Guild Wars 2

The way we transfer worlds needs to change. I would earn the gold needed to transfer in 2 months of wvw. Even with new worlds being free eventually we would need to rejoin old worlds.

But yes I would join a new world if transfers were changed.

Offer a free transfer every 3 months, any extra transfer would be paid by the player.

Not to shoot it down or anything, but we already have a lot of low population servers that no one wants to transfer to.

What prompts this idea when we have T7 and T8 servers that are nearly dead on their own in NA that was part of what prompted the linking?

Interesting idea, Tyler. I think it would all depend on how it was implemented.

Even after your explanation why, I’m confused. To quote the person above me:

“Not to shoot it down or anything, but we already have a lot of low population servers that no one wants to transfer to.”

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Since it’s seeming increasingly likely that World Linking is going to win the community vote and become a permanent Gw2 feature, the team has been discussing ways to improve the system, especially around further improving population balance, while still allowing players to reliably play with their friends and guildmates.

Hypothetically speaking, if we were to open some additional worlds (and at this point I still don’t know how much work, or how safe a change like that would be), but if we did, would there be player interest in transferring to these new worlds? The new worlds would have lowered population caps and be free to transfer to for a period of time.

The ultimate goal of this hypothetical plan would be two-fold:
1) Give players/guilds that are too big for their ‘Full’ status world an opportunity to move to new worlds, enabling them to grow more easily again.
2) Achieve a larger number of smaller worlds that we can link together to achieve more balanced numbers for each team.

Again, this isn’t something we necessarily can or will do. The purpose of this post is just to quickly feel out community interest, to see if it was worth spending the time it would take to seriously investigate this option.

More segregation would be unhealthy long term. It’s best to pool more players into one space.

Take a look at this…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Suggestion-Living-WvW-updated/first

Edit- Linking and rewards were a good start to boost population, but a much stronger reinvestment into wvw should be made.

In addition to the long term health of wvw for GW2 players, I’m also concerned with a couple new RvRvR focused games coming out… One I’m not too familiar with, but one will be completely designed around RvRvR. With that in mind, I’m hard pressed to think that the previous, current and hypothetical “more segregation” wvw designs will be interesting enough to hold players. As I said, linking and rewards were a good start, but GW2 RvRvR needs some major TLC if you wish to retain players long term and grow this portion of the game.

Would also be great to bring us major profession improvements to improve the combat experience.

Not sure what this is going to accomplish. People who wanted to stack servers transferred up to higher servers than they were on. Or since linking went to the low servers that were linked with high tiers.

I think overall the linking has been a success even in Tier 3 NA the fights have been great from small engagements to big fights during Late NA when I play (sure the annoying condi thieves are getting old but that is player preference not matchmaking fault)

Don’t see new servers as doing much.

XTR.9604:

Not to shoot it down or anything, but we already have a lot of low population servers that no one wants to transfer to.

What prompts this idea when we have T7 and T8 servers that are nearly dead on their own in NA that was part of what prompted the linking?

This. What would be the reason to transfer to new worlds over existing low pop worlds in say T4 NA?

This looks like a solution in search of a problem.

How are player transfers distributed right now? It looks like there are 12 non-full NA worlds at the moment. Have player transfers in NA been evenly distributed so far (e.g. 8-9% to each) or have they been uneven?

If they’ve been uneven, that would seem to suggest what transferring players actually want more of.

Heimlich.3065:

This looks like a solution in search of a problem.

QFT

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: This won’t work due to the way server communities in general operate. There’s no incentive to move down to a quiet server because that server will lack activity. Activity breeds more activity and the opposite is true as well – inactivity breeds more inactivity. Unless there’s a mass scale transfer down to new worlds, it will be a failed attempt to try rebalance population.

I don’t think it would work, as the reason T1 servers are stacked and overpopulated in the first place is the competitive nature of those that chose to move there. I think the best you can do is cap those servers at their current population levels and merge/open the already low-pop servers to transfers and new accounts up until they reach similar population levels, and only bring new worlds in if all servers have hit the designated population level and have been capped off for transfers or new accounts.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

1) Give players/guilds that are too big for their ‘Full’ status world an opportunity to move to new worlds, enabling them to grow more easily again.

1) Guilds don’t really move to empty servers to grow. For example, the OCX guild LATE transferred from FA to ET (BG) because they wanted/needed to tap into the recruitment pool there.

Thanks for that clarification, Tyler. I see how it solves ANet’s problem, but I don’t see how it solves problems for any player.

No rational player is going to volunteer to join a team that’s liable to lose. That’s especially true if winning gives access to rewards like tournament tokens or Hero’s weapon/armor skins.

