Guild Wars 2

You guys need to take care of this on a weekly basis. There’s no reason why DB/IoJ, the current 1st place server, and who has been in T1 for weeks now, should still be linked. YB is also 7th place. Does this really take a lot of time to change things around on a weekly basis? Common.

People voted and it was decided 2 month to rotate pairings. So two month to rotate pairing we’ll have.

But then they changed it so that the T1 servers were not linked. I think the poll you speak of was back when all servers had a linked server, even the T1s.

Servers rise and fall. I’m sorry that you’re in denial of that but that’s how it is. I was on JQ when SoR had their exodus and I was on IoJ when they had one of their many exoduses. It happens. The linking might be contributing to the issue but it’s not the only reason. Guilds leave and others follow suit. One server inflates and another depletes.

Servers get imploded by pairing that are completely jacked up! Anet does not know what there doing! This has turned into a blob fest. The only thing good that came out of this is Anet can make more money off of transfers now. There is no server loyalty and communities have been wrecked because of it. All servers that didn’t receive a favorable pairing tried to stand tall but in the end got sick of being blobbed to death. Then people left. If majority rules then lower tier servers don’t matter at all anyways.

i’ve been on yaks bend since i’ve join the game. and i have never once changed. and i cn tell you right now. when you’re fighting a server group of 4, and a server group of 2. and you’re on just yaks bend. its very difficult to say the least. people of yaks bend have to sleep. but those combind teams 90% of the time have different time zones. not to mention 6 months ago yaks bend thrived with people. now its an empty shell of what it use to be since the constant server ganging idea. the only reason i came to comment is i want to know if theres a section of the forums that explains why we do not have an allie?

Jeknar.6184:

People voted and it was decided 2 month to rotate pairings. So two month to rotate pairing we’ll have.

Something like 14% voted for 2months IIRC.

Spurnshadow.3678:

But then they changed it so that the T1 servers were not linked. I think the poll you speak of was back when all servers had a linked server, even the T1s.

What I mean is: They will use that as their excuse everytime (in fact they already did it when everyone pointed the stupid pairings from T4). There is no point in crying over changing pairings prior what the pool “decided”.

MEH, can’t beat em join em. I am seriously considering just bandwagoning to the flavor of the month server at this point. Sure it will cost me gems, but I can be part of the blob instead of the bloody smear under it. Besides the bags I get may even pay for my transfers if they are going with the 2 month approach.

Edit to add: at least if I do transfer I can do my dailies again without getting run over by a 70 man zerg while trying to cap a camp.

Huh? You want server links to be adjusted every single week? That completely defeats the point.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Servers rise and fall. I’m sorry that you’re in denial of that but that’s how it is. I was on JQ when SoR had their exodus and I was on IoJ when they had one of their many exoduses. It happens. The linking might be contributing to the issue but it’s not the only reason. Guilds leave and others follow suit. One server inflates and another depletes.

I think you miss the point completely. This isn’t about a particular server rising and falling. It is about keeping it more dynamic.

People voted for it, people has to accept the consequence of the voting. Now, the only thing you can do is to wait for next relinking.

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

leave the full server, that’s how they arrange their links. a full server will never be linked with a second server.

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

Won’t happen. There’s too many servers with deep pockets buying up guilds and lots of those guilds are selling out. I’m a bit disappointed…….you so called zerg busting guilds, what a joke lol

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

Or for them to create a 4 headed monster from servers that had been linked to T1 servers and thus had higher pops than before.

Tommyknocker.6089:

MEH, can’t beat em join em. I am seriously considering just bandwagoning to the flavor of the month server at this point. Sure it will cost me gems, but I can be part of the blob instead of the bloody smear under it. Besides the bags I get may even pay for my transfers if they are going with the 2 month approach.

Edit to add: at least if I do transfer I can do my dailies again without getting run over by a 70 man zerg while trying to cap a camp.

You know this is anets business plan right? They like the server stacking or else they’d truly do something about it. They want to get as much profitability from wvw as they can before the great merge.

If they play their cards right, they can milk this just long enough to keep dwindling servers and pairing to the point the loyalist and wvw lovers are forced into the 3 faction system. Then all will have regretted transferring to that stacked server and cry on the forums “we want our gem transfer fees refunded” and anet will do their silent treatment moving forward. The players will also get to a point where they will accept it though because wvw will be in such an awful state, there will be no choice but to accept this system.

