Guild Wars 2

Allow us to try to balance our servers by clearing the glicko score and opening up the free transfers. This would allow people to move around the servers, creating a totally different set than we are currently stuck with. The only people in this game currently affected by locked into servers are WvW players. sPvP and PvE are no longer bound by servers, yet WvW still is. We are the only ones being punished by being stuck, or having to pay around $25 just to move our servers.

Please, allow a full glicko reset and open up our transfers. Lets see what happens.

I don’t see how resetting ratings would do anything, T1 and 2 servers with massive populations and coverage in time zones other than NA prime (or EU) would just spend a couple boring weeks rolling right over lower tier servers, only to end up in exactly the same matches.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

I don’t see how resetting ratings would do anything, T1 and 2 servers with massive populations and coverage in time zones other than NA prime (or EU) would just spend a couple boring weeks rolling right over lower tier servers, only to end up in exactly the same matches.

Exactly this.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

I don’t see how resetting ratings would do anything, T1 and 2 servers with massive populations and coverage in time zones other than NA prime (or EU) would just spend a couple boring weeks rolling right over lower tier servers, only to end up in exactly the same matches.

Would it? I would think (or should I say hope) that our servers would try to balance themselves out with groups of people wanting to transfer off too crowded servers, maybe would could find some sort of balance.

As it is now, its just ridiculous. Can you guys think of any other way to achieve some balance?

I was at least trying to think up a constructive way to offer ideas, instead of just knocking ideas down.

Glicko rating has created nothing but stagnate and boring wvw matchups.

I am under the impression a fir amount, if not most posters, believe the free transfers before a tournament created the larger stacking of servers to date. What evidence are you using to develop the notion that players will spread out? Seems to me those not stacked on the full servers will simply stack on the next highest, not full servers.

Having said all of that, I am not against the idea. At least it will let those who didn’t move and are on a very low population server, and what to move, the option to move for free.

Tell me, why would a T1 or T2 wvwer want to leave and go to a lower tier? smaller fights? less coverage? sounds boring to me…

People who play in high tiers love what we have and there is absolutely no reason for us to care if some one down in T6 has a bad matchup, and even less reason for us to want to join in on that bad matchup.

T1 players have offered up how we would balance wvw many times, delete all but the top 9 servers (3 tiers) and give everyone from those dead servers free transfers to one of the 9, there by buffing the bottom 6 to a state where they might be able to compete with T1.

But apparently people like ghost town wvw and didn’t want all of wvw to be fun and active like T1/T2 and so they hated on what T1 players would like. Which is fine, it’s their prerogative.

coglin.1867:

I am under the impression a fir amount, if not most posters, believe the free transfers before a tournament created the larger stacking of servers to date. What evidence are you using to develop the notion that players will spread out? Seems to me those not stacked on the full servers will simply stack on the next highest, not full servers.

Having said all of that, I am not against the idea. At least it will let those who didn’t move and are on a very low population server, and what to move, the option to move for free.

I am not talking about a tournament, at all. I hope they dont do those again, at least not until well after the xpac. It was a terrible idea, and stacking of servers ruined wvw. It has become much more stagnant since then.

Kitiara.2706:

I am not talking about a tournament, at all. I hope they dont do those again, at least not until well after the xpac. It was a terrible idea, and stacking of servers ruined wvw. It has become much more stagnant since then.

Stagnant is not a good word to use to support something. It’s the correct word but the game(gamemode) is losing players because people are bored with how stagnant WvW has become.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

Tell me, why would a T1 or T2 wvwer want to leave and go to a lower tier? smaller fights? less coverage? sounds boring to me…

People who play in high tiers love what we have and there is absolutely no reason for us to care if some one down in T6 has a bad matchup, and even less reason for us to want to join in on that bad matchup.

T1 players have offered up how we would balance wvw many times, delete all but the top 9 servers (3 tiers) and give everyone from those dead servers free transfers to one of the 9, there by buffing the bottom 6 to a state where they might be able to compete with T1.