Well since the playerbase according to ur voting system likes the paired world system and wants half the servers to lose all their identity….why don’t you just rename all the servers? Then everyone can enjoy the ‘new start’ feeling that was shoved down 1/4 of the playerbase’s throats. I mean….the people voted! They said they were okay with this kind of stuff! All is fair…so how about you just…

DESTROY THE REMAINING SERVERS SO THEY CAN SHARE IN OUR SUFFERING WHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHA

More on topic : I would love to leave HoD and dispose of my remaining loyalty to ehmry bay into the shredder. I would be the FIRST to join the new world and help start a new community. I LOVE THIS IDEA, especially with the prospect of it not taking diamonds and gold I don’t have. I mean if you had an alternative way to change servers like by using badges I would fully support that…..that way only experienced wvsw players are the ones transferring. For this new world you might considering charging badges upfront for the first batches of players….this would slow the transfer rate and allow you to monitor and control how many people and how experienced of players join the new world.
Alternatively I’m sure if you charged 1000 gems per transfer you would make alot of real world cash. People would spend for this and still kiss your feet

Cerby: Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Heimlich.3065:

No rational player is going to volunteer to join a team that’s liable to lose.

I don’t see how this new world would be liable to lose. The primary goal is to give Anet more flexibility when pairing worlds so that in general match ups are more evenly distributed (scoring-wise). The chances of winning would essentially be random.

I still think the correct solution is match ups should be region based: a heavily OCX server shouldn’t match up to a heavily EU server if you catch my drift (aka PvD), I suggested a solution in a recent post.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

I feel this hypothetical situation will cause more headaches long term due to the human factor.

Swedemon.4670:

Heimlich.3065:

No rational player is going to volunteer to join a team that’s liable to lose.

I don’t see how this new world would be liable to lose. The primary goal is to give Anet more flexibility when pairing worlds so that in general match ups are more evenly distributed (scoring-wise). The chances of winning would essentially be random.

I still think the correct solution is match ups should be region based: a heavily OCX server shouldn’t match up to a heavily EU server if you catch my drift (aka PvD), I suggested a solution in a recent post.

It depends on where you’re transferring from. If you’re currently on a server that has regularly won its matchups since pairings began, then transferring anywhere else makes you less likely to win.

IMO, server stacking is a fact of life and voluntary player action isn’t going to de-stack servers. Solutions then are forcibly de-stacking servers (which I do not support) or making gameplay interesting and fun despite stacking.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

The problem with the logic is simple. I want to be in a higher population server because that means more fights. I really enjoyed being on Blackgate before the worlds were linked and ET stacked BG up with transfers in. Ultimately it caused me to leave Blackgate, a server I enjoyed being on because of the queues. Now I am all for the server linking system, I just don’t think T1 should have been linked is all.

I understand that those new servers would likely be linked with some other servers, which is fine, but I don’t know that anyone will really want to pick their guild up and leave a server they’ve established relationships with other guilds on because of a free transfer either.

Interesting idea, however it seems counterproductive to server linking if it is to become a permanent feature. How would these new worlds be implemented, there would have to be at least 3, if they are left unlinked which I assume would be the case, then these worlds would be essentially locked in the same matchups forever which would become stale very quickly, unless even more worlds are created for the same purpose and it would have to be in three’s. This would basically create two different wvw’s and stretch out the playerbase way to thin not to mention the investment of anet resources.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Hypothetically speaking, if we were to open some additional worlds (and at this point I still don’t know how much work, or how safe a change like that would be), but if we did, would there be player interest in transferring to these new worlds? The new worlds would have lowered population caps and be free to transfer to for a period of time.

Another way to spread the population over the worlds would be to delete all existing worlds and make all new worlds very small mini-worlds with low population caps (10% or 30% of now). Then you can link these new mini-worlds better together to big-worlds and balance the population better.

1. Leave the top three tiers alone, no linking, their pops were already fine.
2. Combine tier 4 and 5
3. Combine tier 6, 7 and 8.

High population, medium population, low population. Any of the tiers you link create a brand new name for.

So now you would have tiers:
Tier 1 * Very high pop
Tier 2 * Fairly high pop
Tier 3 * High pop
Tier 4 (the old tier 4 and tier 5 linked) * Medium pop
Tier 5 ( the old tier 6 tier 7 and tier 8 linked) * Lower medium population

Seems a pretty easy and equitable fix.

I think the way you linked EU was closer to an ideal. Top populated servers became solo, the rest matched up. I’d suggest this method might work for NA.

