Guild Wars 2

It is no longer possible to plan for the future or make decisions around our WvW-focused guild without clarity from ANet on the future of links and servers, and some indication of how long host servers will remain locked as full even though they are still small enough in WvW population to require a link to remain ‘competitive’.

In June, prior to the release of the new reward system for WvW, ANet decided to lock down all the host servers, with the exception of Tarnished Coast. This, after they had re-opened Blackgate for several days to permit yet more bandwagonning there. What could you possibly have been thinking, ANet?

We have been patiently waiting to see what would happen for our server and guild’s recruitment, as we saw the new influx of players arrive, queue up a few of our maps, and then just as abruptly… leave. But, we still are locked down and considered full.

We decided to wait to see if we would unlock as a result of the re-links at the end of June. But… .nope. We still need a link. And… we’re still locked for transfers.

We have no clarity by which to make ANY decision as we try to plan for the best interest, longevity and health of our guilds, and it is unreasonable to ask us to continue to flail about in the dark.

It is time for some clarity, ANet:

What is the future of server links?

Why penalize guilds that move down tiers? Isn’t that counter to what it appears you are trying to accomplish by locking all these servers as FULL even though they still require a link to remain ‘competitive’?

The longer the lower tier servers are locked down, the more guilds will experience player attrition and feel the need to move off of their ‘FULL’ servers to OPEN servers so that new players and friends who want to join those guilds can reach them for WvW play as they continue to recruit.

What is the benefit of motivating movement off of servers whose population is low enough that they require a linked server to remain competitive? Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of these servers to encourage guilds to remain? How can they remain if they are long-term locked for recruitment?

With the upcoming Expansion, we expect that some players will consider returning to the game and new players will enter.

Is it your intention to keep all the current FULL servers locked down through the Expansion’s release and until those newly entering players fill out the other servers that are not considered FULL at the time?

Show us the numbers. When will you share the metrics on populations and player activity that have convinced you that a T4 HOD , that requires a linked server, has the same level of overall WvW activity as a T1 Blackgate and as such should be designated as FULL?

What else can you share about the future with those of us who manage WvW-centric guilds, as well as all WvW players regarding: population balance, server linkings, the future of servers as an entity – that will help us make informed decisions about that future, and whether or not to remain in a locked down, “FULL” server or move off in order to have the ability to continue to recruit players for our guilds’ long-term health and for the benefit of the loyal players in them?

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.

Would appreciate some update on this.

And… wondering if we’d see vastly different responses now, 8 months later, to this?

New Worlds

Perhaps it’s time for another conversation with the WvW community?

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

They’ll never show us the numbers. The last thing they want is the community having hard facts about how poorly managed the game mode is.

The WvW guild I’ve been playing with for two years is circling the drain. Most of our core members have quit the game completely, and the handful that still show up aren’t having any fun. We’re not on one of the bandwagon servers, so we’re just doomed to get run over, over and over, until we’ve all quit. GG, Anet.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place …

Let’s go! Ready for the new system. Time to tell us the plans for the future.

ANet understands they have some catching up to do with the WvW player base. They’re working on something. Would just like to know what the long-term plan is, so that my group can make some long term plans as well.

Pensadora.9478:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.

Would appreciate some update on this.

What kind of update or information are you looking for? From my understanding that change was to make it easier for larger servers to go full faster and stay that way longer, and presumably to spread the population out to smaller/linked servers. The current status of servers might be strongly effected by the time of the year (summer in USA) and the recent update to rewards. With the lower thresholds it would take somewhat longer depending on the server to open up.

I’m just wondering if Tarnished Coast was to be opened up for few days, would anyone or any guilds transfer to it?

A per Predicted rankings: http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/ we have slumped to dead last.

Server transfers cost money. Pretty sure that is the reason for the system we have. They know gamers don’t really like to lose so will jump to the winning side if it’s available.

Edit: That said, I do like the outmanned pips I get on every map as TC almost all the time. Been TC since launch, will stay TC even in last place.

Serenity.6135:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.

What kind of update or information are you looking for? From my understanding that change was to make it easier for larger servers to go full faster and stay that way longer, and presumably to spread the population out to smaller/linked servers. The current status of servers might be strongly effected by the time of the year (summer in USA) and the recent update to rewards. With the lower thresholds it would take somewhat longer depending on the server to open up.

