Guild Wars 2

Virtute.8251:

My suggestion does not value a particular population distribution. What it mitigates are the negative affects of retaining access to sub-par and dying server communities.

Separately, it asks that the Megaserver system be used to mitigate any negative affects of population distribution. The act of population redistribution through merger can occur without that step. They are distinct suggestions.

A meaningless distinction. Merging servers counts an population redistribution in my book, but you are of course welcome to any version of events you prefer. I have zero interest in semantics.

What would be lost by merges of the small servers could be recreated if the game implemented guild alliances. You could just call your alliance “Eredon Terrace” or w/e.

I think people against merges for the lower servers live in some idealistic rosy bubble. Or only play during the 1h primetime window when there are actually enough people around.
Thread meant NA but in EU it’s even more aggravated because they have less internationals and most people play in one time zone only.

While I wouldn’t mind some more coverage I’m not interested in the least in playing in higher tiers. I’m quite happy with our NA prime time population, I wouldn’t say no to a night or morning crew guild.

No thanks, played in T2 and played against T1 in Season 1, no desire to be part of the 1 mashing blob fest ever again.

this is something that is already happening, slowly of course but the people who want to do this, will do it. the others well im sure will get tired of always pvding and just quit the game. With other mmos releasing the player base for wvw will shrink down to 3 tiers in a matter of time

Let people play on the server they want to.
If they want to move, make it easier to move.
Let folks decide the size of the queue and the length of the wait they desire by transfers.

I/d have to see how much real revenue comes in from transfers, but I would guess that without the fee, you might make a gem purchase anyway to “boost up” for the new server.

Let people be as FOTM as they wish.

Anet is already killing 66%+ of servers with their design choices.

Here is what I’d do to fix things.

1. Scrap different tier of leagues.
2. Everybody in Swiss style format for seasons
3. Everybody who accomplishes the meta gets the same rewards, But
4. The rewards have a cosmetic difference that lasts until the next season concludes

(Similar to gold trim Capes in GW1, here the winner’s trophy weapons could glow gold, and those who didn’t place could get lead/barely glowing weapons).

5. Price Server Transfers by leaderboard ranking.
6. Eliminate “Playing for second place,”. Second place is first loser. Reduce points for second place finishes to 2 points. So, winner = 5 points, second = 2 points, third = 1 points.

This system will produce meaningful matches, an early loss to the wrong server could knock your server out of contention. But it will also produce lopsided matches which the boring gameplay and equal rewards will cause server strength to even out over time. Combined with the Pve mega server system working as advertised and you maybe get some sort of server parity.

ArenaNet has made it clear that they are in 100% support of stacking higher tiers and in creating bandwagon servers that are doomed to implode by their nature.

Giving even just one mid-tier server a lower cost will create a bandwagon/snowball effect is very little time. The result is HoD with queue times to rival the T1 servers.

Then there is T1. At a time when attrition is high among the population of the game (at the same time a major competing product is released as well) they raise the population caps in the highest servers.
They have done this so many times that the “stacked” servers from the early months of the game (HoD, SoS) would probably be lucky to be T2.

I just hope that the dev team will soon direct energies towards improvements over short-term profit infusions that could easily kill interest in the game for many users.

VaaCrow.3076:

All i got from this thread > OP “you have to stop liking things i don’t like!!!!” people with your personality should be shot into the sun. Just because YOU don’t like smaller servers doesn’t mean that they aren’t justified in their existance. You would have fit right in during 1940’s germany though, that was a very popular personality then, op.

Inb4 infraction, the op deserves it, he should feel bad
Inb4 you comment on my home server, i am ex uw player (bronze eu league) moved to gh with guild last year because we had issues with uw, and it was only reasonable choice at time as we had guildies there allready.

We could call the proposed “solution” a “final solution” because it would put the nails in WvW’s coffin very quickly.

VaaCrow.3076:

All i got from this thread > OP “you have to stop liking things i don’t like!!!!”

I’m sorry for you.

VaaCrow.3076:

people with your personality should be shot into the sun.

… burn?

VaaCrow.3076:

Just because YOU don’t like smaller servers doesn’t mean that they aren’t justified in their existance.

And this is why you’re wrong. You’ve inverted the proposition in order to misunderstand it in a way that more quickly fits your world view. My argument isn’t that the lowest servers are unjustified because I don’t like them. My argument is that they are unjustified… and that happens to be one reason for which I don’t like them.