I understand that further reducing server cap size will help with the linking and parity, but as many here have pointed out, you already have existing low tier servers that no one will move to.

Certainly the novelty of a “brand new server” will appeal to a few, but until you find a solution for the bandwagoner, you’re only delaying the inevitable stacking that will occur. So this solution, unfortunately, doesn’t offer a long term fix for the health of the game.

Save the cheerleader, save the world(s)? Nope. More like stop the bandwagoners, save the game.

P.S. Keep the linking. It gives you more control over some of the server gaming that’s occurred.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

The other issue is how do you guarantee you have opponents to fight against? Unless there is a some sort of “pledging guild to transfer here” system that is available to public viewing (so they can see if enemys are actually there), I don’t think people will transfer to fight npcs. Of course this could work against you, unless you disallow tier progress on said servers so stacking to move up tiers is pointless.

It’s one of the issues BG sea time zone has, and TC eu time zone has, being that there aren’t formidable opponents to play against.

I don’t represent any of the “off-hour” people, but BG sea and JQ sea can queue 2-3 maps which is a significant population that merely wants to fight one another, but due to the effects of transfers in/out in the other timezones…they can’t. Unfortunately, I don’t think these Sea guilds/people voice their opinions on this forum (they usually are korean, thai, japanese, w.e.)

I can see how this benefits you but I am not sure what benefit I would get from such a system, and I don’t know how this would meaningfully encourage the top 4 servers that you’ve previously noted as being heavily stacked to break up.

I don’t dislike the idea, I think it would help if it did succeed, but I don’t see it succeeding. If you found an appropriate incentive that would actually pull players and guilds from the larger servers onto the new servers, that could work, but I can’t immediately think of an appropriate incentive that would convince people to go through the hassle.

Question specifically to T1+JQ players; what sort of thing would actually make you and your guild want to leave your T1 server+community and take a chance on a new world? Will enabled transfers be enough?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

Don’t buy into those statements. It’s political gaming to buy more guilds. Stack the bleeding of players.

Whenever it’s been suggested in the past that these guilds join less populated servers to enjoy the game with incoming friends, it’s been flatly refused. They’re not going to do it with new servers. Or they may, and leave main accounts on T1, and then return to their main account after the shiny wears off of the new servers.

Sarrs.4831:

Question specifically to T1+JQ players; what sort of thing would actually make you and your guild want to leave your T1 server+community and take a chance on a new world? Will enabled transfers be enough?

Only if there was a good fight, and no cost/grind associated with seeking the fight. To your point of “community” that gets thrown around as well, how is it defined? How much community do the BG (or any server) NA really share with the Sea, eu, ocx, other timezones?

Sarrs.4831:

Question specifically to T1+JQ players; what sort of thing would actually make you and your guild want to leave your T1 server+community and take a chance on a new world? Will enabled transfers be enough?

$300. unless they force player switch, there will always be an stacked side.

Combining servers as the population continues to decay is the best current option to keep costs down.

Chinchilla.1785:

Only if there was a good fight, and no cost/grind associated with seeking the fight. To your point of “community” that gets thrown around as well, how is it defined? How much community do the BG (or any server) NA really share with the Sea, eu, ocx, other timezones?

By community I mean

Let’s say you and your guild decide “yep, let’s do it, we’re moving”. Kazo goes to the new server. They’d be leaving behind CERN, GS, OnS, etc. That presumably has costs to you and your guild; you’ve got friends there and you’ve got infrastructure like the server teamspeak and the forums.

What incentive would make the loss of those friends and that infrastructure acceptable?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Ah, just to clarify. These hypothetical new worlds would be linked upon creation, and they’d be linked to the lowest/lower tiers (depending on how many we created.)

Using existing T4 NA as an example:

• HoD + Ebay + New1
• DH + FC + New2
• NSP + SF + New3

I had a thought; what if instead they were targeted server transfers from T1 servers(&JQ) to new servers, which were linked to their host servers?

Let’s take TC as an example. You have plans to make 2 new servers to try to split the TC population. TC gets free transfers to these two servers and the immediate server linkup becomes TC+Kaineng+Bob+Steve. Maybe Kaineng also gets transfers to these servers.

This’d mean that immediate matchups aren’t compromised, you have a very clear window of transfer length and you’re not putting at risk servers which you feel already have a healthy head count. Also gives you a bit of time to say “this migration program isn’t working let’s cancel it”.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Ah, just to clarify. These hypothetical new worlds would be linked upon creation, and they’d be linked to the lowest/lower tiers (depending on how many we created.)