But apparently people like ghost town wvw and didn’t want all of wvw to be fun and active like T1/T2 and so they hated on what T1 players would like. Which is fine, it’s their prerogative.

^ this. merging/deleting the bottom servers and offering free transfers really is the best option. we have too many servers for the playerbase atm.

or get radical.

Remove the binding between pve and wvw servers totally.

Make transfer to any other wvw server name free AND

Place realistic map caps that the Anet resources can supply.

Let Queue times sort out the wheat from the chaff.

elkirin.8534:

or get radical.

Remove the binding between pve and wvw servers totally.

Make transfer to any other wvw server name free AND

Place realistic map caps that the Anet resources can supply.

Let Queue times sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I like that, too.

(I still think a full reset of the glicko is a good idea – could wait until the xpac comes out, too.)

Won’t work at all. You’ll just get people transferring up to the top, or bandwagoning some lower tier server making every server in and around that tier miserable.

The player population has shown that over all, it can’t police itself and fix the population issue. Only Anet can do something, but they don’t appear to care very much.

choovanski.5462:

^ this. merging/deleting the bottom servers and offering free transfers really is the best option. we have too many servers for the playerbase atm.

No. Just no.

You might as well say “Get rid of sPvP, we have too many game modes for the playerbase!”

Don’t like the way things are on lower servers? Don’t play there then. Transfer to a server that suits your tastes.

The “overstacking” issue is a player created one. No amount of temporary meddling by ArenaNet is going to fix that. I would rather nothing be done, than doing something that makes things worse.

roxybudgy.8205:

No. Just no.

You might as well say “Get rid of sPvP, we have too many game modes for the playerbase!”

Don’t like the way things are on lower servers? Don’t play there then. Transfer to a server that suits your tastes.

The “overstacking” issue is a player created one. No amount of temporary meddling by ArenaNet is going to fix that. I would rather nothing be done, than doing something that makes things worse.

And if you read what he’s replying to you would see that it specifically says we don’t care that low tier players get stuck in bad matches. The Op asked what I would do to try to balance servers, so I posted the idea allot of high tier players liked.

Not sure when it changed but at some point the cost to transfer was based on if you were moving from a more to less populated server. I know some people that did this but it did not create a mass movement at the time. I have to agree with the above. I don’t think you would see the impact you are expecting.

Now that said, if said discount is not in place, it should be. It used to be that moving down was discounted to the point of free and going the other way was more expensive. In the end there will people that will stack servers, and there will be people that like the empty, and everyone else will be in between. Not sure there is any fix to this outside of removing relationships to servers and that kind of defeats other concepts in place today. Good hunting!

Lurock Turoth.9085:

And if you read what he’s replying to you would see that it specifically says we don’t care that low tier players get stuck in bad matches. The Op asked what I would do to try to balance servers, so I posted the idea allot of high tier players liked.

Oh, it’s absolutely clear that you don’t care about what happens to people in lower tiers.

So why change at all? Do you think you are being benevolent in removing us (players on lower tier servers) from the communities and play style we enjoy and forcing us to either play the way you like or quit WvW, like you’re doing us a favour? I have probably spent hundreds of dollars on gems, most of it spent on buying storage space or miniatures. If I really wanted to play on a T1 server, then I would have transferred long ago.

My point still stand that a server merge by any name would not make much difference to population balance. Bandwagoners are going to bandwagon. You cut the number of servers, eventually the bandwagoners on the bottom servers will migrate to the “winning” server. I imagine that most of the people who complaint about “dead” servers are those who can’t afford to transfer.

Edit: Because a post with no explanation is not worth a new post

Lurock Turoth.9085:

You really don’t read very well do you Roxy?

So, where have I gone wrong? I’ve read and re-read both your post and the post I initially quoted. I read it as suggesting the lower tier servers should be forced to transfer (as opposed to the voluntary transfers that happen now), and some people seem to think that this would result in the homeless players transferring in a way that makes the remaining servers equal? Or that this is a good idea on the basis that there are supposedly more people who would want this to happen? Dream on!

