Guild Wars 2

Easy fix – Lock all servers linked with tier 1 and tier 2 at next world linking for 4 weeks and then increase transfer cost . Just my two cents .

But what if I need karma?
I think the best option would be to put all players on one team and have all the npcs as defenders. Also they need to add a bundle item to the provisioner that gives the player attack dmg to doors and a mastery to accompany it.

Locking servers = players leave the game until the server they want to play on unlocks. The end. It doesn’t accomplish what you think it does, unless your actual goal is to reduce game population and longevity, there is no point in trying to force players to play where they are unhappy.

A better solution is to keep all current servers as PvE servers and have players pick a new WvW server in addition to their PvE server every 3 months so the population can be controlled for WvW much easier and be kept updated and fresh matches which still preserving the current server communities websites, structure and resources. The number of WvW servers is dependent on population and they can increase the number of WvW servers or decrease them depending on how many people play WvW every 3 months.

Locking servers just creates the Berlin wall. It exists to keep the low tier servers from leaving, but nobody from the other side is going to move

I think this could be addressed with more interesting world linking, to dispel the notion that a servers like BG are forever the top of t1. Like link T1 with T8 but also link T2 with T3. Imagine something like Mag/FA going against BG/AR

roamzero.9486:

I think this could be addressed with more interesting world linking, to dispel the notion that a servers like BG are forever the top of t1. Like link T1 with T8 but also link T2 with T3. Imagine something like Mag/FA going against BG/AR

World linking itself is going to run off players from the game though, and will decrease population long term. When worlds are linked and unlinked, guilds are broken up that will need to have people transfer off of the linked servers to be able to play with their guild. Players get stuck playing with people they transferred off of another server to avoid playing with and not being able to play where they want to play. In the end it is going to lose players long term and not do anything to actually bring more players into the game. This leads to long term population reduction.

My solution there would be no " BG" in WvW at all, as all of BG would not fit into any of the newly created WvW servers. Getting new WvW servers every 3 months ensures the matchups will mix it up and no one server would be able to dominate as they currently do. They would have a server capacity that should list the exact number of players needed before a server is listed as full so guilds will know ahead of time whether or not they can fit their guild onto the WvW server before choosing that one. This will help prevent guilds being split. Currently guilds are not being told how many players can fit on the server or when they are full or not full and all that does is cause problems, not prevent them.

Killing guilds who can’t recruit on the server they are on cause its dead. no thanks for locking every server, just lock hibernationgate and tarnished carts

Only solution to counter bandwaggoning is to make xfer fees exhorbitantly high ($50 a pop) and lock servers after relinking. And then relink frequently.

I suspect next relink will see stand alone servers in NA like they did with EU.

Jayne.9251:

Only solution to counter bandwaggoning is to make xfer fees exhorbitantly high ($50 a pop) and lock servers after relinking. And then relink frequently.

I suspect next relink will see stand alone servers in NA like they did with EU.

I would hope so, and there is also no reason to not link 3 servers for example.

Jayne.9251:

Only solution to counter bandwaggoning is to make xfer fees exhorbitantly high ($50 a pop) and lock servers after relinking. And then relink frequently.

I suspect next relink will see stand alone servers in NA like they did with EU.

I disagree, they should give one free transfer every 3 months and leave transfer costs the same. Instead, create new WvW servers every 3 months, show population caps and current server populations on the server selection menu so people know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time. Everyone chooses a new WvW server to play on every 3 months and then it will destack all servers, stop stale matchups and give every server a fighting chance again while maintaining the current server communities as “PvE servers” leaving their communities intact that coordinate where they go every 3 months. ( Current servers = PvE servers WvW servers= Amount created is determined by WvW population every 3 months and you choose a new one every 3 months to keep it fresh.)

The hidden secret is that transfers generate a ton of revenue for Anet. Whatever they do they are not going throw away that money. It is a business after all with salaries to pay. Transfers benefit all aspects of the game.

Therefore bandwagoning will always exist you can only hope it is not too extreme.

Swedemon.4670:

The hidden secret is that transfers generate a ton of revenue for Anet. Whatever they do they are not going throw away that money. It is a business after all with salaries to pay. Transfers benefit all aspects of the game.

Therefore bandwagoning will always exist you can only hope it is not too extreme.

