Guild Wars 2

if any team has x more players than another team then they will obtain a Que for that map. set that number to something like 10 so if green has 20 players on eb and red has 25 players than blue would find themselves capped at 30 and that would go up as people join green.

this would not only encourage t1 guilds to transfer to smaller servers to that they can join WvW more frequently but also would encourage guild to run multimap making BL fights more interesting.

“what about out numbered buff”
lol what does seeing that buff give you comfort or something? the very fact that the game enables fights to reach that level of imbalance is an issue to begin with.

“what about guilds that run 50+ people at a time”
perhaps they will finally learn how to do the desert borderland if they now follow two tags instead of one. also what about the poor sap that has to face that 50 man organized group with 10 pugs?

“but large guild runs tho”
100v100 is possible if anet gets their networking up to buff. but 50v10 should NOT be possible.

in short i want to see Que be dynamic based on the number of players the enemy servers have in the map you intend to join to discourage bandwagon and encourage even fights.

The problem with this being that you forcibly limit the server populations, pushing them all down to bring them to the same low and equal level.

Thats communism.

No.
If you want even fights then go to spvp.

Dawdler.8521:

The problem with this being that you forcibly limit the server populations, pushing them all down to bring them to the same low and equal level.

Thats communism.

actually it forces them all into a middle ground. and t1 servers would still have much larger matches than t4 servers

also what is everything you dont like communism? what are an 80 year old middle class white catholic male? good lord learn atleast learn what communism is.

Did it ever occur to you we t4 players don’t want t1 players who don’t want to actually be in t4? Why would we want our servers stacked with fairweathers who clog ques? If players want more competitive play, then they can transfer out of t1 on their own. They are presumably all adults or something close to it.

wtf, why is political science being discussed on a game lul!

…but to be honest communism in WvW is better than the current republic or rather monarchy

btw heres a secret….
most of the guys on this forum don’t know what this picture means

Norbe.7630:

wtf, why is political science being discussed on a game lul!

…but to be honest communism in WvW is better than the current republic or rather monarchy

btw heres a secret….
most of the guys on this forum don’t know what this picture means

that picture means anet has made a deliberate attempt to ensure your screwed by allowing too many enemies into the map but they sugar coat that by saying IF you manage to pick a few off the hoard you will be rewarded just a leeetle bit more

This may not be a good idea because of the link system. The better option is to simply merge servers. More people, more fun. Less people, less fun.

Black desert did it, and it saved that game.

Sovereign.1093:

This may not be a good idea because of the link system. The better option is to simply merge servers. More people, more fun. Less people, less fun.

Black desert did it, and it saved that game.

they already did server merges any further and we will simply be playing the same people every single week.

This would actually kill t1 if this happens. T4 is actually very balanced and competitive right now. And there is more activity (much more in fact) on the T4 matchup than T1. I am basing this off of the amount of kills and deaths per server in each respective matchup. T1 as a whole has around 58k kills and/or deaths while T4 has around 85k kills and/or deaths. I find that extremely interesting… More kills on the lower tiers. Yes, there are multiple servers linked up together, but still…

Rangerdeity.5847:

i

“what about guilds that run 50+ people at a time”
perhaps they will finally learn how to do the desert borderland if they now follow two tags instead of one. also what about the poor sap that has to face that 50 man organized group with 10 pugs?

There is no guild that runs 50+ that i see. T2 has most the guilds these days.

T4 is 500 gems vs 1800 for higher tiers. what more encouragement do lemmings need? we all know 80% of NA are fairweathers, there’s prolly only 1 guild per server or tier even that raids more when they are losing.

That’s why we’re all applying for Maguuman Visas. Still waiting on President Xushin to approve.

Rangerdeity.5847:

if any team has x more players than another team then they will obtain a Que for that map. set that number to something like 10 so if green has 20 players on eb and red has 25 players than blue would find themselves capped at 30 and that would go up as people join green.

this would not only encourage t1 guilds to transfer to smaller servers to that they can join WvW more frequently but also would encourage guild to run multimap making BL fights more interesting.

