am not certain that Alliances will solve for this. I agree that alliances isn’t a cure all.. There will still be population imbalance. Likely groups will figure out how to game the system. But I kind of feel like, if we want to maintain some semblance of WvWvW, it’s is our best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatherbliss.4701 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > This is likely true and a part of the problem. The hard part is without a ‘hotjoin’ system, it will be very hard to fully keep that balanced. > And with a hotjoin system, many of us who like to play mainly with their guildies would be quite irritated. Having it be squads allowed to hotjoin as a group would only allow for more imbalance.. > I agree that alliances isn’t a cure all.. There will still be population imbalance. Likely groups will figure out how to game the system. > But I kind of feel like, if we want to maintain some semblance of WvWvW, it’s is our best option. Agreed. Ideally I'd like both a hotjoin and our current iteration (or some variation) of open world PVP in place. There are some nights I want to just roam. Most of the time I am with you in that I want to run with my guild or some combination of people that I know. I think all of us agree that *some* form of change is desperately needed. Thing is (and I know we bring this up a lot) there are still a goodly number of folks wanting to play this game and specifically this mode. I can make a lot work with a little bit of excitement but I need some new material. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svarty.8019 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Fatherbliss.4701" said: > The only real info we as players have ever received has been around play hours spent in game dictate a status change. I think it'd would be appropriate for Arenanet to **be transparent about the status determination process**, since it's been speculated on my server that they; * worship at an altar to the legendary creators of The Algorithm, great coders who moved on to other projects many years ago and whose work is impossible to interpret, * don't have an algorithm at all, they just make it up, * use a tombola to choose which server gets full status, * throw bones into the air and read the pattern they land in, * interpret the will of the dark gods via candle-lit blood rituals, and, * don't update the status often enough, lending credence to claims that they don't care about WvW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatherbliss.4701 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Fatherbliss.4701" said: > > The only real info we as players have ever received has been around play hours spent in game dictate a status change. > > I think it'd would be appropriate for Arenanet to **be transparent about the status determination process**, since it's been speculated on my server that they; > * worship at an altar to the legendary creators of The Algorithm, great coders who moved on to other projects many years ago and whose work is impossible to interpret, > * don't have an algorithm at all, they just make it up, > * use a tombola to choose which server gets full status, > * throw bones into the air and read the pattern they land in, > * interpret the will of the dark gods via candle-lit blood rituals, and, > * don't update the status often enough, lending credence to claims that they don't care about WvW. > This sounds suspiciously like how I do my business analysis during the day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"kamikharzeeh.8016" said: > @"SeikeNz.3526" said: > > well the server is full on pve, wvw is boring so no one plays it > > what is this thing with "only PvE"-players that hate on WvW, i really don't get this. had lately one of them crying on reddit around too, with zero argumentation... WvW got literally nothing since the warclaw dropped, and the warclaw did rather make the entry for newbies more difficult, bc they cannot walk with zergs efficiently often. > > btw that is kinda the questionable part of links - they can pretty much render u unable to do anything. even if you can win 10 vs 30 battles with solid coulding by veterans, that isn't fun on longterm. but how to fix this is over my head. people dream of alliances, but wouldn't that be just this exactly^10? > > @ slick notsure what u mean but if anough people transfer from guilds to a server it surely can fight standalone. some links are so weak / low populated that u barely notice them while other are pretty full and some others are bandwagoner-filled (ppl that joined the server bc they wanted to be on your team kinda). > some of EU t1 servers even have 'recruited' NA server guilds. > @ lare > you can see on character select screen on the server display if it is full or not. but with queues of 50-100 on weekends your servers seems pretty stacked, that's more than we have. ours go on WE from 30-70. there can be fake-queues as other said, when a zerg switches maps. that lasts for some minutes. you should just have random people tag up btw in the case of no commanders, people tend to do more if there's a tag around for reasons. > > @ gebrechen > well i did not see piken around in t1 for quite a while here, on our server it's said that losing KISS did hurt them. not specially because KISS would be that good, but because numbers still win more often than not. i think also other guilds from them went to WSR for example. our matchups with kills were like "red blob inc hills!" ... "urgh its just kiss again, send 20 ppl to hills" > > @ sovereign > can we leave "skill level" out of this discussion, that's likely just becoming biased. i know NA has some good players, EU surely has its veterans too though. if i look at gw2stats, the points in EU are overall higher. even that isn't transferable into "skill" but activity. > also people would maybe learn what they are doing rather if they'd be motivated to ascend tiers. atm some tank for fun, or claim to do so at least, bc they wanna dodge some other servers. idk why there is even "tiers" because at present it does not matter a tiny bit where exactly you are, you gain nothing from it. > > about this GvG thing - it is privately organized, and i only randomly saw gvg fights in obisidan sanctums arena. u read no notifications about that in teamchat at all and it tends to be guilds that u NEVER see on the real WvW maps. even with tag'd up people that i never saw before from apparently our server. i wish there was a way for eu and na to compete versus since we dont really have tournaments anymore. maybe it should simply be that. na v eu. who wears the crown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L A T I O N.8923 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Fatherbliss.4701" said: > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > @"Fatherbliss.4701" said: > > > The only real info we as players have ever received has been around play hours spent in game dictate a status change. > > > > I think it'd would be appropriate for Arenanet to **be transparent about the status determination process**, since it's been speculated on my server that they; > > * worship at an altar to the legendary creators of The Algorithm, great coders who moved on to other projects many years ago and whose work is impossible to interpret, > > * don't have an algorithm at all, they just make it up, > > * use a tombola to choose which server gets full status, > > * throw bones into the air and read the pattern they land in, > > * interpret the will of the dark gods via candle-lit blood rituals, and, > > * don't update the status often enough, lending credence to claims that they don't care about WvW. > > > > This sounds suspiciously like how I do my business analysis during the day... Ignorance is the biggest hole in the market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! > > > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. > > > > > > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit. That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use. As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! > > > > > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit. > > That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use. > > As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that. no =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! > > > > > > > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit. > > > > That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use. > > > > As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that. > > no =) It’s OK to be wrong. It’s healthy in fact. Of course denial is a river in Egypt too. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > > > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! > > > > > > > > > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit. > > > > > > That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use. > > > > > > As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that. > > > > no =) > > It’s OK to be wrong. It’s healthy in fact. Of course denial is a river in Egypt too. > > ? =) so you do admit you're wrong. else, basis that it is only time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said: > > > > > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it! > > > > > > > > > > > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit. > > > > > > > > That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use. > > > > > > > > As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that. > > > > > > no =) > > > > It’s OK to be wrong. It’s healthy in fact. Of course denial is a river in Egypt too. > > > > ? > > =) so you do admit you're wrong. else, basis that it is only time? Small boat, slow motor. Keep going. When you quote the developer that noted that ranks factor in, we can have more of a discussion. You’ve seen it quoted otherwise multiple times. But it seems as if you enjoy your reality! ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest) December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW Q: When is a world considered "Full"? A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted. Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full? A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold. Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server. A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups. During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone. Q: When will my world be open? A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up. [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet] Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold? A: There are several reasons for this: 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers. 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold. 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players. Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world? A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up. Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea) A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way. Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be. Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution? A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW. Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status? A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations. Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load? A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time. Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback? A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place. Q. Why can’t we cash out participation? A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards. Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament? A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments. Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" ! ???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest) > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW > Q: When is a world considered "Full"? > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted. > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full? > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold. > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server. > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups. > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone. > > Q: When will my world be open? > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up. > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet] > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold? > A: There are several reasons for this: > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers. > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold. > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players. > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world? > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up. > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea) > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way. > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be. > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution? > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW. > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status? > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations. > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load? > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time. > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback? > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place. > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation? > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards. > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament? > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments. > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" ! > > ???????? o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest) > > > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW > > Q: When is a world considered "Full"? > > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted. > > > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full? > > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold. > > > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server. > > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups. > > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone. > > > > Q: When will my world be open? > > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up. > > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet] > > > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold? > > A: There are several reasons for this: > > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers. > > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold. > > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players. > > > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world? > > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up. > > > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea) > > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way. > > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be. > > > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution? > > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW. > > > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status? > > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations. > > > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load? > > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time. > > > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback? > > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place. > > > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation? > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards. > > > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament? > > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments. > > > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" ! > > > > ???????? > > o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago? Why yes. Yes it is. Of course you could look for a more recent change. But I guess it’s easier to spout nonsense and make things up. There are news outlets paying a premium for that today! ??