For the record, I don’t think any forced transfer (be it low server to high, or high to low) would have any long term benefit to the community.

You really don’t read very well do you Roxy?

There was an idea bounced around once about Alliances – instead of Servers. Have we heard anything else on that?

A glicko reset alone would not solve the problem. You would have to reset server assignments too. To provide an even distribution in population over all servers you would need quotas for all servers. Not before all quotas are filled you can raise the quotas. You would also have to restrict server transfers. If you want to transfer from A to B you have to find a player who wants to transfer from B to A.

Even with alliance you would need a system that prevents imbalances among the three alliances.

choovanski.5462:

Lurock Turoth.9085:

Tell me, why would a T1 or T2 wvwer want to leave and go to a lower tier? smaller fights? less coverage? sounds boring to me…

People who play in high tiers love what we have and there is absolutely no reason for us to care if some one down in T6 has a bad matchup, and even less reason for us to want to join in on that bad matchup.

T1 players have offered up how we would balance wvw many times, delete all but the top 9 servers (3 tiers) and give everyone from those dead servers free transfers to one of the 9, there by buffing the bottom 6 to a state where they might be able to compete with T1.

But apparently people like ghost town wvw and didn’t want all of wvw to be fun and active like T1/T2 and so they hated on what T1 players would like. Which is fine, it’s their prerogative.

^ this. merging/deleting the bottom servers and offering free transfers really is the best option. we have too many servers for the playerbase atm.

I vote we delete the top 3 servers, not cause it is the right thing to do, but just because they want lower tiers to be deleted..

Lurock Turoth.9085:

roxybudgy.8205:

No. Just no.

You might as well say “Get rid of sPvP, we have too many game modes for the playerbase!”

Don’t like the way things are on lower servers? Don’t play there then. Transfer to a server that suits your tastes.

The “overstacking” issue is a player created one. No amount of temporary meddling by ArenaNet is going to fix that. I would rather nothing be done, than doing something that makes things worse.

And if you read what he’s replying to you would see that it specifically says we don’t care that low tier players get stuck in bad matches. The Op asked what I would do to try to balance servers, so I posted the idea allot of high tier players liked.

A lot of PvE’ers also like mindlessly pressing one….

That doesnt mean the core of actual WvW players enjoy the same thing.

T1 is T1 for a reason, and believe it or not a larger population of players don’t want to be put into that nonsense and actually enjoy the variation of scale we get.

TexZero.7910:

Lurock Turoth.9085:

roxybudgy.8205:

No. Just no.

You might as well say “Get rid of sPvP, we have too many game modes for the playerbase!”

Don’t like the way things are on lower servers? Don’t play there then. Transfer to a server that suits your tastes.

The “overstacking” issue is a player created one. No amount of temporary meddling by ArenaNet is going to fix that. I would rather nothing be done, than doing something that makes things worse.

And if you read what he’s replying to you would see that it specifically says we don’t care that low tier players get stuck in bad matches. The Op asked what I would do to try to balance servers, so I posted the idea allot of high tier players liked.

A lot of PvE’ers also like mindlessly pressing one….

That doesnt mean the core of actual WvW players enjoy the same thing.

T1 is T1 for a reason, and believe it or not a larger population of players don’t want to be put into that nonsense and actually enjoy the variation of scale we get.

you don’t have to go to t1 dude. im in t4 i think, and it’s pretty chill. t6 would even still exist. I’m not suggesting moving all players to t1, just getting rid of the bottom 3-6 servers. ideally a lot of the players would move to t5, t6 etc to create a bigger playerbase on all severs.

i would be on fergs and we would have hours with only three players on EBG. these servers are seriously dead.

can we just get a higher cap…

Im confused do the higher tiers not want more people, or do they? T1 likes having coverage, but we don’t want lower tiers bandwagoning to T1? I must just be tired….

Kitiara.2706:

There was an idea bounced around once about Alliances – instead of Servers. Have we heard anything else on that?

