Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Chaba.5410

Chaba.5410

/15 charrs were sacrificed to the forum bug gods.

Chaba Tangnu
Founding member of [NERF] Fort Engineer and driver for [TLC] The Legion of Charrs
RIP [SIC] Strident Iconoclast

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: TorquedSoul.8097

TorquedSoul.8097

Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

We should have a poll. 30 people on the forum can’t be representative of the general population.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Aeowia.7214

Aeowia.7214

The ideea is good in theory, though calling it “New Worlds” seems to confuse many; it’s about creating more, smaller groups – call it alliances maybe – that can be moved (linked) around as a single entity (because some players want to stay together as “community”, they will be “conserved” into these cells), balancing overall population numbers, while still keeping community cells intact (friends, guilds, followers).

Creating these cells, as many of them as needed, would be a good first step… but in time, these cells would grow as large or even larger, than what we have now. Simply because: there is no way to stop the MAJORITY to want to join the winning side, cell or alliance or world or whatever is that.
So this ideea will lead to nowhere…

The current structure has to go. There will be never balance otherwise.

Why?
1. You are trying to preserve “communities” that at core are tiny, noncompetitive – not without the bandwagoners that are there just because they are currently “winning”.
Very few active players are left that started ~3 years ago, on the same server they are faithful to now. Not enough to make their world competitive. The rest just transferred there (and can do it again if that will lead to a better game), and many have multiple accounts on many servers – this alone makes ALL your efforts futile: these players play where they want, most likely on the server that is winning (except a few of course, but this is a numbers game). Check accounts, compare IP and so on.
2. The player desires are very dividing:
a. hates “blobs” and want small scale vs. want permanent huge battles
b. wants to have “epic” siege wars for hours (defending or attacking) vs. wants to fight without siege (or just short time siege use)
c. wants 20 vs. 20 (add or remove numbers) vs. wants full map blob vs. anything
d. the list goes on…
No way to please all these wants, without upsetting the opposites. There is varied degree of tolerance towards unwanted parts, but the preferences are clear.

This was different at start, before megaservers and when these wants were not so clear (call it “maturity”). Now “new blood” is scarce, and mostly go to winning sides, call it bandwagon maybe, it’s just normal to want to join the “best”, especially when you are newbie.

Solution: a new realm vs. realm system. Patching the old is not possible anymore: doing so upsets all categories, except those currently “winning” (which is temporary), and leads to losing players.

You need new worlds indeed, but not as addition to the current mess, but has to be new. That needs good rules, well mantained constant balancing (the old was abandoned so long that ended in an unfixable mess). Megaserver has to be it’s source of new recruits, anyone has to be able to join any guild or alliance from any former old world.

How that new system will be can be debated and decided, the current communication it’s excellent props to the new WvW team at Anet. Everyone won’t be pleased and can’t be, but the aim hast to be to save the game mode, though in a new form, that can be
1. fairly better balanced, designed from scratch to achieve this – no. 1 priority – thus keeping every side competitive
2. rewarding – whether gold, or special items, including long term work to obtain ascended and legendaries for participation, and so on

[FV] Fearless Vanguard, The Jade Quarry

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Heimlich.3065

Heimlich.3065

Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

We should have a poll. 30 people on the forum can’t be representative of the general population.

If you know people
1) on servers that are currently over-stacked (and thus highly likely to win in their matchups week after week)

2) who are also willing to transfer,

3) along with their guilds

4) to brand new servers

5) that are likely to be matched up with the currently smallest and lowest-performing tiers of servers

Then invite them to comment here.

I personally doubt that many such people exist, but I’d be happy to discover otherwise or to get their input on what would actually encourage people to transfer off of current over-populated servers.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Aeolus.3615

Aeolus.3615

(….)
You need new worlds indeed, but not as addition to the current mess, but has to be new. That needs good rules, well mantained constant balancing (the old was abandoned so long that ended in an unfixable mess). Megaserver has to be it’s source of new recruits, anyone has to be able to join any guild or alliance from any former old world.

How that new system will be can be debated and decided, the current communication it’s excellent props to the new WvW team at Anet. Everyone won’t be pleased and can’t be, but the aim hast to be to save the game mode, though in a new form, that can be
1. fairly better balanced, designed from scratch to achieve this – no. 1 priority – thus keeping every side competitive
2. rewarding – whether gold, or special items, including long term work to obtain ascended and legendaries for participation, and so on

Pretty much this^

Why not with a 3 way faction system with more new maps ?

