Guild Wars 2

1. How often will the world link changes? The frequency of this changes will affect the different server’s TS3 and how they manage their ts3. This can be really troublesome to ts3 management and on how players approach to resolve the differences in ts3 usage.

2. How is this gonna resolve the issue caused by the megaserver which forced guilds to recruit players from different servers? The link will only benefit selected servers but majority of the players will still be in different server and thus not able to play WvW together. Furthermore, since the link supposedly to be dynamic, guilds that begin recruiting from the linked world might end up in a situation where they find themselves having different world members and if one day anet decided that the link world is to change, those guild will be screwed like the guilds that recruit from mega server.

3. Does the reward track apply to EOTM? If it does, it doesn’t resolve the reward inequality between EOTM and the normal WvW. Furthermore, more people will do EOTM and abuse the reward tracks.

edit: fixed grammar, noticed it when I wanted to copy & paste to reddit AMA, typed it off the top of my head.

I have a concern that’s pretty immediate when it comes to linking servers…as an admin, I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc. I’m more than slightly annoyed that ANet isn’t giving us our matched servers ahead of time. They did not confirm or deny the meeting notes that got linked last week. Are they really going to leave us hanging until reset?

It seems like server pairings aren’t stationary. So what ever administrative system is developed it would have to stay flexible. keep in mind this is Beta and expect the system to also change during it. Thus I recommend to keep your server communities in tact but prepare to make them flexible via API key.

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

TC runs off the API key. Their validation process is done through it. Not to mention they coordinate on their forums and TS3. It’s well in their right to prepare. Stop being so rude dude.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

TC runs off the API key. Their validation process is done through it. Not to mention they coordinate on their forums and TS3. It’s well in their right to prepare. Stop being so rude dude.

Calm down. TC going to DR guilds and asking them to set up guild channels on the TC TS is rude. Good preparation doesn’t make a house of cards on rumors.

Now here we have information about the actual change and can do real preparation for it. API verification can be done simply. Give non-TC members access to specific “linked world” channels. Request that Anet include something in the API to make available which worlds are linked. Most likely that isn’t yet developed for the API.

Chaba.5410:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

TC runs off the API key. Their validation process is done through it. Not to mention they coordinate on their forums and TS3. It’s well in their right to prepare. Stop being so rude dude.

TC going to DR guilds and asking them to set up guild channels on the TC TS is rude. Good preparation doesn’t make a house of cards on rumors.

Now here we have information about the actual change and can do real preparation for it. API verification can be done simply. Give non-TC members access to specific “linked world” channels.

“Yes, they absolutely are merging servers. Leaked patch notes are never wrong.”-Ayyye Chaba

You seem to hold some contempt toward TC so your intent may have been more rude. I don’t fault TC for believing it or trying to be prepared, I’m just annoyed that we have nothing to go off of other than a theory.

I’d say your suggestion for generic channels may work tho. DR has generic WvW channels (green BL, blue BL, red BL, EB, and Float) that may be a way for TC to go (along with an upgraded type of guest permission) so no matter who you get, they have a way to be integrated without you all having to do too much without knowing for sure.

SkyShroud.2865:

3. Does the reward track apply to EOTM?

Yes

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Chaba.5410:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

TC runs off the API key. Their validation process is done through it. Not to mention they coordinate on their forums and TS3. It’s well in their right to prepare. Stop being so rude dude.

TC going to DR guilds and asking them to set up guild channels on the TC TS is rude. Good preparation doesn’t make a house of cards on rumors.

Now here we have information about the actual change and can do real preparation for it. API verification can be done simply. Give non-TC members access to specific “linked world” channels.

“Yes, they absolutely are merging servers. Leaked patch notes are never wrong.”-Ayyye Chaba

Sarcasm is frequently lost, huh?
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Servers-Merge/page/2#post6098216

Would be better if you kept your PvF to the PvF forum.

Sus.3610:

I have a concern that’s pretty immediate when it comes to linking servers…as an admin, I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc. I’m more than slightly annoyed that ANet isn’t giving us our matched servers ahead of time. They did not confirm or deny the meeting notes that got linked last week. Are they really going to leave us hanging until reset?

