Guild Wars 2

Anet did server linkings for a while and now it’s no longer needed. People have seen what other servers are out there and will want to have back their server identity. If they want to move to another server they will and if not that’s okay too and they can stay on the server they actually chose to be on.

Some people from link servers don’t like being moved around against their will. Enough with the server linking. Just to compensate for population stuff just adjust the spots open on a server at least once a month. BOOM.

But then bandwagoners will have to pay full transfer price and actually commit to be a part of the community. Are you out of your mind?

They need to just merge servers and be done with it.

People voted to server links stay… Why is this even being brought up?
What we gonna see next? Another thread asking for Desert BL to be gone?

Jeknar.6184:

People voted to server links stay… Why is this even being brought up?
What we gonna see next? Another thread asking for Desert BL to be gone?

Yes. You would probably see another thread asking for desert to be removed. You see these polls are cancerous. In mass the community doesnt know what they want and the way ArenaNet delivers polls is simply broken. The global polls in this manner is bad in general and will and does lead to us accepting mechanics that are damaging.

Server links are a miracle of the universe.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jeknar.6184:

People voted to server links stay… Why is this even being brought up?
What we gonna see next? Another thread asking for Desert BL to be gone?

Yes. You would probably see another thread asking for desert to be removed. You see these polls are cancerous. In mass the community doesnt know what they want and the way ArenaNet delivers polls is simply broken. The global polls in this manner is bad in general and will and does lead to us accepting mechanics that are damaging.

I know Mal. I too wish Arena Net would make it’s own (right) decisions. But they decided to take the poll approach because people felt they were never heard. You cannot blame them for that.

Back on the subject of the thread. I don’t think server links must go. Several servers were extremely unhealthy for WvW experience, giving new players a horrid vision of the game mode.
I know how it is the botton of the barrel and it’s not pretty. I’ve been on Eredon Terrace for 2 years and sometimes we would have roughly 20 people for a reset night. You think new players would stick around when you NEVER find other ally in a suposed “team” game mode? When the outnumbered buff is a permanent feature in your buff bar and the PPT of your server is only from that camp you captured and still on RI thus why it isn’t flipped back yet? No. New players aren’t going to stick around for this. Server links are providing a way for these close-to-death servers to have an “healthy” WvW experience.
People are crying for their communities being killed because of links. I’m not bound to server pride like some people are. If that’s the price to “save” the game mode, I’ll gladly pay it. I like the varierity of being shuffled around and fighting different enemies instead of fighting the same 2 enemies over and over again because my server cannot move a tier due coverage issues. Removing the links would just return us to the stale state of WvW where you would face the same oponents for months unless a major population shift through transfer happened.

Server links are a good thing.

~ Kovu

They polled on server links way too early, before the first rotation.

Results would probably be the same now (in favor of linking) but it would probably be a closer vote since people have more of an idea of the negatives of linking.

Jeknar.6184:

I know Mal. I too wish Arena Net would make it’s own (right) decisions. But they decided to take the poll approach because people felt they were never heard. You cannot blame them for that.

Back on the subject of the thread. I don’t think server links must go. Several servers were extremely unhealthy for WvW experience, giving new players a horrid vision of the game mode.
I know how it is the botton of the barrel and it’s not pretty. I’ve been on Eredon Terrace for 2 years and sometimes we would have roughly 20 people for a reset night. You think new players would stick around when you NEVER find other ally in a suposed “team” game mode? When the outnumbered buff is a permanent feature in your buff bar and the PPT of your server is only from that camp you captured and still on RI thus why it isn’t flipped back yet? No. New players aren’t going to stick around for this. Server links are providing a way for these close-to-death servers to have an “healthy” WvW experience.
People are crying for their communities being killed because of links. I’m not bound to server pride like some people are. If that’s the price to “save” the game mode, I’ll gladly pay it. I like the varierity of being shuffled around and fighting different enemies instead of fighting the same 2 enemies over and over again because my server cannot move a tier due coverage issues. Removing the links would just return us to the stale state of WvW where you would face the same oponents for months unless a major population shift through transfer happened.

