Guild Wars 2

This is the first step to fix WvW. All other fixes need to come after this issue is solved.

Balance WvW population using the megaserver system and grouping together all servers of a region using the server ranking as below:

(example of present ranking on 6th Novembr 2015)

1 Vizunah Square [FR] – Green
2 Kodash [DE] - Blue
3 Desolation – Red

4 Far Shiverpeaks – Green
5 Seafarer’s Rest – Blue
6 Jade Sea [FR] – Red

7 Riverside [DE] – Green
8 Baruch Bay [SP] – Blue
9 Gandara – Red

10 Piken Square – Green
11 Elona Reach [DE] – Blue
12 Augury Rock [FR] – Red

13 Aurora Glade – Green
14 Abaddon’s Mouth [DE] – Blue
15 Gunnar’s Hold – Red

16 Drakkar Lake [DE] – Green
17 Dzagonur [DE] – Blue
18 Miller’s Sound [DE] – Red

19 Ring of Fire – Green
20 Arborstone [FR] – Blue
21 Vabbi – Red

22 Ruins of Surmia – Green
23 Whiteside Ridge – Blue
24 Fort Ranik [FR] – Red

25 Fissure of Woe – Green
26 Underworld - Blue
27 Blacktide – Red

The weekly results can use the present system to establish the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, we just need a sub-system to calculate the individual server contribution to the overall weekly result to feed the servers ranking (Glicko 2 rating system).

Lets use the Green team as an example:

Vizunah Square [FR] – 30% contribution
Far Shiverpeaks – 20% contribution
Riverside [DE] – 15% contribution
Piken Square – 10% contribution
Aurora Glade – 8% contribution
Drakkar Lake [DE] – 8% contribution
Ring of Fire – 5% contribution
Ruins of Surmia – 3% contribution
Fissure of Woe – 1% contribution

With this proposed system EVERYONE will enjoy WvW because he/she will be fighting with balanced team numbers most of the time. Individual players will get their loot, will earn their WvW points to get abilities and so on, while enjoying WvW despite belonging to a low population server.

WvW is the best part of GW2 but its implementation was never given top priority by ANet because the company feels that WvW is played by a residual number of players.

If the teams have balanced numbers the players will fill WvW maps. With the right rewards and a few more fixes, GW2 WvW can be a great part of this awesome game.

Thanks for reading.

All feedback welcome.

My biggest concern with this system would be too many people trying to play per map. I’d worry about queues being insanity.

That aside, would it potentially be more fair to do a snake style color attribution? So it would be:

1. Green
2. Blue
3. Red
4. Red
5. Blue
6. Green

So instead of Green technically getting “1st” in every matchup of 3, it shifts it around. I don’t know if there is much of a disparity to warrant such a system, but it’s a thought.

best fix imo would be cut it down to 6 servers and double each servers population the 3 server eotm style would be too much for ques but 6 would work well. I doubt many pvers actually care what server they are on so shouldn’t affect them, and I’m sure most true wvw’er would rather sit in a 10 minute que and actually have fights than to be on the new wvw maps w/o anything to fight but gates #savewvw

Cogbyrn.7283:

My biggest concern with this system would be too many people trying to play per map. I’d worry about queues being insanity.

That aside, would it potentially be more fair to do a snake style color attribution? So it would be:

1. Green
2. Blue
3. Red
4. Red
5. Blue
6. Green

So instead of Green technically getting “1st” in every matchup of 3, it shifts it around. I don’t know if there is much of a disparity to warrant such a system, but it’s a thought.

Concerning queues the megaserver system will open as many WvW maps as needed (with balanced numbers on each side, lets say for example 100/100/100), all contributing to the overall result. Basically no queues.

Concerning the grouping of the servers, I agree with you. I just used a simple example to illustrate my idea.

Illist.6349:

best fix imo would be cut it down to 6 servers and double each servers population the 3 server eotm style would be too much for ques but 6 would work well. I doubt many pvers actually care what server they are on so shouldn’t affect them, and I’m sure most true wvw’er would rather sit in a 10 minute que and actually have fights than to be on the new wvw maps w/o anything to fight but gates #savewvw

The megaserver system will open as many WvW maps as needed (with balanced numbers on each side, lets say for example 100/100/100), all contributing to the overall result.

Basically no queues.

