600 replies to this topic

[Freelancer]

You guys are forgetting a key thing here. No matter how good a server is, they will never be able to take on two servers at once, who will likely go after that "big" server no matter what.

Sounds exciting if you ask me.

[Fox_LWW]

I is exciting, that's why i don't see how you want to handicap yourself by drawing in to many players, but hey feel free to do so.

[Geistware]

If what AN says is true, it will not make a difference how good your server is unless you are on the worse server of the 30+ that are out there. Every two weeks the order and grouping is done. You may loose 10 rounds in a row before you are matched up with two more worlds that are at your level but it will happen. After things settle out, you don't have to be the best world in GW2, just better than the two worlds that you are matched up against.

[justaguy]

Geistware, on 07 August 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

If what AN says is true, it will not make a difference how good your server is unless you are on the worse server of the 30+ that are out there. Every two weeks the order and grouping is done. You may loose 10 rounds in a row before you are matched up with two more worlds that are at your level but it will happen. After things settle out, you don't have to be the best world in GW2, just better than the two worlds that you are matched up against.

It has nothing to do with winning and losing. It's about having access to an enjoyable experience. As much faith as we want to put into the matchmaking, there are fundamental aspects that require numbers and a minimum level of commitment. If everyone willing to make those commitments bandy together on 3-4 servers, WvW essentially dies on all others (I realize that is an oversimplification, but I think the point remains valid).

At the same time, it isn't Team Legacy's job to address that issue. They are doing  what they should to make sure they have a competitive team and experience and no one can - or should - blame them for that. What happens on other servers in this regards - and how their actions affect those servers - isn't their responsibility.

My stance is that there need to be basic mechanics in place to encourage people interested in WvW to spread out more than they have indicated and definitely more than they did during BWEs. This would be to everyone's benefit. Tight WvW queues (to the point of being punitive to people bandwagoning on a single server) and easy transfers to low population (or losing record) servers should be enough to do this.  

Again, this isn't an issue with how TL is pulling their team together. It is just a discussion of what I think will be needed to ensure the experience is fun for everyone playing the game.

Edited by justaguy, 07 August 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[Uder]

Let´s talk about the market manipulation again, i don´t get why someone would place a buy order for 29c in the last step of the example here:

https://docs.google....FJZjhrbWc#gid=0

This might have happened in the BWEs, but doubt that people buy at such inflated prices on live.

How high is the possibility that Anet implements a Min/Max graph like they do with gem/gold prices? This would be the end of this technique.

[Geistware]

My statement was not addressed to TL, is members or their purpose in the game. My statement is of facts as I understand it about all the servers. As I see it and from what I read, the server that TL is on will be the world to beat and they will dominate unless two worlds band together to beat them. It may still be difficult then.

What I am saying is that each world will find its equilibrium among all the worlds. This is better than any punitive measure on people who don't participate with the same level of dedication as others. I understand that there are 30+ worlds for 1.5 million people.... This is just from what I have read. Guilds can't be any larger than 500 ppl. With this said, one guild can have a huge impact in winning, one guild can't be the reason a world losing.

justaguy, on 07 August 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

At the same time, it isn't Team Legacy's job to address that issue. They are doing  what they should to make sure they have a competitive team and experience and no one can - or should - blame them for that. What happens on other servers in this regards - and how their actions affect those servers - isn't their responsibility.

Edited by Geistware, 08 August 2012 - 01:06 AM.

[Starfleck]

justaguy, on 07 August 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

It has nothing to do with winning and losing. It's about having access to an enjoyable experience. As much faith as we want to put into the matchmaking, there are fundamental aspects that require numbers and a minimum level of commitment. If everyone willing to make those commitments bandy together on 3-4 servers, WvW essentially dies on all others (I realize that is an oversimplification, but I think the point remains valid).

So, if it takes just 5 people with medium experience to take even an upgraded supply camp or tower, then you're saying that you believe out of thousands of players not even 5 from the given lowest-interest server will be willing to participate?

That's bleak, man...

[justaguy]

Geistware, on 08 August 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

What I am saying is that each world will find its equilibrium among all the worlds. This is better than any punitive measure on people who don't participate with the same level of dedication as others. I understand that there are 30+ worlds for 1.5 million people.... This is just from what I have read. Guilds can't be any larger than 500 ppl. With this said, one guild can have a huge impact in winning, one guild can't be the reason a world losing.