That as many think would not kill the comunities, each comunity could organize in their map and back up each other as blob usually do to cover the empty alpine BL when is being karma trained.
Alot of non gimmick stuff can be introduced :|

1st April joke, when gw2 receives a “balance” update.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: X T D.6458

X T D.6458

I think the idea is interesting in theory, however the practical and technical limitations that would arise make it seem like the time and resources would be better spent on other projects. Sometimes its just better to keep things simple.

I say what needs to be said, get used to it.
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: gloflop.3510

gloflop.3510

I like the idea. Instead of having few large world, we would have many small once. We can create more dynamic matchups with a higher degree of diversity.

However, the answer to the question if I would transfer to a new world would be a “no”. Why? I like my current world. I know my current world. We have all infrastructure (guilds, TS, etc.). Why shall I waste my time with building up something new? I got no incentive to do it.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Heimlich.3065

Heimlich.3065

I like the idea. Instead of having few large world, we would have many small once. We can create more dynamic matchups with a higher degree of diversity.

However, the answer to the question if I would transfer to a new world would be a “no”. Why? I like my current world. I know my current world. We have all infrastructure (guilds, TS, etc.). Why shall I waste my time with building up something new? I got no incentive to do it.

And here you have the root of all collective action problems. The outcome is desirable, but rational individuals won’t volunteer to suffer a disadvantage for the sake of abstract principle.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

World linking and for for that matter merging worlds aren’t solutions to the balance problem no. As all they do is reshuffle the board without solving the problem. Anet is just unwilling to spend time and effort to do what has to be done and thus try to fool people with this.

It has become obvious to me that you didn’t really read what I wrote.

Yup, that’s the hurdle they will always face with any changes they may want to implement. The communities acceptance of changes. Going forward there is always going to be a group not happy about something, but if players want change and they want improvements and make wvw more balanced and less stale, they will have to be more accepting and work with anet to tweak the changes.

Does anyone really think they haven’t thought about hard server merges? they have, but they’re trying to find the least disruptive solution to the problems. I’ve seen suggestions to just blow it up and reform everything, blow communities that have been around for 3 years? you probably would lose the most players with that option over hard merges or links. I can see wvw maybe going to those last resort options eventually, but it’s not really needed right now when there’s another option to explore in links.

Honestly, I do prefer server merge than a world link. There are way more methods to solve population unbalance issue via server merge than world linking. For example, encouraging players to move down to the less populated servers via free transfer. This will not work well for server link but it will work well for server merge as there are less servers and less means easier control. As for the stacking part, just have to implement a new server cap system to prevent massive movement and to keep all the servers population similar. Then again, there is this community acceptance issue. Then again, if people are happy about server link, after some time, anet could try a poll on server merge as people acceptance change along with time, especially when they got used to the servers combo.

Personally, I think world linking is much more restrictive and more damaging in the long run. I don’t really see how they can balance the population through it. The methods I could think of that may work for world link will require a lot of work (codings) and even then, the effects will not be satisfactory and will still result in more damage.

Community isn’t always right.

Indeed, Popular choice isn’t always the right choice but that’s how the world works, right? Popular choice cannot be ignore and must flow along that direction.

Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International Guild
Henge of Denravi Server
www.gw2time.com

(edited by SkyShroud.2865)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Swagger.1459

Swagger.1459

Let’s do the “maths” people….

We have had server vs server vs server for 3 years, but not enough players to fill server maps.

They are trying alliance vs alliance vs alliance… Still not enough players to fill these maps.

But let’s add more servers?

We need to start thinking logically people… Can’t keep doing the same old and expect different outcomes, it’s not rational.

There are reasons why 3 factions, and stuff like megaserver, works in the long run. Players get over changes fast and it’s time to start making the right decisions.