This wouldnt work…for one main reason…no guild raids….if 30-40 ppl from the same guild tried to enter wvw at the same time they wouldn’t be able to, either they would get split where some got in and some have to wait for other ppl to get pn or server fills and they get split. Id like to see it cut down to 9 servers and they work on scoring system and making a better map (more basic, flatter, lots of figjting areas, lil pve, very few events, base more off kills less on hitting a wall, better rewards)

EU would be an issue, but for NA I would simply fold the bottom 12 into the top 12. 1 & 24, 2&23, 3 & 22, etc etc. There are simply not enough players anymore for 24 NA servers.

This would give the lower tier players much more action than what they have now, and boost the middle tiers quite a lot. For purely NA coverage it would allow for a much more balanced situation across all tiers. Non-NA would still be weighted towards the top end tiers, but otherwise the action would increase everywhere.

Chase.2798:

This wouldnt work…for one main reason…no guild raids….if 30-40 ppl from the same guild tried to enter wvw at the same time they wouldn’t be able to, either they would get split where some got in and some have to wait for other ppl to get pn or server fills and they get split. Id like to see it cut down to 9 servers and they work on scoring system and making a better map (more basic, flatter, lots of figjting areas, lil pve, very few events, base more off kills less on hitting a wall, better rewards)

GW2 players solved your problem since the megaserver system was introduced…its called taxi.

If a guild want to have 40 players on the same map needs to taxi its members as everyone does for the meta events, Dragon Stand as the best example.

Doesnt work if you hit max tho

And if it did would break the balance anyways

I don’t think this is good idea. It would simply ruin the last bits of what was called server pride. Some communities have been working hard to get where they were but free transfers and what not kinda kittened it up.

Sure it would be the be the fastest way to get more players into wvw. But would that be the best way. Don’t think so, reducing the amount of servers has been also suggested multiple times but that is also kind of question mark. Obviously it would cause an uproar from the servers that have been merged. Again it comes down to server pride I guess if there even is such a thing anymore. Some people have decided to stay on their server for a reason. Whether it’s good community, the “fights” server or the k-train server with 24/7 coverage.

But do you think this would would cause EotM effect aka uplvls everywhere and just a huge k-train running around the maps?

RedBaron.6058:

This is the first step to fix WvW. All other fixes need to come after this issue is solved.

Balance WvW population using the megaserver system and grouping together all servers of a region using the server ranking as below:
<snippage for brevity>

With this proposed system EVERYONE will enjoy WvW because he/she will be fighting with balanced team numbers most of the time. Individual players will get their loot, will earn their WvW points to get abilities and so on, while enjoying WvW despite belonging to a low population server.

WvW is the best part of GW2 but its implementation was never given top priority by ANet because the company feels that WvW is played by a residual number of players.

If the teams have balanced numbers the players will fill WvW maps. With the right rewards and a few more fixes, GW2 WvW can be a great part of this awesome game.

Thanks for reading.

All feedback welcome.

Hat tip to you, Red Baron for thinking out of the box.

I’m not sure what you’ve proposed will work, mechanically, but functionally is moving in the right direction – trying to find some way to balance populations and match ups via the megaserver system, to create more even match ups and over-all better competitive experience.

As I said elsewhere, asymmetric match ups get boring, fast, and are part of the problem beyond that presented by structural issues with the maps.

I think they should base it on guilds, make it actual guild wars…you challenge a guild set up a time (1hr) where you get a map basically attack and defend one of the old alpine maps and at 30 mins u switch leading team at end wins…would need a leaderboard with challenge messages…maybe be able to challenge 10 ranks above and 10 ranks below….not sure if this is actually doable or not but it could be a new way to implement pvp and guilds together…it would succk for smaller guilds but they could challenge other small guilds for better fight…they could gdt rid of eotm then and make wvw like eotm meaning making 3 factions instead of 24 servers…guild fights would reduce the number in wvw and would reduce the queue times…6 factions might be better tbh not sure on gw numbers

Weli.4568:

I don’t think this is good idea. It would simply ruin the last bits of what was called server pride. Some communities have been working hard to get where they were but free transfers and what not kinda kittened it up.

Sure it would be the be the fastest way to get more players into wvw. But would that be the best way. Don’t think so, reducing the amount of servers has been also suggested multiple times but that is also kind of question mark. Obviously it would cause an uproar from the servers that have been merged. Again it comes down to server pride I guess if there even is such a thing anymore. Some people have decided to stay on their server for a reason. Whether it’s good community, the “fights” server or the k-train server with 24/7 coverage.

But do you think this would would cause EotM effect aka uplvls everywhere and just a huge k-train running around the maps?