Arenanet has to face that their source of “revenue” costs them players and makes rebalancing WvW impossible. WvWers are already high profit because we can’t afford nice things without farming PvE or throwing koney at the screen (reward tracks help, but ascended gear is often 100g a piece).

lil devils x.6071:

I disagree, they should give one free transfer every 3 months and leave transfer costs the same. Instead, create new WvW servers every 3 months, show population caps and current server populations on the server selection menu so people know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time. Everyone chooses a new WvW server to play on every 3 months and then it will destack all servers, stop stale matchups and give every server a fighting chance again while maintaining the current server communities as “PvE servers” leaving their communities intact that coordinate where they go every 3 months. ( Current servers = PvE servers WvW servers= Amount created is determined by WvW population every 3 months and you choose a new one every 3 months to keep it fresh.)

That won’t work either.

• People will form “alliances” and stack certain servers at the beginning of every 3 month period. Just like they did at the beginning of the game.
• People from large servers like BG will stack onto one server. And then complain when they can’t get all their people on it because it has a smaller cap.
• You can’t divide servers simply by numbers and expect it to be balanced.
  • You can’t tell what time of day the player plays.
  • You can’t tell how much they play. Some play 5 days a week. Some only on reset or the weekend.
  • Some only come in rarely. Or for their dailies.

We and Anet need to accept the fact that nothing they do will prevent players from stacking. And nothing they do will balance populations across 24/7 gameplay.

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

I disagree, they should give one free transfer every 3 months and leave transfer costs the same. Instead, create new WvW servers every 3 months, show population caps and current server populations on the server selection menu so people know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time. Everyone chooses a new WvW server to play on every 3 months and then it will destack all servers, stop stale matchups and give every server a fighting chance again while maintaining the current server communities as “PvE servers” leaving their communities intact that coordinate where they go every 3 months. ( Current servers = PvE servers WvW servers= Amount created is determined by WvW population every 3 months and you choose a new one every 3 months to keep it fresh.)

That won’t work either.

• People will form “alliances” and stack certain servers at the beginning of every 3 month period. Just like they did at the beginning of the game.
• People from large servers like BG will stack onto one server. And then complain when they can’t get all their people on it because it has a smaller cap.
• You can’t divide servers simply by numbers and expect it to be balanced.
  • You can’t tell what time of day the player plays.
  • You can’t tell how much they play. Some play 5 days a week. Some only on reset or the weekend.
  • Some only come in rarely. Or for their dailies.

We and Anet need to accept the fact that nothing they do will prevent players from stacking. And nothing they do will balance populations across 24/7 gameplay.

Arenanet has the power to see when players log on, where they log on to, and where they go.
A complete reset will spread people out for a time and weaken bandwagoning. At that point, Arenanet will have time to work on making other parts of WvW stronger without worrying as match about the matchups costing players. They can even choose to only have a one week transfer window where they can monitor patters and decide whether or not to allow addtional transfers to a specific server (aka process transfers, so you request to go somewhere then wait an hour or two for arenanet to decide if you moving there is part of a trend)

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

I disagree, they should give one free transfer every 3 months and leave transfer costs the same. Instead, create new WvW servers every 3 months, show population caps and current server populations on the server selection menu so people know what they are getting themselves into ahead of time. Everyone chooses a new WvW server to play on every 3 months and then it will destack all servers, stop stale matchups and give every server a fighting chance again while maintaining the current server communities as “PvE servers” leaving their communities intact that coordinate where they go every 3 months. ( Current servers = PvE servers WvW servers= Amount created is determined by WvW population every 3 months and you choose a new one every 3 months to keep it fresh.)

That won’t work either.

• People will form “alliances” and stack certain servers at the beginning of every 3 month period. Just like they did at the beginning of the game.
• People from large servers like BG will stack onto one server. And then complain when they can’t get all their people on it because it has a smaller cap.
• You can’t divide servers simply by numbers and expect it to be balanced.
  • You can’t tell what time of day the player plays.
  • You can’t tell how much they play. Some play 5 days a week. Some only on reset or the weekend.
  • Some only come in rarely. Or for their dailies.

We and Anet need to accept the fact that nothing they do will prevent players from stacking. And nothing they do will balance populations across 24/7 gameplay.