RvRvR is not suppose to be like glorified spvp matches with an over amount of rules and limitations and restrictions, it’s supposed to be a war. It’s supposed to be more “sandboxy” and epic and filled with players blowing up pixels for fun, not excessive handholding and pandering to players who want the RvRvR experience but complain about “blobs” and “zergs”…

Edit- Here are the other problems too… When the devs created GW2 they went in full steam thinking that there would be millions and millions and millions of players filling up every map across the game… That’s what all game companies hope for, but the reality is that most games dwindle in populations. Despite having an easy way into playing the game because of not having monthly fees, they still had to consolidate populations. “Play for Free” comes along and the estimates were that the monthly concurrency rates doubled to like 3, 000,000 players… Despite all this, WvW struggled and continues to struggle to fill up wvw server maps…

Something big has to happen to revitilize wvw, and the logical step is to pool as many players as possible into one space. Unless that stuff happens, say goodbye to wvw when some RvRvR focused games come along. Thankfully Anet has time to make wvw great again, but it needs to happen, and we need them to focus on the right things.

New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro

221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.

(edited by Swagger.1459)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Yuffi.2430

Yuffi.2430

Tyler – I hope you’re still reading this thread.

It’s good to see you put an idea to the community to see what the response is like. You and your team seem to have given us more communication and progress in the last six weeks than we’ve had for years – literally. I can’t imagine anyone who is not enthused by this.

BUT I’ve just got in from work, done the RL stuff I have to do and read your post here. Within 21 hours of putting the idea up you’ve decided that you’ve had enough feedback. Some of us haven’t had a chance to respond yet. Was this issue so in need of a rapid response that you couldn’t let it run into the weekend? If so then please state this in the original post next time. If there’s no rush please give the players who are away for a day, or working longer shifts, time to respond.

Just in case you do read this, here’s my thoughts.
IIRC the idea you posted was to make more smaller servers so you could link several together in different combinations as an easier way to address overall population numbers and to give more variety.
I’m beginning to think you’re unaware of the problems caused by shuffling “servers” around – it plays hell with the actual community feeling that makes a server what it is.
I have no problems with new servers, and would consider moving to one but it depends on what you plan to do with them. I have zero interest in being on a pinball server passed from match to match each week with no chance to build teamwork or cohesion between allies.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Kylden Ar.3724

Kylden Ar.3724

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.

Emphasis for point – they won’t, because the reason they have new recruits going to the guest server is to stack T1.

Unless you get rid of transfers, period, there will always be bandwagoning, and it will only get worse as you add tangible rewards.

Kylden
Leader of TACO mini-roamer guild, Kaineng.

(edited by Kylden Ar.3724)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Teon.5168

Teon.5168

Tyler – I hope you’re still reading this thread.

It’s good to see you put an idea to the community to see what the response is like. You and your team seem to have given us more communication and progress in the last six weeks than we’ve had for years – literally. I can’t imagine anyone who is not enthused by this.

BUT I’ve just got in from work, done the RL stuff I have to do and read your post here. Within 21 hours of putting the idea up you’ve decided that you’ve had enough feedback. Some of us haven’t had a chance to respond yet. Was this issue so in need of a rapid response that you couldn’t let it run into the weekend? If so then please state this in the original post next time. If there’s no rush please give the players who are away for a day, or working longer shifts, time to respond.

Just in case you do read this, here’s my thoughts.
IIRC the idea you posted was to make more smaller servers so you could link several together in different combinations as an easier way to address overall population numbers and to give more variety.
I’m beginning to think you’re unaware of the problems caused by shuffling “servers” around – it plays hell with the actual community feeling that makes a server what it is.
I have no problems with new servers, and would consider moving to one but it depends on what you plan to do with them. I have zero interest in being on a pinball server passed from match to match each week with no chance to build teamwork or cohesion between allies.

You do realize that when Tyler first started this thread, he said in his thread title, and therefore this discussion was just hypothetical, yes?

This is not something they’re planning on doing…..Tyler just threw his comments/ideas out there to see what sort of overall responses he got based on those hypothetical comments.

That’s just good dev communication with the playerbase, imo. Just bouncing some ideas off the playerbase to measure what sort of reaction they get.

Forum discussions -
Mmo players with a screw loose vs mmo players with two screws loose. All very important stuff.
-Zenleto-

(edited by Teon.5168)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Zenith.6403

Zenith.6403

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.)

Oh I see. Why not make it so that when player enters WvW they’re automatically put to represent the team that has fewest players in map? It’s basically the end goal what this suggestion is seeking anyway. Where’s the pride in these 2-4 servers vs. 2-4 servers matchups?