WvW server pride will remain with my proposed system. The servers ranking remains and people can be proud of their server contribution for WvW.

jdallen.5179:

RedBaron.6058:

This is the first step to fix WvW. All other fixes need to come after this issue is solved.

Balance WvW population using the megaserver system and grouping together all servers of a region using the server ranking as below:
<snippage for brevity>

With this proposed system EVERYONE will enjoy WvW because he/she will be fighting with balanced team numbers most of the time. Individual players will get their loot, will earn their WvW points to get abilities and so on, while enjoying WvW despite belonging to a low population server.

WvW is the best part of GW2 but its implementation was never given top priority by ANet because the company feels that WvW is played by a residual number of players.

If the teams have balanced numbers the players will fill WvW maps. With the right rewards and a few more fixes, GW2 WvW can be a great part of this awesome game.

Thanks for reading.

All feedback welcome.

Hat tip to you, Red Baron for thinking out of the box.

I’m not sure what you’ve proposed will work, mechanically, but functionally is moving in the right direction – trying to find some way to balance populations and match ups via the megaserver system, to create more even match ups and over-all better competitive experience.

As I said elsewhere, asymmetric match ups get boring, fast, and are part of the problem beyond that presented by structural issues with the maps.

Thank you.

ANet has all the tools to fix the servers population imbalance in WvW but never gave it the proper priority.

Chase.2798:

I think they should base it on guilds, make it actual guild wars…you challenge a guild set up a time (1hr) where you get a map basically attack and defend one of the old alpine maps and at 30 mins u switch leading team at end wins…would need a leaderboard with challenge messages…maybe be able to challenge 10 ranks above and 10 ranks below….not sure if this is actually doable or not but it could be a new way to implement pvp and guilds together…it would succk for smaller guilds but they could challenge other small guilds for better fight…they could gdt rid of eotm then and make wvw like eotm meaning making 3 factions instead of 24 servers…guild fights would reduce the number in wvw and would reduce the queue times…6 factions might be better tbh not sure on gw numbers

I do not agree with the creation of extra niches for WvW making it even more imbalanced.

The true glory of WvW will be achieved when the vast majority of GW2 players participate in it for the fun and the rewards.

For the guild vs guild challenges I think the PvP system is more appropriated to have it.
The PvP system is well balanced, allowing all players to fight with the same level equipment, and has always been the place for the more professional and serious players.

I’m not sure the megaserver system can be used to group home worlds together.

Its basic function according to this article is to group players from different home worlds together.

NA & EU servers are kept separate using the megaserver system.

It’s the player’s choice of Home World that determines their Match-Up within the Current Tier based system.

You might need to work on your mechanics…trying to help you expand your thinking outside the box.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/April_2014_Feature_Pack#Megaserver_system

Players will no longer be segregated into separate copies of a map based on their home world selection.

Instead, all players will be placed into shared copies (instances) of the map, which will be instantiated as necessary to hold the current population of that map.

Overflow shards will no longer exist.

Maps are still region-based, i.e. North American servers are separate from European servers.

Upon entering a map, players will be placed in the copy of the map based on a set of heuristics which includes your party, guild, language, and home world.

This will dramatically increase the chance that you will be placed in the same map as your party and guildmates, or other players who speak your language.

The initial roll-out will affect PvP lobbies and low population maps.

This will allow the system to be tested on low population densities before being introduced to high population maps such as cities and popular spots for farming or events.

The roll-out of the megaserver system was completed on April 21st, 2014.

Still trying to understand…

Are you proposing to let the megaserver system change an individual’s choice of a Home World to re-balance the WvW population levels?

If so…then will your proposal also plan to have the megaserver system also pick an individual’s Home World choice for them if they just started playing GW2?

Definitely out of the box…

Diku.2546:

I’m not sure the megaserver system can be used to group home worlds together.

Its basic function according to this article is to group players from different home worlds together.

NA & EU servers are kept separate using the megaserver system.

It’s the player’s choice of Home World that determines their Match-Up within the Tier based system.

---

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/April_2014_Feature_Pack#Megaserver_system

Players will no longer be segregated into separate copies of a map based on their home world selection.

Instead, all players will be placed into shared copies (instances) of the map, which will be instantiated as necessary to hold the current population of that map.

Overflow shards will no longer exist.

Maps are still region-based, i.e. North American servers are separate from European servers.

Upon entering a map, players will be placed in the copy of the map based on a set of heuristics which includes your party, guild, language, and home world.

This will dramatically increase the chance that you will be placed in the same map as your party and guildmates, or other players who speak your language.