There really isn’t any plan to improve wvw that is evident, just keep throwing little pieces of table scraps once in awhile out there, throw a red post here and there and you give hope to some wvw players. Pretty simple business plan really, reuse and recycle a map, copy and paste Cookie cut it baby.

Keep stacking guys, it’s working out perfectly for anet for the 3 faction system they have planned for the future

Well T1 EU is a mess thanks to these temporary links, now [KISS] decided it’s time to bandwagon to RoS.

Never link Deso again, we don’t want it at all, just leave open transfers to Deso and change the population cap if we need more players, but temporary links are a fail, it still doesn’t make enough players spread out onto different servers, otherwise just link or merge any server outside T1, stop players server hopping to the next big thing.

So DB is top dog for an extra couple of weeks. Come the next linkage, they’ll still be in T1 and either they’ll drop like a rock and struggle in T2 or they’ll have found new confidence/strength and continue to excel against whoever else is in T1 then.

I really don’t understand why this is a bad thing — one key purpose of linking is to create new dynamics in the match-ups, to ensure that a single world’s population isn’t the only deciding factor in matches. The fact that DB rose to T1 (with help) is proof that the system is working.

I would like to continue the 2-month cycle for at least 6 more months so we can see what sort of patterns emerge. Frankly, I like seeing a different set of opponents in NA match ups, whether they are dominating my world (as happened last week, e.g.) or not.

tl;dr WvW match ups have been too stale for far too long; it’s good that linkages are kittening [sic] up the rankings. (Let’s wait for a few more cycles before changing the plan.)

SkyShroud.2865:

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

Technically speaking, only a very small percentage actually voted for the 2 month linkings that we got, around 15%, so you should really only be telling 15% of the population to “accept the consequences of their decisions”. The rest of us, the 85%, are immune from your statement because we did not get what we voted for.

YB will be linked next time and you will catch up again. But I agree that against SBI and HoD / SoS and NSP the lack of coverage in some timezones lead to YB losing the matchup. Not every linkage will be perfect, because there are a limited number of servers around and if you would have gotten a very low tier server it might not have made a difference anyway.

Jeknar.6184:

People voted and it was decided 2 month to rotate pairings. So two month to rotate pairing we’ll have.

people voted 1 month. anet decided 2 months.

Sylvyn.4750:

SkyShroud.2865:

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

Technically speaking, only a very small percentage actually voted for the 2 month linkings that we got, around 15%, so you should really only be telling 15% of the population to “accept the consequences of their decisions”. The rest of us, the 85%, are immune from your statement because we did not get what we voted for.

Nope. That is a naive way of looking at things. Those who voted 2 months and more which is the majority should accept the consequences of their decisions. 2 months period is the final result because the people who voted for one month which is less than 40% iirc is not considered as the majority. Are you part of that less than 40%?

Liston.9708:

Jeknar.6184:

People voted and it was decided 2 month to rotate pairings. So two month to rotate pairing we’ll have.

people voted 1 month. anet decided 2 months.

As far as I’m aware, none of the choices reached the threshold, so they just did some math and picked the value closer to what the majority voted.

SkyShroud.2865:

Sylvyn.4750:

SkyShroud.2865:

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

Technically speaking, only a very small percentage actually voted for the 2 month linkings that we got, around 15%, so you should really only be telling 15% of the population to “accept the consequences of their decisions”. The rest of us, the 85%, are immune from your statement because we did not get what we voted for.

Nope. That is a naive way of looking at things. Those who voted 2 months and more which is the majority should accept the consequences of their decisions. 2 months period is the final result because the people who voted for one month which is less than 40% iirc is not considered as the majority. Are you part of that less than 40%?

It was about 38% or so and yes, I voted for 1 month too. Thing is, would people have voted differently if they knew in advance that the results would be averaged? Good thing elections in the real world don’t work that way.

I think the real problem is there is no overall dynamic game balance system. There are lot of interesting and creative ways to fix this — from enforcing a artificial queue (say 10 above the current lowest server pop), ending linking on T1 and T2 servers (why is Desolation linked at ALL in rank 1 T1???), do dynamically scaling things like extra guards, or wall/gate hp, ability to hire mercenaries etc. on the fly etc., or even revisiting the automatic upgrades (automatic upgraded benefit the larger pop server because they can spend all their resources on offense and keep flipping the other teams camps). As it stands, I think the game is in crisis. A frequent theme in chat is looking for other games to play as wvw is broken. It may not be ‘broken’ for those that like running around in a giant blob flipping undefended towers for lootbags, but those of us playing awhile, that really enjoyed the challenge of attacking and conquering a well-manned and defended tower/keep, those days seem long gone. But it is fixable – just requires the leadership, vision and resources to do it. The guiding principle should be fairness and balance and adjust accordingly.

