Guild Wars 2

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

throws confetti

Jim Hunter.6821:

Heimlich.3065:

Xillllix.3485:

We are interested beyond belief, but your proposition is not even a half measure, it’s a cheap fix that would lead to terrible results. It’s only good on paper and not in practice, which is what about 66% of the people in this thread have been saying. Why do you need us to tell you that? It has nothing to do with our interest.

What’s most bizarre is that they asked us the same thing back in May and people didn’t like the idea then either.

I have to suspect somebody inside ANet really thinks this proposal is just the ultimate solution to every WvW problem and brings it up regularly.

And when people didn’t wildly support it anet opened up BG as a big kitten you to the player base.

The thing is Puck, the players have always had the control.

Time for us all to pull up our socks and sort this mess out.

I’ll craft the viral campaign if you (and others) help implement it.

Nah, just let WvW die in peace already… The cofin is already ready for it.
Let us all go retire in the arms of Blackgate, less populated than a T4 tri-link.

Jayne.9251:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Heimlich.3065:

Xillllix.3485:

We are interested beyond belief, but your proposition is not even a half measure, it’s a cheap fix that would lead to terrible results. It’s only good on paper and not in practice, which is what about 66% of the people in this thread have been saying. Why do you need us to tell you that? It has nothing to do with our interest.

What’s most bizarre is that they asked us the same thing back in May and people didn’t like the idea then either.

I have to suspect somebody inside ANet really thinks this proposal is just the ultimate solution to every WvW problem and brings it up regularly.

And when people didn’t wildly support it anet opened up BG as a big kitten you to the player base.

The thing is Puck, the players have always had the control.

Time for us all to pull up our socks and sort this mess out.

I’ll craft the viral campaign if you (and others) help implement it.

Look at whats happening with BG. Players will not do it, heck there are clearly plenty of guilds that do not care about balance in the game mode either.

I’m totally putting you in charge of social media Jeknar.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

Good, could you next ask how we feel about merging servers, because personally I feel that is the way forward, shrink it down to a 12 server super league.

At this point I think I might be happier if I watched election returns instead of playing WvW or writing on the forums.

Vavume.8065:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

Good, could you next ask how we feel about merging servers, because personally I feel that is the way forward, shrink it down to a 12 server super league.

Only if ANet uses the Lower Ranked Server’s name after the merge.

Swamurabi.7890:

At this point I think I might be happier if I watched election returns instead of playing WvW or writing on the forums.

Dude. Florida,

Diku.2546:

Vavume.8065:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

Good, could you next ask how we feel about merging servers, because personally I feel that is the way forward, shrink it down to a 12 server super league.

Only if ANet uses the Lower Ranked Server’s name after the merge.

Totally new server names would be fair I think.

Vavume.8065:

Good, could you next ask how we feel about merging servers, because personally I feel that is the way forward, shrink it down to a 12 server super league.

Diku.2546:

Only if ANet uses the Lower Ranked Server’s name after the merge.

Vavume.8065:

Totally new server names would be fair I think.

Sounds fair to me…while we’re at it.

We should pre-schedule 1 year later to merge again to create a 6 server super league?

With totally new server names again?

Diku.2546:

Vavume.8065:

Good, could you next ask how we feel about merging servers, because personally I feel that is the way forward, shrink it down to a 12 server super league.

Diku.2546:

Only if ANet uses the Lower Ranked Server’s name after the merge.

Vavume.8065:

Totally new server names would be fair I think.

Sounds fair to me…while we’re at it.

We should pre-schedule 1 year later to merge again to create a 6 server super league?

With totally new server names again?

lol Sounds like a good idea, Anet hire this guy.

Vavume.8065:

Diku.2546:

Vavume.8065:

Good, could you next ask how we feel about merging servers, because personally I feel that is the way forward, shrink it down to a 12 server super league.

Diku.2546:

Only if ANet uses the Lower Ranked Server’s name after the merge.

Vavume.8065:

Totally new server names would be fair I think.

Sounds fair to me…while we’re at it.

We should pre-schedule 1 year later to merge again to create a 6 server super league?

With totally new server names again?

lol Sounds like a good idea, Anet hire this guy.