Sad Tas.2509:

you still don’t address the fact that this merger will create more queues and more skill lag.

I have, in the OP, and multiple times since, in asking ANet to consider ways in which Megaserver can solve it. It is not the players’ role here to engineer the game, even in a thread like this.

Sad Tas.2509:

Like I’ve said and other people have said, as well, tier 1 needs to destack, not the other way around.

There is no stack.

Sad Tas.2509:

Your idea won’t be implemented because 1) its awful and 2) anet doesnt give a kitten about WvW and hasn’t from the launch of the game. Once season 2 is over the game mode will die.

1. It’s beautiful, simple, elegant and absolutely necessary.
2. ANet cares about WvW, and has since before launch of the game.
3. Players leaving the game has not and will not happen yet in any quantity to justify mourning it as a death.

This idea is Awful!!!!! In Fact the opposite needs to happen!

If we can reduce the server population cap, effectively we will balance out the lower tier servers. Transfer guilds/new players will leave T1&2 after season and this will effectively strengthen the competitive nature of the lower tier servers!

And please T1 and T2 already have Que problems! The last thing we want are Tiers 3-8 joining in!

Now please let this thread die as this idea is awful and shows very little constructive support.

First of all, I find it most amusing how OP is trying to argue the definition of “stacked” by pulling the number TWO meaning from the Oxford dictionary, not to mention that it refers specifically to a pack of cards (are people a pack of cards?). With the number ONE definition being:

“(Of a number of things) put or arranged in a stack or stacks:”

Now I’m pretty sure people/players/characters/toons are considered “things”, not a pack of cards. Sure, we are not literally arranged on top of each other in-game, but I’m sure that we are arranged as a stack in the databases.

Nevertheless, in this forum, a “stacked server” is the general terminology for a server that people flock to. OP trying to tell people that there’s no such thing as a “stacked server” is as hilarious as someone trying to tell someone their character is not a tank because it’s not a large metal vehicle, or there’s no such thing as a karma train because choo-choo trains aren’t made of karma.

On topic: OP is essentially suggesting that several servers be shut down, with ranking being the determining factor as to which server gets shut. People from the servers that get shut will be forcibly placed on another server.

This is essentially transferring everyone from other servers to another server so that you have lots of people on certain servers.

This already happens when people voluntarily transfer to another server. The only difference between what already happens now and what OP is suggesting is that we currently have the choice of not moving to a “stacked” server. OP seems to want that choice taken away.

The day they close Ehmry Bay is the day I quit GW2.

Seemore Bunz.7345:

This idea is Awful!!!!! In Fact the opposite needs to happen!

No. Leave the “massively multiplayer” in MMO.

Seemore Bunz.7345:

If we can reduce the server population cap, effectively we will balance out the lower tier servers. Transfer guilds/new players will leave T1&2 after season and this will effectively strengthen the competitive nature of the lower tier servers!

No. Leave the “massively multiplayer” in MMO.

Seemore Bunz.7345:

And please T1 and T2 already have Que problems! The last thing we want are Tiers 3-8 joining in!

Again, already addressed.

roxybudgy.8205:

First of all, I find it most amusing how OP is trying to argue the definition of “stacked” by pulling the number TWO meaning from the Oxford dictionary, not to mention that it refers specifically to a pack of cards (are people a pack of cards?). With the number ONE definition being:

“(Of a number of things) put or arranged in a stack or stacks:”

Now I’m pretty sure people/players/characters/toons are considered “things”, not a pack of cards. Sure, we are not literally arranged on top of each other in-game, but I’m sure that we are arranged as a stack in the databases.

Again, already addressed. Most players (note players as in a game) will use “stacked” here in terms of unfairness, even when utilizing the word objectively to indicate “numbers”. At minimum they mean both meanings.

The Oxford ordering has no influence upon contextual interpretation.

roxybudgy.8205:

Nevertheless, in this forum, a “stacked server” is the general terminology for a server that people flock to. OP trying to tell people that there’s no such thing as a “stacked server” is as hilarious as someone trying to tell someone their character is not a tank because it’s not a large metal vehicle, or there’s no such thing as a karma train because choo-choo trains aren’t made of karma.