That quote was from 6 months ago.

Yet, in June, Blackgate was opened for incoming transfers for several days and received an inflow of at least 3 guilds, and who knows how many players. At the same time, Host servers were locked down as “FULL”, and all this BEFORE the reward system announcement. So, the FULL status was NOT the result of the inflow of new players from the new reward system, but was ANet closing these servers based on…. some rule … that permitted inflow of population to T1 Blackgate in conflict with the stated goal of lowering population disparity.

I would like some clarity on:

• how opening Blackgate, after having lowered population thresholds “kept the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.”

• why the host servers were closed to transfers before the new rewards were announced, given that the excitement surrounding the new rewards could have brought new players onto the host servers

• how is this program progressing? Is the intended result occurring? What is the intended result?

• based on the rate that the open servers are filling up with players, what would be their estimate for when Host servers are likely to be unlocked?

• Since the plan is to force populations off of the Host servers, and to re-direct newly entering players onto the linked servers, why not incentivize players to move onto those servers in the first place to speed up the desired migration and achieve the lessening of the population disparities?

• how do they intend to address the server population imbalances, if they don’t see the results they are hoping for. In other words, if they cannot de-populate a tier with as much WvW population as a T1 Blackgate, for example, what is their plan for “keeping the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.”

I’d like some clarity around these things, so that there is greater understanding and ability to plan.

Pensadora.9478:

Serenity.6135:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.

What kind of update or information are you looking for? From my understanding that change was to make it easier for larger servers to go full faster and stay that way longer, and presumably to spread the population out to smaller/linked servers. The current status of servers might be strongly effected by the time of the year (summer in USA) and the recent update to rewards. With the lower thresholds it would take somewhat longer depending on the server to open up.

That quote was from 6 months ago.

Yet, in June, Blackgate was opened for incoming transfers for several days and received an inflow of at least 3 guilds, and who knows how many players. At the same time, Host servers were locked down as “FULL”, and all this BEFORE the reward system announcement. So, the FULL status was NOT the result of the inflow of new players from the new reward system, but was ANet closing these servers based on…. some rule … that permitted inflow of population to T1 Blackgate in conflict with the stated goal of lowering population disparity.

I would like some clarity on:

• how opening Blackgate, after having lowered population thresholds “kept the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.”

• why the host servers were closed to transfers before the new rewards were announced, given that the excitement surrounding the new rewards could have brought new players onto the host servers

• how is this program progressing? Is the intended result occurring? What is the intended result?

• based on the rate that the open servers are filling up with players, what would be their estimate for when Host servers are likely to be unlocked?

• Since the plan is to force populations off of the Host servers, and to re-direct newly entering players onto the linked servers, why not incentivize players to move onto those servers in the first place to speed up the desired migration and achieve the lessening of the population disparities?

• how do they intend to address the server population imbalances, if they don’t see the results they are hoping for. In other words, if they cannot de-populate a tier with as much WvW population as a T1 Blackgate, for example, what is their plan for “keeping the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.”

I’d like some clarity around these things, so that there is greater understanding and ability to plan.

I don’t think that is entirely accurate, if I remember correctly JQ was opened shortly after BG was opened and around that time it was only a couple of servers that were closed, which were BG, YB, MAG, and JQ. I don’t think your server HoD was ever closed before the rewards update.

If a server opens up it means they fell under the population and activity threshold that anet uses for all servers.

I’ll help the op again…

Linking is a permanent feature voted in so that’s the state of linking. Linking is also how the devs attempt to balance wvw populations.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote”, the final results are:
82.7% – Yes
17.3% – No
This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!

Relinking is done every 2 months…

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

The metrics to determine if servers should be locked or reopened…

“Yak’s Bend is among the highest worlds in terms of play hours and ranks gained, which is the primary metric we use to determine which worlds we lock each week.”

“To clarify further this is the first week we are using this new algorithm. So some of the complaints that are being brought up were problems with the old algorithm.
We use play hours to determine the size. Rank gains is tracked for comparison purposes since they usually follow a similar curve, but isn’t actually used to determine the world size.

We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play. The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate."

…You can recruit players from LA for your wvw server. You can also recruit players while in wvw. Finally, you can use the forums to recruit players for your guild too.