“what about out numbered buff”
lol what does seeing that buff give you comfort or something? the very fact that the game enables fights to reach that level of imbalance is an issue to begin with.

“what about guilds that run 50+ people at a time”
perhaps they will finally learn how to do the desert borderland if they now follow two tags instead of one. also what about the poor sap that has to face that 50 man organized group with 10 pugs?

“but large guild runs tho”
100v100 is possible if anet gets their networking up to buff. but 50v10 should NOT be possible.

in short i want to see Que be dynamic based on the number of players the enemy servers have in the map you intend to join to discourage bandwagon and encourage even fights.

it will work if and only if it is megalised wvw but wvw isn’t megalised
this option forced a balanced matchup at the cost of barring players from joining the map and it will not “encourage” people to move to t4. it encourage them to play another mmorpg

best encouragement is always money related and not gameplay related as t4, as a standalone server, cannot match t1 in activeness. people will really consider moving if the transfer is free.

standalone server means….alone
if cd is a standalone server without any link, do you even think cd can match bg/tc/jq/mag in activities?

facepalm
obviously you are not here to discuss but to brag about how amazing your links is and if so, you are in the wrong forums.

That’s all well and good, but given that single servers, outside of T1 and sometimes T2, isn’t a reality any longer (and last summer I was on KN w/ TC… which lasted all of three days), it’s kind of an irrelevant talking point. We have links, we have higher activity because of those links, we do better because of the guilds that the links bring.

Relink occur every other month and thus making activities level subjective to the anet’s discretion. In other words, if anet decided to give every server link again which naturally means T4 will no longer has 3 links, will T4 still have the same level for activities then? With that said, players will keep that in mind when choosing server to move to.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But we have to go all the way down to Mag to find the ‘most active’ T1 server right now. #8 on the list. There’s no expectation that T1 will have ‘more’ activity than T2, T3, or T4 just because of a few relinks.

however, as a player, going to a more populated server is much less riskier than going to a low populated server that you won’t know what gonna happen on every relink or the next day. it is a simple thought process therefore even if it is 500 gems, it doesn’t really makes people wanna go down, but, a free transfer will certainly trigger that thought. also, i doubt people cares about the data activities level. stereotyping is what usually done.

Ni In.6578:

Yea but T1 ded. T4 highest activity.

Dude…….have you forgotten?

First rule about T4 fight club is YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT T4 FIGHT CLUB.

@nightsparrow, yeah stereotyping certainly has hit T4 in the past. It’s not like you get more/better rewards in kitten, or T3 for that matter. It’s a bragging point, and that’s about it.

But the fights in T4 have always been great. If you’re looking for a PPT-oriented server like TC, T4 is not for you.

And lol. Yeah don’t transfer to CD. We’re already making it DVD.

Rambitshouse.8712:

Ni In.6578:

Yea but T1 ded. T4 highest activity.

Dude…….have you forgotten?

First rule about T4 fight club is YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT T4 FIGHT CLUB.

Dis guy knows what its all about.

at first twas political science….
now twas Tier activity…

and i thought T2 has the highest activity atm
even T1 guys at the troll forum wants to join the fun at T2

is T1 really that boring these days?

Rambitshouse.8712:

Ni In.6578:

Yea but T1 ded. T4 highest activity.

Dude…….have you forgotten?

First rule about T4 fight club is YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT T4 FIGHT CLUB.

t4 might have kittenty off hours but man our fights are intense as kitten. t1 is basically eotm on every map.

Why, they already have a quasi-balance system in effect which is to roll servers together. That system certainly needs to be dialed in better but no reason to create another layer.

Straegen.2938:

Why, they already have a quasi-balance system in effect which is to roll servers together. That system certainly needs to be dialed in better but no reason to create another layer.

the fact we are still seeing outnumbered buffs is how you know more still needs to be done. honestly have you ever seen that buff and thought “its ok we can still take the enemy team on”

Rangerdeity.5847:

Straegen.2938:

the fact we are still seeing outnumbered buffs is how you know more still needs to be done. honestly have you ever seen that buff and thought “its ok we can still take the enemy team on”

yes