I agree this is going to be annoying If we have to pair worlds might as well be for good rather than swapping worlds, It’s nice to get to know the people on a server & their play styles… I stay out of EoTM because of that…. To much zerging & no skill. Looks like WvW is heading closer & closer to PvP & EoTM my least to favorite places lol

I also agree with the OP SkyShroud.2865 these are great points I’d like to see answered

SkyShroud.2865:

1. How often will the world link changes? The frequency of this changes will affected the different server’s TS3 and how they gonna manage their ts3. This can be really troublesome to ts3 management and how players resolve the differences in ts3 usage.

2. How is this gonna resolve the issue caused by the megaserver which forced guilds to recruit players from different servers, the link will only be benefit selected servers but majority of the players will still be in different server and thus not able to play WvW together. Furthermore, since the link supposedly to be dynamic, guilds that start recruiting from the linked world might end up in a situation where they find themselves having different world members and if one day anet decided that the link world is to change, those guild will be screwed like the guilds which recruit from mega server.

3. Does the reward track apply to EOTM? If it does, it doesn’t resolve the reward inequality between EOTM and the normal WvW. Furthermore, more people will do EOTM and abuse the reward racks.

I do not think TS3 will be an issue at all. IMHO the more organized (probably bigger server’s most of the times) TS3 should be used, unless a specific group/guild wishes to have a private raid, in which case they would be in their private channel anyways.

As you know nearly all TS3 servers have public lobbies and some public channels, I see no reason to add 5 more channels to the public group, for example: EBG, Red BL, Blue BL, Green BL, Floating or Roaming. That is not very difficult.

In addition, most GMs and people with admin functions can drag people to other channels, with or without permissions already set.

So I see no problems here, at least not big ones that can’t be worked out fairly easily.

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

My understanding is that someone from DR messaged someone on TC. But why do you care?

I’m worried about what kind of mess this is going to create for server Teamspeaks. If verify is done through an API auto verify system then the code is going to need to be changed each time the linked worlds change. If we verify manually then we’ll need to setup a whole separate set of user groups. Either way it’s going to be a mess to deal with if the linked worlds change with any kind of frequency.

Endelon.1042:

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

I have had TC admins contact me about setting up channels for our guilds etc.

LOL. Someone on TC bought into the faked notes about server merges.

Why over complicate this? Just set up a TS channel for linked world members.

My understanding is that someone from DR messaged someone on TC. But why do you care?

I’m worried about what kind of mess this is going to create for server Teamspeaks. If verify is done through an API auto verify system then the code is going to need to be changed each time the linked worlds change. If we verify manually then we’ll need to setup a whole separate set of user groups. Either way it’s going to be a mess to deal with if the linked worlds change with any kind of frequency.

Arena Net would need to add an end point for WvW match up and server partners. When and if they add that endpoint then what you’d do is check the API keys server ID and compare it to the pairing. Therefore the system would be flexible no matter what pairing. If the partnership changes then you can run a cron to check the pairings and if they changed, you can remove that said permission set or access.

if it’s done manually, then each time a partner is changed, then that rank or permission should be deleted or altered. You might have to look into guild leaders or such granting access to militia and pugs in certain channels only to help the work load.

Endelon.1042:

But why do you care?

I find the extent to which players bought into the fake patch notes about server merges humorous.

Linked world players are going to be in WvW with home world players. For purposes of WvW, there isn’t an overriding reason to restrict them from WvW TS channels. What other reasons would channels be restricted from non-TC players? The API most likely doesn’t have linked worlds data on the endpoint yet though.

Chaba.5410:

Endelon.1042:

But why do you care?

Linked world players are going to be in WvW with home world players. For purposes of WvW, there isn’t an overriding reason to restrict them from WvW TS channels. What other reasons would channels be restricted from non-TC players?

TC only meetings. non-TC players as in players TC is fighting as well. They use the API key to detect server world. If they use the API key they’d have to then change the code. There are tons of reasons as to why you’d still have or want security and the ability to detect if someone is playing on your side in any given match up.

Listen to Mal, he probably knows more about your Teamspeak server security than you do.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Chaba.5410:

Endelon.1042:

But why do you care?