The devs are not going to give anyone specific numbers or announce when servers will open… your “planning for the future” consists of having players buy gems so when a server is unlocked you all can transfer…

You should also be well aware that the devs don’t discuss future plans. We know stuff when they are allowed to tell the community, not when we ask.

That should cover all your questions! You’re very welcome again!

Serenity.6135:

I don’t think that is entirely accurate, if I remember correctly JQ was opened shortly after BG was opened and around that time it was only a couple of servers that were closed, which were BG, YB, MAG, and JQ. I don’t think your server HoD was ever closed before the rewards update.

If a server opens up it means they fell under the population and activity threshold that anet uses for all servers.

JQ had been open for quite awhile, fighting a locked down BG.

I’d imagine others may not have been paying as much attention to HOD’s status as those of us on HOD. But, that’s ok.

Let’s set aside the timing of the lockdown of a T4 host server, and the other concerns still exist – Why the opening of BG and lockdown of host servers? Why not permit the host servers to continue to acquire population from returning and newly entering players so that the disparity between an HOD and a BG was lessened? Instead, BG was opened and a group of guilds moved on. Look at the T1 matchup results last week, and you’ll see that it is a blowout, with no other server able to match the coverage that BG has as a result of those guilds moving on. Now, ask yourself how that server as FULL is the same as HOD as FULL. And, many of the questions that I’ve listed become logical followups from thinking about that.

If the goal is to create less disparity between the T1 (high pop servers) and the T3/T4 servers, how is that achieved by having opened BG while also then locking down lower pop host servers just at a time when new population is entering WvW? The opening of this extremely populous server, along with the continued lockdown of lower population linked servers, raises questions as to whether the plan to create balance is actually still in effect. If not, then what is the plan? This is why I ask for clarity – 6 months after the post by McKenna, and following the opening of BG and the lockdown of host servers, a little clarity would be a good thing.

I can’t help but get the feeling that the locking of all the host servers was a ruse. Something to appease their corporate masters. Like, they wanted to see success from the rewards patch, or else they’d either cut off development resources for WvW, or they’d just cut WvW out entirely, and this was done by the devs to show them and say “See? it worked really well. All of the host servers are completely filled up now!”

Though, this is all just a guess, and kind of a tin foil hat type one at that. So, I dunno. As far as opening BG up? I got nuthin’.

Pensadora.9478:

Instead, BG was opened and a group of guilds moved on. Look at the T1 matchup results last week, and you’ll see that it is a blowout, with no other server able to match the coverage that BG has as a result of those guilds moving on. Now, ask yourself how that server as FULL is the same as HOD as FULL. And, many of the questions that I’ve listed become logical followups from thinking about that.

Does HoD have 4 map’s queued during NA?
Does HoD have 2 map’s queued during PST?
Does HoD have 1 map queued during OCX?

No, neither of the times??? Well, then you do not have the population BG has. In fact, no world has the population BG has. This imbalance is going to cause harm and the Dev’s are unaware there’s even an issue. So if you’re looking for clarity, it’s likely to not appear any time soon.

DeWolfe.2174:

Pensadora.9478:

Instead, BG was opened and a group of guilds moved on. Look at the T1 matchup results last week, and you’ll see that it is a blowout, with no other server able to match the coverage that BG has as a result of those guilds moving on. Now, ask yourself how that server as FULL is the same as HOD as FULL. And, many of the questions that I’ve listed become logical followups from thinking about that.

Does HoD have 4 map’s queued during NA?
Does HoD have 2 map’s queued during PST?
Does HoD have 1 map queued during OCX?

No, neither of the times??? Well, then you do not have the population BG has. In fact, no world has the population BG has. This imbalance is going to cause harm and the Dev’s are unaware there’s even an issue. So if you’re looking for clarity, it’s likely to not appear any time soon.

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”. Yaks Bend was marked “Full” for a long time and didn’t get a link because, as far as we can tell, we have a lot of players who are on for many, many hours pretty much every day. We always have had. We have a very consistent and determined core of WvW players who pretty much live there.

That, apparently, equates to a much larger number of more casual players, who perhaps only log in a few times a week for an hour or two and don’t, perhaps, do much very effective while they are there (i.e. gain Ranks, the other metric ANet uses). Blackgate have a vast sea of players but if those are mostly different players cycling in for short periods then being replaced by other short-term players then the server itself will show a lower activity rating than a server with a smaller number of players who stay in WvW all day long.