This.

I’m on Kaineng. Shortly before the linking there were nights (prime time, mind you) where the camps I was flipping were providing over half of our PPT at the time. No matter how much fun that was, it made for a broken game mode.

Worst idea since the golem train in WvW. They just keep messing it up and making it way easier because people can not play a hard game. God forbid a game be challenging lol

server links revived wvw. the change ups every 2 months provides for some fluctuation instead of stagnation. It’s like a free transfer every 2months. Mind you, we are on the bottom of the barrel but the fluctuation up and down the past 3 links has been awesome. Being able to fight t2-t4 servers as they rise and fall. It just reinforces the concept that the higher tiers are just carried by population and coverage and the false sense of security that they’re actually good cuz they are in a higher tier.

It didn’t solve the population imbalances, so it’s kinda useless. Reworking the transfer system would have helped more.

~ displayname

the population imbalance won’t be solved by anet. they can’t fix fairweathers. every tier and server can queue a map in na prime/late na. even in t4. even CD. we can queue 1 map in every 1 timezone on weekends, it’s relative to who’s tagged up and if he/she is getting rolled.

Kovu.7560:

Server links are a good thing.

~ Kovu

Sorry to say but server links are cancerous and they kill now the game , look now alot players moving to EU servers to play because NA servers are boring atm.

Regards.

I don’t keep track of the stats, but I play on three different servers and two of them are more active than they were prior to server linking. The third is currently unlinked. I’m not saying there aren’t drawbacks, but “killing the game” is hardly one of them.

~ Kovu

The lot that are moving to EU are a small portion. The amount of new bear bow rangers coming into wvw are significantly higher than the prima donnas moving to EU cuz they thought they were good but got rolled because they came into wvw looking for fights, but realistcally they were just looking for fights they can win.

xeon.3851:

Kovu.7560:

Server links are a good thing.

~ Kovu

Sorry to say but server links are cancerous and they kill now the game , look now alot players moving to EU servers to play because NA servers are boring atm.

Regards.

Funny tho because the majority of the complaints about the links usually come from EU since it was already in a somewhat good state before the links (They had varierity of matches, which we didn’t on NA).

I was just going to say that same thing. Large part of EU liked the way it was prior to links… and do not like links.

Seems like the people who needed to go, needed to go regardless and most will not care that they went.

Either way, hope it somehow helps EU or provides there players with some more free bags.

shiri.4257:

the population imbalance won’t be solved by anet. they can’t fix fairweathers. every tier and server can queue a map in na prime/late na. even in t4. even CD. we can queue 1 map in every 1 timezone on weekends, it’s relative to who’s tagged up and if he/she is getting rolled.

Yes anet won’t solve it. That’s why they should give people the tools to play when and how they want to. If your t4 is dead all week you could pinch hit in a different tier. Like kovu with his 3 accounts.

~ displayname

Jeknar.6184:

xeon.3851:

Kovu.7560:

Server links are a good thing.

~ Kovu

Sorry to say but server links are cancerous and they kill now the game , look now alot players moving to EU servers to play because NA servers are boring atm.

Regards.

Funny tho because the majority of the complaints about the links usually come from EU since it was already in a somewhat good state before the links (They had varierity of matches, which we didn’t on NA).

The problem is servers like your they die when link is over and they say ohh server link is fine No server link is not fine anet just need server lock and open those server they need more players. Server link is not the solve.

I love the server linking and it brings the activity back to tier 3 and 4 that was gone for a while on the affected servers. There are more tags and I see more and more new players also trying out the gamemode.
I agree that in EU the linking was more problematic because they didn’t want to link servers with different languages and then the matchmaking wasn’t optimal.

The people moving from NA to EU are a small portion of roamers that don’t want high populated maps. And it is perfect for them, as NA primetime is in the middle of the night for EU, so they find rather empty maps that allow them to play the game the way they want to. I think this is a perfect solution for them.

Rink.6108:

I love the server linking and it brings the activity back to tier 3 and 4 that was gone for a while on the affected servers. There are more tags and I see more and more new players also trying out the gamemode.
I agree that in EU the linking was more problematic because they didn’t want to link servers with different languages and then the matchmaking wasn’t optimal.