Linked world players are going to be in WvW with home world players. For purposes of WvW, there isn’t an overriding reason to restrict them from WvW TS channels. What other reasons would channels be restricted from non-TC players?

TC only meetings. non-TC players as in players TC is fighting as well. They use the API key to detect server world. If they use the API key they’d have to then change the code. There are tons of reasons as to why you’d still have or want security and the ability to detect if someone is playing on your side in any given match up.

As I wrote, follow up on the API forum for the linked world data in the endpoint because it almost certainly is being overlooked just as F2P account status was.

“Some world’s linked” but not all? “Variation of matchups”.

Wouldn’t it be cool to see a T6 server linked with a T8 server competing in a T1 match against 2 T1 servers where the T6/8 wins?

Even if the matches are lost, I’m excited about the shear match diversity this test will bring for everybody. This will bring people back and reward tracks will attract new people, who cares if it’s permenent right now, it doesn’t need to be.

HazyDaisy.4107:

“Some world’s linked” but not all? “Variation of matchups”.

Wouldn’t it be cool to see a T6 server linked with a T8 server competing in a T1 match against 2 T1 servers where the T6/8 wins?

Even if the matches are lost, I’m excited about the shear match diversity this test will bring for everybody. This will bring people back and reward tracks will attract new people, who cares if it’s permenent right now, it doesn’t need to be.

I don’t share th he optimism regarding the T1/T1 v T6/T8 thing. The likely effect is the lower tier team getting slaughtered and the players quitting or transferring to a higher tier server to avoid having to go through it again.

I messaged sus.

For me and alot of others on TC having open lines of communication is important (even more so after our coms were sabotaged by a group of people). To that extent I offered to open up our coms to the “possible” linked server, to create for them channels where they could run as guilds in private yet still have contact with other commanders via ccoms if needed, or to allow people on that server full access to “open” raids. This would of course mean work for our admins but we were willing to do that so as to ease communication and maybe even allow different people to get to know each other.

I see nothing wrong with this. All that was offered was a simple way to keep the two servers in contact. It was done with respect and I even mentioned that we didnt want to “swallow the other server whole as they also have a community and that we respected that”. We look at this also as an opportunity to run with different guilds and commanders and to learn from them. Its a positive developement that we will all have to adapt to so that we can work things out the best we can.

MMO gaming isnt just playing the game, its also a social environment where different cultures can meet and talk and enjoy each others company, having a communicatin system that can adapt to this is beneficial to the people playing on the same side but also the wider guild wars 2 community.

I agree with the annoyance that we will not know in advance which server we are linked with and so creating this “extended” communication between servers is going to be more complicated (but not impossible).

Plus we have a great ERP section, you aint never heard that quaggan/golem love.

Not to be a debbie downer but, anybody think this might actually make population balance worse?

Especially because I don’t see anything about the time zone matching that was rumored. In NA, even combining several lower tier worlds will not help off hours times against the higher tier worlds.

Regardless, I’m going to re-install and check it out!

Nightingale.8364:

I messaged sus.

For me and alot of others on TC having open lines of communication is important (even more so after our coms were sabotaged by a group of people).

Idk, i recall TC being very reluctant to even using comms during playing.

People who move on from the server have no obligation to keep your comms up for you, especially when you make it clear you don’t appreciate their work. Just sayin’

I’m not entirely sure how this will help balance populations long term either. Will they limit transfers? Will the merges cause the server populations to be “full” so no transfers can happen? Who is to say a T8 server won’t hate T1 and want to move back to the lowest tier possible? I know it’s crossed my mind (never been higher than T4 personally).

I suppose that’s why it’s beta, huh? I just hope they get the matches figured out and posted at least a day or two before reset so we can admin our stuff as needed.

IMO – This is way more interesting than the player-generated chaos in T2 at the moment. :p

Tyler and his team appear to be trying to make this game mode better, so let’s take a moment to appreciate that before we start trolling and bashing. We’re always trying to dissect every little aspect of a change before it even launches. Instead we could just have fun figuring it out as we play. I mean, kitten , it’s a game after all…

How about we give this a chance and see how it plays out?