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Conner.4702

Conner.4702

World linking and for for that matter merging worlds aren’t solutions to the balance problem no. As all they do is reshuffle the board without solving the problem. Anet is just unwilling to spend time and effort to do what has to be done and thus try to fool people with this.

It has become obvious to me that you didn’t really read what I wrote.

Yup, that’s the hurdle they will always face with any changes they may want to implement. The communities acceptance of changes. Going forward there is always going to be a group not happy about something, but if players want change and they want improvements and make wvw more balanced and less stale, they will have to be more accepting and work with anet to tweak the changes.

Does anyone really think they haven’t thought about hard server merges? they have, but they’re trying to find the least disruptive solution to the problems. I’ve seen suggestions to just blow it up and reform everything, blow communities that have been around for 3 years? you probably would lose the most players with that option over hard merges or links. I can see wvw maybe going to those last resort options eventually, but it’s not really needed right now when there’s another option to explore in links.

Honestly, I do prefer server merge than a world link. There are way more methods to solve population unbalance issue via server merge than world linking. For example, encouraging players to move down to the less populated servers via free transfer. This will not work well for server link but it will work well for server merge as there are less servers and less means easier control. As for the stacking part, just have to implement a new server cap system to prevent massive movement and to keep all the servers population similar. Then again, there is this community acceptance issue. Then again, if people are happy about server link, after some time, anet could try a poll on server merge as people acceptance change along with time, especially when they got used to the servers combo.

Personally, I think world linking is much more restrictive and more damaging in the long run. I don’t really see how they can balance the population through it. The methods I could think of that may work for world link will require a lot of work (codings) and even then, the effects will not be satisfactory and will still result in more damage.

Community isn’t always right.

Indeed, Popular choice isn’t always the right choice but that’s how the world works, right? Popular choice cannot be ignore and must flow along that direction.

Not my problem you contradict yourself in your own post, but it is clear you fail to see why server merger is not a better solution to the population imbalance. Try and actually understand what I wrote.

Anet is using a deck of cards without the red aces and queens and no amount of reshuffling is going to magically put those in.

(edited by Conner.4702)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Sarika.3756

Sarika.3756

I think this has been mentioned, but just in case it hasn’t…

If I’m going to consider moving a guild, I’m going looking for a couple of things.

A welcoming community where my guild is wanted and is considered an asset.

Other guilds that will be good partners to coordinate with.

Community cohesion.

A place where multiple play styles are welcomed.

Good use of teamspeak and cc.

A place where we can become a valued part of the community.

A new world that I know is going to be moved around every couple of months isn’t going to provide that.

(edited by Sarika.3756)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: NathanH.1465

NathanH.1465

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t like this idea.

The game launches and after a while in wvw some servers have a low wvw population, because people prefer to overstack the winning sides. HoT gets released and the pve map that got pushed to wvw is the final straw and kills the game mode for many players and it even basically killed some servers. To fix this anet introduced ‘server linking’. Basically low population servers get teamed up with server who are higher up the food chain.

But to fix the players returning and servers overstacking you want to introduce NEW servers? If history showed you 1 thing, then it would be that people like winning so much they’ll even want to overstack servers. So chances are high people will ignore the servers because, why give up being on the winning side? And 3 new (very) low population servers will be born.

How about updating the world transfer system to offer free (or very cheap) transfers to the current low population servers? Filling up existing servers seems a bit more of a priority to me… Even if it’s through something as stupid as a message when you’re in a queue like “your position is 38. Tired of queues? Join a lower tier server…” :/

Also: dropping an idea in less then a day, because the few people who saw it on the forums didn’t like it? At least give the thread some time oO

(edited by NathanH.1465)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: blackmac.2685

blackmac.2685

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

Please NO NO NO.

I am on the DH server, and originally was looking forward to world links, but have found it made a larger problem for DH players.

We have always played the above servers (HoD, Ebay, NSP & SF) greatly outnumbered when we were all solo; however, we had some great commanders and players that was more often than not, enough to win most weeks and climb the tier ladder. Now that these 4 servers are linked together, DH is outnumbered on any map by at least 4 to 1. Being outnumbered by this amount has killed WvW for many on DH and we have lost many great commanders now to other servers (I heard BG got a few of our best commanders/WvW guilds).