No. He will turn WvW into his king of the hill thing that everyone is tired of hearing already.

I already posted this in another thread, but I think it relates here:

Tigers can’t easily change their stripes.

From a Dev’s viewpoint I’d be moronic if I changed the core design of my work to match the popular opinion of the month.

My intent is to provide a consistent message of hope that there is a better alternative to the current state of things.

My desire is to see this Game Mode thrive.

You can kick me all you want, but I’ll continue to urge ANet to change the core design of their WvW product.

You don’t just give up on something that’s precious…you continue to fight & survive in what you believe.

Passing on the “compass” to those that will hear it, and not to those that say they don’t need a “compass”.

Having a “compass” helps in finding your way through chaos & uncertainty when you’re lost…imho

So please choose to ignore me if you prefer another solution, or just prefer discussing the same ideas about Alliances, Merging servers, or other mechanics/procedures to try & “fix” Server Linking, or have your own “compass”. These same things get repeated over & over again…yet nobody seems to mind… so please continue your discussions. Live & let live is what I would say.

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes

Mylerian.9176:

Funny 6 pages of comments and ideas, and you say there is a lack of interest lol!! Now we all know where the real problem is lol

Interest in discussion is not the same as interest in the suggestion…

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We could achieve more balanced competition in a world-versus-world setting if we had more pieces to join together with the World Linking System. It currently is not possible for us to establish an “equal” number of players on each link/world with the current world sizes.

Well then your solution is pretty simple…..do we really have to spell it out for you? Destroy the worlds, and redistribute the playerbase into equal ones. Its not hard…

There is no justification to not do it at this point.
-worlds themselves no longer have any point outside of wvsw.
-half the worlds have been deleted for a long time now with the mergers
-primary problem in wvsw is the lack of equality in each matchup
-primary problem in wvsw is the inability to advance through winning each matchup
-primary problem in wvsw is the inability to balance content due to varying match sizes
-primary problem….

my god, its really reallly easy to see what you neeed to do. Stop tip-toeing around the real issue. Its a waste of time and energy spending months doing these gimmick fixes and realizing they changed nothing. Just try tackling the real issue for 2 months, and then see if you finally fix the problem…..and if that doesn’t fix the problem then you know that NOTHING willl fix the problem. Save yourselves time, effort, and grief….

….save THE COMMUNITY: TIME, EFFORT AND GRIEF! All the pain and misery that has been experienced over this ‘beta wvsw’ could have been avoided if you just did this to begin with. How long are you gonna keep everyone miserable for?

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

Was the point to get muLtiple posts saying “GREAT IDEA”? Cause your forums arent designed to work that way…
What are you counting, upvotes? we cant see those. we come here…read….comment if we feel its a horrid idea or if its relevant to another issue bugging us more. i dont kno how you tabulate support for an idea. if you dont tell us, how can we show it for the things we want to show it for….
lack of communication all the way. lack of trust too. and lack of a proper polling sample….ur polling a small group of random gw2 accounts lol.

honestly you should be taking the most logical ideas we give you, and choosing the one that you think works best…not creating a random idea to a huge problem and then going back to ignoring the problem if you dont see people standing on 1 foot to show support. how do we know we need to stand on one foot to begin with….

Reaching out is great, but you don’t seem to know how anymore. So much time has passed with 0 communication that both camps have a hard time communicating together. THIS WHOLE THREAD IS SRSLY AWKWARD. THIS AINT HOW NORMAL PEOPLE TALK THINGS OUT.

Cerby.1069:

Well then your solution is pretty simple…..do we really have to spell it out for you? Destroy the worlds, and redistribute the playerbase into equal ones. Its not hard…

I wonder if Anet consider it defeat to have less servers, in many other MMO’s as soon as they have a drop off in players the first thing that happens is servers closing, that is what needs to happen here, servers need to be closed.

