Solution to fix the population imbalance

#1 - Sept. 22, 2014, 2:52 p.m.
Blizzard Post

There is one thing every competitive sport and/or game has in common: even number teams. Here is a quote to a running conversation that needs to be read by the dev’s.

I welcome all feedback on this idea except for “WvW isn’t meant to be balanced”
That is something that bandwagon scrubs tell themselves so that they can feel good about winning at the expense of what could be a fantastic game mode.

]Anet knows this is broken and CAN’T do anything to fix it. They have no idea how to fix it.

That’s because it cannot be fixed.

No it definitely can

ok pls tell me how

Lower the population limit so each server could only field 50 per map. The servers will balance themselves out and the game would turn into skill>population.

I like this idea too, make the limit of how many can be on map MUCH lower, something obscenely lower like fifty! I like it – I vote yes![/quote]

Only T1 servers can get anywhere close to fielding 50 people per map, and we’ve already seen the queue times are not enough to get people to move to lower ranked servers rather than being carried to a win on a high ranked server.

50 was just a number grabbed out of the air. You could easily say 30 or 40. The idea is to put everyone on a level playing field. If people would rather sit in queue than transfer that is their choice to make. Once the servers start balancing themselves out the population limit can be incrementally raised.

An added bonus is this would probably reduce lag and skill delay.

I think we’re talking a realistic limit of like 8 people per map. Most servers have a single small zerg that bounces between maps based on threats.

It would have to be a limit per all 4 maps I guess to not break that playstyle.

Lol I don’t think it’s that bad just yet. Even in tier 7/8 the servers could field around 30 per map. I personally think bringing a little balance to WvW and forcing people to use a bit of strategy instead of just outmanning the other servers might get a lot of people playing again.

Even if your server doesn’t have 50 people on the map and another one does, it will still limit the massive zergs that can just melt down towers and keeps. If a server wants to get in a 50 man blob they will likely lose everything to smaller groups that cap things around them.

^ this ^

I think the lower the number allowed on the maps the better. This will likely help force people to split up into smaller groups just as Jim stated. Split up into different groups or face losing all your stuff to the server that does!

Think about how much more fun it would be if you were facing every other server and the rankings were actually based on skill rather than population. Sorry if I misquoted anyone above, it was sloppy cut and paste work.

#18 - Sept. 22, 2014, 11:40 p.m.
Blizzard Post

You guys beat me to it. After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.

There are a couple of ideas already going in this thread:

  • population caps
  • merge servers
  • Battle Groups

I’d like to join in this brainstorm with some questions on these. For merging servers, how do we determine who gets merged? Where would we merge them to? How do we maintain any sort of world pride or identity they have? How do we handle potentially merging with your mortal enemies?

For population caps, how do we deal with the longer queues on the worlds that can field enough people? If it is dynamic, would players be able to manipulate it? For example, our world is ahead so we all agree to not play WvW so the other worlds are capped down and can’t counter us.

For Battle Groups, Asglarek mentioned more details are on the way. I’d love to hear more.

I’m approaching this as a brainstorm. The topic is “Approaches to correcting overall population imbalance”. I know there is a related topic of 24 hour coverage but I’d like to keep that as a separate conversation for now.

Please keep this friendly, constructive and on topic. We had a really good discussion on the siege troll thread I’m hoping we can kick around some ideas and have another great discussion here. Feel free to add additional ideas that I didn’t list out but please make sure they are on topic.

Thanks,
John

#288 - Sept. 23, 2014, 7:45 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Hey Guys,

Normally I like to summarize the discussion as it is happening but today I’ve been away from my desk for most of the day and just popped on to see that we are at 6 pages! YIKES! It’s going to take me a bit to catch up because I read every post in a thread that I’m engaging in. I’m making this post to let you know that I am reading this thread but I’d like to absorb everything everyone is discussing before I make my next response.

Thanks,
John

#500 - Sept. 25, 2014, 2:39 a.m.
Blizzard Post

Yowzers that was a lot to read! You guys have been busy. I dropped that line that I needed to get caught up and then the size of this thread more than doubled! I’ll apologize in advance for not calling out who some of the ideas in this post are coming from but there were too many posts to keep it all straight.