I’d rather go back to being outnumbered but competitive as DH alone. Even Maguuma’s cheap tactic of camping at our spawn point is more fun than the current set up.

I hope the vote changes to NO, because I’m sure that most of the yes currently don’t play WvW much. Same goes for the servers we are playing against, it is nice to win, but I’m sure better competition and good battles with even numbers would be better than the current state of 4 on 1 wipes.

(edited by blackmac.2685)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: apharma.3741

apharma.3741

Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

Thank you for taking the time to ask for our opinions and read our responses.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Jayne.9251

Jayne.9251

Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

Thank you for taking the time to ask for our opinions and read our responses.

+1000

L’enfer, c’est les autres

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: synergy.5809

synergy.5809

just wanted to add that I disagree with world linking and really hate it but really appreciate what you’re doing Tyler, it’s better than nothing and it’s great that you’re constantly seeking feedback and suggestions from the WvW community especially after how long we’ve been ignored for.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Cloud.7613

Cloud.7613

Just when I thought progress was being made this comes out.

The whole purpose of servers being linked was because we needed less servers, not more.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: joneirikb.7506

joneirikb.7506

For a system like this to work, there needs to be a reason for people to de-stack servers and go to low-pop servers. Without a good enough advantage it is dead fish in the water, stacking offers too many advantages for people to abandon it.

I think a system that gives Choice and Consequences would work best. You can play how you want, but you might have to suffer some consequences for it. Some are harder to manipulate than others (fight guilds, gvg, server pride etc), but there might be enough players willing to move for rewards.

So if you somehow added that when fighting against a outnumbering enemy (map, server, population, whatever. Many ways to spin this) you get a lot more rewards. Be the rewards in WXP, more and better loot bags, more badges, whatever. The idea is that it needs to be good enough that people that think they can handle the challenge is tempted to take it on to gain.

Anyone have any other suggestions or ideas for how to motivate people to de-stack ?

Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”
“The objective is to win. The goal is to have fun.”

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

Not my problem you contradict yourself in your own post, but it is clear you fail to see why server merger is not a better solution to the population imbalance. Try and actually understand what I wrote.

Anet is using a deck of cards without the red aces and queens and no amount of reshuffling is going to magically put those in.

Ok, it has become really obvious that you have quote for the sake of quoting.
“Not my problem you contradict yourself in your own post” can you tell me what you are relating this to?

Even your previous reply to the quote, the first half is repeating what I wrote and the 2nd half is is completely opposite of mine without any reasoning.

And then about the world merge vs world link, no reasoning either.

You are not here to debate nor to discuss but rather seems like wanting to force your opinions onto others. Aggressive and unreasonable.

Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International Guild
Henge of Denravi Server
www.gw2time.com

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: joneirikb.7506

joneirikb.7506

Just another thought about the running multiple small servers for Linking.

If you either made or designated 3 servers for OCX, 3 servers for SEA, 3 servers for EU. I don’t know how, but encourage players that primary play in those time zones, to go to these new "designated" servers.

Then link one of each to each of the same link each week. This would only work for a single link, and we would still end up with more NA servers than could be linked together with these "coverage servers".

OCX1 + SEA1 +EU1 +NA 1,2 = one link.
OCX2 + SEA2 +EU2 +NA 3,4 = one link.
OCX3 + SEA3 +EU3 +NA 5,6 = one link.
NA 7+8 = one link
NA 9+10 = one link
NA 11+12 = one link

PS: Note, I’m not using the numbers as Ranked world, so don’t worry no BG+TC in same link etc.

This would be a good way for various time zone people to gather up and find other players from the same timezones, more people to play with and recruit from etc. It would also help these players guarantee to find fights/activity as they would be matched up with/against the other servers from the same coverage.

---

I don’t know how this would work out in practice, obviously. I don’t know if this would be enough to make players de-stack existing servers to re-stack on the "coverage servers". And probably a whole lot of other things I can’t predict.

But this is one way the idea Tyler is talking about could be useful for dealing with coverage, both in helping those people together, and encouraging a closer to even match.

Obviously the problem with this is that it might depopulate "coverage" in the rest of the servers. Thoughts and ideas welcome.

Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”
“The objective is to win. The goal is to have fun.”