The person who buys the game two weeks after launch should be able to create an account on any random server and expect to be able to go into WvW and have just as much fun as the person who ends up on the same server as a large alliance during the pre-purchase. It isn't about equilibrium, matchmaking or win/loss ratios. It is solely about how fun the experience in WvW is for the individual player - are they afforded the same opportunities and experiences as those on other servers. I contend that a server that has little to no presence in WvW isn't going to have the same fun experience as one that has a robust one, regardless of who they get matched against. And whether or not you end up in that situation shouldn't be based solely on choosing the "wrong" server.

It's about numbers and having at least the core of a community that cares about WvW - without them, it is likely that WvW will not be fun.  Without that on every server, there will be a disparity between the haves and the have nots. Hopefully, this won't be an issue. However, just take a look at the comments that people are making on these boards and its obvious where the "fun" servers are.

There will always be some level of disparity. That cannot be helped. My point is simply that there has to be some real kind of incentive and opportunity for WvW guilds and players to spread out or that disparity is likely to kill a major aspect of the game for many people.

Starfleck, on 08 August 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

So, if it takes just 5 people with medium experience to take even an upgraded supply camp or tower, then you're saying that you believe out of thousands of players not even 5 from the given lowest-interest server will be willing to participate?

That's bleak, man...

I'm definitely not saying that, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I'm saying that ArenaNet should do what they can, within reason, to foster healthy WvW communities on every server. The best way to do that is by managing the WvW queue and making it easy for guilds to move to servers where they are needed/wont have to deal with queues (or server limits). Again, its about the fun of the experience. Everyone should be able to enjoy WvW - I fear that is less likely to happen if we see the vast majority of WvW players piling into a small percentage of the servers.

I apologize if this is coming across as fatalistic. I definitely do not intend it that way. I look forward to every aspect of the game and expect them all to be fun - even WvW (and I plan to roll on a server that doesnt have a strong reputation in WvW). I just want people to understand that there is more to the issue than just eliminating WvW queues - there needs to be a good spread of the WvW population to ensure the experience is varied, competitive and fun.

Edited by justaguy, 08 August 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[Starfleck]

Freelancer, on 07 August 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Take a look at Crystal Desert. See what happened to it? That is less likely to happen when it costs gems (money) to transfer.

We have a mailing list for those who are WvW driven. It's there for a reason, like I said on the podcast.
https://docs.google....WRGZWc6MQ#gid=0

Just a quick question, and Freelancer I'm not sure if you have seen anything I've written before but I'm being completely honest about this:

With the Tnet alliance we're actually not wvw-centered, and not at all interested in "domination". Winning is another matter of course, but I'm keen on playing the middle ground where we lose as many matches as we win. In fact not all of our guilds are rolling on the same server (not even sure how many are keen to).

My question is: is there any way I could know which server you guys are on in order to AVOID it?
(I'm definitely not going to let you say "wait and see afterwards", specifically because of said gem cost, and I'm not at all interested in "exposing" anything. I just want my small guild of 20-ish to be able to completely avoid ques if possible {same will apply to other large alliances with publicly announced servers})

Edited by Starfleck, 08 August 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[Freelancer]

You could sign up to the mailing list. You'd be notified where we are going, and know where not to go.

[Im Legion]

@justaguy, i think you're making a mistake in thinking that the majority (or even a large part) of the people passionate about WvW will fit in one server, or even know about the different alliances and what server they will pick. The people most passionate about it as of this time most likely will at least be aware, but it's quite likely that come release most people that purchase the game will at least try WvW and (in my opinion) it will cause quite a few of those to become passionate about it, regardless of server.

Also, you don't need a purely hardcore WvW community in order for it to be fun, more casual servers will be matched up with other casual servers and will still have a blast.

[justaguy]

Im Legion, on 08 August 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

@justaguy, i think you're making a mistake in thinking that the majority (or even a large part) of the people passionate about WvW will fit in one server, or even know about the different alliances and what server they will pick. The people most passionate about it as of this time most likely will at least be aware, but it's quite likely that come release most people that purchase the game will at least try WvW and (in my opinion) it will cause quite a few of those to become passionate about it, regardless of server.