There is no stack.

roxybudgy.8205:

On topic: OP is essentially suggesting that several servers be shut down, with ranking being the determining factor as to which server gets shut.

Ranking is directly consequential to all reasons a server should be shut down, and when servers begin shutting down, unless the entire named server system is done away with at that time, then you will see low ranked servers go first.

roxybudgy.8205:

People from the servers that get shut will be forcibly placed on another server.

Indeed.

roxybudgy.8205:

This is essentially transferring everyone from other servers to another server so that you have lots of people on certain servers.

Yes.

roxybudgy.8205:

This already happens when people voluntarily transfer to another server. The only difference between what already happens now and what OP is suggesting is that we currently have the choice of not moving to a “stacked” server. OP seems to want that choice taken away.

The day they close Ehmry Bay is the day I quit GW2.

My condolences. I hope things work out for you somehow that you’ll accept without too much upset or anguish, yet I don’t believe that your emotional attachment to the name “Ehmry Bay” is sufficient justification for its continued existence.

This makes me raise the question of if the OP has ever had the experience to play on any servers T3 and under. There is a reason why a vast majority of these players prefer to stick to their own servers instead of joining the T1/T2 bandwagon. Personally I enjoy being in the lower tier servers because of a plethora of reasons, mainly that I WvW with the same people I know and have grown to love, there isn’t a constant zerg ball running around lagging everything in its wake, and you get fun small roaming fights as well a lot more often. Yes, there’s the issue of coverage which throws things off balance a lot of times, but we’re all willing to look past all that and still enjoy where we are.

All in all, merging everyone into 6 servers is generally a really bad idea, and I would quit WvW if I ever had to blob v blob war 24 hours a day. It’s skillless and boring.

This obvious troll thread actually worked omg ppl…

Colt.9051:

This makes me raise the question of if the OP has ever had the experience to play on any servers T3 and under.

Yes. I have a Bronze League and a Gold League account. Two of my brothers have Bronze League accounts, and one of them also has a Gold League account.

I began the game in Silver League, in 2012, played more than 1,000 hours there, moved to Gold in summer 2013, and have logged more than 4,000 hours to date.

Colt.9051:

There is a reason why a vast majority of these players prefer to stick to their own servers instead of joining the T1/T2 bandwagon.

This is at once patently false and also a strawman for your next point.

What is actually true is that while some unknown (but significant) portion of us have stayed with our original server while continuing to play, the majority of us have not, and those servers where we have done so probably also trend toward the top of the leaderboard.

Colt.9051:

Personally I enjoy being in the lower tier servers because of a plethora of reasons, mainly that I WvW with the same people I know and have grown to love

I enjoy precisely that experience in Gold League. There are simply more of them, more groupings like ours, and it occurs more frequently in a more evenly distributed swath of time across 24 hours.

Colt.9051:

there isn’t a constant zerg ball running around lagging everything in its wake

Neither of these are constant anywhere.

Colt.9051:

and you get fun small roaming fights as well a lot more often.

Sure, as essentially the only action you can ever hope to get.

Colt.9051:

Yes, there’s the issue of coverage which throws things off balance a lot of times, but we’re all willing to look past all that and still enjoy where we are.

That’s the small town mentality, where it doesn’t matter to the citizens how dumpy their home gets, because it’s theirs and it’s all they’ve got.

Natronix.9827:

This obvious troll thread actually worked omg ppl…

r not troll thread am srys thread pls

Virtute.8251:

Again, already addressed. Most players (note players as in a game) will use “stacked” here in terms of unfairness, even when utilizing the word objectively to indicate “numbers”. At minimum they mean both meanings.

Incorrect, just because “stacked” has a negative connotation doesn’t suddenly mean players = pack of cards. Again, this argument is as silly as the numerous forum threads on how to define a zerg/blob.

Virtute.8251:

The Oxford ordering has no influence upon contextual interpretation.

“I’m going to tell everyone that according to the (Oxford) dictionary, everyone is a pack of cards, but if someone else refers to the same dictionary and points out an alternate meaning, they are wrong because I say so”.

But in the interests of not confusing OP, I suggest everyone replace the term “stacked server” with “relatively highly populated server” so that OP can’t dismiss everyone’s arguments based on incorrect semantics.

