Guild Wars 2

With free accounts now, 1800 gem transfers seem even more ridiculous than before when every gamer and his dog can have a toon leveled and ready to go on every server available.

Wouldn’t removing gem costs, and changing transfer perimeters/restrictions further promote the balancing of populations at this point?

Even limited Free transfer is bad, the first WvW tournament showed us that.

The gem cost is there to limit player movement and direct them to low populated servers with way cheaper prices.

I agree, the gem cost needs to stay there, even if a minimal amount.

And sure, you could feasibly have a character on every server, but it’s going to either A: cost you a lot of gems to level up quickly; B: take a significant amount of time (without buffs and daily rewards) to get to the required level 60 for WvW (thank you anet for putting that cap on).

If you have that kind of time and commitment, you really should aim a bit higher and apply for a job where you actually get paid for your efforts.

Transfers to lower populated servers should be free.

Player movements can be restricted in other ways. Such as with a cooldown period. It’s hardly the only option too.

Idk i think theyway transfer are now is fine. What is it. 1800 for v high, 1000 for high, 400 for medium and 200 for low?

Its a way to somewhat balance population. It should take you more to move to a very high server. Otherwise it would be bandwagons galore.

DJ Klemintino.5781:

Idk i think theyway transfer are now is fine. What is it. 1800 for v high, 1000 for high, 400 for medium and 200 for low?

Its a way to somewhat balance population. It should take you more to move to a very high server. Otherwise it would be bandwagons galore.

True, but… There are no low pop servers at all. This is a bit ridiculus. I think transfer cost shall be more transparently calculated based on current server ranking, not mysterious “population”. So the worst servers shall always be low, and best always high.

Xeno.4610:

So the worst servers shall always be low, and best always high.

This would have server ‘game’ the system by dropping rank to get more players on, then once they have way more players than other servers they would rise to dominate every other server.

Population is a more ‘fair’ way of limiting rather than score because then player skill is much more meaningful. If both server have same population but one uses it better they should be able to beat the other server. The other server shouldn’t get a ‘handicap’ that is cheaper transfers to boost population for ‘easier’ wins against a less populated higher skilled server.

That being said, the current system can probably be ‘gamed’ and most likely will be at some point. Not sure there is one ‘perfect’ solution to this problem.

Orochimaru.4730:

Transfers to lower populated servers should be free.

This sounds great, but in practice people treat “free” way different than they treat “cheap”. Remember one of the WvW seasons (2nd season I think?) when they made a few servers free to transfer to right before, and a few others cheap to transfer to? The free ones were bandwagoned like crazy; the cheap ones not so much. There has to be some kind of barrier to prevent mass bandwagoning, rinse, repeat to the next free server. A cheap (but not free) gem barrier for low pop servers solves this.

To be honest I’d like to be able to play on 2 servers on my main account.

I started on WSR and I have a lot of friends there I’d like to play with again even if it’s only every now and then. I moved to GH because, well, after 3 mass migrations of players it left the server feeling very empty more often especially when you can’t play at the silly times others do.

I’d love to be able to play on both with my main account and not have to get a second account or keep paying transfer costs over and over. They’re certainly never going to be in direct conflict, that’s for sure.

It should double in price.
I am on ET and DR and FC always outnumber us, hence making us the lowest populated server…by far.