Yes they can " stack servers" to a certain point, but the population cap will stop overstacking. If their alliance is too big, they simply wont fit on the server. THAT is why it is important that they show server population and cap in server selection screen. The alliance would be forced to go to the emptiest world or split to fit their guilds onto servers. It changes every 3 months, so the imbalance will not go on for years, it can be corrected every 3 months. In addition, giving players one free transfer every 3 months allows for them to move once easily if they are unhappy with their server. Players DO leave and come back, when they come back they will not automatically be on a WvW server, they will be on a PvE server and have to reselect a WvW server. In fact if they do not log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they can be dropped from the WvW population and have to reselect a WvW server when they return. AS long as players know this in advance when they make their choice, it isn’t a problem.

Anet knows what time a day people play and I actually suggested that be taken into consideration as well a few months back.

AS far as dailies go, they need to remove them from WvW and that solves that issue.

Or stop linking BG and TC with servers, keep them locked from transfers.

Lower the server hard caps.

Open free transfers to the “medium” servers, if people want to bandwagon let them do it downwards. The only way you’re going to tempt players to move is with free transfers.

Then relink.

Lastly fix glicko so T4 isn’t stuck by itself.

Xenesis.6389:

Or stop linking BG and TC with servers, keep them locked from transfers.

Lower the server hard caps.

Open free transfers to the “medium” servers, if people want to bandwagon let them do it downwards. The only way you’re going to tempt players to move is with free transfers.

Then relink.

Lastly fix glicko so T4 isn’t stuck by itself.

They did redo glicko.. problem is T4 just cannot compete with T3 servers. This isn’t going to change unless they reshuffle WvW servers and make everyone choose again.

lil devils x.6071:

They did redo glicko.. problem is T4 just cannot compete with T3 servers.

I only recall them increasing the variance number, but no soft reset or anything to actual ratings.

But yeah T4 wouldn’t be able to compete with T3, which is why they could use a little transfer help, or take the T8 servers off T1 and give it to T4.

Xenesis.6389:

lil devils x.6071:

They did redo glicko.. problem is T4 just cannot compete with T3 servers.

I only recall them increasing the variance number, but no soft reset or anything to actual ratings.

But yeah T4 wouldn’t be able to compete with T3, which is why they could use a little transfer help, or take the T8 servers off T1 and give it to T4.

It is going to take more than merging to help T4. Anything short of making everyone choose new WvW servers will not solve the already overstacked problem. The game mode is much overdue for a reshuffle. It is far too migrated already for anything else to really put a dent in the problem.

Who are you, or any of you, that can decide what a person or a guild wants to do?
Bandwagons happen because some people, albeit more casual people, just want to log in on their own time and see some action.

Your ideals of how everyone should play are simply that, yours.

In an ideal world, in a relatively “sandbox” situation like WvW the way around this is to grab a tier with like-minded individuals and set some ground rules. Been there and done that with the T3 “Fights Tier” and we were bandwagoned anyway. Folks are always going to go to the party, it is just a reality and, frankly, not your place to say different.

Trajan.4953:

Who are you, or any of you, that can decide what a person or a guild wants to do?
Bandwagons happen because some people, albeit more casual people, just want to log in on their own time and see some action.

Your ideals of how everyone should play are simply that, yours.

In an ideal world, in a relatively “sandbox” situation like WvW the way around this is to grab a tier with like-minded individuals and set some ground rules. Been there and done that with the T3 “Fights Tier” and we were bandwagoned anyway. Folks are always going to go to the party, it is just a reality and, frankly, not your place to say different.

I don’t think anyone really has a problem with players wanting to be able to choose where they play as you suggested, however, there has to be some sort of limit to how many people are on a server or at some point you may only have 2 servers left in game with people on them and not even enough for a match.

Wanting to have better balanced matches means not having one server with 5k players, ques 24/7, vs server with 500 players vs server with 100 players. That is just not even worth logging in for .. really.

lil devils x.6071:

I disagree

Sure you disagree. Your guild has seen more servers then most people have seen their family in the last years.

What Anet could do is making transfers to small servers cheaper, while making them much more expensive to full servers. Meanwhile they have to decrease the map caps for every server to create queues which force players which want to wvw to look elsewhere.

Will players stop playing? Of course, no one likes queues.
Will someone miss those players? I don’t think so.

The smart ones will sooner or later transfer to servers without queues and the servers will be much more balanced.

After that you still can increase the maps again and link servers and at the same time close every server for transfer until a re-linking is necessary.

Johje Holan.4607:

We and Anet need to accept the fact that nothing they do will prevent players from stacking. And nothing they do will balance populations across 24/7 gameplay.