That idea has only been “bounced around” by players and pretty much said would never happen by ANET so no. I think ANET was open to considering smaller stuff like different match length duration and shorter seasons but that was awhile ago and the fact they’ve been so quiet on the subject lately either means something is in the works for HoT or they think shiny new dessert laser beam map will somehow distract us from all of WvWs population problems long enough for them to come up with a better solution for 2016. Hope I can hold my breath that long.

Obviously the players can’t be trusted to balance themselves with free transfers considering the massive stack and crash worlds fad we witnessed in the first 5 mo’s before transfer got locked. TBH, that initial free transfer period probably did more harm than the year of population imbalance that followed. Not to say there are not ways ANET can do better to incentive wiser population spread but the easy simple fix isn’t going to cut it.

Honestly don’t think it would take much to balance the tiers. Just would like something to be done after a couple years seeing ppl try really hard lol to just get stomped every stinking week no matter what they do.

What kind of game allows for that kind of unfairness? There’s not even really any point to the outnumbered buff and the more steps anet takes, the harder it is to zerg bust.. blah it goes on and on.

If I worked for this good a game, I just wouldn’t let it go this way. So so dumb.

Glicko system is a crap. Its very boring to stuck in a Tier with same opponents for more weeks, especially when the 3rd server can’t go down to the lower tier (like in EU T1). People bored as hell, but anet just doesn’t care.

Huggyos.9584:

Glicko system is a crap. Its very boring to stuck in a Tier with same opponents for more weeks, especially when the 3rd server can’t go down to the lower tier (like in EU T1). People bored as hell, but anet just doesn’t care.

That is all fine and dandy. The problem is, not related to Glicko. As the devs set the parameters for it.

The problem is your fellow players who spammed the forums with complaint threads and post, over and over and over, complaining anytime they fought a server that they claimed had too strong of a population, and titled it “unfair match ups”.

Thus it is a catch 22. Players rage over stale match ups or players rage over population imbalance in match ups.

Problem is now they are both stale and unbalanced. Stale balanced vs variable unbalanced is probably going to have backers on both sides (realizing variable balanced is utopia)’ stale and unbalanced won’t have many fans…..

coglin.1867:

That is all fine and dandy. The problem is, not related to Glicko. As the devs set the parameters for it.

The problem is your fellow players who spammed the forums with complaint threads and post, over and over and over, complaining anytime they fought a server that they claimed had too strong of a population, and titled it “unfair match ups”.

Thus it is a catch 22. Players rage over stale match ups or players rage over population imbalance in match ups.

I don’t agree to support a system which is keep up the same boring mu-s on every week, even if somebody like to kitten the weaker servers over and over and offense others who doesn’kittens a shame that nowdays nobody allowed to write their opinion, because some guys likes the unfair mu-s, but he doesn’t care others. GG

T1 EU is not in a deadlock like T1 NA at least, nor is it like 2 years ago, but it comes down to RNG at the end of the day. We always have the choice to change things.

1. clear glicko score.

2. shuffle match up regardless of the tier

3. megaserver OS

azizul.8469:

1. clear glicko score.

2. shuffle match up regardless of the tier

3. megaserver OS

I’m all for change, but not just for changes sake.

Blackgate vs Sorrows Furnace vs Ehmry Bay

That does not sound like a fun match-up for anyone involved. The differences between server sizes are so large (at least in NA) that making random match-up’s is just going to trainwreck the entire system. People most likely would just stop playing, which makes it even worse, and makes even more crazy glicko ratings.

In the end we would have for example 6 months where nobody enjoys playing WvW because most of the match-ups are so loopsided. And then everything would “finally” be back to the old glicko ratings we got now, and we would be stuck in the same match-ups.

And then people start talking about reseting glicko again…

Fix the root of the problem (Population/Coverage imbalance or the Point system!) not the symptoms (Glicko).

Agreed on OS megaserver/EotM style. (For those worried about the instances, just tax people in).

What do you guys think clearing glicko will do? T1 players wont be leaving their servers because of it, cause we all know after a few weeks for boredom things will settle out and we will go back to fighting our old adversaries (Sean Connery aye!)

