Guild Wars 2

Norbe.7630:

just lower the population cap on WvW maps, no need adding new servers, merging or color coding, no polls needed

then adjust then population cap if the population grew from time

the answer to if is if you could make people interested in WvW and thats another topic…

Yes decrease actually population that able to be on a map at the same time by about 33%. This will make the the game mode more more fun for the huge majority of players on the servers that have not stacked their population. It’ll also force guilds to decide if they actually want to world v world or just farm servers with lessor numbers. Me personally would not mind losing the latter if it would convince more of the players who actually want to WvW to continue WvWing maybe even bring in more, then those players who are only here to farm smaller populations leave.

In the end ANet has to decide on what direction it want’s for WvW. Take the bull by the horns and never look back. Anet can not please both the players who are looking to WvW and the exploiters who just want to stack servers to farm and grief players who are looking to WvW.

Xenesis.6389:

Swagger.1459:

Anet is not linking US and EU.

You wouldn’t physically link the servers, just the scores, everything would still be separate as it is now. All you would need to do is combine the scores to make it a global score.
As a quick example:

1. Dwayna – Blackgate/Jade Sea = 118k, skirmish = 53
2. Balthazar – Ft Aspenwood/Abaddon’s Mouth = 103k, skirmish = 40
3. Melandru – Maguuma/Vizunah Square = 101k, skirmish = 39

This wouldn’t really solve anything, though. I’d argue it’d be worse than links now. The quality of matchups wouldn’t improve for anyone. You could be T8 NA and linked to T1 EU and end up winning a week you get absolutely demolished if your link does well, or vice versa. Your score would get inflated and your pairings would get thrown off based on people who aren’t even involved in the matchup. Is “winning” while being camped at spawn really something that we should promote?

Nor does it solve any population imbalance or real gameplay issues. It’s just a scoring fix on the numerical level, but so is just simply not having scores at all.

If you reduce the map cap, you need to increase the number of commanders which many servers are lacking.

First of all i wanna point out that u are not able to balance anything while u don’t change terms of transfering. You can show us the shiniest numbers of nearly even population but what is it worth if this balance only exists for a couple of hours and is completly blown of when the bandwaggoners start to transfer to the new hypelinkings?

So before u work on more even coverage u need to restrict transfering.

Making even more server feels like a really bad idea when u dont even have enough ppl for existing server. So if u wanna spread population and make smaller worlds, why not closing several server for transfer and lower their population step by step?

In my opinion linking doesn’t work, it made the situation even worse and a lot of people want to play for the server they chose and not for a link even if it has some different name then, that changes nothing.

U guys at anet need to get used to the idea of closing server instead of making even more. Give those people free transfers to other worlds and close the high populated server for transfering so those players spread on server who need coverage anyway. With that being done u can stop linking server and match ups are fun again hopefully and winning is not a question of being linked anymore.

I just have to say that a lot of you are wrong as a t9 server that fought up to t8 we were linked with t1 servers and me and everyone i knew that wvw’d hated it. So no, not everyone wants to be in the “big leagues”, and a lot of it has to do with that attitude that you think that everyone in the lower tiers wants to be up there, they don’t.

As long as you stubbornly stick to separate US and EU servers nothing you do will fix population imbalance, I repeat NOTHING. All you will be able to manage is lessen the problem. Don’t give me the technical impossibility BS either. It is fully possible and you know it.
Make 1 set of World servers including US and EU and population imbalance won’t be much of a real problem. You will actually have a 24/7 coverage not this 12/7 coverage you have now with a few exceptions here and there from stacked servers. Coverage must be semi equal through all time zones which is simply not possible with the current setup.

You will end up with your blob servers, your zerg servers and your low pop servers. Something for each type of player.

I also know how to fix tournaments, but you will have to pay me for that.

Fremtid.3528:

I just have to say that a lot of you are wrong as a t9 server that fought up to t8 we were linked with t1 servers and me and everyone i knew that wvw’d hated it. So no, not everyone wants to be in the “big leagues”, and a lot of it has to do with that attitude that you think that everyone in the lower tiers wants to be up there, they don’t.

+1 . . . total agree. We was in T1 it was a nightmare for us. Much ppl dont played there (only Qs and Blobfights) me too.

Yeah, we was T8 and than the first time in T7 and it was sooo great! We missing much the good old days <3

Thing is Anet have always refused to tell us how many players from each server can enter each map.

We’ve all seen it before, one server seems to have 80 players, the second 50, and the third 30. Yet all servers have a queue to join that map, why?!
If the third server has 30 players, then it should allow another 50 to join straight away to equal the first server!

So to truly balance the population on each map, Anet should do the following:
Chance how queuing works
Have it so that everyone enter a queue as soon as they join a map.
If one server has 10 player on, 10 players from the other 2 servers are able to join.
The rest remain in a queue until players from one of the other 2 servers join WvW.
Keep it so that all servers on all maps have the same number of players on each map.

So say if servers A and B has 9 players joining WvW
Server C has 15 players joining.
All A and B players can enter the map
Server C will get 9 players and the other 6 join a queue.
System sees all 3 servers have 9 players, with C with a queue of 6, allows 1 player in queue for C to join.
So now it’s 9v9v10 with 5 queue for C.

If a new player from B joins, they will automatically join
So you get 9v10v10
If a new player from A joins they will get straight in ans so will another from C, lowering the queue to 4
So then it’ll be 10v10v11

Now this is the only fair option.
But it will also upset a lot of players if one server how a low population and the other a medium population, as some from the higher population server will be in a queue for hours maybe!

If I’m completely honest, the majority of my school friends who introduced me to this game no longer play.. and the number of people leaving the game is dramatically increasing. I think you need to give players an incentive to actually play Guild Wars 2 first before you expect more players to play WvW.

just reduce the Tier to 3….. and relink the servers.. see how it goes…

anduriell.6280:

From my point of view this is a systemic problem not based in the player population but also how the system rewards the numbers instead the skill set and the player organization:

• for the hundred time: reduce dramatically the damage to players from all the siege.* This only benefits the bigger blobs as they have more supplies. The siege should apply CC to incapacitate players so they are not able to damage but it must not do more damage than any AA. That way the siege will benefit al group sizes and will depend on the organization.
• Modify effects to affect players around a target over time. There is an skill in game from a vampire something that affects players around the target. We need skills like this to avoid staking blobs in one spot. While this is not done we will have pirate ship or melee train.
• Some boons should not stack in duration or potency. They are too strong to be designed to act 100% of the time.

Once we solved the problems with the binary blobs (melee train or pirate ship) and players are somehow rewarded fo using more coordinated way to fight closer to a raid than to pve open world we may think about balancing the population:

• the average population during at the end of a encounter (2h) will be calculated to find the difference multiplier of the points. The math could be like this: (lower population population server / higher population partcipation server) * 100 and that will be the extra percentage points the lower population server will get. Participation could be the total amount of wvw reward track points the total players of that server have earned during that encounter.

You as company can not control the amount of players that goes to each server and making smaller pieces will not balance anything as the players will quickly shift to fill up any server that are defined as the strongest because they have the wvw home guilds. My suggestions will make the game will reward better the difference of player population between servers without the feeling that they did nothing and got everything.

- Problem identified -
This this this and so much this !

I really believe servers population is not the major issue ! What is boring is when you loose a fight just because you are outnumbered, but this happens because people group up into blobs !
Honestly, I don’t really care about winning or loosing the current match, I just like to have fun by fighting fair and interesting fights where my actions matter.
IMO the thing to do is encouraging people to split into smaller groups to fight at more objectives at the same time. Encourage roaming over zergs.

However, I do not entirely agree on the solutions explained in this post.

Like many people, when I open WvW, the 1st thing I do is looking for a commander tag. No commander tag, switch map. Multiple commander tags, I choose the smallest squad as I don’t enjoy blobs a lot. So I think it would be nice if we could have access to mentor tags in WvW, making the mentor able to squad up 10 players max. More mentors on maps would mean more little groups a bit everywhere. The tag could be obtained with WvW achievements, locked reward track or something.

Eternal Battleground could be more focused on blobs and borderlands on roaming, so we would have the choice. Rewards (badges of honor) and experience could be adjusted to the number of people participating to the objective, decreasing with bigger groups.

New “siege” weapons with new mechanisms could be created to encourage smaller groups on borderlands. Something like building a “trap hole”, instant downing every player in a 360m radius if more than 10 peolpe walk on it at the same time. Or building asura gates (1 entry and 1 exit), able to teleport a certain amount of players (max 5?) during its duration (3min duration?), like a mesmer portal… Max 3 gates on each forth of map (north, south, east, west).

Well, I don’t really know, they are just raw ideas, but I think the issue is more here than in server pop. Perhaps a total reset of all servers like many suggest would be prefered as well, to begin on good basis.

The only way for something like this to work is delete all server introduce all new servers with caps and get players to choose their new home from there while CLOSELY monitoring populations via chosen servers. It would be a lot of work for Anet to put server selections under a microscope and players probably wouldn’t be happy about having their servers deleted but if you’re actually toying with this idea that is how it has to be done. If you don’t do this then like so many other have stated, why move? No incentive means most people wouldn’t move.

Another way to make it work is give a big incentive to move, not some stupid bag with an exotic item, I’m talking worth while real incentive. You might get some to move if you were offering something awesome like free gems or ascended items.

Or Introduce new server. delete old one, force everyone to choose, put a 300 population cap on each new server and when all servers have reached the 300 cap increase it by 100, rinse repeat.

Ali.7041:

If I’m completely honest, the majority of my school friends who introduced me to this game no longer play.. and the number of people leaving the game is dramatically increasing. I think you need to give players an incentive to actually play Guild Wars 2 first before you expect more players to play WvW.

95% of my friends left the game shortly after HoT was released for the reasons we all know.

I reinstalled it when they started LS3, went to do some WvW. Everything felt worse than it was a launch, my class was stuck in a support build, conditions are out of control, only the number of players win fights, not skill, skilled guilds are almost all gone, GvG scene is beyond dead.

I don’t see how fixing the server balance will suddenly make the gameplay better. And I don’t understand why they are asking us our opinion about something that should have been fixed 3 years ago. It’s not our job to come up with a good server system, we don’t need to know. Just get it done and move to the pressing matter of making the game “FUN”.

WvW and GW2 needs a freaking electric shock of content and changes, and not the sort HoT brought to the table.

Anyone here remember the trill of stealing the Orb with 10 people chasing you and your buddy at 4am in the morning?

Anyone remember how a team of 10 people organized could win a fight against 20 pugs because the game balance once rewarded skill instead of skill spamming?

Anyone remember when Guilds used to lead the way and were qualified to defeat blobs?

Wake up Anet and play your own game. Stop looking only at the Gem Store numbers and take a look at the player’s experience. This is what the Rocket League team has been doing and they have benefited greatly from that approach, as much as their players.

I guess the current state of things is really just the repercussions of a badly thought-out expansion. When you do not even add one new Blast Field to a class which is specialized in laying down fields how can you revitalize the gameplay? You need to hire someone with cool ideas.

Merging the server is like 1% of the job that needs to be done and you need to ask us how to do it? We won’t get very far if we proceed that way.

Nuzt.7894:

The only way for something like this to work is delete all server introduce all new servers with caps and get players to choose their new home from there while CLOSELY monitoring populations via chosen servers.

This is how I feel also, it’s time for WvW 2.0, a brand new start, remove all the old servers, create 12 new ones.

Anet is afraid of major backlash for doing some drastic changes but they not afraid of suggesting new servers and asking people to move. It is puzzling, puzzling why they couldn’t ask the same for the current dead servers, why they can’t make the current dead servers free, why they can’t reduce the cap now and so on, why must they do it in such a beat around the bush manner.

Then, when people are asking for deletion of servers which they too mentioned they had intention of, they wouldn’t dare to poll the public opinions about it. Puzzling, really puzzling.

ANet, don’t add more servers.

First, we don’t have all servers full / high. Half of them or so are medium size and even the full once, they either don’t have good commanders on a time zone or no players. Either way, they aren’t full, they will always complain about that.
Second, no one will move to a new server without receiving something in return. Some will move just to leave from the zerg.

Work on the servers that are now, add rewards for new and veteran players. Make them log every day and enjoy the mode. You dedicate so much time on PvE mode than in WvW. So many new stuff, so many rewards that you can’t decide which one you want to get it first. You will never be able to fix the population. Players will move wherever they want, where they feel happy, where their friends/family are. You can’t make them play where you want or lock their server. Listen to players feedback/suggestions some of them really have great ideas. Make gold, silver, bronze servers. Not everyone want to be in a zerg, be a roamer or do gvg. Everyone want a certain style and you force them to be in a single style: “zerg”. Let the people play how they want on which server they want. Make your customers happy. Wipe some servers, burn them all if you have to with a new names so everyone start fresh, not some, but only if you adjust and settled everything.

Too many ideas, but no clear vision…imho

We’re gonna get lost without a good compass.

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

Diku.2546:

Too many ideas, but no clear vision…imho

We’re gonna get lost without a good compass.

It’s Arena Net that decide the direction, not us. We don’t need a compass.

Jeknar.6184:

Diku.2546:

Too many ideas, but no clear vision…imho

We’re gonna get lost without a good compass.

It’s Arena Net that decide the direction, not us. We don’t need a compass.

We dont even know how much is Anet compromised to make WvW a decent game mode.

There has been changes sugested by Anet that are weak and not solving the problems, only covering the issue with “placebos” that need to be changed in short time, because they become issues themselves.
Giving useless ideias is worse than giving none, altough Anet if could show some guiding in what they expect WvW to become.
Linking system, ppt score adjustments, introducing more aoe gimmicks(banners, cannons) all were not so good to bad implementations, that didnt solve nothing to the game.

RvR games are ment to be unbalanced by populations, this being said.
->Why Anet wants to change to add more servers with less population while maps are designed to hold alot of players, does Anet want to make us all start ktrain in WVW like EOTM?
->Does the game really need population balance?
->Arent the wvw issues in other mechanics rather population?
->Does spend time/work/resources in things that not solve the “game issue” really worths?
->Does the gameplay offers suficient tools/mechanics for the players adpat their population tactics? Why theres is only offensive blob ktrain, and barelly no one promoting defensive ppt actions, every one prefers to abandon the boat? what is going wrong with the gamemode?
→Is PPT score the issue? Do we need to get rid off ppt, ppt change were useless after all.
->How does the iteration process goes? what defined population are the real issue?

->Is Anet disposed to get rid of the servers structure?
->Is Anet disposed to change/tweak maps layout?
->Is possible to remove some part of the maps and add them to smaller map? ( makign some more designed for smaller scale activity?)
->Is Anet disposed to make Structures more valiable, for alliance/guild who controll them unlocking certain boon/skins/content etc, to make stuff worthy and guilds have an objective or capture and hold stuff, wouldnt this make the game with more stucture?
?

Sorry the bad english.

Jeknar.6184:

Diku.2546:

Too many ideas, but no clear vision…imho

We’re gonna get lost without a good compass.

It’s Arena Net that decide the direction, not us. We don’t need a compass.

Feature creep usually feels directionless if you need it said a different way. New Worlds is another feature that will probably get mixed opinions. While it is indeed Arenanet’s choice, I also wouldn’t ask for player’s to decide a company’s overall direction for it’ll be split.

People who only play Guild Wars 2 will probably give a narrow perspective, but understand the small nuisances involved.

People who play guild wars 2, and other games (or even do other creative things) will give a broader perspective, but they may be aloof on the minutia of Guild Wars 2.

You can also see how Arenanet sold WvW from the beginning here, and compare it to now: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

Chinchilla.1785:

You can also see how Arenanet sold WvW from the beginning here, and compare it to now: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

“Join World vs. World (WvW) for an epic PvP experience full of cunning strategy, earthshaking sieges, and pitched battles between hundreds of players.”

It seems to me that siege and blobs were exactly what they intended to do. So we have what they promised. And now?

Halvorn.9831:

Chinchilla.1785:

You can also see how Arenanet sold WvW from the beginning here, and compare it to now: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

“Join World vs. World (WvW) for an epic PvP experience full of cunning strategy, earthshaking sieges, and pitched battles between hundreds of players.”

It seems to me that siege and blobs were exactly what they intended to do. So we have what they promised. And now?

Yup. They sold a large siege warfare but all people do is complain about sieges and blobs.
/shrug

I know that not everyone who posts here uses English as their main language so it’s understandable that some posts don’t understand the key points in the original idea. It may help to make a few things clear:

1. WvW population is based on player activity in WvW as measured by ANET. It is not the number of players who claim a server as their login home.

2. The original post clearly states that the idea offered is about making more servers of a smaller size because it’s easier to add lots of small groups of varying size to make a whole match up that is more equal overall. So filling the existing servers isn’t what is being offered, and it’s not important whether a host server is full or locked.

What this thread is essentially about is how to spread out the population from the stacked host servers (without demolishing them) and at the same time making smaller parts to allow more balanced groupings.

I have to say though McKenna I can’t imagine an incentive that will shift players off the big hosts into smaller groups. If they wanted to move they have had six months of linking to move to a guest server. I think the only way you can achieve your aim will be to reset everything and monitor it as it comes back together. You will inevitably upset a few players and the population will dip a bit, but if the result is a better balanced and more enjoyable WvW that encourages players to join in, you should see the population grow again.

Sometimes you have to prune a tree back to get new healthy growth.

Jeknar.6184:

Halvorn.9831:

Chinchilla.1785:

You can also see how Arenanet sold WvW from the beginning here, and compare it to now: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

“Join World vs. World (WvW) for an epic PvP experience full of cunning strategy, earthshaking sieges, and pitched battles between hundreds of players.”

It seems to me that siege and blobs were exactly what they intended to do. So we have what they promised. And now?

Yup. They sold a large siege warfare but all people do is complain about sieges and blobs.
/shrug

Players complain because game itself cant handle that kind of gameplay,
Maps were produced for the larger population concept and yet they offer the solution to short population with more of the maps they have designed for those big populations….

The logic.. every step they do contradicts with what they decide or release before, wich will be ending a new issue because game was not prepared for that change nor the changes needed for X addon will ever occur, it does not make even sense.

Aeolus.3615:

Players complain because game itself cant handle that kind of gameplay,
Maps were produced for the larger population concept and yet they want to short population with the maps they have designed for those big populations….

The logic.. every step they do contradicts with what they decide or release before, wich will be ending a new issue because game was not prepared for that change nor the changes needed for X addon will ever occur.

Honestly, I don’t think they expected that it would become Map queue versus Map queue. I’m pretty sure they expected people to split in 2 maybe three somewhat large groups and fight over different objectives. I’ve been in many large fights like 30-40v30-40 that didn’t lag.

Jeknar.6184:

Aeolus.3615:

Players complain because game itself cant handle that kind of gameplay,
Maps were produced for the larger population concept and yet they want to short population with the maps they have designed for those big populations….

The logic.. every step they do contradicts with what they decide or release before, wich will be ending a new issue because game was not prepared for that change nor the changes needed for X addon will ever occur.

Honestly, I don’t think they expected that it would become Map queue versus Map queue. I’m pretty sure they expected people to split in 2 maybe three somewhat large groups and fight over different objectives. I’ve been in many large fights like 30-40v30-40 that didn’t lag.

Yeah, totally agree they didnt expect that queue vs queue, it should be:
big server VS medium server VS small server, reason red can be trebbed from SM and vice versa, as in defensive gameplay could do some offensiveness on the crack house.
But we also have the queue VS almost empty linked servers,wich end to be outmaned at the end.

The lags might deppends on the overall servers population that is actually playing.
I think that deppends from how the processing allocations fluctuates from servers side :\, if theres more action need on other servers, it would be need more processing to calculate all the ticks+aoe+damage needs to be used well u would start that lag.

The thing is what Anet proposed or something similiar could work, but i have my many, many doubts they would do the necessary arrangements/changes or find solutions to avoid it to become a issue later.

1. While this is a good start, it will only be a temporary solution to the ongoing problem of bandwagoning.
2. The implementation of additional worlds and the halving of population caps as proposed is fine. What I would want in addition to this is to have the fee that is required to change servers removed and server loyalty perks added. It’s time to reward players for staying on their server rather than punishing them for wanting to move. Dedicated WvW players simply aren’t held back by any transfer fees, and will thus simply continue to stack on whatever server their commanders move to.
3. Only as much as my guild would be.

I think Anet have a done a good job of explaining the issue, rather than pretending it all works. good job.
Can you incentivise large servers to switch? unlikley but you could try a number of things
approach one of the large guilds and offer them something for a whole sale move. -guildhall bits and pieces or …..name it after them and watch them bite your hand off.
or you could be tough love and reduce the map cap.
Can you stop bandwagoning? reduce the number of changes per account to one change every 4 weeks, with no more than two servers per account.
will it be better? only if you allow servers some sort of identity.
will it balance? dunno having alot of smaller servers working together sounds like cats in a bag. I think it will reduce mega blobs as it wont be as co-ordinated but thats opinion.

Robin Hood.3850:

1-Good
2-Destroy all current WvW servers and start fresh
3-Yes

I agree with this. I also would like to select new server for me by examining how many players are finnish players, because when I selected server 2 years ago as a mmo newbie, I had no idea what to select. Luckily the server had few finnish players. German and french players have dedicated servers, but “Gunnar’s Hold”….. I tought it was swedish men server.

This all just stupid. Just have people Queue for Red Blue Green. When they join the selected pvp map, have the system can drop them in the Color (red blue green) with the least people.

The same way the spvp works to put people into 2 teams. Just edit that system to make it 3 teams and as people join drop them in the color that needs more. ???? Is what I am saying impossible?

You are overcomplicating what does not need to be.

If you are going to shake up WvW servers, don’t go half way. Like others have said, go full force and bring back the battle groups idea. No one will transfer to these new worlds unless a mass exodus happens in which case one server isn’t stacked anymore but a new one is.

Before any new features, i would love to play the game lag free.

Fifth.8169:

This all just stupid. Just have people Queue for Red Blue Green. When they join the selected pvp map, have the system can drop them in the Color (red blue green) with the least people.

The same way the spvp works to put people into 2 teams. Just edit that system to make it 3 teams and as people join drop them in the color that needs more. ???? Is what I am saying impossible?

You are overcomplicating what does not need to be.

So….. just completely destroy all remaining communities and make the game as casual as possible.
Yeah, that won’t drive players away….

Adding more servers would be a bad move in my opinion.

create some sort of guild versus guild mode that is attached to wvw which is like a 30 v 30 or 20 v 20 or something of that nature and in these matches guilds can earn there own fame sort of like in pvp with leagues and honors as well as earn points towards there home world for wvw instead of adding more worlds… i would only say to add more worlds only if the player base of the game increases by a significant amount

Making New Wrold.

The first guild xfer is """"" Are_aNet """"""

they will do WvW raid

hehe

Jim Hunter.6821:

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.

Sooooo basically the same situation they’re in right now….
Yeah this would change nothing.
Pass.

I’m tempted to agree with Jim, but I think some of the proposal is sound.

• I believe there is a lack of incentive to de-stack
• If each world had half of the population of a currently full server, teamspeak might seem somewhat empty
• People would re-stack again because they are sociable
• A lot of stacked people are already in communities that they are happy with

de-stacking doesn’t need incentives
stacking needs penalty

Norbe.7630:

de-stacking doesn’t need incentives
stacking needs penalty

Interesting.

So the stacked server would get a handicap? Like for X amount of players over the competitions population you get -10K x X, at reset?

Jayne.9251:

Norbe.7630:

de-stacking doesn’t need incentives
stacking needs penalty

Interesting.

So the stacked server would get a handicap? Like for X amount of players over the competitions population you get -10K x X, at reset?

Nah how about the stacked server players receive attributes nerfs depending on how stacked they are compared to their rival servers?

Seriously reviewed this proposal & here’s my thoughts.

Would Players use Free Transfers to New Servers & Help ANet to Balance WvW?

The following is my opinion on what these New Worlds will be used for.

Players that are on:

1. Host Server – Probably No – Friends & family already on Server – Wait for ANet to give a better Paired Guest Server.
2. Guest Server – Probably Yes – Player wanting New Action – If New Server Paired with Winning Host, but ANet needs to always give a Strong Host.
3. Guest Server – Probably No – Server Loyalist – They’ll hate ANet for making them Transfer & punish the company by not buying gems.
4. Guest Server – Depends – WvW Noob – Have or Have Not an established list of Friends & Family. See option 1 or 2 for their decision.

Players will typically end up blaming ANet for their Poor gaming experience because their Server doesn’t Win ALL the time.

Players will depend Heavily on ANet to “Give” them a Good gaming experience instead of “Earning” it themselves.

It’s a “cursed” job being responsible for creating balanced Match-Ups while manipulating the score to have “Fair” fights that keep players happy & entertained…imho

It’s going to be the same thing we have now…just with more tiny Servers to move small groups of players around to balance things.

You might end up having to link 3-10 Servers to micro-adjust the population this way…it’s possible…but not very effective…imho.

Don’t forget that some Servers have Language or National based requirements…which can further fracture these micro-servers into nano-servers.

Plus, players won’t sit still…they’ll constantly be transferring…if you keep fees low…if not…things will go stale.

Players that transfer to these New Servers…if they do not somehow figure out how to create a new community…will transfer off to a Server that has an established community.

Players will basically be hopping around till they find a Server with a community they like.

Servers with a Long Term Community is the only thing that can offer a better, stable, and more robust solution.

CAUTION:
Possible vicious cycle in the making…actually…this might already be happening.

Additional related questions that surfaced while reviewing these proposals:

1. What happens to scoring (ppt & glicko)?
2. What happens to WvW Rank?
3. Would Servers be allowed to keep seprarate scoring & ranking?
4. How do you remain transparent in creating “fair & balanced” Match-Ups?
5. What does “fair & balanced” mean?

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

Anet needs to focus on the essential.

*Players want to play with or against their friends without having to transfer. A complete merge with 3 alliances is the only way to do that. *

The reason I’m currently not playing the game in the first place has to do with how the server system scattered my friends on different servers. When I logged on to play WvW I had none of my friends to play with.

Making more servers would be a disaster, I can’t believe it’s even on the table. It’s pretty much as terrible as the new PvP system not letting you play with more than 1 friend in a ranked match. I had 3 friends I liked to pvp with, now it’s impossible, same as WvW.

Who is making the decisions? Why make a MMO if you can’t even play with your friends?

Xillllix.3485:

Players want to play with or against their friends without having to transfer. A complete merge with 3 alliances is the only way to do that.

^^If ANet does this.

I’d like to suggest that ANet implement Pre-Scheduled WINS in WvW divided equally among these 3 alliances. Schedule can be randomly changed & adjusted to allow everybody to participate during a WIN event for their alliance.

Siegerazer event that automatically & equally gives out points to all 3 alliances daily without any user intervention.

Daily & Weekly…all alliance scores end in a tie…we’re all Winners.

Population In-Balance is meaningless & everybody can Win.

This is definitely Not the best solution, but it’s simple…imho

Going with this kind of solution…we’ve basically abandoned the idea that WvW can ever be a competitive game mode.

Totally agree with you…Playing with your friends & family…is the biggest reason behind why I love MMORPG games…hands down.

1. This seems like a reasonable proposal, I think you will have a hard time getting people to transfer off worlds existing though, even if it is free.

2. You may actually need to compensate people to get them to transfer. Maybe give them 500 gems. Or else, roll in the new worlds over time and give new accounts a gem bonus if they create characters on those worlds.

3. I would not. But I don’t play WvW much anymore, I just go there for dailies. (offtopic: for me, the mode is just too unbalanced for fighting at every level, even when the player counts are uneven, as they usually are. 1v1, 5v5, 10v10 etc, doesn’t matter, the side running the cheesiest build wins, unless their opposition is incompetent.)

Reaper Alim.4176:

Jayne.9251:

Norbe.7630:

de-stacking doesn’t need incentives
stacking needs penalty

Interesting.

So the stacked server would get a handicap? Like for X amount of players over the competitions population you get -10K x X, at reset?

Nah how about the stacked server players receive attributes nerfs depending on how stacked they are compared to their rival servers?

That sadly wouldn’t be enough. People will be walking lootbags if they still have double the numbers. Herd mentality.

You have to penalize the server rating, make it an uphill fight every week, before people will clue in and spread out. If you’re down 100k every reset, that’s going to affect week-end score and T1 shiny status.

Can’t have a good time in WvW anymore so broke. People trying to get on the FULL servers just to play the game a little. =(

Blow dem servers up make a fun WvW instead.

Jayne.9251:

Reaper Alim.4176:

Jayne.9251:

Norbe.7630:

de-stacking doesn’t need incentives
stacking needs penalty

Interesting.

So the stacked server would get a handicap? Like for X amount of players over the competitions population you get -10K x X, at reset?

Nah how about the stacked server players receive attributes nerfs depending on how stacked they are compared to their rival servers?

That sadly wouldn’t be enough. People will be walking lootbags if they still have double the numbers. Herd mentality.

You have to penalize the server rating, make it an uphill fight every week, before people will clue in and spread out. If you’re down 100k every reset, that’s going to affect week-end score and T1 shiny status.

So y’all want to punish some players because anet failed to generate more interest for wvw and increase retention rates?

What y’all are talking about is akin to blaming customers for low HoT sales and poor conversions to B2P… … The customers did not create this game, nor do they maintain it, the state of wvw is a direct result of what anet did or didn’t do… Might want to think about that before we come up with more ideas to punish customers.

Hmm. As I understand it this proposal is so Anet has more building blocks to manage balanced matchups.

If that’s the case, then it might be prudent to assign TZ “servers” so you can more equally distribute offhour coverage. It would be an adjustment for us SEA/EU/OCX guys, but you could guarantee (to a degree) that off hour coverage is mitigated by only assigning an OCX server group to a matchup with opposing OCX server groups. (For example)

There need to be some way to incentivise these groups tho for it to work.

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.

I see no problem with this.

One minor thing I’d do though would be to open free transfers from these servers which are likely to be locked for a long while to the new servers you create, or even to all medium pop servers & the new servers.

just merge and create server with new names