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

Just another thought about the running multiple small servers for Linking.

If you either made or designated 3 servers for OCX, 3 servers for SEA, 3 servers for EU. I don’t know how, but encourage players that primary play in those time zones, to go to these new “designated” servers.

Then link one of each to each of the same link each week. This would only work for a single link, and we would still end up with more NA servers than could be linked together with these “coverage servers”.

OCX1 + SEA1 EU1 +NA 1,2 = one link.
OCX2 + SEA2 +EU2 +NA 3,4 = one link.
OCX3 + SEA3 +EU3 +NA 5,6 = one link.
NA 7
8 = one link
NA 9+10 = one link
NA 11+12 = one link

PS: Note, I’m not using the numbers as Ranked world, so don’t worry no BG+TC in same link etc.

This would be a good way for various time zone people to gather up and find other players from the same timezones, more people to play with and recruit from etc. It would also help these players guarantee to find fights/activity as they would be matched up with/against the other servers from the same coverage.


I don’t know how this would work out in practice, obviously. I don’t know if this would be enough to make players de-stack existing servers to re-stack on the “coverage servers”. And probably a whole lot of other things I can’t predict.

But this is one way the idea Tyler is talking about could be useful for dealing with coverage, both in helping those people together, and encouraging a closer to even match.

Obviously the problem with this is that it might depopulate “coverage” in the rest of the servers. Thoughts and ideas welcome.

That won’t do, for that to work, you first have to get people onto those servers without using any forceful means. Anet is looking for least-forceful methods for high approval rating, is like politics

Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International Guild
Henge of Denravi Server
www.gw2time.com

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: NathanH.1465

NathanH.1465

Anyone have any other suggestions or ideas for how to motivate people to de-stack ?

The first thing that comes to mind is, for anet to add several nice and wvw (exclusive) tracks and update the “out-maned” buff to give 25% (or so) faster track progression on top of cheaper (or free) transfers. Or just give that buff to any server for as long as they fall under a certain population limit. or maybe even split that buff (15% faster progression for being on a low tier and 10% extra progression when out-maned).
I have no idea on how many people would care about faster track progression, but we would at least need several good exclusive(!) tracks for wvw. (I believe pvp has several tracks not found in wvw, while wvw only has 1 track not available in pvp)

Currently there is no real reason to leave a winning server. An since people love rewards, just reward the low tier server more and make it easy (and cheap) to change servers (no point in changing servers if it takes a month or 2 to farm the needed gold to transfer)

edit: just to note that the 25% is a random number. Change it with whatever works better

(edited by NathanH.1465)

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Johje Holan.4607

Johje Holan.4607

Anyone have any other suggestions or ideas for how to motivate people to de-stack ?

The first thing that comes to mind is, for anet to add several nice and wvw (exclusive) tracks and update the “out-maned” buff to give 25% (or so) faster track progression on top of cheaper (or free) transfers. Or just give that buff to any server for as long as they fall under a certain population limit. or maybe even split that buff (15% faster progression for being on a low tier and 10% extra progression when out-maned).
I have no idea on how many people would care about faster track progression, but we would at least need several good exclusive(!) tracks for wvw. (I believe pvp has several tracks not found in wvw, while wvw only has 1 track not available in pvp)

Currently there is no real reason to leave a winning server. An since people love rewards, just reward the low tier server more and make it easy (and cheap) to change servers (no point in changing servers if it takes a month or 2 to farm the needed gold to transfer)

edit: just to note that the 25% is a random number. Change it with whatever works better

Rewarding the lower server more is probably the only way to do it. But then what happens when everyone goes to the lower server; they then become the stacked server.

I don’t think its possible to get people to de-stack, at least not in NA servers – EU seems to be more sensible in this regard.

I think the only way to “deal” with the stacking is to incentivize playing the game as it was meant to be played – using the reason there are 3 servers in a match instead of just 2. Anet needs to incentivize the weaker servers ganging up on the stacked server. That is why its WvWvW and not just WvW.

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: joneirikb.7506

joneirikb.7506

That won’t do, for that to work, you first have to get people onto those servers without using any forceful means. Anet is looking for least-forceful methods for high approval rating, is like politics

I don’t know how, but encourage players that primary play in those time zones, to go to these new “designated” servers.