The initial roll-out will affect PvP lobbies and low population maps.⁶

This will allow the system to be tested on low population densities before being introduced to high population maps such as cities and popular spots for farming or events.

The roll-out of the megaserver system was completed on April 21st, 2014.

Using the information you posted I will highlight the important part:

Upon entering a map, players will be placed in the copy of the map based on a set of heuristics which includes your party, guild, language, and home world.

The set of heuristics can be easily programmed in order to read:

“Upon entering a WvW map, players will be placed in the copy of the map based on a set of heuristics which includes your party, guild, language, and home world weekly WvW grouping.”

I suspect that the language factor is what lies behind ANet fear to introduce the megaserver system into WvW. But if it works for PvE complex meta events why not introducing it to WvW?

You’ll have to confirm the following…if I misunderstand your proposal…sorry in advance:

When a person enters a WvW map.

Players get automatically assigned a WvW Home World based on who they play with.

We’ll naturally assume that the system will look at a player’s existing Home World membership as a reference point.

The new system will probably impact new WvW players a lot more than the veterans.

New players who don’t have a WvW reference point will need to play with a player that already has one, or they’ll be allowed to pick one…that will later change…based on who they play with….

Mental note: Hmm…once a player starts…they’re locked with that Home World choice…cause they will play with the players of that world….I might be wrong about this logic.

Oh wait…they could do more PvE stuff to change it…never mind. They just need to ask players what their WvW Home World is…and then do PvE stuff with those players to change their WvW Home World.

Hmm…possible server stacking might result from this player behavior is left un-checked.

Potentially….all players may end up on a different Home World from where they started.

Next the Tier based system will need to be re-worked to pair up matches based on the new WvW population levels of Home Worlds managed by the megaserver system.

EU Example:
Tier 1 – World 1 vs 2 vs 3
Tier 2 – World 4 vs 5 vs 6
Tier 3 – World 7 vs 8 vs 9
Tier 4 – World 10 vs 11 vs 12
Tier 5 – World 13 vs 14 vs 15
Tier 6 – World 16 vs 17 vs 18
Tier 7 – World 19 vs 20 vs 21
Tier 8 – World 22 vs 23 vs 24
Tier 9 – World 25 vs 26 vs 27

How do players change their assigned WvW Home World if they don’t like it?

If players want to play in World 1 because it’s more fun to play in Tier 1 & win?

Sorry for the hard questions…but trying to expand your idea & correct anything that might have a negative impact…that way it can be addressed in the design stage.

Hope you can figure out a solution, or let me know that I’m misunderstanding the mechanic that you’re proposing.

I really admire you’re thinking outside the box…because things won’t change unless we try…which is what you’re trying to do…which in my opinion is no easy task.

Only respect here…

Diku.2546:

Hope you can figure out a solution, or let me know that I’m misunderstanding the mechanic that you’re proposing.

I really admire you’re thinking outside the box…because things won’t change unless we try…which is what you’re trying to do…which in my opinion is no easy task.

Only respect here…

My idea is very simple: Do not change the present WvW server ranking system. Transform the whole WvW into a megaserver with 3 parties, as present: Green, Blue and Red.

Every week at WvW reset all world servers are grouped, 1 server from each tier, and assigned to represent 1 colour for the week. Each colour will have 1 server from tier 1, 1 server from tier 2, etc.

At the end of the week, the colour parties will have their overall results as they are calculated now but behind the present system ANet needs to introduce a system to calculate the different contribution of different servers to the overall result and feed these results to the server ranking system to keet it changing according to the server performance.

I hope this clarifies my idea.

Thanks for the feedback and questions..:)

RedBaron.6058:

With this proposed system EVERYONE will enjoy WvW because he/she will be fighting with balanced team numbers most of the time.[..]

Thanks for reading.

All feedback welcome.

• I like that you’re proposing something to give us all a full map to play on.
• I don’t like that you’re proposing something that would give us zero community feels and prevent us playing with the same people all the time (i.e. one server could conceivably have people spread across multiple instances of the same map).
• If you want to make a system like this, Anet could just bin the server concept entirely.

Thanks…that helps to clarify things more…still fuzzy…but this is what I see now:

Alliance – Green
Alliance – Blue
Alliance – Red

So All Home Servers are re-assigned into a Color Alliance at the Weekly Reset that automatically balances Match-Up between all servers.

Players get placed into Home Worlds that the Megaserver system deems to be the best match for them to play on…based on their friends & family.