Do you low tier guys really want to fight T1 servers? I’ll tell you right now it wont be fun for you. JQ will flood you every night with the biggest baddest OCX and SEA time in the business, and BG and TC will hammer you all through EU and NA. T1 zerging isn’t like T2’s vaunted GvG’s, T1 zerging is a gutter fight where any tool you can use to win goes, commander snipe teams, pirate ship zergs and open field siege happen all the time, because quite often that’s what it takes to hold your objective when the other two servers have decided to team up and break your way points. Every season T2 servers chest thump about how their gonna knock a T1 server down, and every season they get trashed all day and all night. If 2 T2 servers can’t stand up to the therd place T1 server, how do you think anything lower than T2 will fare if they get tossed in against a T1 server.

T1 NA players like fighting in the harshest environment possible, if that’s not your idea of fun, don’t ask for a glicko reset. Otherwise, I guess it might be interesting to have max ppt and spawn camp on all four maps…

Lurock Turoth.9085:

snip

T1 players have offered up how we would balance wvw many times, delete all but the top 9 servers (3 tiers) and give everyone from those dead servers free transfers to one of the 9, there by buffing the bottom 6 to a state where they might be able to compete with T1.

But apparently people like ghost town wvw and didn’t want all of wvw to be fun and active like T1/T2 and so they hated on what T1 players would like. Which is fine, it’s their prerogative.

Not everyone likes 60+ vs 60+
I much prefer 3-10 vs about same or more. It’s quite fun to wipe 10+ with only 5 roamers. But even if I’m with 10 people, and you run into 40+? No skill in pressing 1, no fun in just pressing 1, and no fun in being run over (many in zergs only press 1, and this is true everywhere). Seen it before, and currently stuck in basically that situation, yet again, I guess until I decide to become a refugee from my own server. If everyone was forced into the same situation that is in t1-3, you’d find a lot of people give up on wvw. Perhaps many people like very long queues on reset and at other times when everyone wants to go in, I don’t see the fun in that either.

As for what OP is suggesting… You are right on with what would happen. It would be boring for all.

My guilds max raid size ever was 15, don’t assume T1 has nothing to offer but zergs.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

My guilds max raid size ever was 15, don’t assume T1 has nothing to offer but zergs.

5v15 is still getting zerged essentially. At least you called that ‘raid’ instead of ‘roaming group’ as some have before >.<

I and many others don’t want large zerg fights everywhere you try to go. Sure, a few zergs is going to happen most places at some point. Sometimes you can have fun off of that, but I and many others do not want to be forced to run with 15+ just to ‘roam’. If I wanted to zerg I’d just go in eotm or yes goto t1. I want away from the stacked zergy tiers, not forced into it more than I already have been.

I’m in the camp of clearing glicko will cause more harm than good and probably make for even more stacking.

Personally I would allow free transfers but have them time gated. so you get one free transfer a month or every two months. However it is always free and able to move down at any point (must be at least 3 ranks) to help spread load.

Then if you want to circumvent this time gating you can pay based on current WvW activity levels of the server you’re trying to join. So joining T1 servers will generally be as expensive if not more so than they are now.

Finally I’d use this mega server tech they have and dynamically close/open maps based on population. So outside of prime time (say 2am) you might have everyone filling up EB and the border maps closed. During prime time on T1 you’d have all borders +2 or 3 EB style maps. In T9 maybe just 2 EB style maps in prime time. I would also want upto 3 maps similar to EB with a spawn and keep in each corner.

It’s not perfect but it would help deal with population problems, queues, night capping etc. Oh and no more gold costs for upgrading stuff, just supply, time and maybe karma.