Sylvyn.4750:

It was about 38% or so and yes, I voted for 1 month too. Thing is, would people have voted differently if they knew in advance that the results would be averaged? Good thing elections in the real world don’t work that way.

How would people have voted if they knew the top servers were going to be unlinked? How would they have voted if they knew the 4 headed monster was going to be created?
The survey now lacks credibility because of the lack of info.

morrolan.9608:

Sylvyn.4750:

It was about 38% or so and yes, I voted for 1 month too. Thing is, would people have voted differently if they knew in advance that the results would be averaged? Good thing elections in the real world don’t work that way.

How would people have voted if they knew the top servers were going to be unlinked? How would they have voted if they knew the 4 headed monster was going to be created?
The survey now lacks credibility because of the lack of info.

I think anet in general is losing credibility. They seem to get extremely offended and sensitive when someone types up an honest review or reddit review and physically remove it. I thought this was a good talk/review about the state of gw2 in general, even if you don’t enjoy pve, these guys make some good points I have to admit as a wvwer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGqg2-6DbI

One thing is constant, the devs are comprised of very sensitive individuals who cannot take constructive criticism well. That spells disaster for any work program. They honestly have to put on the armor and start taking the blows, because it’s game time and lots of people are fed up with them.

Cranking out another expansion or even the whisper of one is very comical given the broken promises of HoT and hype train that never arrived at 9 3/4 with the latest.

morrolan.9608:

Sylvyn.4750:

It was about 38% or so and yes, I voted for 1 month too. Thing is, would people have voted differently if they knew in advance that the results would be averaged? Good thing elections in the real world don’t work that way.

How would people have voted if they knew the top servers were going to be unlinked? How would they have voted if they knew the 4 headed monster was going to be created?
The survey now lacks credibility because of the lack of info.

Good point…

morrolan.9608:

Sylvyn.4750:

It was about 38% or so and yes, I voted for 1 month too. Thing is, would people have voted differently if they knew in advance that the results would be averaged? Good thing elections in the real world don’t work that way.

How would people have voted if they knew the top servers were going to be unlinked? How would they have voted if they knew the 4 headed monster was going to be created?
The survey now lacks credibility because of the lack of info.

Exactly. All the voting and experimentation time occurred when all servers had an extra server linked to them. We had a lot of fun with ET. Got to play with a lot of new people. But then, they unlinked the T1 servers and made it so there were 3 links in the bottom. It was never really stated why. I think it was a way to try to get the T4 up in glicko. But that wasn’t going to work because their average was so far below T3. Finally, they just did a manual reset of the T4 glicko score.

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

The 1st place server that you are talking about in NA Dragonbrand. Yeah we have people with alt accounts on Blackgate and Tarnished Coast. Even with being paired with the other server, people report 2 or 3 server map queues at times while we only have a map queue of 15 in EBG.

The problem here in T1 is not that DB out populate TC. DB and TC does current out populates JQ atm. The problem is that as a server we got tired of playing TC’s game of attacking “One” objective with the entire map population, and have split our groups up to take 2 or 3 while TC takes one. Not to mention by attacking like that they supremely upscale the lord to epic proportions, meaning even more time wasted on attempting to kill lord that only takes 5 average players to kill.

Also as for a example we took our guild group of at the time of 9, into to a camp where TC had protected by atleast 15 or more players, 3 Shield Generators, 1 Treb, and 1 AC, “IN A CAMP”. We decided to take to the fight knowing we was going to be outnumbered while taking incoming siege fire. We wipe them then they came back with atleast 20 or more we at this time had 12 players with us wiped them again. Here we go! They then decided to bring 30 plus players the 3rd time, we kitted them around thin their numbers out a tiny bit, then a 2nd guild group of 7 showed up, TC also got even more reinforcements as well. After a 7 to 10 minute battle TC decides to queue the map and bring the whole of TC’s population on that map to fight us. We wanted no part in getting stomped on by 3 times our numbers, so webroke up and starting taking other objectives while TC was just trying to troll/blob us down. Me and atleast abunch of people on DB just don’t see how it’s just fun to fight in skill lag battles all of the time as servers like TC does. But more power to them, to each his own, I guess. LOL

