Guild Wars 2

Been throwing around a few ideas inside my off the wall noggin about alternate ways guesting could work.

My premise is that the hardware limitations are fixed, and that we cant redo the entire way the infrastructure fits together.

So.. here we go..

So.. here we go..Back at launch we could transfer to whatever server we liked, in whatever region we liked with only about few mins delay. Right?

But this affected the WvW balance as people would just flock to the winning servers.

It also caused an issue with node farming and world event drops.

So.. here we go..Back at launch we could transfer to whatever server we liked, in whatever region we liked with only about few mins delay. Right?

But this affected the WvW balance as people would just flock to the winning servers.

It also caused an issue with node farming and world event drops.The other barrier it seems is that since the two databases aren’t linked it’s not possible to move data from one to another. BUT it is possible to copy/transfer it for a number of reasons people don’t really understand. We just have to accept this limitation as a given and that it’s not just PR spin to keep people quiet.

It’s also unlikely to swamp bandwidth as once you are on a server you are likely to stay for a few hours. Heck if it’s an issue have a 2 hour cooldown like a hearthstone in WoW (hey can even sell reduce that cooldown consumables in the gem store ) or only do the transfer if it’s to a new DC..

To me, at least the logical answer would then be to allow server transfers without impacting WvW and nodes etc.

I believe this can be done by seperating your WvW server choice from the actual server you play on.

Here’s how it could work.

Create a new field on an account, lets call it ‘loyalty’ On logging in after the patch you are asked to choose a WvW server you are loyal to. This loyal field would not change even if you moved servers.

If you change to another server and its not your loyal one you cant enter WvW or indeed see the map.

If you want to change loyalty that will cost you gems, and have the same restrictions as now.

In short, in any comparison check within the code you are making to see if a player can WvW change that comparison to the loyalty field rather than server choice field.

As for the nodes and the like if you are not on your loyal server have a short message pop up saying “you can only loot this on your loyal server” Thus stopping the economy effects. Now sure you wont be able to gather or loot world event chests but thats a tiny sacrifce compared to not being able to at all

Server pride is maintained by use of the loyalty mechanic so thats unaffected. As is spying as it’s possible to have people on different servers in the same guild right now, so this suggestion would change nothing.

In this way we don’t need to redesign the network, servers or routing. We use whatever is in place and working now.

Yes i’m not a dev, but something along these lines would seem to be a simple solution to the problem.

Yes there are some downsides such as potentially waiting and not being able to gather. And perhaps it’s not as neat and nifty as it could be BUT the cost to community of those downsides as far, far less than splitting it in half.

It just needs the will and desire to think around the problem.

Here’s how it could work.

Create a new field on an account, lets call it ‘loyalty’ On logging in after the patch you are asked to choose a WvW server you are loyal to. This loyal field would not change even if you moved servers.
If you change to another server and its not your loyal one you cant enter WvW or indeed see the map.
If you want to change loyalty that will cost you gems, and have the same restrictions as now.

I like the idea a lot. And ANET could still make money from it. I’d pay to see this implemented, for example, and people would likely change loyalty more often in this scenario than they are likely to change servers with the guesting feature as it’s described now.
This, or something like it, could actually save the international community.
I doubt they will limit gathering in any case, but thats so much less important than splitting the regions for good.

Too much stupid WvW drama. I’d rather have a good linked community.

Interesting idea. Loyalty would be good and seems well thought out. I don’t know about the node gathering having limitations say 2 guests servers per week would limit the amount of node hopping but then it would cheaper mats?

There will be spys regardless in WvW anyway. To me the majority of WvW pro’s will do anything to keep on winning. They don’t really care about helping the community the moves are to challenge themselves as they never stay in one spot for long or to run away from a team that beat them.

Their moving always messes up the population and leaves the poor folks on a FUBAR server.

Same I could really care less about the minor issues make a proper community that they always go on about but never actually do.

I really like this solution. I’m not a programmer, so I guess I can’t say how much work would be involved (and maybe there would be a lot) but I know I would certainly take that as my monthly patch over a one-time event if it meant being able to play with all of my friends.

It still prevents WvW exploitation by requiring a fee to change WvW servers, but allows the international community to play as intended, and as implied by the build up to the game’s release.

Regarding your suggestion Shan, what happens if your loyal server gets too full?

I would imagine loyalty servers would be measured for loading also and either people would be refused to select them, or would need to wait longer. Just as they do now.

The mechanics for measuring server fullness are there already so while i’m sure it’d be a little more work it’s still do-able.

Besides, it would soon autobalance. E.g would you rather have. a 30 min wait for EB or zero wait for T2 set of loyal servers to play on. Basically, with server fullness it would operate just as now.

I’m sure it’s not that neat or tidy but it could at least avoid a ‘Tyrian curtain’ cutting the entire game community in two.

As mentioned above. Anet are clever, Anet are smart i’m sure they can get it working

Assuming their conditionals are referencing one and only one field that you call “serverchoice”, I think this idea is a good one that could easily be implemented. I am not sure I like the idea though of a window poping up saying “You can’t mine this” seems a bit clunky. I’d be interested to see how they handle node instances since they seem to be individual to the player. You mine the node, it depletes, but another player could still mine it. This seems to me like each node has a flag thats assigned to each player. If thats the case, then a similar flag could be implemented based on loyalty, and would work much in the same way with the same efficiency: if your loyalty does not match the server then the node appears depleted.

I assume there is a “Is this a valid node for the player” function so you would’nt need to have a manual check for each node coded. You’d simply call the function and if the server you’re on wasn’t your loyal one that would return false and as you say display the node as depleted

I’m bumping this back up because it deserves more attention. Loyalty seems a good approach, or some other method of disconnecting WvW from the server issues. I like playing WvW and I can certainly see that free transfers need to stop to server WvW’s best interest. BUT! That doesn’t server the best interest of many other players in the game, and losing the ability to even sometimes play with those on European servers isn’t worth it. It’s just not worth it.

Fix it A-Net.

I’ll quote a master:
“Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why. Then do it.”
RA Heinlein.

I really, really like this idea. It would be so very great if this got implemented.
If it takes a lot of additional resources, I’d also pay for something like a “cross region” server ticket.
Which probably should only be purchasable with actual money, instead of just turning Gold into Gems.