Guild Wars 2

I have this idea that I hope gets some momentum in the right direction. If anyone knows how to get Anet to read this, then please do so as I think it merits some of their time. This is a recommendation for an idea that I have come up with to better facilitate WvW over all on every server, no matter the population. There are some servers (as we all know) that have become cemented in the bottom of the tiers due to lack of players or intrest in WvW. Far too many people have decided to “pay to win”… packing their bags and buying that 1 way ticket for 1800 gems. I propose that this gets changed ASAP please. Here goes…

With the Heart of Thorns expansion looming on the horizon, I have read that a lot of the focus is going to be on the guild. So much so that the pact has been removed from the driving force in the storyline from here on forward from what im gathering. With this change of direction, I see the perfect opportunity for Anet to do right by its WvW community.

I believe that by changing the matchmaking criteria from “one server=one team” to a more fluid version of the mega server it will facilitate better guild oriented play. Make it so the guild leader decides what server they will “Represent” and ultimately zone into for WvW. This will reduce que times on overloaded servers as well as bring the many PvX (cross server) guilds to the WvW side of the house. The real problem is money, and I know this. People who have the drive to move, usually find a way to pay for a xfer, however, not everyone can afford to drop $20 on a game just to zone in somewhere else. If this change is made, I would not be opposed to Anet charging a fee to move the “represent” feature to another server if the guild should decide it wants to move. It will show that Anet is interested in meeting its players in the middle on price and set the tone that they are looking to fix a growing problem. Im even OK with a tier based price for this option depending on the size of the guild. (eg. guild size 1-50 = $50 / Size 51-100 = $100… etc…) There could even be a “donate” feature for this from guildies willing to donate to the cause. A timer could be put in place to restrict guilds from representing another server too soon or too many times within a period of time, maybe a month cooldown or even 3 months, possibilities are endless.

Some secondary benefits would be:
-More guilds would enjoy working together in more aspects of the game regardless of what server they actually created on.
-Guilds on top tier servers that experience long que times can more easily move to accommodate their ques for WvW and population
-WvW Tiers could possibly be fixed gradually over time without Anet having to have a major revamp in the works.
-Simple implementation process for Anet compared to a rebuild of all the servers.

I am pretty sure that this would garner quite a bit of support from the GW2 player base as well as be easily implemented from Anet’s point of view. If you like what you have read, then PLEASE bump it or + it or send it to your friend that knows someone that knows an Anet employee. I kknow that my meager guild of less than 100 is on board and im willing to be the first one to pay for our “represent (server name)”!!

Cheers!!

I’ve suggested pretty much the same thing a few times now and think its a great idea. Similar to what you said, my idea was keep the 24 servers for character storage and what not, now funnel the traffic from the 24 servers into for argument sake we’ll say 12 (it can be bigger or smaller this is just a number picked out of thin air) WvW instances. When HoT is released force everyone to choose a WvW world to represent. Now your have 12 healthy WvW instances starting from scratch and the ability to show a true population picture based of server representation.

Some people are opposed because they want to be with their friends or they worked hard to be “The Commander” for their server. This is all avoidable if we are presented a list of home worlds we will be able to rep a couple weeks or even a month before hand. Now you have time to plan with your friends and server mates which server your all going to choose.

Another glaring issue will be “what happens when everyone decides to rep Blackgate” ? Have mile stones, When one home world achieves 100 reps close off the rep opportunity for that world until all other worlds have at least 75 (these again are numbers I’m pulling out of thin air). Once the others have at least 75 the rep re-opens for Blackgate until it hits the next milestone. It’s not a perfect system but it is one of many that could solve a lot of these issues.

WvW needs a change, while a few people are content with their small population, I think it’s safe to say the majority are not. Leave transfers the way they are after this is done for all I care, make your money off them but at least you will have a true population basis to go by so servers stop dying because they are full with 2 people in WvW.

Yes there are flaws in this design but instead of shooting the ideas down elaborate on them, Come up with better ways to fix it, help fix it instead of just saying nope nuh uh not gunna work.

I personally like the color coding system that players presented awhile back, it had flaws and we don’t want EotM but there are ways to prevent that. Let green transfer to any other green if they are losing or outmanned. Their home world will remain whatever they are on now, you can make it so an alert comes up across the screen. If FA is green and ET is green and FA is dominating while ET is getting stomped you get the Alert ET is being over run by the enemy at which point you know that ET is now available to port to. It really wouldn’t be much different than hopping BL’s to help out EB or your home border. If anything you’ll be hoping all over the place trying to assist the other green servers. Combine the scores to promote green assisting green or don’t combine them, people that are bored or in Queue will hop over to assist, it opens up variety as far as different opponents as well. Get rid of Glicko Rating and give everyone a shiny for first, second or third instead of a pat on the back.

Again its not perfect but something’s gotta give.

How about, no to this idea! Basically you tossing away worlds completely for what, just another freaking label? One should be caring for and fighting for their world in “World vs World”. You concept is just EotM with a soulless label instead of a color.

DeWolfe.2174:

How about, no to this idea! Basically you tossing away worlds completely for what, just another freaking label? One should be caring for and fighting for their world in “World vs World”. You concept is just EotM with a soulless label instead of a color.

Ill bet if you were on a dead server in the bottom of T8, you would sing a tune more along the lines of… “I pay for the game just like T1, why cant I enjoy every aspect of this game too? Why do I have to pay an additional $20 in gems just to get what I already paid for?” Easy to shoot down the ideas of others when you probly only see the one sided aspect of whatever server youre on. If you aren’t part of the solution, youre part of the problem.

Oh look. it comes from someone in JQ. I guessed it before I even read your signature block.

What is wrong with having servers and matchups that vary in coverage and population. Not all of us want to be on a busy server. Megaserver and some of the PVE events already force us into large groups why can’t some of us play with less people? The problem is not the lack of people its the imbalance. Why can’t we have things like different server caps for different match ups? Also surely guilds have different numbers and different number of people active in WvW.
Unlike PVE we do not have a choice of how to play WvW the matchups effect us and people moving about effects us. If I don’t want to play in a big zerg I can avoid that in PVE, I can play alone or in a small group. But by trying one thing to fix all servers you please some and not others. Maybe there needs to be more then one solution?

AmberUK.5380:

What is wrong with having servers and matchups that vary in coverage and population. Not all of us want to be on a busy server. Megaserver and some of the PVE events already force us into large groups why can’t some of us play with less people? The problem is not the lack of people its the imbalance. Why can’t we have things like different server caps for different match ups? Also surely guilds have different numbers and different number of people active in WvW.
Unlike PVE we do not have a choice of how to play WvW the matchups effect us and people moving about effects us. If I don’t want to play in a big zerg I can avoid that in PVE, I can play alone or in a small group. But by trying one thing to fix all servers you please some and not others. Maybe there needs to be more then one solution?

There is nothing wrong with varying coverage and population, there is something wrong with no coverage or population. Just as an example, if they combined rank 24 with 19, 23 with 20 and 22 with 21, their population will still be considerably smaller then the servers above them. I think there is a misconception that all these servers are packed full of people with zergs running 24/7. T4 is kind of what T6 once was, T5 is more like T7 and T6 is what was once T8 as far as population and coverage.

Now when you get to T3 things start getting more populated and busier, I suspect if they merged the lower servers you wouldn’t see much of a difference than what those servers were like 1 year ago.