Guild Wars 2

I’ve read this post with some interest – the desire for non-large blob combat has existed for a long time despite the drive to merge/link servers into huge populations for epic battles. Don’t get me wrong, I like an epic battle now and then, but like the OP I prefer to play in the lower tiers in small groups. What would be ideal (for me) would be a way to engage in large battles when I feel like it while having regular smaller server based action.

About three months ago I posted an idea as a result of feelings very similar to those expressed by the OP.
The basic idea was to keep three tiers of servers as they are now where servers move up and down the rankings (sort of “ranked WvW”). I suggested introducing two tiers (six servers) of smaller population servers that would rotate weekly on match up basis so the weekly score doesn’t affect who your server plays (“unranked WvW” if you like).
The idea was to provide the ranked competitive play so many players enjoy, along with smaller group play for those who prefer that style – making the assumption that players won’t blob or bandwagon the “unranked” servers because there’s no way they’ll rise into a “top tier” from the unranked division.

The thread was generally positive but with other more important issues to discuss the forum moved on (understandably). I thought it might be worth mentioning again since I wonder if it’s a solution that would help the OP situation – either in the original form or after evolution/adaptation into something better.

( Previous thread can be found here if you want to read it)

Diku.2546:

Norbe.7630:

Diku.2546:

ANet needs to re-design the Game Mode & use a better Match-Up mechanic that leverages Population In-Balances to create Match-Ups that are Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled.

T1 is normal WvW
T2 is karma train EoTM style
T3 is King of the Hill Battle
T4 is a PvP map as big as the entire Tyria heaven for roamers where all they would do is run around the map all day long and call themselves a low tier roamers

different tiers with different modes and different maps
i wonder how will people get one server stacked on that……

Actually you have a lot of misunderstandings. I can’t correct you without the post being deleted.

i thought i was the one corrected you……

Norbe – you missed the point of being a low tier roamer – our purpose is to solo cap camps, towers and keeps Please note it’s ok if you do this in a group of two or three, but anything over five in the party is cheating – I know because this is how it was in the bottom tiers at off peak times. It was surprisingly more fun that you might think, although I can sort of understand how some players dare not venture out without at least 10 complimentary built companions to provide the might, condi cleanse, speed, resistance, invuln and other buffs… oh and to flash build those open field ACs properly.

Seriously however, if I want K train I would look to EotM, and isn’t EB one big King of the Stonemist Hill battle? So really the choice is between your T1 and T4 and I know where I’d put my money toon.

ok, tell me the difference in a high tier roamer and a low tier roamer if what you define is “solo cap camps, towers and keeps” (can you not solo cap on a high tier?)

mind you the definition of the current tier is population and not modes, battles, karma train or even roaming

i hope you’ve been on a real low tier to support your claim…….

so, with every server is picked and fought with all the same mode on every tier
server stacking cant be avoided, population imbalance remains the same

The more I think about this situation, the more I want to promote the idea of removing the “home map” system, and clone up more maps as needed. And add a specific map as “low-pop-skirmishing-map”.

Yes that whole no home BL system, so they can add/remove maps with the currently active population, and such that I’ve promoted a bunch of times before. But I still think it would fix this issue, and a few others. Just have the servers self adjust the number of maps needed, and if they need 3 copies of EBG so be it, if they need 2 skirmishing maps ok done. Only 1 borderland ? or 3 ? sure.

Thanks for the reply Norbe. It’s a fair question to ask about my experience – I’ve been on the same NA server since GW2 launched and saw action in T2 through to T8 before linking. Since linking I’ve been in each of the four current tiers including T1. So I’ve experienced play that varies from groups of over 50 down to literally one or two players on a map.

You are of course right – about solo capping stuff on a high tier, especially if you can time it so the defenders are busy. Perhaps the biggest difference I’ve seen is that on lower tiers you are more likely to meet a defending force of a similar size to your own small party when roaming, and I find this makes the fights more fun.

Joneirikb – while I understand your suggestion I would not be in favour of losing the “home” map. That’s just a personal opinion. I am one of those players who will happily run around in my home BL refreshing siege, retaking stuff and keeping an eye on things. I enjoy a good run in other maps too, but my priority has always been home.