I do understand that in theory it is better to have a ton of smaller servers to make it easier to create balanced matchups.
I don’t think this idea would have been likely to change the balance though, because we already know that people want to be on the winning server and most of them don’t want to play on empty servers and do not enjoy being a small link. So why would people voluntarily change to small new servers that get linked with a ton of different servers all the time if they don’t do it right now already? We have a ton of small servers already that could use guilds from BG

I think the balance is ok if the right servers are in their correct tier. The matchmaking system (and the proposed 1up/1down rule as well) is still likely to put servers in wrong tiers though, creating blowout matches. So links STILL aren’t the problem that inbalances matchups, the matchmaking system is. But as long as Arenanet only proposes solution for the matchmaking system that very obviously would make the inbalance worse instead of fixing the problems with it, it is not going to be solved. :/

Rink.6108:

I think the balance is ok if the right servers are in their correct tier.

Balance will never ever be ok if you start to put the “right” server in their “correct” tier. You are basicly assigning players to a class status. Be on that “correct” tier cause you suck, you’re not allowed to play with the real men. If you say well of course they can get better well and go up then the server is unbalanced and in the incorrect tier.

Balance might get ok if there are no tiers.

There is no real balance while there are Transfers.

Forget the server concept.

Upon entering WvW for the first time, players choose a team: Red, Green or Blue. Transfer later on to a different team for gems. If 1 team gets 35 or 40% of all wvw players it’s closed.

Create new sets of Red border, Green border, Blue border & EB maps when needed (ie previous set is 90% full or something). Allow players to enter/queue up for all spawned maps.

Reset and recreate sets every 4h or 6h or something. Make this process fast so ppl don’t have to wait too long in LA.

Award players after each reset for their contribution. Even if they played for 30 minutes during the window, give them a relative participation reward.

Higher tier towers/keeps give more ppt, but capturing higher tier structures should also give significant points. Fighting thru siege for 40 mins to capture a tier 3 garri should be worth the effort.

At this point in time, the whole game mode needs to be reset with new worlds and have the classes balanced for large scale combat. Until either of those happen no matter the score changes they make a smaller server can not beat coverage and population. New worlds will not solve coverage but guilds and players will have to make hard choices based on which server they decide to join. They also need to promote World vs World so players that may enjoy it search out and find other players.

Think of ways to promote it are WvW tournaments, or new raid zones that are only active to players on worlds that hit a certain threshold during a wvw week. (example score of war score 100) this way it still opens to all players but for different durations. Also lock it so players on worlds not reaching the threshold cant join a party of people that have the threshold.

Few more ways are to introduce wvw only skins, legendary armor, and other rewards that require participation through wvw achievements similar to wvw season.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

I think this question is poll worthy, don’t you?

A forum zerg one way or the other shouldn’t decide it.

1. I don’t like it.

2. Everything. I would go the opposite route. Close down the less populated worlds and only keep the top 9 most populated worlds open. Give free transfers to people on the worlds that are closing. For each matchup, increase the amount of maps but decrease the size and pop. cap of each map so as to decrease the size of zergs/map blobs and also to decrease server lag; gradually increase/decrease the size and pop. cap of maps according to player populations, queues and reported lag.

3. No.

Making new servers after jq and bg already reopened just means that they will be way more full than all the other servers when they get paired. Cleaning the slate is still the best solution imo.

Cecilia.5179:

Making new servers after jq and bg already reopened just means that they will be way more full than all the other servers when they get paired. Cleaning the slate is still the best solution imo.

Most players can’t see possibilities on the long-term, server identities will be replaced with a new sense of identity if Anet do this right.

They need to do what will open the most possibilities for the future:

1- Guilds should be at the core of everything in WvW, but players without guilds shouldn’t feel left out.

2- There is no need for servers, we can rebuild communities around new alliance names. What we need is an adaptable and dynamic population system. You need to be able to play with or against all your friends, a “overflow” (or campaign) guesting system will allow that.

3- Gameplay should always be the priority. Skirmishes are a good step forward. That gameplay should be rewarded in guild rewards, guild rankings, personal rewards and player ranking. We need a different 3rd borderland, a smaller map, that is more fight focused and less capture driven. Balance has to be adapted so that skill matters, not only numbers.

Hey,

I always thought the best option for population in balance currently is to delete all current worlds and recreate them all but with 3 less and allow everyone to transfer about to their designated solo or guild server.