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not. According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

This is how a single server looks like

and

This is how a group of servers looks like

You are welcome everyone, if you need a visual explanation why wvw is unbalance. Btw, it is really a simplified diagram, it doesn’t even include inflow of new players and timezones.

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

SkyShroud.2865:

This is how a single server looks like

and

This is how a group of servers looks like

You are welcome everyone, if you need a visual explanation why wvw is unbalance. Btw, it is really a simplified diagram, it doesn’t even include inflow of new players and timezones.

I disagree with your analysis.

Here is an even simpler diagram of WvW servers and the tier system:

Pensadora.9478:

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

A year is nothing in terms of game development, it’s just long to you.

Linking, reward tracks and updated rewards have increased population and participation. WvW is surviving just fine right now… Seems you don’t really have a finger on the pulse with how the game has progressed, and you obviously haven’t followed any dev comments either.

Your vague “blow it up and start over” comments show you didn’t think anything through. You’ve provided zero input aside from “we need to change”, but you don’t even bother to suggest how things should change.

Edit- You can attempt to ignore the answers I provided as clarity, but that won’t change the facts. Those are dev quotes, so perhaps you should absorb them.

Dawdler.8521:

SkyShroud.2865:

This is how a single server looks like

and

This is how a group of servers looks like

You are welcome everyone, if you need a visual explanation why wvw is unbalance. Btw, it is really a simplified diagram, it doesn’t even include inflow of new players and timezones.

I disagree with your analysis.

Here is an even simpler diagram of WvW servers and the tier system:

Hey! That diagram is pushing my paint skill to its limit!

I even made a new diagram on the possible new approach to WvW if we ever blow up!

I hope this explain why blowing up is actually better in long run!

If we have a shared main container aka where everyone in there are “serverless” thus it means we need to remove the mandatory server requirement, everyone in any server will get to enjoy the same source of base populations, this eliminate one issue we have on our current system. Likewise, solve the unexplained issue of spread for inflow of new players due to having a common container for all new players.

Then, we need to periodically purge inactive “server-ed” players from the servers, otherwise, it will just revert back to our current system.

Then, we have dynamic threshold that make comparisons between servers to determine if the said server is too big compare to another. If any of the servers are too big to one or more servers, we close it off until that one or more servers chase up in populations.

Of course, it is still a simplified diagram and doesn’t talk about the negative effects of too many servers but in that design, you cannot have too many servers because it will be too small to put together 24/7 forces due to the dynamic threshold enforcement. Likewise, I can actually expand the diagram to include a expanded version of population analyse algorithm to include time slice players tagging.

Swagger.1459:

Pensadora.9478:

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

A year is nothing in terms of game development, it’s just long to you.

Linking, reward tracks and updated rewards have increased population and participation. WvW is surviving just fine right now… Seems you don’t really have a finger on the pulse with how the game has progressed, and you obviously haven’t followed any dev comments either.

Your vague “blow it up and start over” comments show you didn’t think anything through. You’ve provided zero input aside from “we need to change”, but you don’t even bother to suggest how things should change.

Edit- You can attempt to ignore the answers I provided as clarity, but that won’t change the facts. Those are dev quotes, so perhaps you should absorb them.

Fine as it is now? Are you saying that while ignoring the slightly more than handful of guest servers that are lacking in both guilds or numbers? Are you saying that while ignoring the population imbalance between servers? Do you WvW?

SkyShroud.2865:

Swagger.1459:

Pensadora.9478:

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

A year is nothing in terms of game development, it’s just long to you.

Linking, reward tracks and updated rewards have increased population and participation. WvW is surviving just fine right now… Seems you don’t really have a finger on the pulse with how the game has progressed, and you obviously haven’t followed any dev comments either.

Your vague “blow it up and start over” comments show you didn’t think anything through. You’ve provided zero input aside from “we need to change”, but you don’t even bother to suggest how things should change.

Edit- You can attempt to ignore the answers I provided as clarity, but that won’t change the facts. Those are dev quotes, so perhaps you should absorb them.