No, no free transfers, please.
The best thing in wvw is the community which would likely be destroyed if too many “strangers” came there at once- so you’d have the situation you have on NA: you can see when and where big guild transfered to a server and when they left as most up to silver/gold league have giant leaps in their ranks – disposable servers without identity.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

Tell me, why would a T1 or T2 wvwer want to leave and go to a lower tier? smaller fights? less coverage? sounds boring to me…

People who play in high tiers love what we have and there is absolutely no reason for us to care if some one down in T6 has a bad matchup, and even less reason for us to want to join in on that bad matchup.

T1 players have offered up how we would balance wvw many times, delete all but the top 9 servers (3 tiers) and give everyone from those dead servers free transfers to one of the 9, there by buffing the bottom 6 to a state where they might be able to compete with T1.

But apparently people like ghost town wvw and didn’t want all of wvw to be fun and active like T1/T2 and so they hated on what T1 players would like. Which is fine, it’s their prerogative.

I would modify this a bit, but in general I do think that the game needs to eliminate a few servers. I would go ahead and lock the Gold tiers. Then inversely merge tiers 3-8. 8 goes to 3, 7 goes to 4, and 6 goes to 5. With this you have 5 tiers that will(in theory) have similar populations. Of course the determining factor will still be offhours, but you cannot force offhours to split up.

Some are advocating the whole megaserver game style for WvW, but I would absolutely despise that. WvW would devolve into perma-EotM-style games that would eliminate my only reason to actually play this game.

Current imbalance is a product of the existing system. Resetting it is a waste of time unless the system itself is also changed.

Jana.6831:

No, no free transfers, please.
The best thing in wvw is the community which would likely be destroyed if too many “strangers” came there at once- so you’d have the situation you have on NA: you can see when and where big guild transfered to a server and when they left as most up to silver/gold league have giant leaps in their ranks – disposable servers without identity.

So very true… Sadly though, this happens already whenever an entire server decides to move…

Jana.6831:

No, no free transfers, please.
The best thing in wvw is the community which would likely be destroyed if too many “strangers” came there at once- so you’d have the situation you have on NA: you can see when and where big guild transfered to a server and when they left as most up to silver/gold league have giant leaps in their ranks – disposable servers without identity.

Sounds like you won’t have much problems with that as your community sounds very xenophobic from what you’ve put.

There’s a lot of guilds that want to travel to different servers, (for GvGs and change in fights) include themselves very nicely and often leave a good impression on not only the server they go to but the enemies they face.

Currently the pay to transfer actually breaks communities and guilds up, with it being free guilds can say they have a home server/community and transfer once in a while for fights and then come back, as one guild. Less drama, less exclusion, less people being left out because they can’t afford the fee.

I am of course speaking from an EU perspective, I recently went to GH and all I can say is they welcome all, are very friendly and helpful. If there were free transfers I could pop back to my original server every few months, as it is now, I won’t go back as I won’t pay twice.

Kaiser.9873:

I would modify this a bit, but in general I do think that the game needs to eliminate a few servers. I would go ahead and lock the Gold tiers. Then inversely merge tiers 3-8. 8 goes to 3, 7 goes to 4, and 6 goes to 5. With this you have 5 tiers that will(in theory) have similar populations. Of course the determining factor will still be offhours, but you cannot force offhours to split up.

Why? What does this do in the long run? You’re just going to end up with people bandwagoning again.

I get the feeling that people who suggest forced transfers think “Gee whiz, my football team has 90 people, and the other server I’m matched up against has 100 people, so since the chess club has 10 people, if we disband the chess club, I’m sure they’ll really appreciate having more people to hang out with (we’re doing them a favour, they should be thanking us for disbanding that silly little club of theirs!), and we’ll have 100 people to compete with the other football club!” but in reality… “hey, we disbanded the chess club, but only ended up with 95 people, what gives?”… “oh, they would rather join the yoga club than play football with us, didn’t see that coming”, then a year later… “aww man, some of our members left to join the other football team, let’s try disbanding the rugby club next and force them to join us”.

Or… “Ugh, I hate chess, I don’t wanna play chess, but I couldn’t sign up for the football team because I can’t afford the membership fees so I just joined the chess club. Wouldn’t it be a great idea if they disbanded the chess club and let all the members join another club for free!”