Sure there is, and it is the same solution for balancing populations as it is for stopping bandwagoning, you move from a system that will never work (server based) to a system with 3 factions made up of alliances of guilds and you limit the amount of amount of people in each alliance to say 500 to prevent stacking/bandwagoning.

gebrechen.5643:

lil devils x.6071:

I disagree

Sure you disagree. Your guild has seen more servers then most people have seen their family in the last years.

What Anet could do is making transfers to small servers cheaper, while making them much more expensive to full servers. Meanwhile they have to decrease the map caps for every server to create queues which force players which want to wvw to look elsewhere.

Will players stop playing? Of course, no one likes queues.
Will someone miss those players? I don’t think so.

The smart ones will sooner or later transfer to servers without queues and the servers will be much more balanced.

After that you still can increase the maps again and link servers and at the same time close every server for transfer until a re-linking is necessary.

Funny stuff there. Care to inform me what servers KILL has moved to over the past year? [KILL] Has only been on 2 servers, ever.. JQ and MAG that is it. [KILL] was a native JQ guild. So not sure what you are going on about LOL

We moved to MAG (T3) when everyone else was moving to TC, YB, BG and DB.. not to a stacked server at all. We chose an underdog instead.

You don’t seem to understand that will not destack the most stacked servers. No one is going to be moving accounts off of them is the issue. What happens in other games when top servers get locked is players just sell their accounts to other players when they no longer want to play and the accounts increase in value, but the population on those servers doesn’t actually decrease. They are WAYY overstacked and are not going to destack anytime soon. Players on the stacked servers already have accounts on the other servers as well, so they never need to transfer to play elsewhere. Did you miss the mad dash to buy alt accounts on every server players wanted to play on when they went on sale for $10? Players on locked servers already did that…

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting. Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

Just locking the top servers isn;t going to solve the problem in the short or long term..

lil devils x.6071:

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting.

Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

I like this idea much more than a reset that randomly throws everyone around and then letting them transfer again.

It’s a good alternative to disconnect the original servers from wvw, and try to place players in a more even fashion onto new servers or factions if they wanted to do that. They wouldn’t even need to run this permanently at first, if they wanted they could do it as a week event once a month to see how it works out, like a cough tournament.

Let players sign up a week ahead for a side, and then make sure the system keeps it even, set signup caps until all 3 sides meet it then raise it again until the cut off time, so set it to 100 and when 100 have signed up on all 3 sides, raise it to 200 and so on. Or as you say show the numbers and caps so large guilds can pick emptier servers to place their guild in.

Xenesis.6389:

lil devils x.6071:

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting.

Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

I like this idea much more than a reset that randomly throws everyone around and then letting them transfer again.

It’s a good alternative to disconnect the original servers from wvw, and try to place players in a more even fashion onto new servers or factions if they wanted to do that. They wouldn’t even need to run this permanently at first, if they wanted they could do it as a week event once a month to see how it works out, like a cough tournament.

Let players sign up a week ahead for a side, and then make sure the system keeps it even, set signup caps until all 3 sides meet it then raise it again until the cut off time, so set it to 100 and when 100 have signed up on all 3 sides, raise it to 200 and so on. Or as you say show the numbers and caps so large guilds can pick emptier servers to place their guild in.

There is almost the exact same way to reset WvW. However, this way does completely remove the idea of being loyal to one server for people who like that. I agree that arenanet should carefully manage the process of transferring to shut down any large bandwagoning patterns and make an effort to keep all 4 matchups relatively even.

Cecilia.5179:

There is almost the exact same way to reset WvW. However, this way does completely remove the idea of being loyal to one server for people who like that. I agree that arenanet should carefully manage the process of transferring to shut down any large bandwagoning patterns and make an effort to keep all 4 matchups relatively even.

It avoids the biggest problem of your proposal, which is randomly throwing people around and then the aftermath mess of cleaning up and putting guilds back together. I stated there needed to be a more elegant solution to that process, as I feel many veterans would not like the chaos it may cause and may just take it as the last straw to quit.

Now transferring players on to brand new wvw servers/factions, where players can choose where to go, and where anet can control where they go with caps to maintain balance, is an elegant solution to resetting populations.

I was never against your plan, I was just against throwing players around with no regard to the relationships they have built in the game to this day, and then letting them pick up the pieces afterwards with transfers which we know will also have it’s own set of problems. It’s fine to do that on day one, not nearly 4 years in.

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

lil devils x.6071:

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting.

Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

I like this idea much more than a reset that randomly throws everyone around and then letting them transfer again.

It’s a good alternative to disconnect the original servers from wvw, and try to place players in a more even fashion onto new servers or factions if they wanted to do that. They wouldn’t even need to run this permanently at first, if they wanted they could do it as a week event once a month to see how it works out, like a cough tournament.

Let players sign up a week ahead for a side, and then make sure the system keeps it even, set signup caps until all 3 sides meet it then raise it again until the cut off time, so set it to 100 and when 100 have signed up on all 3 sides, raise it to 200 and so on. Or as you say show the numbers and caps so large guilds can pick emptier servers to place their guild in.

There is almost the exact same way to reset WvW. However, this way does completely remove the idea of being loyal to one server for people who like that. I agree that arenanet should carefully manage the process of transferring to shut down any large bandwagoning patterns and make an effort to keep all 4 matchups relatively even.

The current Server communities have Teamspeak servers and websites that were paid for in advance and much time and money invested in their servers, It think it would be wrong to them to just disregard that entirely. By allowing them to keep their current servers as PvE servers, they can keep their communities in tact and still have a “home base” to play from. Creating separate WvW servers allows WvW servers to be reset as needed AND allows for the current server community structures and bonds to remain in tact.

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

lil devils x.6071:

The only way you are going to destack servers now is to make new WvW servers . You can do this while preserving the current servers as PvE servers and make players choose an additional server to play WvW that is based on WvW population and show the cap and the current population as players choose the servers to ensure their guild can fit on the server they are selecting.

Large guilds and alliances will be forced to move to empty servers to be able to fit at all. If a player doesn’t log into WvW for more than 2 weeks they are dropped from WvW population and have to reselect their WvW server when they log in to block blackouts that allow for server stacking. Make everyone reselect WvW server every 3 months and it will keep it fresh.

I like this idea much more than a reset that randomly throws everyone around and then letting them transfer again.

It’s a good alternative to disconnect the original servers from wvw, and try to place players in a more even fashion onto new servers or factions if they wanted to do that. They wouldn’t even need to run this permanently at first, if they wanted they could do it as a week event once a month to see how it works out, like a cough tournament.

Let players sign up a week ahead for a side, and then make sure the system keeps it even, set signup caps until all 3 sides meet it then raise it again until the cut off time, so set it to 100 and when 100 have signed up on all 3 sides, raise it to 200 and so on. Or as you say show the numbers and caps so large guilds can pick emptier servers to place their guild in.

There is almost the exact same way to reset WvW. However, this way does completely remove the idea of being loyal to one server for people who like that. I agree that arenanet should carefully manage the process of transferring to shut down any large bandwagoning patterns and make an effort to keep all 4 matchups relatively even.

The current Server communities have Teamspeak servers and websites that were paid for in advance and much time and money invested in their servers, It think it would be wrong to them to just disregard that entirely. By allowing them to keep their current servers as PvE servers, they can keep their communities in tact and still have a “home base” to play from. Creating separate WvW servers allows WvW servers to be reset as needed AND allows for the current server community structures and bonds to remain in tact.

This is a really good point. I actually didn’t consider the websites and other paid stuff that would be obsoleted by this. However, servers don’t really mean anything in pve anymore because of megaservers, so these websites exist mostly for WvW and will be wiped out or deprived of traffic either way.

As for elegancy, this is comparing kicking everybody out and giving them a random home to kicking everybody out and making them choose a new home while they have no home. Either way works equally well and has similar chances of people getting separated depending on how carefully the massive traffic on the first week is managed.

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

That is already the case. I don’t disagree with you since we’re basically on the same page, I’m just pointing out that servers already solely exist for WvW, and they wouldn’t be counted in a new system as active population, but they would still need to be evenly distributed. Externally selecting servers will mean that some servers will never receive a competitive population (ie Eredon Terrace) due to first a forgettable name, and then because individuals see a low population. I can see your system working if people put in requests to play WvW, and then they evenly distribute servers in the way that maps place you with friends and guildmates first so that every server has similar populations. However, this requires a lot more micromanaging than people talking and choosing which place to go to, and it has a far greater chance to cause errors. I will still say letting the players reunite on their own terms while watching server movement is the best way to go resource-wise while still effectively reducing the ratio of lopsided matchups.

Cecilia.5179:

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

That is already the case. I don’t disagree with you since we’re basically on the same page, I’m just pointing out that servers already solely exist for WvW, and they wouldn’t be counted in a new system as active population, but they would still need to be evenly distributed. Externally selecting servers will mean that some servers will never receive a competitive population (ie Eredon Terrace) due to first a forgettable name, and then because individuals see a low population. I can see your system working if people put in requests to play WvW, and then they evenly distribute servers in the way that maps place you with friends and guildmates first so that every server has similar populations. However, this requires a lot more micromanaging than people talking and choosing which place to go to, and it has a far greater chance to cause errors. I will still say letting the players reunite on their own terms while watching server movement is the best way to go resource-wise while still effectively reducing the ratio of lopsided matchups.

If you removed players from servers all together, they would ALL need to choose a new WvW server. What I suggested was only active WvW players have a WvW server at all. Player choice is vital however, NO random placement. I do not know a single guild that would continue to play the game at all if they were randomly placed. i know mine would not. Players need to have control over where they play, who they play with. You do realize there are TON of players on this game that will not play it if forced to be on the same server with someone they have no desire to be on a server with don’t you?

Let’s see.. without using names but they know who they are.. Guy who had wife leave him for other guy on game and that guy is now living in his house? Guy beat the crap out of wife and she left him and she moved servers to hopefully never have to see him in game. Guy who gave girl place to live she moved in and sold everything he owned then left him without even leaving a note? Girl who was stalked by guy until she called police and got a restraining order? You think they will keep playing if stuck on the same server? You are dealing with actual people here, with lives and human interactions. You cannot just mindlessly place them like NPC’s.

EDIT: In addition, servers actually do exist outside of WvW. MANY still guest server for events due to some servers being much better for PvE than others.It does still matter which server you are on in PvE to determine who is on the server with you.

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

That is already the case. I don’t disagree with you since we’re basically on the same page, I’m just pointing out that servers already solely exist for WvW, and they wouldn’t be counted in a new system as active population, but they would still need to be evenly distributed. Externally selecting servers will mean that some servers will never receive a competitive population (ie Eredon Terrace) due to first a forgettable name, and then because individuals see a low population. I can see your system working if people put in requests to play WvW, and then they evenly distribute servers in the way that maps place you with friends and guildmates first so that every server has similar populations. However, this requires a lot more micromanaging than people talking and choosing which place to go to, and it has a far greater chance to cause errors. I will still say letting the players reunite on their own terms while watching server movement is the best way to go resource-wise while still effectively reducing the ratio of lopsided matchups.

If you removed players from servers all together, they would ALL need to choose a new WvW server. What I suggested was only active WvW players have a WvW server at all. Player choice is vital however, NO random placement. I do not know a single guild that would continue to play the game at all if they were randomly placed. i know mine would not. Players need to have control over where they play, who they play with. You do realize there are TON of players on this game that will not play it if forced to be on the same server with someone they have no desire to be on a server with don’t you?

Let’s see.. without using names but they know who they are.. Guy who had wife leave him for other guy on game and that guy is now living in his house? Guy beat the crap out of wife and she left him and she moved servers to hopefully never have to see him in game. Guy who gave girl place to live she moved in and sold everything he owned then left him without even leaving a note? Girl who was stalked by guy until she called police and got a restraining order? You think they will keep playing if stuck on the same server? You are dealing with actual people here, with lives and human interactions. You cannot just mindlessly place them like NPC’s.

If this happened to the WvW guild I’m in, I would ask “Where are we going, boss?” and maybe give some suggestions. Then, my boss would pick a server, and all of our dedicated members would go there. If a guild is split apart and has the free ability to transfer, they will get back together if they want to get back together.

That scenario you give is very specific and equally possible if they both unknowingly choose the same server. What I’m saying is place everybody on new servers evenly, then people have a one week window to rally to their guild commander at no cost to themselves. Arenanet needs to simply take some time processing transfers to prevent severe bandwagoning.
You seem to want the same thing, but instead of starting on a server, nobody starts on a server, which means some servers will never gain population.

Cecilia.5179:

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

lil devils x.6071:

Cecilia.5179:

Xenesis.6389:

Except his option gives players a choice of where they move, yours does not unless you deal with messy transfers after.
That’s as simple as I can put it, good luck with your campaign.