Hope I got that right now.

My main concern…would player behavior patterns lead to server stacking if a Megaserver system is used to determine which Home Server a player ends up playing for?

Oh my…I think Home Worlds would just be practical containers to hold players together for the sake of holding a Match-Up because the Megaserver system will move players around as it deems the best choice for them. This is not good or bad…mostly players will be encouraged to play with their friends & family using this system. Is this correct?

Do we need to be concerned about player’s abusing the Megaserver system to stack their Home server, or this wouldn’t apply because I’m still misunderstanding something very simple that other players see clearly.

@Diku: In short: When he says MegaServer, he is talking about the way Edge Of The Mist is using it.

(The combining multiple servers into one color/alliance is also part of what the Mega Server technology can do).

Don’t make it more complicated than it has to be

@RedBaron: I do think we’re going to see some use of MegaServer/EotM in the end, but no idea what ANet has in mind.

I do think that moving everyone into 3 groups will be too small, and should at least be 6 groups. So we actually have Match-up’s. And Europe is going to create so much problems for them with all the specific language servers.

I’m still worried about how this will affect coverage. If all they do is splash on MegaS/EotM teams, we will still have plenty of empty maps during the non-prime hours. I really hope they look at using the MegaS/EotM system of creating/destroying maps, so they can adjust the number of maps to the current population, I think that might do more good in the long run.

@joneirikb

Thanks for helping to clarify things…sorry I don’t play EotM. I didn’t like EotM…not my cup of tea.

Really Loved the Old Alpine Map. I’m still trying out New Desert Map & trying to get used to it.

Didn’t mean to be complicated. I’m mentally trying to get a firm picture of how things will be laid out with this proposal.

Current Match-Ups

EU Example:
Tier 1 – World 1 vs 2 vs 3
Tier 2 – World 4 vs 5 vs 6
Tier 3 – World 7 vs 8 vs 9
Tier 4 – World 10 vs 11 vs 12
Tier 5 – World 13 vs 14 vs 15
Tier 6 – World 16 vs 17 vs 18
Tier 7 – World 19 vs 20 vs 21
Tier 8 – World 22 vs 23 vs 24
Tier 9 – World 25 vs 26 vs 27

New Color based Alliance:

Green – World chosen as an Example by OP
World 01
World 04
World 07
World 10
World 13
World 16
World 19
World 22
World 25

Blue – World chosen as an Example by OP
World 02
World 05
World 08
World 11
World 14
World 17
World 20
World 23
World 26

Red – World chosen as an Example by OP
World 03
World 06
World 09
World 12
World 15
World 18
World 21
World 24
World 27

Proposed Match-Ups after the Alliances are created:

Green v Blue v Red – (3 Alliances)

I’m still fuzzy on how the game mechanics of EotM works…this is how I think it works:

New WvW Maps are spawned & players get dropped into the corner of their Alliance Color?

I’m going to assume that players are going to be pulled from any World Server to spawn an instance for a WvW Map until it’s full.

What happens to my Home Server membership?

Does the Megaserver system automatically move me to another World server later when it calculates that I’m better off being on a different World server because of my gameplay with PvE friends?

So server stacking wouldn’t be a concern based on player behavior in this proposal?

Still trying to understand your proposal, but I’m Totally Not Happy about loosing my server identity…which in my opinion…is a core reason why many WvW players continue to play when it’s not as rewarding as PvE.

I’m cool with you as a fellow player though…who is trying to propose a fix for something that has been a major source of pain to the WvW Community…but I’m not so sure the fix is better than living with the problem.

Careful on commenting on this post…has yet to be confirmed with OP.

With merged servers/alliances any sense of server community/identity etc would go into the toilet. Not to mention that apart for some bottom rank servers merging servers is simply impossible due to too big populations.

And btw i can’t believe that after all the hell left behind by the WvW mechanics changes you consider this useless thing as the “first step to fix WvW”. Dem priorities.

Nedus.6952:

With merged servers/alliances any sense of server community/identity etc would go into the toilet. Not to mention that apart for some bottom rank servers merging servers is simply impossible due to too big populations.

And btw i can’t believe that after all the hell left behind by the WvW mechanics changes you consider this useless thing as the “first step to fix WvW”. Dem priorities.

Have to agree with this. The only thing that mergers would do is destroy a lot of communities, create longer prime time queues on EB and drive a lot of other players away.