Fine as it is now? Are you saying that while ignoring the slightly more than handful of guest servers that are lacking in both guilds or numbers? Are you saying that while ignoring the population imbalance between servers? Do you WvW?

It’s kind of helpful when you put the entire sentence in context… right?

It’s also helpful to follow the discussion and not spin off into assumptions…

Swagger.1459:

SkyShroud.2865:

Swagger.1459:

Pensadora.9478:

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

A year is nothing in terms of game development, it’s just long to you.

Linking, reward tracks and updated rewards have increased population and participation. WvW is surviving just fine right now… Seems you don’t really have a finger on the pulse with how the game has progressed, and you obviously haven’t followed any dev comments either.

Your vague “blow it up and start over” comments show you didn’t think anything through. You’ve provided zero input aside from “we need to change”, but you don’t even bother to suggest how things should change.

Edit- You can attempt to ignore the answers I provided as clarity, but that won’t change the facts. Those are dev quotes, so perhaps you should absorb them.

Fine as it is now? Are you saying that while ignoring the slightly more than handful of guest servers that are lacking in both guilds or numbers? Are you saying that while ignoring the population imbalance between servers? Do you WvW?

It’s kind of helpful when you put the entire sentence in context… right?

It’s also helpful to follow the discussion and not spin off into assumptions…

It is what it is.

Tiny Doom.4380:

DeWolfe.2174:

Pensadora.9478:

Instead, BG was opened and a group of guilds moved on. Look at the T1 matchup results last week, and you’ll see that it is a blowout, with no other server able to match the coverage that BG has as a result of those guilds moving on. Now, ask yourself how that server as FULL is the same as HOD as FULL. And, many of the questions that I’ve listed become logical followups from thinking about that.

Does HoD have 4 map’s queued during NA?
Does HoD have 2 map’s queued during PST?
Does HoD have 1 map queued during OCX?

No, neither of the times??? Well, then you do not have the population BG has. In fact, no world has the population BG has. This imbalance is going to cause harm and the Dev’s are unaware there’s even an issue. So if you’re looking for clarity, it’s likely to not appear any time soon.

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”. Yaks Bend was marked “Full” for a long time and didn’t get a link because, as far as we can tell, we have a lot of players who are on for many, many hours pretty much every day. We always have had. We have a very consistent and determined core of WvW players who pretty much live there.

Player hours is an important metric to use to balance population. And, by population, we usually refer to the active number of players on a map at any single time. An issue arises when incentives changes player behavior. Because a World comprised of a small pool of players can’t scale up like a World with a larger pool of player can.

Here’s an example:
500 players playing 6 hours a day is 3,000 player hours.
1000 players playing 3 hours a day is 3,000 player hours.
Same population on map, right?

Now, drop an new incentive and those 500 may play more per day but, how much more can they play? Maybe those 500 will now play 8 or 9 hours for 4k – 4.5k phrs. But, that 1000 player World playing just 5 hours will have more population on map with 5k phrs. If they equally played 8 hr/d they’d have double the active population on map. So here, what was fine is now wildly imbalanced do to new incentives. So both population AND player hours have to be factored in when adding new incentives.

Let’s not forget, they announced new incentives AND opened the #1 server for people to bandwagon to. It was the worst choice the Dev’s could have made.

Oh, and let me add another mistake the Dev’s continue to make, reducing the World population limit. The further we go below the actual maps population ceiling, the greater the capacity for imbalance there is. Dev’s need to increase the world populations, not decrease them. If that means they need to consolidate another tier, so be it.

DeWolfe.2174:

Pensadora.9478:

Instead, BG was opened and a group of guilds moved on. Look at the T1 matchup results last week, and you’ll see that it is a blowout, with no other server able to match the coverage that BG has as a result of those guilds moving on. Now, ask yourself how that server as FULL is the same as HOD as FULL. And, many of the questions that I’ve listed become logical followups from thinking about that.

Does HoD have 4 map’s queued during NA?
Does HoD have 2 map’s queued during PST?
Does HoD have 1 map queued during OCX?

No, neither of the times??? Well, then you do not have the population BG has. In fact, no world has the population BG has. This imbalance is going to cause harm and the Dev’s are unaware there’s even an issue. So if you’re looking for clarity, it’s likely to not appear any time soon.