WvW is a game mode that has so many different ways to play – and they’re all good. It would be good to find a solution will allow this variety to continue.

Jeknar.6184:

Diku.2546:

Can somebody tell me what we can discuss in this thread without it being deleted?

Not World versus Globes.

Norbe.7630:

i thought i was the one corrected you……

Hmm…folks here seem to lament & miss the Lower Tier’s non-blobbing play style that used to exist before World Linking became a permanent feature.

I also miss this aspect of WvW & hope that things can be changed to allow it to be nurtured & encouraged again…like it should be…imho

I still believe it’s possible.

Sorry, but I can’t figure out how to explain things without my posts being deleted at the moment…I can only make postings that share in the grief.

The situation has always been fluid, though. You can’t tell me that one server stayed about the same from game launch all the way through HoT until server linkings. There may have been a point in time where a server felt “just right”, but then things changed and it either got bigger due to bandwagons or got smaller due to people bailing for various reasons, or a mass exodus.

Right before server linkings, though, T6, T7 and T8 servers were dead, really dead, where a commander might rustle up 5 people to create the only zerg on the map. It seemed fine after HoT and the DBLs came out, but after a couple months, it slowly died off until the server linkings. The DBLs weren’t all to blame, though, because in the lower tiers, even EBG was dead…no queues at all.

@Sylvyn

that is not completely right. I am from WSR we were in T9 / 8 and before the linking in T7. We were a strong community and have fun in WvW. But that is past, we since linking hardly play WvW in T1, very sad.

Since the linkings we have so many people and guilds lost. I made this thread more as one month ago:
Slow death of the “forgotten” Guest server

We miss our fun in WvW. All what we want:
- roaming (take keeps, tower and camps – ppt),
- small scale fights with guild groups
- small guild raids

“I and the others missing the good old days”

Yuffi.2430:

Joneirikb – while I understand your suggestion I would not be in favour of losing the “home” map. That’s just a personal opinion. I am one of those players who will happily run around in my home BL refreshing siege, retaking stuff and keeping an eye on things. I enjoy a good run in other maps too, but my priority has always been home.

WvW is a game mode that has so many different ways to play – and they’re all good. It would be good to find a solution will allow this variety to continue.

Understandable, fully recognize that you lose the current definition of home map in what I’ve suggested.

I personally am of the opinion that a single colored map is a boring map, so I’d like to see all maps (alpine/desert) remade into the EBG style with 3 roughly equal sides. And I would love to see one of them, or a new map made as a dedicated “home map” for all 3 servers, with defensive advantages, benefits for controlling things etc. Basically making keeping your side matter. I think that would be a more fun “home” system than the current “keep the map in single color”.

But there are as many opinions as there are humans (+ a few extra, for those with multiple personalities, or that just never decide on one).

But basically in this case, I wanted this system, so it could generate “low-pop” maps in the current match-up’s without interrupting the games too much. If we just tacked on another map on top of the existing ones, it would just get deserted 90% of the day, and queue’d with people that don’t want to be there on reset, that would try to zerg it.

joneirikb.7506:

I personally am of the opinion that a single colored map is a boring map, so I’d like to see all maps (alpine/desert) remade into the EBG style with 3 roughly equal sides. And I would love to see one of them, or a new map made as a dedicated “home map” for all 3 servers, with defensive advantages, benefits for controlling things etc. Basically making keeping your side matter. I think that would be a more fun “home” system than the current “keep the map in single color”.

We had that, it didn’t work (DBL).
Also what a lot of people (and anet) should realize in my opinion: Things were rather well back in the day. Instead of trying something new every other week, we should go backwards in a lot of cases. Unfortunately the situation is that dire for wvw that it’s a ton of problems which can’t be solved at once (unless you roll back the game, at least for wvw, to before June 23th 2015).

Edit: Grammar

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

I personally am of the opinion that a single colored map is a boring map, so I’d like to see all maps (alpine/desert) remade into the EBG style with 3 roughly equal sides. And I would love to see one of them, or a new map made as a dedicated “home map” for all 3 servers, with defensive advantages, benefits for controlling things etc. Basically making keeping your side matter. I think that would be a more fun “home” system than the current “keep the map in single color”.