The people moving from NA to EU are a small portion of roamers that don’t want high populated maps. And it is perfect for them, as NA primetime is in the middle of the night for EU, so they find rather empty maps that allow them to play the game the way they want to. I think this is a perfect solution for them.

Server links need focus only in the lower tiers T1 and T2 no need server link T3 and T4 they need link server they help on wvw population and anet make sure the balance in those lower tiers.

In NA that is mostly what they did. T1 didn’t get a link, T2 had very small links that should have no impact on numbers and T3 had a small link and T4 had two bigger servers and a smaller one. For Europe it was more complicated. But if you tell them they are allowed to link servers with different languages then it might work as well as in NA.

xeon.3851:

The problem is servers like your they die when link is over and they say ohh server link is fine No server link is not fine anet just need server lock and open those server they need more players. Server link is not the solve.

That lends to variety. Not sure my opinion on it, but there is something to be said for not having the same 3 servers in the same tiers for months. Things do get stale.

xeon.3851:

Server links need focus only in the lower tiers T1 and T2 no need server link T3 and T4 they need link server they help on wvw population and anet make sure the balance in those lower tiers.

No server alone can keep up with BG alone, hell BG is competing against linked servers and is the only server locked (so no new players, while others might be getting more in) and BG is winning. So, no, most t1 servers still need links.

The population is just lower than it used to be. The question is if the juggling of links is better than just mergers, and again I have no strong opinion either way, both have pros and cons.

xeon.3851:

The problem is servers like your they die when link is over and they say ohh server link is fine No server link is not fine anet just need server lock and open those server they need more players. Server link is not the solve.

My current server is one of the Guest servers and likely will always be due it’s low population. My old server was one of the guests who took the short end of the stick for 4 months thanks to it’s fairweather heavy population (RIP Darkhaven). Links didn’t killed neither of them.

Mushin.3928:

They polled on server links way too early, before the first rotation.

Results would probably be the same now (in favor of linking) but it would probably be a closer vote since people have more of an idea of the negatives of linking.

so much this – way too early to make an educated evaluation. so many hoped on improved linking logic at the time….

Liston.9708:

Mushin.3928:

They polled on server links way too early, before the first rotation.

Results would probably be the same now (in favor of linking) but it would probably be a closer vote since people have more of an idea of the negatives of linking.

so much this – way too early to make an educated evaluation. so many hoped on improved linking logic at the time….

Technically they did improved… This 3rd link is much better than the 2nd which was worse than the 1st. There are only two kind of people who I see not liking the links:

- People that play on servers that already had a high population (current host servers)
- People that liked empty maps so they could PvD freely as they did in the dead tiers.

Jeknar.6184:

Liston.9708:

Mushin.3928:

They polled on server links way too early, before the first rotation.

Results would probably be the same now (in favor of linking) but it would probably be a closer vote since people have more of an idea of the negatives of linking.

so much this – way too early to make an educated evaluation. so many hoped on improved linking logic at the time….

Technically they did improved… This 3rd link is much better than the 2nd which was worse than the 1st. There are only two kind of people who I see not liking the links:

- People that play on servers that already had a high population (current host servers)
- People that liked empty maps so they could PvD freely as they did in the dead tiers.

YB got a great link this time, but after 16 weeks of poor/non-existent links. One problem is the linking seemed to be based on rank at time of link and did not account for recent trends/movements at all.

With that said, I thought linking was supposed to attempt to make all groupings as similar as possible, not Anet thinking server a,b,c is tier 1, d,e,f is tier 2 etc…..

Is this the newest matchup thread?!