At this point at any time that BG is even remotely threatened they are re-opened for transfer. BG has stockpiled so many guilds that it is the last true T1 server (if you go by the old description of T1 servers). It is bad for the game to have a crowned king, which is what ANet demonstrates everytime they re-open BG for transfer.

Kaiser.9873:

At this point at any time that BG is even remotely threatened they are re-opened for transfer. BG has stockpiled so many guilds that it is the last true T1 server (if you go by the old description of T1 servers). It is bad for the game to have a crowned king, which is what ANet demonstrates everytime they re-open BG for transfer.

And here is what ANet said they wouldn’t do, 8 months ago:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We wouldn’t force players to move worlds but stacked worlds would have a high chance of never opening for transfers again since we would be lowering the population player cap on all worlds. So for example in NA worlds like Blackgate and Jade Quarry would stay “Full” and wouldn’t be open for transfers unless player started to transfer off.

Which is why I continue to ask for clarity.

What is the current plan?

What can we expect as it pertains to servers being locked down, for how long and for what reasons?

When can we expect our servers to unlock as Blackgate did just recently, and what must we do to receive the same benefits?

Pensadora.9478:

Kaiser.9873:

At this point at any time that BG is even remotely threatened they are re-opened for transfer. BG has stockpiled so many guilds that it is the last true T1 server (if you go by the old description of T1 servers). It is bad for the game to have a crowned king, which is what ANet demonstrates everytime they re-open BG for transfer.

And here is what ANet said they wouldn’t do, 8 months ago:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We wouldn’t force players to move worlds but stacked worlds would have a high chance of never opening for transfers again since we would be lowering the population player cap on all worlds. So for example in NA worlds like Blackgate and Jade Quarry would stay “Full” and wouldn’t be open for transfers unless player started to transfer off.

Which is why I continue to ask for clarity.

What is the current plan?

What can we expect as it pertains to servers being locked down, for how long and for what reasons?

When can we expect our servers to unlock as Blackgate did just recently, and what must we do to receive the same benefits?

Anet keeps shutting down or not answering anyone who ‘questions’ the BETA links!

It’s not over – the links are a TOTAL FAILURE.

atheria.2837:

It’s not over – the links are a TOTAL FAILURE.

Not sure what it is, but it surely is a mess.

Why I continue to ask for clarity… What is the plan for making this a competitive game mode that is balanced and fair for ALL?

What do we call this process that has:

*Stacked Server @ T1 <- literally impossible to beat
*FULL Servers with Links
*VERY HIGH servers with TWO Links

against VERY HIGH servers with ONE link. And, then have this setup last for TWO FULL months?

It’s silly, ridiculous, and certainly embarrassing to even try to use the adjectives: ‘competitive’, ‘fair’, or ‘balanced’ when speaking about World v World v World in its current state.

And who would mind if we JUST had some kind of communication about HOW and WHEN these obvious, glaring and incredibly unfair situations are going to be corrected or ‘balanced’?

Edit: Correct T2 image updated.

Credits: Matchup info from this site: wvwstats.com

You continue to act as if server populations and the linking system are things that are set in stone and not subject to change. These things are dynamic, changes happen due to numerous factors.

Servers open because they fall under the activity and population threshold that Anet has set for all server…why is this so hard to understand. Just because you do not like this or that server, or believe they should not be opened does not mean you have the data that the dev’s do.

Links are assigned due to the information devs have, not you, not me. Obviously it can cause a big swing in matchups as a result. Either you call for changes in the linking system like shortening the time it takes to reassign links, or you call for it to come to an end.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

Charge $150 real dollars PER transfer, not anything you can grind in game, and it’d fix it

Serenity.6135:

Just because you do not like this or that server, or believe they should not be opened does not mean you have the data that the dev’s do.

I have no axe to grind for or against a particular server.
Full disclosure: I am on a link – Sorrow’s Furnace. Please do share your reference point.

Blackgate was the server my guild formed up on, and we were there, as a positive, contributing member of the ‘server team’ for 3 years. We left on good terms, not wishing any ill to Blackgate. And this post is not about ill feelings toward Blackgate, or causing Blackgate any harm.

It is about getting the playing field leveled so that it is fun and balanced for ALL.