We had that, it didn’t work (DBL).
Also what a lot of people (and anet) should realize in my opinion: Things were rather well back in the day. Instead of trying something new every other week, we should go backwards in a lot of cases. Unfortunately the situation is that dire for wvw that it’s a ton of problems which can’t be solved at once (unless you roll back the game, at least for wvw, to before June 23th 2015).

Edit: Grammar

Just to clarify that what I’m talking about is not DBL. DBL is built around the same principle as ABL, that each server has 1 borderland map to call home, and that it favors that side dominating the entire map keeping it single color. And having the south objects flip a bit more often.

They tried to change thing sup somewhat with the waypoint changes, but it would still be a far cry away from working like a true 3 way map like EBG.

I think that a lot of the things going backwards, might no longer work because the players and times has changed. But there is a whole lot of things changed, so I might think of different things than you do. People certainly can’t agree on where they want to roll builds etc back to.

joneirikb.7506:

Just to clarify that what I’m talking about is not DBL.

That’s great, but the DBL was set up as tiny EBLs when they launched – just that people didn’t get it and anet didn’t tell us. The WPs south, then keeps were only usable by enemy forces.

joneirikb.7506:

DBL is built around the same principle as ABL, that each server has 1 borderland map to call home, and that it favors that side dominating the entire map keeping it single color. And having the south objects flip a bit more often.

See above.

joneirikb.7506:

They tried to change thing sup somewhat with the waypoint changes, but it would still be a far cry away from working like a true 3 way map like EBG.

No, it would’ve been a 3 way ebg, just that we didn’t have enough people to fill 4 maps. And that no one got what anet wanted to do with the DBL – in the end it’s better like it used to be and like it is now, isn’kitten The forces that are strong enough can afford to have a keep in an enemy BL.

joneirikb.7506:

I think that a lot of the things going backwards, might no longer work because the players and times has changed. But there is a whole lot of things changed, so I might think of different things than you do. People certainly can’t agree on where they want to roll builds etc back to.

The thing is: wvw is turning more and more into EotM and we already have that. I guess people would still be able to learn tactics if that made sense again, otherwise we could just delete wvw and spare us the hassle.

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Just to clarify that what I’m talking about is not DBL.

That’s great, but the DBL was set up as tiny EBLs when they launched – just that people didn’t get it and anet didn’t tell us. The WPs south, then keeps were only usable by enemy forces.

joneirikb.7506:

DBL is built around the same principle as ABL, that each server has 1 borderland map to call home, and that it favors that side dominating the entire map keeping it single color. And having the south objects flip a bit more often.

See above.

joneirikb.7506:

They tried to change thing sup somewhat with the waypoint changes, but it would still be a far cry away from working like a true 3 way map like EBG.

No, it would’ve been a 3 way ebg, just that we didn’t have enough people to fill 4 maps. And that no one got what anet wanted to do with the DBL – in the end it’s better like it used to be and like it is now, isn’kitten The forces that are strong enough can afford to have a keep in an enemy BL.

joneirikb.7506:

I think that a lot of the things going backwards, might no longer work because the players and times has changed. But there is a whole lot of things changed, so I might think of different things than you do. People certainly can’t agree on where they want to roll builds etc back to.

The thing is: wvw is turning more and more into EotM and we already have that. I guess people would still be able to learn tactics if that made sense again, otherwise we could just delete wvw and spare us the hassle.

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

I’d just like to see them go all the way with that, and remove the entire “Borderland” system. Make “home” a home corner on a map, instead of a whole map. But yes I fully know that there are people that disagree with me. I just think that the other advantages to such a system would out-weight the draw-backs. You obviously disagree.

Sylvyn.4750:

The situation has always been fluid, though. You can’t tell me that one server stayed about the same from game launch all the way through HoT until server linkings. There may have been a point in time where a server felt “just right”, but then things changed and it either got bigger due to bandwagons or got smaller due to people bailing for various reasons, or a mass exodus.

Right before server linkings, though, T6, T7 and T8 servers were dead, really dead, where a commander might rustle up 5 people to create the only zerg on the map. It seemed fine after HoT and the DBLs came out, but after a couple months, it slowly died off until the server linkings. The DBLs weren’t all to blame, though, because in the lower tiers, even EBG was dead…no queues at all.

You’re right. I always felt the same way too.

This is why I thought that Tournaments hurt the Core WvW Population because it caused so much drama & burn out to the “Veteran” Population that cared for their World Server.

Fair weathers could care less & would eagerly swarm like a locust to the next healthy World Server.

I also feel that WvW can’t really support & encourage a healthy competitive game mode because of this.

WvW current design has way too many obstacles and complex mechanics that work against it.

I’m of the opinion that simpler is better.

I wish that ANet would consider removing the Tier structure & all its complex match-up mechanics & just let All the Worlds Fight each other directly & Rank them for how well they fight in this big brawl.

Let the chips fall where they may weekly. Let the best NA & EU World be Ranked #1.

Then ANet just needs to Weekly update a Leaderboard to proudly proclaim who’s the #1 Ranked NA & EU World for everybody to see.

Let the Majority of Players that want to fight on & in the #1 Ranked WvW…do so…they’ll naturally gravitate to that World for the Epic Zerg fights…that should be happening there.

This way players can enjoy Epic Zerg Blobbing in the #1 Ranked WvW World & the Lower Ranked Worlds get to have a Slower paced & Smaller sized play style…because the majority of players would rather be else where.

Anyway…I feel the same…I hated the fair weather players & their bandwagons…it disrupts & destroys the health of long term WvW communities.

joneirikb.7506:

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

No, it wasn’t, it was just like EBG, the server it was assigned to had no advantage. In your mind 4 EBGs might work out – I don’t think it will and there are a lot of people who only play on their BL /BLs in general. So I guess you’re pretty alone with your idea how wvw should be like.

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

No, it wasn’t, it was just like EBG, the server it was assigned to had no advantage. In your mind 4 EBGs might work out – I don’t think it will and there are a lot of people who only play on their BL /BLs in general. So I guess you’re pretty alone with your idea how wvw should be like.

I’m pretty sure there are far more people that play only in EBG than only in the BLs. Why you think EBG is always the first map to get queued?

Maps of a single color are maps without activity. Dead maps. Why bother going to a dead map? Everyone just hop unto EBG because it’s hardly of a single color, which mean there are enemies in there.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote”, the final results are:

82.7% – Yes

17.3% – No

This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!

Populations have also increased since linking and reward tracks…

/thread

Jeknar.6184:

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

No, it wasn’t, it was just like EBG, the server it was assigned to had no advantage. In your mind 4 EBGs might work out – I don’t think it will and there are a lot of people who only play on their BL /BLs in general. So I guess you’re pretty alone with your idea how wvw should be like.

I’m pretty sure there are far more people that play only in EBG than only in the BLs. Why you think EBG is always the first map to get queued?

Maps of a single color are maps without activity. Dead maps. Why bother going to a dead map? Everyone just hop unto EBG because it’s hardly of a single color, which mean there are enemies in there.

Personally I think ANet should just let All Worlds attack each other & assign 1 EBG Map to all Worlds, but assign any additional BLs to them as more people show up on their front door to fight them.

That way all Worlds will start with 1 EBG map and call it Home, but they can increase the number & variety of BL maps to accommodate the demand for more space as players from other Worlds show up to fight them.

Diku.2546:

I’m of the opinion that simpler is better

I wish that ANet would consider removing the Tier structure & all its complex match-up mechanics & just let All the Worlds Fight each other directly & Rank them for how well they fight in this big brawl.

Let the chips fall where they may weekly. Let the best NA & EU World be Ranked #1.

Then ANet just needs to Weekly update a Leaderboard to proudly proclaim who’s the #1 Ranked NA & EU World for everybody to see.

Let the Majority of Players that want to fight on & in the #1 Ranked WvW…do so…they’ll naturally gravitate to that World for the Epic Zerg fights…that should be happening there.

This way players can enjoy Epic Zerg Blobbing in the #1 Ranked WvW World & the Lower Ranked Worlds get to have a Slower paced & Smaller sized play style…because the majority of players would rather be else where.

Anyway…I feel the same…I hated the fair weather players & their bandwagons …it disrupts & destroys the health of long term WvW communities.

a girl learns fast,
a girl should forfeit WvG lobe and forget her past to become strong
a girl now is ready to embrace the many faced god,

“Are you afraid? Good. You’re in the great game now. And the great game is terrifying,” -Tyrion to Daenerys

lets just call it WvG ame of Thrones
(though i formerly called it Battle Royale, reference to an anime and movie)

24 NA and 27 EU face to face against each other all at the same time
(stack on one server if you want, you’ll have 23 enemies for NA or 26 enemies for EU to demolish you lol)
just don’t increase the server cap Anet,for it will be another bandwagoning session only much bigger…… lel
they have 20+ maps to queue to, you know (that is 20+ maps to choose from on your screen)

Norbe.7630:

Diku.2546:

I’m of the opinion that simpler is better

I wish that ANet would consider removing the Tier structure & all its complex match-up mechanics & just let All the Worlds Fight each other directly & Rank them for how well they fight in this big brawl.

Let the chips fall where they may weekly. Let the best NA & EU World be Ranked #1.

Then ANet just needs to Weekly update a Leaderboard to proudly proclaim who’s the #1 Ranked NA & EU World for everybody to see.

Let the Majority of Players that want to fight on & in the #1 Ranked WvW…do so…they’ll naturally gravitate to that World for the Epic Zerg fights…that should be happening there.

This way players can enjoy Epic Zerg Blobbing in the #1 Ranked WvW World & the Lower Ranked Worlds get to have a Slower paced & Smaller sized play style…because the majority of players would rather be else where. fighting in & on the #1 Ranked Worlds.

Anyway…I feel the same…I hated the fair weather players & their bandwagons …it disrupts & destroys the health of long term WvW communities.

a girl learns fast,
a girl should forfeit WvG WvW and forget her past to become strong
a girl now is ready to embrace the many faced god,

“Are you afraid? Good. You’re in the great game now. And the great game is terrifying,”
-Tyrion to Daenerys

24 NA and 27 EU face to face against each other all at the same time
(stack on one server if you want, you’ll have 23 enemies for NA or 26 enemies for EU to demolish you lol)
just don’t increase the server cap Anet……. lel

Agree…ANet…don’t increase the server cap. Let the map queue for enemies attacking to mushroom out of control…1,000+

For those who makes their Home on one of these Top Ranked Servers, let them easily enter up to a Home team’s map limit…then queue & get out of control…1,000+ to be fair.

Eventually players will learn to not wait in line by going to other servers to fight on because they can.

The higher Rank a World gets…the more important having a Higher Population that can consistently & constantly Zerg is required.

The lower Rank a World gets…the more important Community becomes & it’s less about needing a Higher Population that Zergs if at all.

Peppel.9736:

@Sylvyn

that is not completely right. I am from WSR we were in T9 / 8 and before the linking in T7. We were a strong community and have fun in WvW. But that is past, we since linking hardly play WvW in T1, very sad.

Since the linkings we have so many people and guilds lost. I made this thread more as one month ago:
Slow death of the “forgotten” Guest server

We miss our fun in WvW. All what we want:
- roaming (take keeps, tower and camps – ppt),
- small scale fights with guild groups
- small guild raids

“I and the others missing the good old days”

I apologize…my generalization should have been limited to NA servers and tiers. I’m sure EU servers have had their own unique issues related to the server linkings, too, but it sounds similar in that pretty much all “guest” servers have lost their identity and their communities are shrinking.

Sylvyn.4750:

I apologize…my generalization should have been limited to NA servers and tiers. I’m sure EU servers have had their own unique issues related to the server linkings, too, but it sounds similar in that pretty much all “guest” servers have lost their identity and their communities are shrinking.

There is nothing to apologize, Sylvyn

Everyone has a different opinion and that’s good. I did not know that you’re playing in NA and writing about it, sry.

One have NA and EU together, the “guest” server dying and we have no balance between the linkings and the MU. As long as doesnt change there are always more people no longer play WvW.

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

No, it wasn’t, it was just like EBG, the server it was assigned to had no advantage.