After having been linked with a dead server for a few weeks GH is starting to become its former self: a bunch of roamers – which usually is a nightmare for all commanders but rather funny. We were once up against a buddy of mine to who I spoke to while we were in wvw
he: “Haha, we’re going to cap your bravo”
So I got there, 20 of his server, 5 roamers from GH – then a guild group of 10 came in, then some more roamers came in, then the public came in.
“WHY ARE THEY GETTING MORE AND MORE???”
Linking destroyed that because the fairweathers and PvE specialists wouldn’t do anything without commander. (which annoyed the roamers who quit).
The linking with UW was nice but a lot of them didn’t get our servers history (which they don’t have to anyway) so they seemed rather disapointed. Every other linking was a fail and I don’t expect things to get better. Red until we’re dead.

shiri.4257:

the population imbalance won’t be solved by anet.

Oh, they could solve it, but the player base despises the solutions so Anet will keep going with half-measures like linking servers.

Hyper Cutter.9376:

shiri.4257:

the population imbalance won’t be solved by anet.

Oh, they could solve it, but the player base despises the solutions so Anet will keep going with half-measures like linking servers.

They can’t: as long as combat in wvw is that screwed up nothing will change. They will only need to delete more and more tiers.

Server links is a temp,solution what makes it not to work is people stacking whatever server they want ,example is NSP w/ 4 servers links they are now the flavor of the month. watch them grow bigger easy victory for people have money to spend on transfer.

I hope Anet reopen some Tiers in EU. And stop linking very high population servers. just linking medium population servers in pairs and change every relinking the main in this pairs, so every server can represent his name every 2nd linking.that should be enough. this perma mega blobs everywhere and every time is boring. wvw changed to a complete no skill area.

aandiarie.7195:

Anet did server linkings for a while and now it’s no longer needed. People have seen what other servers are out there and will want to have back their server identity. If they want to move to another server they will and if not that’s okay too and they can stay on the server they actually chose to be on.

Some people from link servers don’t like being moved around against their will. Enough with the server linking. Just to compensate for population stuff just adjust the spots open on a server at least once a month. BOOM.

While I would also like to have my server back to call home, instead of being a guest server to a larger, ever-changing host server, to completely stop server linkings now would lead to the final death of the smaller servers. Prior to the linkings, my server, GoM, was a ghost town, just not fun at all, similar to the above mentioned ET. We’ve lost even more people off our server since the linkings.

I’d have to agree with Mal, at this point only a server merge would work to keep populations healthy and also allow those from smaller servers to finally gain a permanent server identity when they are roaming in WvW. It wouldn’t be the server they are on now, but at least a permanent merge would lead to the development of an identity and sense of community that guest servers don’t have right now compared to host servers.

Hyper Cutter.9376:

shiri.4257:

the population imbalance won’t be solved by anet.

Oh, they could solve it, but the player base despises the solutions so Anet will keep going with half-measures like linking servers.

No… The only solution Arena Net can have to population imbalance would be closing transfers. And that would please the players but not Arena Net pockets, thus why it won’t happen.

As long your can change teams, nothing Anet do will be able to keep balance.

The problem with server merges is as always, that you re-create the same problems we’ve always had in WvW. That people stack on one server, fairweathers come bursting out of the shrubbery, and the usual lack of balance between populations.

Players will not balance themselves, so the only thing ANet really can do with this is block transfers. Or only allow transfers to the lowest pop or something, and even that will get gamed.

Starting to like the idea of nuking all servers, creating new servers with a HARD-SET limit, and then just use the linking to toss together a few servers each link. Sort of like what the Battlegroup idea was supposed to accomplish.

You have to work on the reasons why people blob. If you permanently block transfers it won’t help at all.

Before the linking I begged anet not todestroy my server as it was the only reason why I even played – so don’t underestimate servers and don’t underestimate what solo roamers do for each and every server – “nuking everything” would destroy both.

Let players stack, but change how a Server gets “Targeted” for attack.

Servers that stack tend to win & have a higher WvW Rank…imho

Knowing this…why not re-design WvW to use a “Targeting” system that gets its inspiration from a “soap bubble”.

Everyone knows that bubbles float to the top.

Why not put a “Target” on the Top bubble & encourage everybody below to attack it or their neighbor above?

Use WvW Rank to show the rise & fall of servers.

Create an open bucket without Tiers that encourages this natural bubble effect to “Target” the Top Server that’s tied to Population stacking.