Obviously I agree with you :p I have no idea how to make people WANT to move/de-stack.

But some might find it tempting to have own designated coverage servers, that will guarantee them to face off against the other coverage servers. But obviously this is something (and probably part of why Tyler asked about this) that the community as a whole need to be questioned about and ask if they’re interested in etc.

Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”
“The objective is to win. The goal is to have fun.”

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: joneirikb.7506

joneirikb.7506

Anyone have any other suggestions or ideas for how to motivate people to de-stack ?

The first thing that comes to mind is, for anet to add several nice and wvw (exclusive) tracks and update the “out-maned” buff to give 25% (or so) faster track progression on top of cheaper (or free) transfers. Or just give that buff to any server for as long as they fall under a certain population limit. or maybe even split that buff (15% faster progression for being on a low tier and 10% extra progression when out-maned).
I have no idea on how many people would care about faster track progression, but we would at least need several good exclusive(!) tracks for wvw. (I believe pvp has several tracks not found in wvw, while wvw only has 1 track not available in pvp)

Currently there is no real reason to leave a winning server. An since people love rewards, just reward the low tier server more and make it easy (and cheap) to change servers (no point in changing servers if it takes a month or 2 to farm the needed gold to transfer)

edit: just to note that the 25% is a random number. Change it with whatever works better

Rewarding the lower server more is probably the only way to do it. But then what happens when everyone goes to the lower server; they then become the stacked server.

I don’t think its possible to get people to de-stack, at least not in NA servers – EU seems to be more sensible in this regard.

I think the only way to “deal” with the stacking is to incentivize playing the game as it was meant to be played – using the reason there are 3 servers in a match instead of just 2. Anet needs to incentivize the weaker servers ganging up on the stacked server. That is why its WvWvW and not just WvW.

If people de-stack and re-stack servers until they’re all equal, chasing the rewards. I’d say we’re close to the goal! We would have a bunch of fairly equal servers.

I don’t know/doubt that we will ever see the end of stacking, and as you say especially NA. But rewarding the lower-pop would most likely encourage people with above average skill to go for the rewards, while the general low-skill zerglings would remain in stacked servers. Thus it might encourage (slightly) a quality vs quantity situation.

Agreed, would love to see the 3-way used more in-game. Other than “Server A is to big, lets hit the other guys.”

Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”
“The objective is to win. The goal is to have fun.”

Hypothetically Speaking... New Worlds?

in WvW

Posted by: Synosius.9876

Synosius.9876

the question of new servers.
Ive given this some thought and I ask myself, would I move for a fresh start?

Yes I would but… ultimately I think it would be pointless.

Theres 2 reasons why I would not take up the challenge.

First these new worlds trying to establish a community would just be linked up with an alrdy established servers. So the reality is they are not rly new servers, just another linking section for mid tiers.

Second reason; lets assume theres no linking and the server gets to be its own thing. Ill estimate theres about 25% of the wvw players are actually interested in the wvw mode in its entirety. the other 75% are the… I just come for the fights, I do what I want, have no clue whats going on. when you play on a full server all that slop gets covered up by the regulars coming in every day.

when youre a low pop server with a marginal number of vets, even one person going on vacation for the weekend effects everyone. WvW needs bodies even if they are just fodder, if the ppt sags the fair weathers stop playing.

Even if you find brand new players, train them, turn them into hard core wvw players to replenish the ranks, they eventually start asking… whats wrong with these other baddies?
why dont they ever get any better? They have come to enjoy wvw and want to excel but they feel burdened by the casuals and so transfer up.

Once your on a dominate server it does feel pretty good. the population bloat covers up most of the mistakes and lack of skill. Out numbering the other 2 servers means you can go where ever you want and pick a fight. the underdogs have to respond or lose their territory.

I know some just want to win while not even knowing how or why. Some just want to be green in eotm every week. Being on a losing server is constantly under pressure. You wanna attack but you cant cause hills has catas on the wall again, so you take your group and push them off. then you think we will just go recap a tower but the other half of the enemy map que is at south camp. you run to fight them but have to turn back cause the first zerg is back on hills with catas.

If you could put 100 hard core wvw players on a server, yeah I would go there and we wouldnt care if we won or lost. when i think of new servers thats the dream I imagine but I know it would not be the reality.