However the issue of communities arises, so would it be possible to create in game communities in a similar but altered format as guilds?

The ideas behind it is to set up a new way for a communities players to be put together on a regular basis and be able to communicate via community chat, see who’s online in their community etc. And in the same way we get put in LA instances with our friends/guild but with the community.

This could go as far as changing people name colours etc in WvW to their community servers or adding a symbol which represents the server.

Would be nice if others could expand on this or give their own thoughts.

Only 3 less? I think 6 or even 9 less would be more realistic

Although I agree with u that in theory this would be a good thing, I think that would cost WvW a lot of players when all existing communities get destroyed by a full reset.

xXBAKESXx.6731:

Hey,

I always thought the best option for population in balance currently is to delete all current worlds and recreate them all but with 3 less and allow everyone to transfer about to their designated solo or guild server.

However the issue of communities arises, so would it be possible to create in game communities in a similar but altered format as guilds?

The ideas behind it is to set up a new way for a communities players to be put together on a regular basis and be able to communicate via community chat, see who’s online in their community etc. And in the same way we get put in LA instances with our friends/guild but with the community.

This could go as far as changing people name colours etc in WvW to their community servers or adding a symbol which represents the server.

Would be nice if others could expand on this or give their own thoughts.

PvP is good for you bro

maybe EOTM nice for you too :p

no Server limit

@ xXBAKESXx.6731

If ANet where to delete all worlds and create new ones, they would very likely go with their idea of creating more servers, but reducing the max size of each of them. So there wouldn’t be any worlds as large as the current big ones. It would have some problems with communities having to reset, a lot of people would be pretty mad about that.

A community/server/world chat would be very useful.

I’m not certain what you mean by using the megaserver grouping system for WvW, since if we’re on the same world, we’re going to be put together in WvW anyways ?

I like the idea with having a server symbol, and combining it with team color for easy identification. (Or server tag, also works)

@ Kaldo.7960

How many worlds that would work depends entirely upon what numbers are allowed on each servers etc. They can make that adaptable.

If total population is half of the current maximum, we would probably need all the existing servers. If they decided to set max to 1/4 of the current, then we would probably need a few more. Etc, they have the numbers to know this, we don’t.

I agree that a good part of current communities would be torn up by this, some would survive in various states, most of the guild based communities would survive fairly unharmed. But there is also a possibility that new communities would spring from this, hard to tell.

As long you can tranfer to servers there will be no balance…..ever.

Something has to be changed. Facing BG now is an absolute joke, due to their transfers they are outnumbering the other servers 3-4 to 1.

Sounds like ANET fell for the BG “hibernation” scam again.

I’ve got to wonder and I’d really be keen on an answer for this

What precisely is the opportunity cost for creating new servers, reducing the popcap for all servers, and opening free transfers to all new & medium servers?

Sarrs.4831:

I’ve got to wonder and I’d really be keen on an answer for this

What precisely is the opportunity cost for creating new servers, reducing the popcap for all servers, and opening free transfers to all new & medium servers?

Would you move to these new servers right now if they suddenly opened?

Also, in the future…would you voluntarily move to help ANet balance things?

If 6 out of 10 people consistently reply yes…then…we’ve got a viable solution…imho

Sorry, but I’m very simple when it comes to math & complex discussions tend to confuse me…hope this gives you a better perspective in finding an answer.

Create multiple ’’checkin’’ boxxes next to the WvWvW UI .
They simply offer buffs , while you normaly play the WvWvW .
Theres a specific mount of availability per box (first checked = first served) (and they are not by server – but worldwide) .
The buff lasts for 1 week … if you havent scored 10.000 World Experience in 3 days , you loose the buff and your ’’box’’ is unticked .
Right next to each box , theres a an extra bottun where you can pay 13 gold and the system tries to find a person to accept and give up their buff/box for 10 gold .