I think dynamically linking servers top and bottom, and meeting in the middle (i.e. #1 + #24, #2 + #23, …, #12 + #13) would be a huge improvement over what we have currently. Sure, populations are not linear top to bottom and there will still be coverage gaps, but the result should be a much more level playing field across server linkages/alliances. And the dynamic part, whether refreshed weekly, monthly, or whatever, helps to prevent gaming of the system.

Of course, no system is perfect and there will be challenges… such as TS. But, our community has proven resourceful and will find a workable solution, I’m sure.

Best of all, we retain our server identities.

Here’s to seeing new faces on the battlefield, friend and foe…

Asudementio.8526:

Nightingale.8364:

I messaged sus.

For me and alot of others on TC having open lines of communication is important (even more so after our coms were sabotaged by a group of people).

Idk, i recall TC being very reluctant to even using comms during playing.

People who move on from the server have no obligation to keep your comms up for you, especially when you make it clear you don’t appreciate their work. Just sayin’

Which is why we are alot more careful now about the kind of people who control our coms. We are alot better now without those people on the server. Maybe the reluctance of certain members of TC to use coms in the past was also linked to the behaviour of those people that ran it, as it is, this is no longer a problem.

Thelgar.7214:

HazyDaisy.4107:

“Some world’s linked” but not all? “Variation of matchups”.

Wouldn’t it be cool to see a T6 server linked with a T8 server competing in a T1 match against 2 T1 servers where the T6/8 wins?

Even if the matches are lost, I’m excited about the shear match diversity this test will bring for everybody. This will bring people back and reward tracks will attract new people, who cares if it’s permenent right now, it doesn’t need to be.

I don’t share th he optimism regarding the T1/T1 v T6/T8 thing. The likely effect is the lower tier team getting slaughtered and the players quitting or transferring to a higher tier server to avoid having to go through it again.

The “optimism” wasn’t masking the fact that most likely the T6/8 server would get slaughtered in that scenario, in fact they probably would. I said it’d be cool! That’s where the joy for me comes into play, because THAT matchup would be different than anything most lower tier people have yet to see.

As Sus said, people from lower tiers may hate T1-3, and vice versa T1-3 may hate low tier people. But the diversity that could come with these testing matches could be quite fun whether or not you win or lose.

Nightingale.8364:

Asudementio.8526:

Nightingale.8364:

I messaged sus.

For me and alot of others on TC having open lines of communication is important (even more so after our coms were sabotaged by a group of people).

Idk, i recall TC being very reluctant to even using comms during playing.

People who move on from the server have no obligation to keep your comms up for you, especially when you make it clear you don’t appreciate their work. Just sayin’

Which is why we are alot more careful now about the kind of people who control our coms. We are alot better now without those people on the server. Maybe the reluctance of certain members of TC to use coms in the past was also linked to the behaviour of those people that ran it, as it is, this is no longer a problem.

Makes sense, given that some of the people involved now were still part of the organization 2 years ago, predating the group you are talking about. Surely it wasn’t everyone leaving until the hugbox was all that was left.

Glad to hear communication is no longer a problem with TC, good knows way too many people spent way too much time trying to get things working. Funny how we stumble upon panacea.

We’ll see how this plays out, but the servers that didn’t have ‘off hours’ (whenever that off hours is) still won’t have them and it might be a crap-shoot to be linked to a server that has it.

In any case, I’m hoping for the best for this beta.

I think this will also help prevent issues where, if you want to WvW and have a fairly populated map, you’d have to transfer to other servers if you were on lower tiers. My guess is that generally T1 servers will get match with the lowest tiers, and mid level will get matched with mid level.

Who knows, might be quite nice. Those in the lowest tiers will get “mentors” kind of, from the higher tier servers, assuming they’re willing to work together.

Granted, if 2 servers team up, and one for some reason hates the other, could create a potential issue. You could technically end up almost 5v1 lol.

How funny would it be if through some bug in the system, BG n JQ got teamed together lol…..

It will also be interesting to see competing tags pop up from the different servers who are used to running their raid or pug groups during certain time periods. There is potential for entertaining drama in the chats.

if you get trapped in a matchup alliance with a server you hate (ahem…mag) there’s always guild hall arenas and pvp stronghold

What the heck does TS matter to this?