Virtute.8251:

My condolences. I hope things work out for you somehow that you’ll accept without too much upset or anguish, yet I don’t believe that your emotional attachment to the name “Ehmry Bay” is sufficient justification for its continued existence.

I don’t believe that your lack of emotional attachment to any server is sufficient justification for its non-existence.

If you think that “attachment to a name” is all that holds server pride together, then you obviously have no idea how people who willingly stay on a particular server feels.

Since you don’t have access to ArenaNet’s finance data, then I doubt you can claim that the costs of running the server is justification for closing them down. So why is the current situation so bad that ArenaNet needs to kitten off their paying customers by shutting down some servers?

My brother has no attachment to any server, or even guild, he plays for himself. He initially started on Sea of Sorrows, was paid to transfer to Blackgate, then paid again to move to Jade Quarry, then voluntarily moved back to Sea of Sorrows when his guild became inactive. If that’s how you like to play, good for you, keep it up, whatever floats your boat. The existence of additional servers doesn’t stop you from doing that.

roxybudgy.8205:

Virtute.8251:

Again, already addressed. Most players (note players as in a game) will use “stacked” here in terms of unfairness, even when utilizing the word objectively to indicate “numbers”. At minimum they mean both meanings.

Incorrect, just because “stacked” has a negative connotation doesn’t suddenly mean players = pack of cards. Again, this argument is as silly as the numerous forum threads on how to define a zerg/blob.

Incorrect. Applied here, the “stack of cards” definition of “stacked” infers that saying “a server is stacked” means that the people have been moved into the server “dishonestly so as to gain an unfair advantage”. It’s a matter of reading comprehension.

roxybudgy.8205:

Virtute.8251:

The Oxford ordering has no influence upon contextual interpretation.

“I’m going to tell everyone that according to the (Oxford) dictionary, everyone is a pack of cards, but if someone else refers to the same dictionary and points out an alternate meaning, they are wrong because I say so”.

LOL

roxybudgy.8205:

But in the interests of not confusing OP, I suggest everyone replace the term “stacked server” with “relatively highly populated server” so that OP can’t dismiss everyone’s arguments based on incorrect semantics.

My semantics are pristine.

roxybudgy.8205:

Virtute.8251:

My condolences. I hope things work out for you somehow that you’ll accept without too much upset or anguish, yet I don’t believe that your emotional attachment to the name “Ehmry Bay” is sufficient justification for its continued existence.

I don’t believe that your lack of emotional attachment to any server is sufficient justification for its non-existence.

That is neither the basis nor justification for my argument. It is a refutation of yours.

roxybudgy.8205:

If you think that “attachment to a name” is all that holds server pride together, then you obviously have no idea how people who willingly stay on a particular server feels.

I don’t think that, and I do know how they feel: I’ve felt it.

roxybudgy.8205:

Since you don’t have access to ArenaNet’s finance data, then I doubt you can claim that the costs of running the server is justification for closing them down.

I don’t claim that. The engineering involved in applying Megaserver to WvW (which has been revealed to already be in progress, at some unrevealed extent), to facilitate such a move as I suggest can’t be cheap. It’s the good move, though.

roxybudgy.8205:

So why is the current situation so bad that ArenaNet needs to kitten off their paying customers by shutting down some servers?

They kitten off customers every day, as every active business does, and the WvW-playing set of customers are particularly given to being kittened off. So much that it’s plainly obvious that the customers themselves are to blame for the majority of their own anguish toward the game mode. ANet’s kittened if they do or don’t.

This move makes the most sense architecturally for the game mode, and for the long-term quality of life for the players that will continue (and begin) playing WvW for years to come.

roxybudgy.8205:

My brother has no attachment to any server, or even guild, he plays for himself. He initially started on Sea of Sorrows, was paid to transfer to Blackgate, then paid again to move to Jade Quarry, then voluntarily moved back to Sea of Sorrows when his guild became inactive. If that’s how you like to play, good for you, keep it up, whatever floats your boat. The existence of additional servers doesn’t stop you from doing that.

Neither will a well-engineered solution which reduces the total number of servers.

Except your solution is not well engineered as has already been pointed out repeatedly.

You are either one oddly dedicated troll or in dire need of a major reality check.

Overkillengine.6084:

Except your solution is not well engineered as has already been pointed out repeatedly.