Also, you don't need a purely hardcore WvW community in order for it to be fun, more casual servers will be matched up with other casual servers and will still have a blast.

I agree with every word you say here. I still think there needs to be more incentive to discourage bandwagonning and to make it easier for guilds to move to weaker or lower population servers if they are split or want to avoid queues.

Again, I expect every aspect of the game to turn out to be very fun. I'ts just that every other aspect of the game isnt reliant upon server choice, meaning that WvW is the one gameplay element that could potentially suffer from population variances or that could be negatively impacted by a random choice. It is something worth keeping a very close eye on.

--

I apologize that this line of discussion has taken this thread a little off topic. Tales of Tyria is an interesting program that provides a lot of value to the community pre-launch. I definitely enjoying watching when I have the time.

Edited by justaguy, 08 August 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[Targanwolf]

Tales of Tyria is THE best podcast show I have found.Period.

[Freelancer]

Thanks for the kind words all It keeps up going.

[Akodo Akimoto]

When is the next ToT podcast starts?
BTW, ToT is the only podcast that I'm regularly listening to. Keep it up guys

[Velron]

^^ToT is pretty entertaining. You guys helping me get through the last bit of work leading up to GW2 early access. Been listening to the podcasts at work this past week.

[Coren]

I wonder if you'll be able to keep a podcast to just under 2 hours when GW2 launches. You'll either:

a) Be too excited to do the podcast
Too much to talk about so it'll turn them in 3 hours podcaste
c) Do the podcasts while playing and giving feedback live

Great show as always guys, my guild enjoys them too and thanks to freelancer's "tip" on money making, they'll get less duped in the future

[husticio]

@Freelancer

You mentioned that every WvW build should focus on a spike skill, a movement skill, and a CC. Does this extend to ALL members? Including for instance, full supports? Does the CC have to be ranged or can it be on a melee weapon set?

[Starfleck]

Good show this week Bridger very enjoyable rant... ;p I felt the same way with many of the criticisms that people have voiced.

I don't know who keeps coming up with these insanely good websites, but that new Cartographers one is pure gold! It makes me wish it were actually implemented into the Wiki.

[Voison]

I try to listen to tales every sunday, if I miss a day I just listen to it while at work.

Helps full my brain with more GW2 knowledge and its entertaining.

[Freelancer]

husticio, on 13 August 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

@Freelancer

You mentioned that every WvW build should focus on a spike skill, a movement skill, and a CC. Does this extend to ALL members? Including for instance, full supports? Does the CC have to be ranged or can it be on a melee weapon set?

For us it does, but the great thing is every guild can define it's own builds that they feel is superior. Just because requires "xx" skills and "xx" elites, etc. doesn't make us superior, we just simply found something that works for us. Other guilds will do the same.

[Jesse]

Yes thats absolutely true. Our guild for example was always used to dedicating a certain role to certain 'professions'. I'm talking dedicated healer/dps/tank over here, in GW1. I know that it's a different system but we will certainly have support-based, control-based and DPS-based classes just because it works for us perfect that way.

Edited by Jesse, 16 August 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Bridger]

Episode #45 up and ready to watch!  This is certainly one of our best episodes yet, and you are not going to want to miss this one

[husticio]

woot! I missed it because I failed at time conversion LOL so used to Pacific time from all those stress tests!

[Bridger]

This week's show is postponed to Monday due to the fact that I lost my voice yesterday/today.  It's slowly coming back, but I don't want to take the chance of my voice going out in the middle of the show.  Monday @ 7pm EDT is the time!  www.talesoftyria.com/live/ is the place

[Bridger]

Tales of Tyria Starts in 1 hour,with audience feedback, some stories from the past week, and Halloween Specualtion || talesoftyria.com/live/

[Bridger]

Tales of Tyria is back after a month hiatus (partly due to me having the flu), but we're now back!  See the OP for details on episode #60

[Voison]

Bridger, on 14 January 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

Tales of Tyria is back after a month hiatus (partly due to me having the flu), but we're now back!  See the OP for details on episode #60

Great news! I missed watching the show.

Edited by Voison, 14 January 2013 - 08:11 PM.

[Bridger]

Thanks, it's good to be back (and not be sick!).

[gamblers_luck]

Bridger, on 15 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

Thanks, it's good to be back (and not be sick!).

Welcome back Bridger,  not given up yet on GW2 then!