That image reflecting the current state of play in T1, shows that there are serious problems in the population and the linking ‘method’ being used. And, the previous opening of Blackgate for mass transfers in, that result in the kind of matchup we see in the image of this week’s T1 matchup, call to question ANet’s commitment to provide a balanced and fair playing ground for ALL. Hence, my request for clarity.

Serenity.6135:

Links are assigned due to the information devs have, not you, not me. Obviously it can cause a big swing in matchups as a result. Either you call for changes in the linking system like shortening the time it takes to reassign links, or you call for it to come to an end.

I’ve asked for clarity around what ANet actually does have as data, because even without ANet’s data we can all clearly SEE that “Houston, we have a problem.” Look at the graphs. Better yet, visit the website and look at the background, timezone imbalances and think about how much fun those matchups are for the servers that are not winning, or don’t have the population to counter what they are facing in their matchup.

So, yep… I’d truly like to see what ANet is looking at and get some clarity as to what they are committing to in regards to improving the game mode we know as WvW, especially as we examine the history of decisions to open overstacked servers and retain a system of links that isn’t generating the results they previously said they were aiming for.

The stats reflected in the images, are just that… non-emotional, objective results based on the way servers are linked or stacked …. either through opening them for transfers when they were already overstacked (See that impressive T1 situation) OR… through a “Luck of the Link” that results in your server alliance being overstacked in comparison to those you oppose.

Either way, it is readily apparent that it is NOT doing what it was intended to do: which was to keep all servers in some level of competitive balance.

If this is supposed to be a way to achieve balance….

AND
IT
ISN’T doing that….

Then, it is reasonable and logical to ask for some clarification …. as to when, where, and how… we’re going to see an improved process.

Jayne.9251:

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

Charge $150 real dollars PER transfer, not anything you can grind in game, and it’d fix it

It’s got to be more than the $, as I think there are some deep pockets in these games, and a true desire to do anything to win those E-Trophies.

I’ve seen some very interesting ideas in this thread:

Vote to Delete Servers

Pensadora.9478:

Jayne.9251:

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

Charge $150 real dollars PER transfer, not anything you can grind in game, and it’d fix it

It’s got to be more than the $, as I think there are some deep pockets in these games, and a true desire to do anything to win those E-Trophies.

I’ve seen some very interesting ideas in this thread:

Vote to Delete Servers

Oh even deep pockets would think twice if they’re getting dinged $150 for each whimsical bandwagon. It would certainly put a dent in the movement and subsequently create stability. Or attrition.

As for the other thread, not even going to bother. Two factions: guilds vs unguilded do not even try to understand the others point of view, and without the understanding, or a solution that doesn’t favour one over the other, it’s impasse.

Jayne.9251:

Pensadora.9478:

Jayne.9251:

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Until a new system is put in place we will never have population balance. Its abundantly clear that players will not be able to do that for themselves. Bandwagons are inevitable with huge portion of the player base.

Charge $150 real dollars PER transfer, not anything you can grind in game, and it’d fix it

It’s got to be more than the $, as I think there are some deep pockets in these games, and a true desire to do anything to win those E-Trophies.

I’ve seen some very interesting ideas in this thread:

Vote to Delete Servers

Oh even deep pockets would think twice if they’re getting dinged $150 for each whimsical bandwagon. It would certainly put a dent in the movement and subsequently create stability. Or attrition.

As for the other thread, not even going to bother. Two factions: guilds vs unguilded do not even try to understand the others point of view, and without the understanding, or a solution that doesn’t favour one over the other, it’s impasse.

The $ penalty may discourage transfer, but it doesn’t solve the current imbalances between servers that make for non-competitive, imbalanced matchups in WvW currently.

What is the plan going forward?

How will we get the servers and matchups balanced?

The linking system obviously has not created balanced matchups.

Currently, each matchup alliance is subject to : “Luck of the Link” – the manual process that makes Kings or Peasants for the next two months, based on some historical activity levels that are never adjusted as a result of current material shifts in population.

And then of course, we have to look at T1, the massiveness of Blackgate, and ask – How will that be fixed/resolved?

Once the new Expansion is released, I’m hoping we’ll all be calling for more clarity on how we get WvW to what we want it to be:

a balanced, fair competitive gamemode that has an automated system and rules for keeping itself in balance, once put into balance by some other ‘method’ which we’ll all be told about and get to discuss.