There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

From reading through this thread I think we can agree on the following goals:

  • We want a thriving and vibrant WvW community in each world. That is to say, we want people to play with and against.
  • We want to continue to play with our friends and the communities that we have developed already.

There were a number of other goals but I think those are the two big ones. I’m going to combine a number of your ideas to attempt to address this problem with a proposal and see what you guys think.

First off, as many of you have pointed out, it will be impossible to create equal populations without moving people around. As several others have pointed out we don’t want to break apart communities. This has been a really tough one for all of us. I know all about server pride. At the risk of having people scream “MATCH THREAD” and red card me off the forums, I’ll let you know that I have been known to pipe up in meetings with “SBI TILL I DIE” because it’s where I play with my friends and family members. So I’ve had the same reaction that many of you had when merges have come up in discussion. Through Adopt-A-Dev I’m now repping the DR crowd and I’ve learned that these guys on DR don’t all have three heads and eat puppies (unless they are really cool) and while it did feel a little dirty to fight SBI last week it was still great fun.

Anyway, this discussion made it clear it is who you play with that’s important and a number of ideas in this thread preserved that without restricting the number of people who could play at a time. These have had a number of names but for the sake of discussion I’ll go with Alliances. The idea that I liked for Alliances is that it is a group of guilds and people that are guaranteed to stay together no matter how things are rearranged. There would probably need to be a size limit on Alliances and several of you pointed out that whatever limits are put in place it should be based on WvW participation.

A few of you noted that things will always be changing over time so the system would have to be dynamic. There are a couple of ways of addressing this discussed in this thread. An idea that would be a small incremental change to how the game plays would be to create a new set of worlds then fill them up with our Alliances of guilds and players that are guaranteed to always play together. This would happen at regular intervals, the intervals were all over the map as were the size of the worlds in this thread so I will propose this cadence:

  • Off Season
  • Tournament
  • Restructure
    • Create new Worlds
    • Redistribute Alliances

This cycle would take a few months given the cadence of tournaments we have had which is about the time that we would want to rebalance populations. After the restructure, players could transfer like they do now if they so desired.

Alliances would provide continuity for the community. I see the server pride of today becoming Alliance pride because of that continuity. But I also see the off season as a time for the newly formed world of alliances to develop their own identity as they head into the tournament. Keep in mind that if an alliance was big enough to fill a world that mapping becomes one to one. If that became the case maybe the world could just take the alliance name. It’s interesting because that time together gives everyone involved a chance to see if they all want to ally together to truly solidify into a world. If not, you are still playing with your community for the glory of your alliance in the next restructure. But your community would be playing with other communities new to you and maybe this new bunch is a better fit for you and an opportunity for your alliance to grow.

The pieces for this idea comes from a number of posts in this thread. There are also some thoughts in there from some discussions I’ve had with several guild leaders. I just glommed it all together into something that I think could be a workable solution. I do want to emphasize though that this is all brainstorming

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again for all the great and constructive discussion!

John

#973 - Sept. 29, 2014, 8 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Hey Guys,

Just a quick note to let you know I’m not dead I took a day off to celebrate a birthday for a special little dude in my life. Now I’m back and waaaaaay behind!

I’ve had some thoughts based on some feedback you guys have given on the proposal I posted. I’m going to try to get caught up on this thread then see how we can adjust things to cover some concerns.

John

#1104 - Oct. 3, 2014, 8:43 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Hey guys,

It’s been an incredibly busy week for me and I’m not fully caught up yet but I am noticing patterns in the posts that I have been able to read. A lot of people are also saying that they can’t keep up so I think it is a good time to close this discussion out.

I think we have some good general ideas for me to take back to the team and discuss their feasibility. Thanks again for another constructive discussion. This has been incredibly informative!

I agree with those of you who have pointed out that population imbalance is just one aspect that needs to be adjusted and that the overall solution isn’t just in one area. So I’d like to kick off a discussion on scoring next week.

See you then!

John

#1138 - Oct. 6, 2014, 10:28 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Thanks to those of you who are staying on topic and attempting to give John and his team valuable feedback.

Feel free to post your thoughts, but please stay on topic and make positive, meaningful suggestions.