What I can imagine on how this kind of system would work:

- Servers are matched A1+A2 vs B1+B2 vs C1+C2 where the average glicko weight of a pair is matched against the other pairs, ie A1+A2 is roughly B1+B2 etc. The pairings would be recalculated and randomized each matchup.

- The players on your paired server would either show something like “Kodash Ally” rather than invader/defender or show name as usual but have some way to distinguish them from players on your server. This mean that players can pug join on paired server commanders, but having your own server commanders is prefered. They would of course have the same map/team/say channels.

Its really not going to work to “link” certain communities permanently. It wouldnt work period in the EU, merging an international with a national server would really be pulling the short straw, compared to two national or two international.

“It simply unifies them together to play in WvW. Worlds that have been paired up will display with a plus sign to the right of the world’s name in the WvW panel. Players will also be able to roll the mouse over a world name to see which additional worlds are currently a part of that team.”

It’s plural, not singular..

Dawdler.8521:

What the heck does TS matter to this?

To some that just use in game chat, it doesn’t matter, but many of us enjoy the luxury of being able to both say and type “build” when we have 200 supply in squad and can’t build a balli. There are also plenty of trolls in this game and as a TS admin myself, I know what kind of work goes into ensuring our community had a working TS with low troll populations. There are also those that would go to a server TS just to bother their opponents. If the matchups change frequently and the admins have to keep up with permissions to ensure their players are safe from idiots, it would be a whole new level of “game becomes a job”.

Dawdler.8521:

- The players on your paired server would either show something like “Kodash Ally” rather than invader/defender or show name as usual but have some way to distinguish them from players on your server. This mean that players can pug join on paired server commanders, but having your own server commanders is prefered. They would of course have the same map/team/say channels.

Meh, red names are red names. I just hope that enemy names still have the server name included. I’ll be disappointed if it becomes something like EOTM with generic names.

The more I think about this… speaking as a T1 player, I wouldn’t be surprised if a mid-level linkage is as strong or stronger than a high/low. It would actually be great to get our butts kicked by some middle server. I mean, how’s that for a shake up of the system?

Thelgar.7214:

Listen to Mal, he probably knows more about your Teamspeak server security than you do.

The API endpoints in discussion are for authentication. That is primarily a matter of privacy and identity. It is not security in any but the broadest pedestrian PHP app “programmer” definition of such things.

Sus.3610:

Dawdler.8521:

What the heck does TS matter to this?

To some that just use in game chat, it doesn’t matter, but many of us enjoy the luxury of being able to both say and type “build” when we have 200 supply in squad and can’t build a balli. There are also plenty of trolls in this game and as a TS admin myself, I know what kind of work goes into ensuring our community had a working TS with low troll populations. There are also those that would go to a server TS just to bother their opponents. If the matchups change frequently and the admins have to keep up with permissions to ensure their players are safe from idiots, it would be a whole new level of “game becomes a job”.

Still irrelevant to the topic though.

TS is not a part of Anets WvW game mechanics and never will be. This world link change is only about game mechanics.

Whether using TS is the best way we play because we have made fantastic communities to compete in WvW and have tons of social fun while doing so is another matter.

As long as linked worlds stay simply “allied” yet separate ingame I see no issues with maintaining our current communities and server identity . There will always be pugs. Now there will just be more. Which is good. I would also fully expect to see many more commanders with their respective servermates on TS helping other commanders that sit on the other servers TS on a more strategic level, much like how guilds and pug commanders already handle it.

Best thing in patch notes:

We have the option to link different worlds together as populations shift over time.

So players do it again, and superstack a pairing. Anet can step in and change the pairings. It’s the antisec of gaming the system

And as long as I stay with my existing community, having an extra one with us that changes isn’t as bad as the megaserver/EoTM thing.

Dawdler.8521:

What the heck does TS matter to this?

It seems you are relative new to large scale team based game. Ts3 is used as a mean to interact and most importantly to coordinate with people. WvW require coordination more than any other game modes. This means that different squads or guilds could be using ts3 as a means to communicate and coordinate with one another to achieve greater competitiveness.

Now, it is important how the people of different server could solve their differences over ts3 usage to avoid awkward situation while maintaining a competitive environment for the people who desire it.

Of course, if you are not into competitiveness and server-wide teamwork, it doesn’t really matters to you.