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest) > > > > > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW > > > Q: When is a world considered "Full"? > > > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted. > > > > > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full? > > > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold. > > > > > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server. > > > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups. > > > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone. > > > > > > Q: When will my world be open? > > > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up. > > > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet] > > > > > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold? > > > A: There are several reasons for this: > > > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers. > > > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold. > > > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players. > > > > > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world? > > > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up. > > > > > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea) > > > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way. > > > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be. > > > > > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution? > > > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW. > > > > > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status? > > > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations. > > > > > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load? > > > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time. > > > > > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback? > > > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place. > > > > > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation? > > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards. > > > > > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament? > > > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments. > > > > > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" ! > > > > > > ???????? > > > > o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago? > > Why yes. Yes it is. Of course you could look for a more recent change. > > But I guess it’s easier to spout nonsense and make things up. There are news outlets paying a premium for that today! > > ??????? actually its hard to make things up. =) and anet hasnt shared their pop algorythm yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest) > > > > > > > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW > > > > Q: When is a world considered "Full"? > > > > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted. > > > > > > > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full? > > > > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold. > > > > > > > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server. > > > > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups. > > > > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone. > > > > > > > > Q: When will my world be open? > > > > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up. > > > > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet] > > > > > > > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold? > > > > A: There are several reasons for this: > > > > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers. > > > > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold. > > > > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players. > > > > > > > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world? > > > > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up. > > > > > > > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea) > > > > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way. > > > > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be. > > > > > > > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution? > > > > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW. > > > > > > > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status? > > > > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations. > > > > > > > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load? > > > > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time. > > > > > > > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback? > > > > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place. > > > > > > > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation? > > > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards. > > > > > > > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament? > > > > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments. > > > > > > > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" ! > > > > > > > > ???????? > > > > > > o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago? > > > > Why yes. Yes it is. Of course you could look for a more recent change. > > > > But I guess it’s easier to spout nonsense and make things up. There are news outlets paying a premium for that today! > > > > ??????? > > actually its hard to make things up. =) and anet hasnt shared their pop algorythm yet To quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest) > > > > > > > > > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW > > > > > Q: When is a world considered "Full"? > > > > > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted. > > > > > > > > > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full? > > > > > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold. > > > > > > > > > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server. > > > > > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups. > > > > > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > Q: When will my world be open? > > > > > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up. > > > > > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet] > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold? > > > > > A: There are several reasons for this: > > > > > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers. > > > > > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold. > > > > > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players. > > > > > > > > > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world? > > > > > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up. > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea) > > > > > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way. > > > > > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be. > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution? > > > > > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW. > > > > > > > > > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status? > > > > > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations. > > > > > > > > > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load? > > > > > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time. > > > > > > > > > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback? > > > > > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place. > > > > > > > > > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation? > > > > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards. > > > > > > > > > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament? > > > > > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments. > > > > > > > > > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" ! > > > > > > > > > > ???????? > > > > > > > > o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago? > > > > > > Why yes. Yes it is. Of course you could look for a more recent change. > > > > > > But I guess it’s easier to spout nonsense and make things up. There are news outlets paying a premium for that today! > > > > > > ??????? > > > > actually its hard to make things up. =) and anet hasnt shared their pop algorythm yet > > To quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means” well, it think its time you think. =) hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Frog.9274 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 You know you could actually prove how active a server is in WvW if you wanted to. It would be a PITA, but doable. Place scouts at key travel chokepoints and/or layout marker traps at those points. Record it with focus on map. Do it for 24 to 48 hours starting at reset. You should get a near perfect idea of the numbers of players on all maps fighting in WvW. And you could post the video to prove it. Then this thread would be half as long. Win/Win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L A T I O N.8923 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 > @"Black Frog.9274" said: > You know you could actually prove how active a server is in WvW if you wanted to. It would be a PITA, but doable. Place scouts at key travel chokepoints and/or layout marker traps at those points. Record it with focus on map. Do it for 24 to 48 hours starting at reset. You should get a near perfect idea of the numbers of players on all maps fighting in WvW. And you could post the video to prove it. Then this thread would be half as long. Win/Win Except the population out of.the most active players...the recorders..are not considered into mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Hmmm.. the other two closed, but the original still going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svarty.8019 Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > Hmmm.. the other two closed, but the original still going. Other two what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > Hmmm.. the other two closed, but the original still going. > > Other two what? The BG and the FA ones. Both closed as Matchups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts