Guild Wars 2

I may not be able to speak for my whole server. But I know I hear the same gripe from just about everyone. Fergusons Crossing is fed up being pitted against Sorrows Furnace. We are lightly populated Server and they are a highly populated server. Not only should that be enough to change up the rosters. But to make it worse (and no fault on Arenanet for this part) They seem to be a server that goes on WvW a lot while our server seems to be mostly PvE. So you have not only does there over all server out number us by a lot. The WvW is even worse. Should you not have some sort of algorithm program that checks the numbers of active players per server, which you have that part done, then pits servers against other servers that are close to the same numbers. This would then fix big servers just kitten us little guys. And would then mix up who you are against from time to time as the numbers flux.

If you are either in FC, then you know what I mean, or are on another server in the same boat, like Eredon Terrace. Make a comment stand up. Get Arenanet to fix this.

fix what? fergs is bottom tier, if arenanet replaced sorrows with another serveer it would be even WORSE! do you even think about what you are saying? seriously, you have no idea what you are asking for! besides, your asking another matchup to be utterly destroyed so you can have your way? HECK NO!!!!

We’re bottom because we get swamped by pure numbers. If it was a server that didn’t outnumber us grossly it would be more fair.

No offense but the other servers would kitten you 10-20 fold then what sf could do. Cant force players to leave one server to go to another. rather then server vs server they should of did something like alliance vs alliance vs alliance. that prolly would have yielded better results.

and alll the other server have more than sorrows, that is why they are in higher tiers!!!! they wouldnt be able to survive in a higher tier if they didnt have the numbers!!!! you obviously need to think before you post.

My issue is not that we are losing. but rather why. I wouldn’t care if it was due to skill. Because the blame is on us. But when it’s sheer numbers. something entirely out of our control. No then I have a complaint.

and no. There are a lot of servers that are only high activity instead of very high like SF. least they could do is change the match up amongst the lower populated servers. Instead of crapping on ET and FC by making them face a very high populated server week after week.

take a week off from wvw. Let SF get so high a score that there is no choice but for them to go up.

Else, just accept this is what your server is. And have fun defending supply camps, breakout events, and pve.

SPVP be the top dog there.

So which server would you like to face instead of the one you are facing now?

the server activity has nothign to do with wvw, but rather with total player in both wvw AND PVE therefore, it means there is a high population of pve-ers on SF, not a super high population of wvw-ers only.

Give a shout to your FC/ET brothers and sisters here:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/In-my-opinion-t8-rankings-need-more-attention

I posted a summary of what they’ve been discussing on gw2 reddit that explains why this isn’t simply an issue of FC and ET being significantly worse than any other server out there:

Disclaimer: I’m not a tier 8 NA player, I’m a tier 4 EU player. This issue caught my attention when one player posted on the official forums about always facing and losing to the “green server”. While my knee-jerk response would have been to say the “green server” was their best possible opponent, a glance at http://mos.millenium.org/matchups#NA indicated that this was quite possibly not the case. The reasons have been quite thoughtfully articulated in this thread, and I’ve done my best to summarize them here.

What is tier 8 (NA)?
Tier 8 is the lowest tier, or World vs. World server matchup, in the North American rankings (There is also a EU tier 8 and tier 9, which has similar issues). It is currently comprised of Sorrow’s Furnace, Ferguson’s Crossing, and Eredon Terrace. Past tier 8 servers have included Kaineng (now tier 2) and Devona’s Rest (now tier 5). As with every other tier, the servers in tier 8 are matched together according to their Glicko 2 rating.

What’s the problem with tier 8?
The fundamental problem of tier 8 is that a massive gap in the ratings exists between tier 7 and tier 8. Consider that the average server rating in tiers 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively are 1406, 1235, 1069, and 731. The jump from tier 6 to tier 5 is 171 pts; from tier 7 to 6 it’s 166 pts; but from tier 8 to tier 7 it’s 338 pts.
What this means is that it’s much more difficult for a server to advance from tier 8 to tier 7 than through any other tier. When Kaineng infamously received its mass transfers and began stomping tier 8, and every subsequent tier, it took them 3 weeks to break into tier 7, and only 6 weeks to climb from tier 7 to tier 2.
6 weeks ago, Sorrow’s Furnace dropped down to tier 6, narrowly losing their first matchup, and winning their second by a small margin. Because of the ratings gap, they lost 193 pts their first 2 weeks in tier 8. They’ve improved as a server, either because players returned or they received an influx of free transfers, and have won every matchup since by increasing margins. They are poised to win another, yet after this week they still won’t have the rating that they had when they first entered tier 8. Why? The low ratings of FC and ET are dragging them down, no matter how they perform.
This means that players from FC and ET are getting stomped weekly by a server that very likely doesn’t belong in tier 8, while SF is forced to stay in tier 8 even though it very likely can compete in higher tiers. New players on FC and ET are being introduced to a very distorted version of WvW, and veteran players are losing interest in the game.
It’s true that we don’t know how one of the lower tier 7 servers would fare in tier 8. What’s problematic is that these results that would have led to a matchup change weeks ago in any other tier. Because tier 8 is in a ratings hole, that hasn’t happened.

Continued below…

SF got an influx of players after they dropped to tier 8. but now they’re stuck here… makes me LOL when you guys keep saying “omg you losers would get ROFLSTOMPED if anyone else dropped to that tier with you!!!!!1!!1one!!” seriously. if we got paired up with a server with similar numbers, it would be a much more even match, like the first two matches when SF FIRST dropped to tier 8.

learn how screwed up glicko is before you say stuff like that, please. glicko is a hot mess, and we’re stuck with it.

who would i want to face? at this point, ANYONE ELSE. that about cover it for ya?

Continued from above…

What can be done about it?
The first step would be for the developers to acknowledge the shortcomings that Glicko 2 has when used to determine WvW matchups. It was designed for chess ratings, and therefore it doesn’t address these the features of the WvW system which have resulted in the broken ratings:
A small, closed participant (server) pool.
Matchups that are held exclusively within a tier.
The above combined with the potential for drastic fluctuations in server performance, due to free transfers.
As a player in a mid-tier server, Glicko 2 seems to work, and its main problems seem to be at the top or the bottom tiers. There have been a couple of simple solutions proposed that would retain Glicko 2, while preventing this kind of rating gap:
A rating cap or floor, so that tiers don’t slide impossibly out of reach of one another. Make a rock bottom that servers can hit but can still climb out of.
Regular normalization of server ratings, according to where their tier should sit. This could be implemented by setting an intended average rating for each tier, and adjusting the server ratings so that their average rating matches what is expected.
A couple more radical solutions have been proposed, such as a ratings reset, server transfer, or implementation of winner-up loser-down in place of Glicko 2. These have all received opposition for good reason. I personally think that either of the two simple adjustments to Glicko 2 provided above could solve this problem.

What can I do?
Show the tier 8 players some support and understanding. Those on ET and FC are taking a beating and need to know the WvW community is behind them. That thread I mentioned? They’re keeping it alive, holding out hope for some attention from the devs. Make suggestions and offer constructive criticism for their solutions.
To those that read this whole post, thanks for your time.

TL;DR? Ratings anomaly on lower tiers makes it impossible for servers to advance, reducing quality of play for all servers involved. Solutions have been offered that won’t break the other tiers.

I’m sorry but there is no hope for you guy’s. from what im reading SF can field 30+ guy’s Everyone in tier 7 can do that even hod (who both gom and darkhaven will admit have less people) now both Hod and Gom are used to fighting larger number’s (dark haven) what do you suppose is going to happen when one of us drops down and has to fight Lower numbers? Our Pve players will start to Wvw. more people = bigger stomp. which throws them/us back into tier 7.
The only fix Anet can do is simply wait. they can’t close servers atm because there are only 2 underpopulated server’s. they need a third underpopulated server so they can delete tier 8. otherwise it throws off the balance with glicko (3 servers per tier).
course this is all just theory so take it with a grain of salt.

Psychotic EGG.1376:

I may not be able to speak for my whole server. But I know I hear the same gripe from just about everyone. Fergusons Crossing is fed up being pitted against Sorrows Furnace. We are lightly populated Server and they are a highly populated server. Not only should that be enough to change up the rosters. But to make it worse (and no fault on Arenanet for this part) They seem to be a server that goes on WvW a lot while our server seems to be mostly PvE. So you have not only does there over all server out number us by a lot. The WvW is even worse. Should you not have some sort of algorithm program that checks the numbers of active players per server, which you have that part done, then pits servers against other servers that are close to the same numbers. This would then fix big servers just kitten us little guys. And would then mix up who you are against from time to time as the numbers flux.

If you are either in FC, then you know what I mean, or are on another server in the same boat, like Eredon Terrace. Make a comment stand up. Get Arenanet to fix this.

Which server do you think you’d stand a better chance against? If SF is rolling you that hard I don’t think any server in T7 wouldn’t be doing the same.

In any case, what is happening is what several of us have called “tier-locking”, and not long ago I had about a week long argument with a couple of folks on this forum about it. My contention is that tier-locking is an unavoidable consequence of using the Glicko-2 system in a tiered environment unless ANet were to choose the constants in the formula to make it highly volatile, and if they did that they’d risk increasing the number of blowouts. If anyone doesn’t believe tier locking is real, just look at the servers that win their match by a large number of points and still have their rating points decrease. It’s a flawed system … pure and simple.

lol. it’s not the size of their zerg. it’s their kitten nightcap crew. really takes the wind out of your sails when you go to bed owning your whole borderlands and feeling fine, and wake up the next day to see the whole borderlands painted green and all your reinforcements and siege gone because someone PvDoored it overnight while it was undefended.

but thank you everso much for the vote of confidence. i say BRING IT

oh yeah. and despite what they’re saying… SF fields far more than 30. lol

ah i just heard 30+ on the forums im not in t8 myself so it could be 100 for all i know . give it time. when this patch comes out there is either going to be a huge influx of players or a mass exodus. either way it might balance things a bit better.

I agree with soggy, Anet should set a minimum number for glicko rating. Lets say 1000. This will make if server from top fall (T7) to T8, they only need a short time to get to T7 again.

(As we can see FC and ET rating is so small thus make SF evolution (positive) rating is so small. But if we set a minimum number, SF rating can jump directly just by 1 – 2 win (this should be accompanied with addition rule, the rating jump cannot be more than 50 thus they cannot jump directly to T6).

Dogsmack.4910:

Pvdoor,Nightcap..noo ET n FC is much too skilled for these,it makes you look weak when you whine. Many times they are not outmanned and are still beaten,even when they “nightcap”. Oh Et never caps towers that are undefended..LOL,next time bring 20 golems :-) if you are looking for pity in your posts you got it, but please dont play the victim..ET does just fine when SF sleeps I think considering SF has to fight red and blue it kinda makes it even, considering FC and ET never fight each other.

yer funny. ya know that? i wasn’t looking for pity or sympathy. i was stating a fact. SF has more people than ET or FC. and they have a stronger WvW night time population. >shrug< we play with the hand we are dealt. if the next server to fall to tier 8 has a less populous nightcap crew, the matches would most likely be much more even. would we pwn it? probably not. would it be a ROFLSTOMP? probably not.
and ET and FC not fighting each other? don’t make me laugh. that little “alliance” as filthyrat was so fond of calling it (which it was actually just a non-agressive agreement that we didn’t even all agree to) crumbled in less than a week. trust me, there was loads of fighting between FC and ET last week

Highlie.7641:

ah i just heard 30+ on the forums im not in t8 myself so it could be 100 for all i know

I would love to see the real numbers myself, you know. Put it in the overhead, where it shows the score, or on the pie graph for all I care.

But it would be grand if we could see the number of forces or maybe just the ratio (That way we would still have to guess how many we had and how many they had, to keep the mystery up) But either way, even if it just gave a ratio, like 1 : 2 : 3.5 or something, that would make me very happy.

It would really settle the trash talk about who is fielding what.

Hey guys, I just wanted to put this into perspective for you all.

I’m from the Northern Shiverpeaks a Tier6 server who’ve done time in Tier5.

The first attached is our score (we’re red) at this reset.

The second attached is the score when we last played Sorrows Furnace and Eredons Terrace (we’re green).

Right now we are set up to move down into tier7.
Sorrows furnace may move up into tier 7 in a few weeks.

Do you really think we’re an even match? and we will be only a tier above you.

(Yes both servers may have changed, but I’m just offering scores from previous not change in server pop, and from what I can see. SF and ET’s scores are still similar.)

While Kain was on its warpath just before free transfers ended they were only high population, the population count has little to do with WvW. Just because a server may have a lower population does not mean they don’t have a huge WvW following.

As many others have already said, you don’t want another server, it would only be worse.

Noone in Tier 8 really seems to want to listen to reason or understand that there is no other opponent to match with you. Tier 7 opponents will also kill you. If you want Anet to change the system to better protect low wvw population servers, then by all means ask for it. But asking for a new opponent from Tier 7 really just shows you have no idea what you are asking for.

Sunspots.9861:

Noone in Tier 8 really seems to want to listen to reason or understand that there is no other opponent to match with you. Tier 7 opponents will also kill you. If you want Anet to change the system to better protect low wvw population servers, then by all means ask for it. But asking for a new opponent from Tier 7 really just shows you have no idea what you are asking for.

The only option I can see is to just disband the lowest tier and spread the numbers evenly across all the other servers like they did in beta when they had probs with NSP server.

Of course give those lower three servers free tranfers for a month so they can move out together as guilds. Anyone left would just be inactive and get a random server.

That would help with the dwindling population on higher tier servers and also get rid of the lopsided system.

..I think

@Nutzt

I think they’re still only high population in tier 2.

Rob.7624:

Sunspots.9861:

Noone in Tier 8 really seems to want to listen to reason or understand that there is no other opponent to match with you. Tier 7 opponents will also kill you. If you want Anet to change the system to better protect low wvw population servers, then by all means ask for it. But asking for a new opponent from Tier 7 really just shows you have no idea what you are asking for.

The only option I can see is to just disband the lowest tier and spread the numbers evenly across all the other servers like they did in beta when they had probs with NSP server.

Of course give those lower three servers free tranfers for a month so they can move out together as guilds. Anyone left would just be inactive and get a random server.

That would help with the dwindling population on higher tier servers and also get rid of the lopsided system.

There will always be a lowest tier though, and any problems that exist in tier 8 would simply float up to tier 7. The matchups are inherently unfair because humans are selfish. The simplest solution is quite simply the one that noone ever wants to hear: If you really enjoy spending your time playing wvw in Guildwars, switch servers. Only you are responsible for your own good time.

Sunspots.9861:

Rob.7624:

Sunspots.9861:

Noone in Tier 8 really seems to want to listen to reason or understand that there is no other opponent to match with you. Tier 7 opponents will also kill you. If you want Anet to change the system to better protect low wvw population servers, then by all means ask for it. But asking for a new opponent from Tier 7 really just shows you have no idea what you are asking for.

The only option I can see is to just disband the lowest tier and spread the numbers evenly across all the other servers like they did in beta when they had probs with NSP server.

Of course give those lower three servers free tranfers for a month so they can move out together as guilds. Anyone left would just be inactive and get a random server.

That would help with the dwindling population on higher tier servers and also get rid of the lopsided system.

There will always be a lowest tier though, and any problems that exist in tier 8 would simply float up to tier 7. The matchups are inherently unfair because humans are selfish. The simplest solution is quite simply the one that noone ever wants to hear: If you really enjoy spending your time playing wvw in Guildwars, switch servers. Only you are responsible for your own good time.

Xfers would be turned off for the other servers though.
And the ones in t7 wouldn’t be much affected. Because I seriously doubt all the WvW from all three servers would move into just one.

Because transfers on a glicko system is what caused this.

Rob.7624:

Do you really think we’re an even match? and we will be only a tier above you.

(Yes both servers may have changed, but I’m just offering scores from previous not change in server pop, and from what I can see. SF and ET’s scores are still similar.)

Those scores are very dated in regards to SF and ET. No doubt things have changed for SF after all, they went from losing to FC upon their arrival in T8 to owning the entire Tier, and that change did not happen because FC decided to just give up on week 2.

Anyway. Good or bad, remains to be seen.

I personally think that Darkhaven would be a better match for SF as they are both Green Servers, owning their respective tiers which I think allows them both a large amount of undue comfort, so for me, it would be far more fun seeing them both get a wake up call facing each other, then it would be to see SF battle some itching to prove it’s worth server like NSP.

Lol…just reading the title I knew this was going to be about T8. I am glad to see people from other servers give their opinions on the matter.

The people from other tiers would be better suited keeping their opinions to themselves. They’ve no insight to comment on the situation in T8, anymore so than I have cause to comment on their tiers. Unless you’re logging into a T8 W3 match day after day, you have very little concept of the problem. Oh, I’m sure many of you think that you do, but you don’t.

That said, Ferg people creating new threads to kitten about the situation that’s already been hashed in other places in better ways is silly. Search through the threads a bit, guys. Otherwise, you’re just going to server as fodder for trolls and the clueless.

Pretty sure people are posting here is cause there are so many threads about T8 and it is getting a little out of hand. These are public forums and for anyone out there to post in, if it was a private website for a specific server then I could see that point. Just seems like there is a tread that pops up every other day about the problems with T8.

Psychotic EGG.1376:

I may not be able to speak for my whole server. But I know I hear the same gripe from just about everyone. Fergusons Crossing is fed up being pitted against Sorrows Furnace. We are lightly populated Server and they are a highly populated server. Not only should that be enough to change up the rosters. But to make it worse (and no fault on Arenanet for this part) They seem to be a server that goes on WvW a lot while our server seems to be mostly PvE. So you have not only does there over all server out number us by a lot. The WvW is even worse. Should you not have some sort of algorithm program that checks the numbers of active players per server, which you have that part done, then pits servers against other servers that are close to the same numbers. This would then fix big servers just kitten us little guys. And would then mix up who you are against from time to time as the numbers flux.

If you are either in FC, then you know what I mean, or are on another server in the same boat, like Eredon Terrace. Make a comment stand up. Get Arenanet to fix this.

A-net did fix it, they put in server transfers. paying to play in the WvW environment your happy with is the anet business model. you didnt think they stoped free transfer because the player based asked for it did you?

katz.8376:

Dogsmack.4910:

Pvdoor,Nightcap..noo ET n FC is much too skilled for these,it makes you look weak when you whine. Many times they are not outmanned and are still beaten,even when they “nightcap”. Oh Et never caps towers that are undefended..LOL,next time bring 20 golems :-) if you are looking for pity in your posts you got it, but please dont play the victim..ET does just fine when SF sleeps I think considering SF has to fight red and blue it kinda makes it even, considering FC and ET never fight each other.

yer funny. ya know that? i wasn’t looking for pity or sympathy. i was stating a fact. SF has more people than ET or FC. and they have a stronger WvW night time population. >shrug< we play with the hand we are dealt. if the next server to fall to tier 8 has a less populous nightcap crew, the matches would most likely be much more even. would we pwn it? probably not. would it be a ROFLSTOMP? probably not.
and ET and FC not fighting each other? don’t make me laugh. that little “alliance” as filthyrat was so fond of calling it (which it was actually just a non-agressive agreement that we didn’t even all agree to) crumbled in less than a week. trust me, there was loads of fighting between FC and ET last week

Like with every other issue in T8 the Treaty was put in the public forums and I did comment on it, but everyone interested can see the thread. Some even called for others to kill their own server mates for not agreeing to it, with whom I stuck up for.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/FC-and-ET-Treaty/first#post1429160

Keep in mind that WvW is still very young when the new guesting feature was implement. When time goes on, servers will stabilize.

I want to feel bad for you guys since you are getting the short end of the Glicko 2 stick but all of this complaining from FC or ET about T8 is getting really old. Every week there is at least two new threads about T8, why the game should be rebalanced for the lowest tier in the game, and how ET & FC would be much more competitive against anyone other than SF. Keep on day dreaming about somehow being competitive against any T7 server. Fact is that since the end of free transfers almost every tier’s 3rd server will roflstomp the servers in the next tier lower and the 1st server will similarly get stomped by the servers in the next tier higher.

The best idea I have heard from this thread is Alliance v Alliance. It would be great to be able to play along side some of the people I have fought against on other servers without the need to transfer and it would also allow servers to face a wider variety of competition. However, even if ANet started working on it today, we probably wouldn’t see it until August at the earliest.

Psychotic EGG.1376:

My issue is not that we are losing. but rather why. I wouldn’t care if it was due to skill. Because the blame is on us. But when it’s sheer numbers. something entirely out of our control. No then I have a complaint.

Skill has absolutely no bearing on what tier a server is in. It’s purely a “who has the bigger zerg with the closest to 24 hour coverage” game in it’s current state. The ranking system is simply a top down list of the most WvW population/coverage to the least.

Unseen Spectacle.1209:

I want to feel bad for you guys since you are getting the short end of the Glicko 2 stick but all of this complaining from FC or ET about T8 is getting really old.

LOL. Not as old as watching zergs 1,000 bigger than your entire server regularly roll right through your map again, and again while you try desperately to defend. Our only hope is that it gets old enough that anet will eventually figure out a way to fix it. I’ve seen a lot of suggestions, but no action. At this point, we assume no one cares. :::shrug:::

you know whats NOT a way to fix it? asking to be matched against any other server.

asking for a different matchup will result in a similar or harder stomp.

Fixing t8 means either removing 3 servers via forced server merge or forced migration from other servers to t8. There are no NA servers in the game that match against FC/ET population wise.

The math is one issue that needs to be fixed, but that wouldn’t fix the fact that there’s 2 very small wvw servers in a system that fits 3 servers toa tier.

wads.5730:

you know whats NOT a way to fix it? asking to be matched against any other server.

asking for a different matchup will result in a similar or harder stomp.

I agree. Rematching won’t fix the fundamental problem. And SF moving up won’t change anything because we will still be matched against a server bigger than ourselves. Dev moved up, and Kain outmanned us. Kain moved up, and now SF outmans us. When SF moves up, an equally big server will move down.

Unseen Spectacle.1209:

The best idea I have heard from this thread is Alliance v Alliance. It would be great to be able to play along side some of the people I have fought against on other servers without the need to transfer and it would also allow servers to face a wider variety of competition. However, even if ANet started working on it today, we probably wouldn’t see it until August at the earliest.

Another Solution could be, they could put hard locks on how big an army each server can field at any given time be contingent upon Tier, and that would fix the problem as well. IE: T8 is allowed max 20 people on the map per server.

That would fix the current problem T8 has of dealing with an inflated server and sunshine-warriors just Rofl-stomping everything.

Other Tiers could be unlimited, so this would be just a lock for the bottom Tier, everyone else would be allowed to have their fun as they seem to currently love it.

Another Solution could be to add in NPC worlds to fill a single gap as needed. If a world is more then lets say 300 point variant, with a +/-20 depending on their last match up, they should not be placed together. So Anet could add in some NPC worlds AKA “blank worlds”, and let the Servers that are close together fight it out.

If that means FC and ET battle it out with an NPC or blank world taking up our 3rd slot, then so be it. I would rather that, then what we have right now.

This would allow worlds that were close together to fight, but are currently not allowed to, because of the 3 world system.

Case in point. I think SF would be a better match for GoM and HoD then Darkhaven is being.

Then Darkhaven and NSP could face off, and not need to get stomped all the time. also BP and AR, could face off. SBI and EB could face off, and Mag, CB and YB could face off. etc, you get the idea.

That too would fix the problem.

There is much they could do, and much they are not doing.

In that regard it will hurt them and their reputation when it comes to their future games.

Honestly must be painfull to play in US T8 server, is not like T9 in EU is different, heck even T8 (where my server is) in EU ain’t perfect…
But have to agree with others, no solution to it, unless the bottom servers get “disbanded” and splitted in the ones right above, but i doubt any of you guys will gladly leave your own server, you’ve been fighting for it for months…
Kudos to all bottom tier servers that still show up and play! (and nope not being sarcastic)

Sorry to say that i disagree with you all, the solution isnt less servers. But rather more servers. If you double the tiers, instead of 8 make it 16, then using the same formulas would allow more diversity amongst the server populations. The increased servers would allow for less server load, which equate less lag for ppl playing.

There is no way they would be able to merge some of the lower tier servers because of their PvE numbers. SF is one of those servers that has a ton more PvE players than WvW. I think GoM is another server like this…which is good when you are looking for people to run dungeons and Fractals.

Psychotic EGG.1376:

We’re bottom because we get swamped by pure numbers. If it was a server that didn’t outnumber us grossly it would be more fair.

That didnt stop SFR going to top of EU T1 back in December,
I understand they went back to T2 out of choice as they grew tired of chasing VS back to their spawn.

I do agree that matchups can become stagnant with the same 3 servers every week. Maybe the last week of the month should see an international matchup.

FilthyRat.4652:

There is no way they would be able to merge some of the lower tier servers because of their PvE numbers. SF is one of those servers that has a ton more PvE players than WvW. I think GoM is another server like this…which is good when you are looking for people to run dungeons and Fractals.

Sure they can. They remove the server and when they log on they have a server selection screen with 1 free transfer ready to go. I guess less of a server merge and more of a subsidized eviction?

I should have said it wouldn’t make sense at all to close and merge highly populated servers because of the WvW population. SF is a huge PvE server and usually has a very high population on most of the time even if WvW numbers aren’t that high.

The system itself is flawed. I’m sure when Anet thought of this they figured there would be equally populated servers across the board. They aren’t, people have over stacked 1 server, and migrated heavily to another 4. So you have 1 super populated server and 4 high populated servers, and everyone else is light. They need to change the system completely.

There should be multi-guild alliances which can be created across all servers with a “roster cap”, and then those alliances compete against each other in a BL. it is the responsibility of the alliance to fill in their coverage gaps for the 1 BL for 3day-1 week matchup.

That way alliances create their own roster and then go at it, and alliances move up or down, NOT servers.

A NA guild(s) from JQ, with a Oceanic guild(s) from SoS and an asian guild(s) from Dragonbrand and a Euro guild(s) from Blackgate can form an alliance within their roster cap and fight other guild alliances.

Game would be 100x more fun and interesting. Be a lot of dynamics and change, with the ability for anyone to put together an “alliance” and be competitive, right now the server v server is stagnant.

And quite frankly, this type of system would actually fit the game name infinitely better than what the system is now.

Jahn.7019:

The system itself is flawed. I’m sure when Anet thought of this they figured there would be equally populated servers across the board. They aren’t, people have over stacked 1 server, and migrated heavily to another 4. So you have 1 super populated server and 4 high populated servers, and everyone else is light. They need to change the system completely.

There should be multi-guild alliances which can be created across all servers with a “roster cap”, and then those alliances compete against each other in a BL. it is the responsibility of the alliance to fill in their coverage gaps for the 1 BL for 3day-1 week matchup.

That way alliances create their own roster and then go at it, and alliances move up or down, NOT servers.

A NA guild(s) from JQ, with a Oceanic guild(s) from SoS and an asian guild(s) from Dragonbrand and a Euro guild(s) from Blackgate can form an alliance within their roster cap and fight other guild alliances.

Game would be 100x more fun and interesting. Be a lot of dynamics and change, with the ability for anyone to put together an “alliance” and be competitive, right now the server v server is stagnant.

And quite frankly, this type of system would actually fit the game name infinitely better than what the system is now.

This is the best idea I have seen so far. With some functionality to enable guilds to stay together over multiple matches to maintain continuity of cooperation you would get much better results than we currently have.

I play on SF. We definitely outman ET/FC most of the time although there are times (specifically 4am-7am EST) where we have almost no one on and as you might expect lots of things flip. I have also played on DR. I xfer’d there from SF for a few weeks to see what life was like b4 returning to SF. I was there as Magumma and then Kain blew through on their way up. I know what its like to be so devastatingly out manned that you cant hold onto anything. I have played against NSP, BP, AR, IOH and EB etc. IMHO, SF can be competitive in T7 and perhaps T6. Our biggest issue is sloppiness after being in T8 for so long and not being consistently challenged. Given a chance that would be corrected against a stronger opponent.

The issue of tier locking don’t just affect ET and FC. SF manpower is on the decline out of boredom or the realization that the system is weighted against us, literally. I should not be forced to xfer in order to get a fresh matchup. A matchup that will be competitive.

For those who don’t know, the current math behind rankings uses historical data to predict how you should be doing and if you aren’t doing as well as you should be doing, you can win a week by a huge margin and still lose points.

In the fantasy world where the rating were reset chaos would have ensued BUT the end result would be better matchups. Since the current matches are based on flawed data due to the massive xfers and the inherent problems in T8 and to a lesser extent T1 at least in fantasy world after a chaotic start things would be settling down about now. Sure there would have been some really lopsided results but from where i sit, it would have been a lot more fun for SF.

Now down to the brass tacks.

There are lots of opinions. I wont comment about their quality. Conspicuously missing is some communication by ANET. Of all the flaws this is the one that matters the most. It is verging on shameful.

drmicro.7659:

Sorry to say that i disagree with you all, the solution isnt less servers. But rather more servers. If you double the tiers, instead of 8 make it 16, then using the same formulas would allow more diversity amongst the server populations. The increased servers would allow for less server load, which equate less lag for ppl playing.

You know. This is very true. The main problem is the lack of servers, and thus the numbers being too small to make up good matches.

What they could do is make WvW Servers, that players go to, Pick your WvW Server, which would have no bearing on your PvE server.

This way, they could make 60, even 90 “mini” servers just for WvW (lets say cap a Single WvW Server at say around 800, but with an open door structure so a entire guild could claim a single WvW server even if they exceeded 800 members)

And then just add 3 more at a time as needed to meet the supply.

I would expect some guilds to claim a single WvW Server as their Main server, and all their members that WvW would be in that server, in fact they could even make it so a Guild could buy a WvW server to make sure no one else pugs into their runs.

Really doing things that way, might really spice things up in the WvW front, it would restore the idea of Guild Wars (Buhahahaha)

But yah. i agree, the main point of contention is not that we have lower tier servers, but we don’t have enough servers to make for better match -up, we have too few which is what is causing the blow-outs.