Chaba.5410:

Request that Anet include something in the API to make available which worlds are linked. Most likely that isn’t yet developed for the API.

And there it is… added four hours ago, roughly same time topic brought up here.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/community/api/WvW-World-Linking/first

This world linking seems to be just a dynamic server merge whilst retaining the appearance of servers keeping their own identity. Its not a true alliance system and will not fix the issue of population disparities. A proper alliance system would have servers allied together based on their respective strengths and weaknesses eg. a EU heavy server allied with a non EU heavy server. Its a bandaid not the fundamental change that is needed.

The other QOL changes are welcome but they will only keep players interested for a short time apart maybe from the stability change which may improve fights.

From the AMA today:

“Will not release world pairings in advance to reduce gaming the system.

Language/National worlds will only be paired with other worlds of the same language.

World Linking is not a complete fix for population imbalances but we felt it was a necessary step.

We can link many worlds together, though in this Beta worlds will only have a single partner (if they are linked at all). Many high ranking worlds in EU will not be linked with another world.

Worlds that are paired will have lower population caps.

At most we’d re-link worlds every 3 months.

World Linking decisions were primarily based on a combination of both Glicko rating and time-sliced activity levels."

This is hopeful although I’d say relinking only at most every 3 months is possibly too long. I’d also like more details on how “time sliced activity levels” factored into linking decisions. If the leaked notes are accurate as to who is getting linked it basically appears to be just glicko levels, although I’d, laugh if TC didn’t get linked to DR given how TC have jumped the gun.

Virtute.8251:

Thelgar.7214:

Listen to Mal, he probably knows more about your Teamspeak server security than you do.

The API endpoints in discussion are for authentication. That is primarily a matter of privacy and identity. It is not security in any but the broadest pedestrian PHP app “programmer” definition of such things.

That is an interesting perspective. One I’m not sure I agree with. I guess it is a matter of what you consider a pedestrian, enterprise “security analyst” definition of such things.

On topic of rewards: Skritt trader does not seem to have massively reduced gold requirements , only about half.

Clarification is needed for how the linking works. Are the linked worlds playing together or are they still in their own tiers with the ability to move to the linked server on the other tier if there are say queues.

1) “There will be a partial reset of Glicko (Deviation & Volatility) on Friday. We’ll put a forum post explaining our reasoning, and listing world pairings on Friday as well.”

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4fjrxt/we_are_the_gw2_dev_team_here_to_chat_with_you/d29h1wk

2) “It’ll technically be a series of three posts. The first post (which will hopefully occur before the EU reset) will contain general information regarding World Linking and the partial Glicko reset. Then once EU has their weekly reset, we’ll post the EU world pairings. Likewise, once NA has their weekly reset, we’ll post the NA world pairings.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4fjrxt/we_are_the_gw2_dev_team_here_to_chat_with_you/d29mfqk

morrolan.9608:

From the AMA today:

“Will not release world pairings in advance to reduce gaming the system.

Language/National worlds will only be paired with other worlds of the same language.

World Linking is not a complete fix for population imbalances but we felt it was a necessary step.

We can link many worlds together, though in this Beta worlds will only have a single partner (if they are linked at all). Many high ranking worlds in EU will not be linked with another world.

Worlds that are paired will have lower population caps.

At most we’d re-link worlds every 3 months.

World Linking decisions were primarily based on a combination of both Glicko rating and time-sliced activity levels."

This is hopeful although I’d say relinking only at most every 3 months is possibly too long. I’d also like more details on how “time sliced activity levels” factored into linking decisions. If the leaked notes are accurate as to who is getting linked it basically appears to be just glicko levels, although I’d, laugh if TC didn’t get linked to DR given how TC have jumped the gun.

Thank you. That answered point 1.

I wonder about anet view’s on point 2 and 3 which I think is really important.

Not sure how other servers has set up their verification system, however the way it is set it up for FSP, the only requirement for us to temporarily use another servers TS, is for them to provide us with a ts query user with just the permissions to add/remove a user from a servergroup that gives what ever rights they want to give to the linked server members. Then our ts bot can just add our already verified people like it normally does.

I can’t imagine it would be too difficult for other servers who rely on a similar form of verification to do the same.