What you are looking for already exists in the form of eotm and the majority of the WvW community agrees that eotm was a complete failure.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Nedus.6952:

With merged servers/alliances any sense of server community/identity etc would go into the toilet. Not to mention that apart for some bottom rank servers merging servers is simply impossible due to too big populations.

And btw i can’t believe that after all the hell left behind by the WvW mechanics changes you consider this useless thing as the “first step to fix WvW”. Dem priorities.

Have to agree with this. The only thing that mergers would do is destroy a lot of communities, create longer prime time queues on EB and drive a lot of other players away.

What you are looking for already exists in the form of eotm and the majority of the WvW community agrees that eotm was a complete failure.

Well they could make bigger prime time for empty servers :\, to that would be half of a solution, but at long term would be the same.
For merging work they had to unify EU with usa wich i think it is impossible, since each one has its own prime time.

That would just be the x step to another failiure. This would just ruin the competition of what’s left among the servers. I would hate to be paired with Vizunah Square [FR] for example. That would be so bad for me, lol. I don’t wanna join these other servers that dodge battles and goes PvD’ing all day.

Thank you for all the feedback.

Unfortunately, the present state of WvW speaks for itself.

When things go wrong, something needs to be done to correct them. If left unattended, all the issues plaguing WvW will push away more and more players and in the end you will have a different version of PvP played as WvW between a few dozen guilds and a few hundred players on other maps than PvP maps (within the whole player base of GW2).

Sorry, but this is not my vision for WvW. WvW should be a massive event with a massive player participation. WvW is War. PvP is skirmishing. Please do not mix both.

WvW is imho the part of GW2 with the biggest potential yet to explore.

PvE and meta events are nice but after a few runs is always the same and people just keep doing it because of rewards.

A lot of money has been invested by ANet trying to build up the PvP/competitive part of GW2 but I think that the investment has not given any proper return yet.

WvW with massive participation and appropriated rewards, both for character progression, gear and skins, could boost GW2 to an higher new level. WvW is always new, zergs never behave exactly like the last time, people find new ways of harassing and wining from their opponents.

To let WvW die because of inaction would be a capital sin from ANet.

@OP

Wow…well said about a capital sin from ANet.

They stand at the brink of being the sole provider of equipment, training field, amateur and professional playing fields…both national & international venues.

Imagine owning everything that is related to whatever makes the NFL Super Bowl what it is.

Diku.2546:

@OP

Wow…well said about a capital sin from ANet.

They stand at the brink of being the sole provider of equipment, training field, amateur and professional playing fields…both national & international venues.

Imagine owning everything that is related to whatever makes the NFL Super Bowl what it is.

When I organized LAN parties at my house to my friends I was in the same position.

But that does not mean they have anything worthy.

Compairing NFL Super Bowl with it is beyond ridiculous, sorry.

eSport is coming…GW2 might not get it done.

My real point is that somebody else will…even if ANet with GW2 WvW doesn’t:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page/instantawesome-leagueoflegends-141201/league-legends-championships-watched-more-people-nba-finals-world-series-clinchers

After sitting in EotM for a bit…I can see why ANet wants to push ahead with an EotM style WvW borderland. Lots of players from multiple servers provide critical mass of players.

Question is how do you get them to fight each other using the Megaserver system as its base.

EotM currently has to tie back to the physical servers in WvW to create the Alliances.

This is like the question that asks…Which comes first…chicken or an egg.

So the Current WvW game mode…I’m guessing…might be on it’s way out.

I’d really appreciate if K-trainers would stop posting “how to fix WvW”.

For real WvW players there s something called community and server pride. You take that away, you get eotm. If people on their respectable servers lose their community they lose interest playing this mode (like me). With other words you killed wvw.

That said i don’t want to play with players that don’t enjoy wvw already… i don’t care about them. They’re not wvw players. It’s that simple. Don’t force yourself on me please. Again, there’s already a map for you.

Don’t get me wrong… there are always new players that get every help of me if they ask questions. But those come in, cause they’re genuinely interested in the mode, no new rewards or perma filled up maps with 24/7 K-Train or asking where they can do their Ruins daily.

Seriously, the OP is just soo kitten wrong i’d end up writing an essay why that is and he still wouldn’t get it.

btw: I’ve never played top tier, always bottom and now mid.

bb&hf

RedBaron.6058:

This is the first step to fix WvW. All other fixes need to come after this issue is solved.

Balance WvW population using the megaserver system and grouping together all servers of a region using the server ranking as below:

NO!

ANet is probably working on a WvW fix using the megaserver system anyway.

They know WvW is fading away…