That is a perfect example of a few instances of why we are have a link. Because truth be told TC even with the DB/IoJ link TC still have more numbers then DB on their servers. This is a simple case of yes DB is in 1st place however because the tactics and skill level of the enemies DB face are supremely underwhelming DB guilds can do more with less and now that DB is starting to fill in some of the coverage gaps DB had, the other servers no longer have luxury of Karma-Training unopposed for many hours anymore. Because of such DB gain of a lead advantage on the PPT table. Another example is Friday night reset every server well maybe not JQ had queues on all 3 BLs and EBG. But because TC just wants to Omni Blob and troll they lose ground to other server breaking off and taking other objectives while TC takes one. When things don’t go well for TC and their only tactic fails, instead of going back to the drawing board like DB was forced to, some of the bigger TC guilds rather close up shop and leave the server. LOL

So yes the server link between DB and IoJ is good on paper. However because of the skill level, tactics and mentality of the servers, it just makes the match up seem stacked more so when starting to lose TC and BG will just resign for the week which is why such blowouts in PPT at the end of the week happens. Just a pure case of numbers and overtime don’t always win in every situation, some type of skill has to take come into the equation.

Too funny to read BG players complain about the links, after a long period of face-rolling T1 with their link. Be humbled.

Reaper Alim.4176:

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

The 1st place server that you are talking about in NA Dragonbrand. Yeah we have people with alt accounts on Blackgate and Tarnished Coast. Even with being paired with the other server, people report 2 or 3 server map queues at times while we only have a map queue of 15 in EBG…… (cut to shorten quote)

Just a pure case of numbers and overtime don’t always win in every situation, some type of skill has to take come into the equation.

So from this massive anti TC post all I got was. We got sick of fighting. So split up to ppt instead.

Every server blobs, everyone bandwagons. The sudden fall of YB resulted in an exodus of people jumping on the IOJ link with db. Same thing happened the first link with ET and bg. In fact some of the people from ET moved to IOJ. No doubt if a shuffle happens again and DB/ BG get locked but say JQ stays in T1 then people will jump on that link. People want easy wins and to be in t1 for population.

It’s a tough problem to fix, that’s why monthly instead of bimonthly link shuffles would have been better imo. I do understand that is a lot of work on the devs part though and they did say that. They do however need to change how often the population algorithm updates status, because right now it can be gamed and by the time it locks a server it’s already too late as a bandwagon has happened. Or sometimes it doesn’t even lock servers that should be. But even if it locks a host server it still leaves a linked one open.

In the case of DB suddenly becoming overstacked, I think was just an oversight on the devs part. They removed the links from t1 servers probably thinking BG/TC/YB would remain in t1 for the 2 months, not anticipating the implosion of YB and the swift movement of DB into t1. Then there’s the random movement of JQ up also with a link in t1. I know JQ are being stomped in t1, all I’m saying is I don’t think with this set of links the devs intended to have linked servers in t1 at all.

JQ is full tho and shouldn’t be losing to TC since JQ have a linked server.
Also, BG is now open bois. Time to ehstack it.

Jeknar.6184:

JQ is full tho and shouldn’t be losing to TC since JQ have a linked server.
Also, BG is now open bois. Time to ehstack it.

All of which demonstrates how ludicrous the population calculations clearly are with a linked server and how the 2 months period is too long. Will be interesting when IOJ is unlinked from DB.

morrolan.9608:

Jeknar.6184:

JQ is full tho and shouldn’t be losing to TC since JQ have a linked server.
Also, BG is now open bois. Time to ehstack it.

All of which demonstrates how ludicrous the population calculations clearly are with a linked server and how the 2 months period is too long. Will be interesting when IOJ is unlinked from DB.

This. Entirely this.

BG dropping to t2 was just an unfortunate roll of the dice this week for them and will probably be back in t1 next week. But the fact they changed all t1 this week to full and BG are now open, I suspect some manual changes have been made. The algorithm never adjusts this fast.

The population gap between Tier is really big, maybe having 6 Tiers would be better instead of 4 Tiers… not sure though