Using existing T4 NA as an example:

• HoD + Ebay + New1
• DH + FC + New2
• NSP + SF + New3

What if one them moved up to t3? 3 servers combined would give a pretty large advantage. Would that server be eventually unlinked, would the new world stay put or be moved up as well, how long would it take? So many questions :o

Sounds like you guys are suggesting to create “mercenary” servers.

X T D.6458:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Ah, just to clarify. These hypothetical new worlds would be linked upon creation, and they’d be linked to the lowest/lower tiers (depending on how many we created.)

Using existing T4 NA as an example:

• HoD + Ebay + New1
• DH + FC + New2
• NSP + SF + New3

What if one them moved up to t3? 3 servers combined would give a pretty large advantage. Would that server be eventually unlinked, would the new world stay put or be moved up as well, how long would it take? So many questions :o

Gotta agree with XTD. At first glance I kinda liked the idea but the more I thought about it the more questions and potential problems came to mind.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

I would think if guilds are willing to transfer off their current world they would do so to one of the current low ranked servers. Making new servers isn’t going to change this.

Sarrs.4831:

Chinchilla.1785:

Only if there was a good fight, and no cost/grind associated with seeking the fight. To your point of “community” that gets thrown around as well, how is it defined? How much community do the BG (or any server) NA really share with the Sea, eu, ocx, other timezones?

By community I mean

Let’s say you and your guild decide “yep, let’s do it, we’re moving”. Kazo goes to the new server. They’d be leaving behind CERN, GS, OnS, etc. That presumably has costs to you and your guild; you’ve got friends there and you’ve got infrastructure like the server teamspeak and the forums.

What incentive would make the loss of those friends and that infrastructure acceptable?

I don’t speak for Kazo. But they play during EU, so I can assume that most don’t have ties to GS/OnS/NA guilds (and in that way it wouldn’t be a loss). I know some do have a tie to CERN (since they play during EU). However, not all of them do, just by the fact Kazo has transferred before. I believe initially transferring to TC meant good EU fights with DB (at that time).

If this idea that Tyler presented, or similar ideas, somehow magically guaranteed a good fight, then Kazo might consider transferring. You can always chat, pve, rp, and be on ts with anyone from any server. It’s the match making issues that stand.

Clownmug.8357:

Sounds like you guys are suggesting to create “mercenary” servers.

This seems like a good way to put it. Very small population servers that can (and should) be linked to different servers depending on where they’re needed on a weekly basis.

Give them mercenary group styled names instead of world names and it could be quite enticing. [Shining Blade, White Mantle, Am Fah etc]

Edit: This should help servers that are struggling against Bandwagoned servers that are too bloated to fight normally.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

So again, one of the major advantages of world linking is that worlds will be periodically relinked as populations drift over time. To keep relative world populations roughly in balance. So if hypothetically the triple linked T4 worlds all filled and became supermassive T1 worlds, then that advantage would be normalized at the next relinking.

Right but assuming that relinking is done every 3 months, with the recent glicko changes that new super server would have a giant impact on matchups, only to be relinked in someway eventually and would most likely drop back down. Meanwhile while waiting ratings and rankings are becoming meaningless because the matchups are way to imbalanced. Kind of seems like it would just be a repeating cycle, maybe I am missing something…

The problem with guild recruitment for the top tier NA servers isn’t that simple.

For example let’s take JQ for example. They are a heavy SEA server with little NA. If you were a WvW NA guild on JQ you would struggle to recruit much since the population just isn’t there for THAT PARTICULAR TIMEZONE. Forcing their NA to move to a lower tier server so they can recruit people is just stupid because it makes JQ NA even worse off.

All this linking stuff does not take into account any timezone disparity at all and just frustrates people that don’t play NA prime. There’s barely enough action in OCX/SEA as is even on Blackgate which is ‘stacked’ and it doesn’t even look half as active as NA prime.

If you make more servers with low population caps, there will be literally no one playing OCX/SEA on those servers because let’s face it who’s going to transfer over for even less WvW activity and linking them to low tiers does nothing because they already have no activity in those timezones.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

So again, one of the major advantages of world linking is that worlds will be periodically relinked as populations drift over time. To keep relative world populations roughly in balance. So if hypothetically the triple linked T4 worlds all filled and became supermassive T1 worlds, then that advantage would be normalized at the next relinking.

Yes, you’d just re-calculate this during reset, system would scramble the worlds and cross-match again, end goal is to achieve a balanced 3 faction system, regardless of number of worlds linked to each faction, less servers is always easier to work with…less is more.