I think you’re the only person I’ve ever seen compare DBL to EBG. It doesn’t have anywhere near the same dynamics for channeling people toward SMC/center, the closeness of objectives that you’re always fighting for or protecting something, or have somewhere to run back to. DBL is just overly wast, doesn’t have anything in the center at all to encourage people to come (not even with the lazer). Everything is much more tricky to get to, objectives are scattered around in a circle and not a 3-star like EBG.

So no, even if it did have free waypoints in towers -> keeps, it is nothing like EBG, If anything it is more like EOTM map. I don’t see your point at all, no matter how much you say: “No, it wasn’t,”

Jana.6831:

In your mind 4 EBGs might work out – I don’t think it will and there are a lot of people who only play on their BL /BLs in general. So I guess you’re pretty alone with your idea how wvw should be like.

And now I feel you’re putting words in my mouth. I have not said 4 EBG, or any number of any maps. I’ve said that the servers should dynamically change the number of maps to the population.

If there are 20 people online tops per server, we probably shouldn’t have more than 1 map (but probably would still have at least 2, for 1 ebg and 1 bl map). If there are 200 people in queue for EBG, by all means, open more EBG maps. Less lost zerglings to get lost in the alpine/desert maps.

I for one have played 95% of my time in WvW in Alpine and some Desert, I hate EBG like the plague.

The one thing that would be lost, is the definition of a “home map”. Instead you would have to defend or focus on a “home corner” in one of the maps, I’d guess EBG might fit the best for this as most people seem to care for it (for some reason).

But this is diverting the topic, so I’ll stop responding about this.

@Jana.6831
@joneirikb.7506

I think the both of you are both trying to encourage the same thing.

The concept of Home, but you’re on different wave lengths as far as Maps goes, but that’s ok…you both share the same desire about Home…imho

My opinion on Home is that this is exactly what makes you return to play WvW.

Home is Community…you’ll hear it over & over again.

Having many Communities (weak or strong) nurtured & allowed to exist…means a Robust Game Mode…it allows for a cycle of life.

You could have a corner in the Map, or you could have single EBG Map assigned to be your “Home”

It’s the simple fact that there IS a Particular Corner or Single EBG Map for you to return to.

It’s the place where you’ll find ALL your friends & family. A place where your heart can go to.

This is what’s now missing for many in WvW since World Linking was used to “Balance” population.

The Veteran Community on many Guest Servers were forced into choosing to change their “Home”, to remain a refugee in their preferred “Home”, or stop playing.

The “Heart & Soul” of many Guest Servers are gone now. Those that remain only joyride upon the Zerg Fest of their Host Server.

ANet asked the Zerg Addicts what they wanted…and they voted to turn WvW into a Zerg Fest.

You can’t ask an Addict how much Zerg they want & not expect them to request an overdose.

ANet is now stuck with this decision that the “Majority” of players wanted.

Worst part of this…ANet can’t ask the “Majority” of players to undo it…because…well you know.

At this point…I’d advise ANet to seriously change their Game Mode with a new core mechanic instead that can support & does encourage healthy competition…perhaps with the next XPack.

Someone mentioned that I should open my own game studio, but what I’d really like to do is join the ANet WvW dev team as a guiding light in rl…which I doubt they’d consider because I’ve criticize their product so much, but I downright love this product & feel miserable about the current state it’s in…speaking from the heart.

ANet can still fix this. I still believe this Game Mode can become the next eSport similar in scope to the NLF & Super Bowl franchise…if the right path is taken to make it right again…imho

Take a cookie…you’ll feel right as rain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvaE_HCMimQ

I’m along with others, left the low tiers due to lack of people to play with and against, and I was not alone.

If the single or small group players want their own server, I’d be fine with that, as long as 2 conditions are met:

1. Warn new players about the server limitations and restrictions when joining it and provide 1 free transfer off. This needs to be done right at server selection screen in huge red letters. A fair warning that if they join this particular server, they will not be able to experience the Massive Battles of WVW.

2. If the small scale guys want to pay for it and its upkeep, thats fine, but do not expect rest of us to pay for our servers to be downscaled to the point where WVW becomes unplayable again due to lack of people in it.