The current situation might not be ideal, I know I don’t like being steamrolled or steamrolling. But change for the sake of change is pointless. If you’re going to change something, change it for the better, not for some temporary bandaid solution.

^
Roxy got that right.

I am also in a somewhat lower server. The server I’m in received a few guilds, I don’t hate them, but they made the match-up unbalanced. I prefered it when people had server loyalty, but I don’t blame them since there is no GvG system apart from transfers. The only way for those guilds to find fresh fights is to transfer around.

I think GvG match-up would solve the bandwagon. Just my thought on the subject. I would rather fight in a 1:2 ratio when the match-up offers a good roaming potentiel than to be shipped an army or my server which I’ve been onto destroyed to be bandwagoned onto the higher server.

No change is better than a change which force people into the meta of NA T1 and T2 server (even T3 is pretty much the same as of what I heard). Zerging can be fun for some. Not for everyone.

Might as well just make 3 factions and let ppl join faction to fight eachother like Aika Online.

Taxidriver.2043:

Might as well just make 3 factions and let ppl join faction to fight eachother like Aika Online.

isn’t aika online 5 fractions?

and meh, aika online is too hardcore for gw2 carebears, doubt anyone in gw2 is willing to port out of dungeons when near final boss to defend
don’t think much people in gw2 is willing to fight a 6 hours long battle with numerous pushes and regrouping
finally, don’t think guilds will listen to one overall commander

Taxidriver.2043:

Might as well just make 3 factions and let ppl join faction to fight eachother like Aika Online.

It doesn’t positively benefit your argument to site bad games, with really bad game mechanics, as your examples.

joneirikb.7506:

azizul.8469:

1. clear glicko score.

2. shuffle match up regardless of the tier

3. megaserver OS

I’m all for change, but not just for changes sake.

Blackgate vs Sorrows Furnace vs Ehmry Bay

That does not sound like a fun match-up for anyone involved. The differences between server sizes are so large (at least in NA) that making random match-up’s is just going to trainwreck the entire system. People most likely would just stop playing, which makes it even worse, and makes even more crazy glicko ratings.

In the end we would have for example 6 months where nobody enjoys playing WvW because most of the match-ups are so loopsided. And then everything would “finally” be back to the old glicko ratings we got now, and we would be stuck in the same match-ups.

And then people start talking about reseting glicko again…

Fix the root of the problem (Population/Coverage imbalance or the Point system!) not the symptoms (Glicko).

Agreed on OS megaserver/EotM style. (For those worried about the instances, just tax people in).

You said Blackgate vs Sorrows Furnace vs Ehmry Bay

I know it could work if WvW were given the same respect that all servers should be; going against the largest server with the same number but as, again, alliances.

If you took three servers that equaled BG – had the same number effectively – and pitted them against the larger server, who would win?

That doesn’t take away a darn thing from server pride but it does lend a larger pool of POSSIBILITIES of play while preserving the best of WvW.

Wouldn’t always be one against three.

It would, of course be two against one and then at the same tier you are at now.

So the “we want to play in our tier” is preserved for their rotation but a new dynamic becomes possible and alliances can build trust and respect even when we go back to beating each other over the heads in our own tiers.

atheria.2837:

You said Blackgate vs Sorrows Furnace vs Ehmry Bay

I know it could work if WvW were given the same respect that all servers should be; going against the largest server with the same number but as, again, alliances.

If you took three servers that equaled BG – had the same number effectively – and pitted them against the larger server, who would win?

That doesn’t take away a darn thing from server pride but it does lend a larger pool of POSSIBILITIES of play while preserving the best of WvW.

Wouldn’t always be one against three.

It would, of course be two against one and then at the same tier you are at now.

So the “we want to play in our tier” is preserved for their rotation but a new dynamic becomes possible and alliances can build trust and respect even when we go back to beating each other over the heads in our own tiers.

I’m sorry, but not entirely sure what is being said there. From what I could gather, a lot of what you mentioned isn’t possible for how WvW is set up.