You could…

1. Calculate/snapshot player numbers for each server taking into account the following conditions:
- Total number of players on that server during reset
- Total # of active players out of total number of players that “actively participated in WvW” for that server during reset
- Duration of snapshot taken: Once per week for all 12 servers

2. Cross-match the 12 servers and group them into 1 of the 3 factions

3. Rinse and repeat each week, you can even log the data and do #2 using a ‘counter’ manually due to time

Note: Since people are always coming and going to WvW from PvE, certain weeks you’ll have example combinations like below, but Pop numbers would equalize or be very close, which should work in the long run:

Week 1: 2 servers VS 4 servers VS 6 servers (1st snapshot)
Week 2: 1 server VS 3 servers VS 8 servers (2nd snapshot – certain players jumped onto 1 of the winning servers)
Week 3: 1 server VS 1 server VS 10 servers (3rd snapshot – more player migration to strongest server)

However, do consider having player’s name tags represent their SERVERS’ naming convention within that 1 FACTION to encourage mini-squads and multiple tags (For example Kaineng silver invader on the map would appear as *an ally to a Fort Aspenwood silver invader on the same side), this would change the dynamics of the battle + *allow player association with server identity. The strongest 1 server (faction) will be forced to strategize against the other Factions consisting of 10 sub-groups on the map at once, you’d also be able to minimize spies since the 1 server FACTION with a zerg can’t be at 10 places at once…

As well, you could give handy caps to certain servers depending on scoring + rewards…you’d need some tweaks to the current system in place to compensate for above server FACTION structure…

Comments/thoughts welcomed!

Woop S.7851:

Comments/thoughts welcomed!

waaaay beyond scope

as far as i can tell this is mainly about easing the server pops so that people can form guilds and play wvw together with their friends

What happened to the alliance system you guys were working on? Did you guys decide to scrap that idea altogether or push it back and try other stuff (like this thread) before doing alliances?

The linking thing is already a mess, tbh. And I don’t really think a yes/no poll accurately reflects players’ opinions on world linking, but whatever. Adding additional servers and messing around with the parings all the time is just going to create even more of a mess. You’re already doing server merges and calling it “linked worlds” (great marketing spin there, btw) and adding new servers into the mix would pretty much end whatever is left of the community aspect of WvW.

It’s already the case that each server is left with a small core of players/guilds on each server that will stay on their server no matter what. Then you have the guilds and players that are willing to transfer around for a variety of reasons (drama, fights, boredem, etc.) but not necessarily transferring with any kind of frequency (in other words, these guilds aren’t moving every month). Adding in more servers would probably just accelerate that kind of transferring and probably end whatever is left of “community” in WvW. I realize not everyone cares about the community part of WvW, but it’s one of the things that makes the WvW mode unique.

Edit: to summarize: adding more servers would be moving WvW more towards Megaserver EotM-style play which isn’t what people want.

Giving us a chance to move with free transfers is a good idea, but opening a new server is bad. Few guilds want to transfer to a server with no prospect of recruitment, and a server with only wvw guilds in it is definitely not going to give recruitment opportunity.

Don’t be hesitant to overstack the low tiers. They don’t have the organisation or skill to fight on even terms, give them a chance and give the stronger servers a challenge.

Edit: Apparently kittens are not allow to be shy.

I’d be absolutely down for that ^^ I was changing servers a lot back in the days, so I never felt really connected to one. Maybe I could change that with a newly created one =D

Also, I and I think many others too would appreciate names that kind of have a theme to them or are interesting for other reasons. For example Glint’s Lair would be a really interesting name for a server in my opinion. ^^ But that may just be me.

personally i would consider moving, but i am on fc and not on a full server already. im not in a position to want to move, except to get away from a link i dont like. however, i dont think players on the overstacked servers would want to transfer out because they already have an advantage by being overstacked and many of them also think the low tiers dont have organization or skill.

Ultra Hades.4691:

.

Don’t be hesitant to overstack the low tiers. They don’t have the organisation or skill to fight on even terms, give them a chance and give the stronger servers a challenge.

Gotta love that fine grade school logic.

Yea, because we all know that the lower tiers suck at everything. Why else would they be in a lower tier?

Do you actually even have ANY experience playing on a lower tier to base that ridiculous comment on?

Maybe ask our TC mates in wvw about how bad a wvw players we are from Kaineng.

/eyeroll

I’d think unlinking a few of the higher population servers would be a better choice—BG, at least, is severely overpopulated during NA prime time. On reset night, every map has a queue as big as (or bigger than) all of ET, and generally 3/4 maps queued every night the rest of the week, so I don’t think they really need us.

The fact that we can’t play when or where we want seems to be gradually killing guilds on the guest servers, too. It’d be nice if someone at Anet would acknowledge this and at least pretend to be sorry.