Later on create servers on beta , and each one of them specialize on one of these buffs . Or ppl that have played a long time with the buffs , they get them by passive if they move to those newer maps and playing with other ppl that have different buffs

The Boxxex can be :
a) Ocassionaly a portal will show up with a specter hand , beconing only to you , or a mistirious psedo-oracles with a crystal ball on a table and ask you if you want to participate in a que for some random 20v 20 , or puting you in a random guids created arena , by paying 5 silver and the 2 s per person goes to that guild’s arena bank .
If you win you can face some organized gulds
(Something to please the Zerg vs Zerg population)
b) Occasionaly the system will tell you that you have 24 hours to capure a specific point for some Legendary mats
c) or some extra silver if you put a suply trap and drained 10 players
d) or hunt down specific targets so you can raize a army of GW1 followers to raid the nearby enemy stracture and guide them by ‘’holding a Banner’’ + changed utilities + while been stealth + loose hp for each dead allies npc . With each World expiriance you get you get some cool stuff your you guild halls

e) each one of them specialize into something (traps have no silver cost , improve cats versioon 3 – arms-mounted cannon- or some servers have the steampunk flame bike from the Bordelands) . But in the actual Bordelands all buff from each server exists as baseline
By keepplaying even your server can unlock these too , based on ingame guild leaders votes and an ingame talent tree progression

Cheap i think ?
Without creating new maps

Diku.2546:

Would you move to these new servers right now if they suddenly opened?

Also, in the future…would you voluntarily move to help ANet balance things?

If 6 out of 10 people consistently reply yes…then…we’ve got a viable solution…imho

Sorry, but I’m very simple when it comes to math & complex discussions tend to confuse me…hope this gives you a better perspective in finding an answer.

I’m on Kaineng. Does that answer your question?

Sarrs.4831:

Diku.2546:

Would you move to these new servers right now if they suddenly opened?

Also, in the future…would you voluntarily move to help ANet balance things?

If 6 out of 10 people consistently reply yes…then…we’ve got a viable solution…imho

Sorry, but I’m very simple when it comes to math & complex discussions tend to confuse me…hope this gives you a better perspective in finding an answer.

I’m on Kaineng. Does that answer your question?

Yes & No.

1. Yes – Liked your honest answer.
2. No – Was trying to ask you if you would move away from Kaineng to help ANet Balance Population. If every 6 out of 10 players would move when asked to help Balance Population…then opening New Worlds is a really good solution. Because players will help Balance things.

Hmmm…while we’re trying to come up with a solution that reduces the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups…

Can we also work on coming up with solution that:

1. Allows friends & family to play together even if they’re from different Home Servers
2. Allows Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes

Diku.2546:

1. Yes – Liked your honest answer.
2. No – Was trying to ask you if you would move away from Kaineng to help ANet Balance Population. If every 6 out of 10 players would move when asked to help Balance Population…then opening New Worlds is a really good solution. Because players will help Balance things.

If Kaineng was stacked to the point that I was unable to get my friends onto the server to play with, I would.

Just asking the question while ignoring the context of the current state of the game doesn’t make any sense.

Diku.2546:

Hmmm…while we’re trying to come up with a solution that reduces the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups…

Can we also work on coming up with solution that:

1. Allows friends & family to play together even if they’re from different Home Servers
2. Allows Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

1. cheap transfers
2. off-peak capping is ‘fine’ in that it’s a futile/overly expensive problem to try to solve

@Sarrs.4831

Ok…thanks…kind of getting lost in the direction on where our discussion is going.

However, my central thoughts are:

1. Players typically won’t move if ANet opens a bunch of New Worlds.
2. There is another alternative solution that is “better” at letting players on any Server to play together & allows for off-peak capping in a more positive way…imho

I kind of skipped discussing your original question because if players typically won’t move…it doesn’t make sense to discuss your original desire to talk about opportunity costs, reducing popcap, and free transfers.

I’m sorry…so please accept my apologies for being a bit selfish.

Sarrs.4831:

I’ve got to wonder and I’d really be keen on an answer for this

What precisely is the opportunity cost for creating new servers, reducing the popcap for all servers, and opening free transfers to all new & medium servers?

Quickly reviewing…

I think some opportunity costs would involve:

1. Strong server identities with existing servers will be watered down
2. Easier coordination with TeamSpeak will be reduced
3. Server Choice Overload – Too many things to pick from the menu is confusing

Reducing the popcap might have ripple effects that I can’t think of atm.

Free transfers will only increase the effects of stacking if not done correctly, or it might not have any impact…if players don’t use it the way ANet wants them to.

X T D.6458:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We wouldn’t force players to move worlds but stacked worlds would have a high chance of never opening for transfers again since we would be lowering the population player cap on all worlds. So for example in NA worlds like Blackgate and Jade Quarry would stay “Full” and wouldn’t be open for transfers unless player started to transfer off.

And if the players on these servers dont move off, we would be facing smaller worlds? Basically we could all stay put and roflstomp anyone forever with this new system.

Here is another idea that several of us have proposed, how about changing the tier structure into a Gold/Silver/Bronze system. Where Gold tiers have the highest population cap and transfer fees, Bronze would have a smaller population cap and smallest fees, and Silver would be right in the middle. Basically change the tiers to cater to our preferred playstyles.

I love the Gold/Sliver/Bronze idea! I don’t like people complaining about “too many people” in wvw, I love being on a more populated server but understand that there are those that do not. I think this could help people be where they want to be! <3

I bet next summer will we get a huge wvw update called “GW2 Factions”!

Swagger.1459:

I bet next summer will we get a huge wvw update called “GW2 Factions”!

Offered via the next expansion.

Xenesis.6389:

Swagger.1459:

I bet next summer will we get a huge wvw update called “GW2 Factions”!

Offered via the next expansion.

And to join a faction you will be required to do PvE map completion and grind out about 10,000 of their newest currency that doesn’t go in your wallet.

Xenesis.6389:

Swagger.1459:

I bet next summer will we get a huge wvw update called “GW2 Factions”!

Offered via the next expansion.

Yes but you won’t need the xpac to play WvW !!! you can simply queue for EotM and be epic there !!

Swagger.1459:

I bet next summer will we get a huge wvw update called “GW2 Factions”!

Judging from my four-year experience, I confidently predict there will never be anything huge implemented with regards to wvw.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Xenesis.6389:

Swagger.1459:

I bet next summer will we get a huge wvw update called “GW2 Factions”!

Offered via the next expansion.

And to join a faction you will be required to do PvE map completion and grind out about 10,000 of their newest currency that doesn’t go in your wallet.

Because that will solve bandwaggoning.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

If players on the bigger worlds don’t transfer but other worlds do, we could still end up with better pieces to create more balanced matchups. For example say World 1 is 120% of our population goal and World 2 is 100% and our smallest world is 50%. If we were to link the smallest world with World 2, then World 2 would be at 150% and now is much bigger than World 1 creating a matchup that isn’t competitive. However, if the smallest world split their population creating a new small world that is 20% we would have a better world to link with World 2.

Tiers would still remain the same as they are currently. We wouldn’t be adding new tiers along with the new worlds.

You’re really missing the point.

A decent wvw guild could fill one of your servers, especially if you shrink the already way too low population limit per map. They would then ‘discourage’ anyone else from joining and force others to leave.

You could then stack 150% randoms against this server, but this guild server will win every single time.

You are missing the huge influence guilds have in successful large scale fights and also smaller raids etc and appear to think that population= solution.

Creating new worlds and assuming anyone would willingly transfer to them- why would they? Leave your established world that you know and love to join some random underpopulated world without even a ts? for what? to be roflstomped by every organised guild and server?

Why would a large guild move to one of these servers other than to dominate it?

What we need is a completely new map design. Scrap borderlands, and have 5 way fights on one massive map a bit like EB but with five teams each with their own area and a penalty for each object you hold outside your own area so it becomes more and more difficult to hold objects the more you have and dominating against 4 other servers is impossible.

If the software couldn’t support enough players in one area then make it more interesting, and have two copies of the map instead of one so each team has two areas to defends and 8 to attack.

Then communication and organisation will be needed and no server could dominate a match for long.

Baldrick.8967:

Creating new worlds and assuming anyone would willingly transfer to them- why would they? Leave your established world that you know and love to join some random underpopulated world without even a ts? for what? to be roflstomped by every organised guild and server?

I would move to a new small server. Teamspeak and websites are not expensive to manage if you have a few nerds …

As far as getting roflstomped, that is more a function of blobs and population imbalance.