But it does? It is really start somewhere then move vs start nowhere then move

Some players wont need to have a WvW server at all. They never play WvW. By keeping the current servers as PvE servers, this only affects players who actually want to play WvW. When they go to play WvW, they will select their server then, those who never play WvW would not even have a reason or even be bothered by WvW changes. It would be unnoticeable to them. They won’t select a WvW server at all, nor will they be part of a WvW population count.

That is already the case. I don’t disagree with you since we’re basically on the same page, I’m just pointing out that servers already solely exist for WvW, and they wouldn’t be counted in a new system as active population, but they would still need to be evenly distributed. Externally selecting servers will mean that some servers will never receive a competitive population (ie Eredon Terrace) due to first a forgettable name, and then because individuals see a low population. I can see your system working if people put in requests to play WvW, and then they evenly distribute servers in the way that maps place you with friends and guildmates first so that every server has similar populations. However, this requires a lot more micromanaging than people talking and choosing which place to go to, and it has a far greater chance to cause errors. I will still say letting the players reunite on their own terms while watching server movement is the best way to go resource-wise while still effectively reducing the ratio of lopsided matchups.

If you removed players from servers all together, they would ALL need to choose a new WvW server. What I suggested was only active WvW players have a WvW server at all. Player choice is vital however, NO random placement. I do not know a single guild that would continue to play the game at all if they were randomly placed. i know mine would not. Players need to have control over where they play, who they play with. You do realize there are TON of players on this game that will not play it if forced to be on the same server with someone they have no desire to be on a server with don’t you?

Let’s see.. without using names but they know who they are.. Guy who had wife leave him for other guy on game and that guy is now living in his house? Guy beat the crap out of wife and she left him and she moved servers to hopefully never have to see him in game. Guy who gave girl place to live she moved in and sold everything he owned then left him without even leaving a note? Girl who was stalked by guy until she called police and got a restraining order? You think they will keep playing if stuck on the same server? You are dealing with actual people here, with lives and human interactions. You cannot just mindlessly place them like NPC’s.

If this happened to the WvW guild I’m in, I would ask “Where are we going, boss?” and maybe give some suggestions. Then, my boss would pick a server, and all of our dedicated members would go there. If a guild is split apart and has the free ability to transfer, they will get back together if they want to get back together.

That scenario you give is very specific and equally possible if they both unknowingly choose the same server. What I’m saying is place everybody on new servers evenly, then people have a one week window to rally to their guild commander at no cost to themselves. Arenanet needs to simply take some time processing transfers to prevent severe bandwagoning.
You seem to want the same thing, but instead of starting on a server, nobody starts on a server, which means some servers will never gain population.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying:

• The current servers are only PvE servers, and have no affect on WvW. Everyone starts just where they are at right now, this does not change. You still keep this server even after you choose a WvW server. ( This preserves current communities)

• Additional WvW servers are created just for WvW. To play WvW you have to pick a WvW server in addition to your PvE server. WvW players will have 2 servers, A PvE server and A WvW server. Non WvW players never pick a new server since they dont play WvW and nothing changes in the game for them at all. Their populations stay the same and people can still guest as they currently do for PvE events. (This allows to shuffle WvW servers)

• The number of WvW servers that are created is determined by current WvW population numbers. There will only be enough WvW servers created to match the number of WvW players that are actively playing WvW. They can create more or less WvW servers every 3 months or so depending on population. (This reduces excess servers)

• Every 3 months or so all WvW servers are reset and everyone has to choose a new WvW server. They can create more or less servers at that time depending on how many players play WvW. ( this maintains WvW population and stops stale matchups)

• In the server selection menu for WvW servers, it will show the current server population and the population cap so every guild will know if their guild will fit on that server ahead of time. This way you do not have a 300 person guild try to fit on a server that only has room for 50 and get split. ( This ensures players do not get split)

• If you are inactive in WvW for 2 weeks you are no longer considered part of a WvW server and have to reselect a WvW server when you try to play WvW. This stops blackouts that allow for over stacking. ( this stops overstacking)

• Every server will be populated due to population caps on those servers and no way to overstack them.

• Give players 1 free transfer every 3 months to ensure they chose a server they are happy with. They can still transfer again after that if they are unhappy, but pay for it as they currently do now. ( Players have control over where they play and can still move if unhappy. Keeping players happy is keeping them playing the game.)

No one should be “placed” anywhere by anyone else. They should have a say in the matter.