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly that we aren’t the engineers, as it’s neither our role nor our duty to do so, and ANet has or is building precisely what they need to do this properly.

I am not the troll.

Virtute.8251:

Overkillengine.6084:

Except your solution is not well engineered as has already been pointed out repeatedly.

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly that we aren’t the engineers, as it’s neither our role nor our duty to do so, and ANet has or is building precisely what they need to do this properly.

I am not the troll.

So option B then, gotcha.

Tiers 3-8 don’t need to merge into Tiers 1-2, nor the other way around. From what i’ve read (unless these people are lying), no server really has trouble que’ing or getting numbers for fights during prime time. The issues seem to be with off hours (Oceanic and SEA)

If this is the case, it seems more logical to force people to play closer to their own server time instead of an overseas server. Why if your in EU are you playing on an NA server or vice versa?

The very first step I think Anet should take is to restrict people as to what time zones they play in, then take additional steps there as necessary.

Virtute.8251:

I began the game in Silver League, in 2012, played more than 1,000 hours there, moved to Gold in summer 2013, and have logged more than 4,000 hours to date.

for that to be true, you would’ve had to play over 10 hours every single day since may 2013.

I love when ppl post such easily debunked numbers.

Also, there was no silver league in 2012.

Can we please close this thread as it is neither on-Topic or constructive at this point. This was simply a thread to grab attention for an unchangeable circumstance.

It’s for sure that there are no longer enough people interested playing WvW to fill 24 NA + 27 EU server for 24/7 matches on 4 maps with the current map-limit.

So I agree that the amount of “slots” should be reduced to a more reasonable amount.
Options are
- less servers (or another organizational form that allows identification)
- less maps
- less match-time
- less slots per map
Probably best a combination of all of them, e.g.
2 leagues a 9 server in EU and NA
1st league 24/7 with map-cap reduced to 75% of current
2nd league with 8h only EB, 8h only the 3 BLs 8h with all 4 maps and map-cap reduced to 50% of current.

Such that we have a full-scale league and a small-scale league.

Probably best with only 9server in total, each playing in both leagues, and every player can play only in one of the two leagues every match (the one he enters first)

For that each player should be placed into server less and the new server should have different names (or if it is to difficult to choose new names! swap EU and NA names)

Honestly…. I want fun fights, not long que’s or huge mindless zerging. This idea of yours is flawed in that it only gears itself towards your style of playing. Not everyone wants that style of wvw play.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Virtute.8251:

I began the game in Silver League, in 2012, played more than 1,000 hours there, moved to Gold in summer 2013, and have logged more than 4,000 hours to date.

for that to be true, you would’ve had to play over 10 hours every single day since may 2013.

8 hours, 22 minutes. See screenshot.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

I love when ppl post such easily debunked numbers.

The tendency to “debunk” more often leads to error.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Also, there was no silver league in 2012.

This was a quick and easy way to refer to the Silver League leaderboard ranks range of 7 through 15. I speant more time in Bronze that year than in Silver.

Terrible idea. You should feel bad for posting it OP.

I like the OP. His responses are prompt and reasonable, and he’s seized upon an important fault of the game while proposing a solution that would address it. The fault is that the game and the PPT match does not function properly when servers have gaps in their coverage, and the solution is to remove enough redundant servers so that those gaps no longer exist.

I do wonder which time slot the OP plays in, and if this is blinding him to the obvious problem with this proposed solution. If you look at T1 off-peak coverage, that’s where most people accuse the players of stacking onto servers. Before a lot of players moved to these servers, they would have encountered fairly sparsely populated maps. As such they were not creating a problem by moving to servers with better off-peak coverage but amending one, at least as far as their experience was concerned.

However, this problem of having a low population only exists at certain hours for nearly every server, and you would need to travel at least 3-5 tiers down the ladder to find servers that don’t generate queues at their peak coverage hours. What I found imperceptive was the OP’s response to my first reply, where he said that multi-hour queues were “acceptable”. This was conditioned on being “in the current server and queue system”, I’m not entirely clear on what’s implied there.

I’m fairly certain this is something anet won’t implement. With the current set up, people who feel the way you do have the option to, at a cost (which generates income for anet). People who like the smaller servers are free to stay where they are, and no one is forced to do anything. It seems to me that if the majority of people on the servers that you want to merge wanted to play on more populated servers, they would.

Why just NA, EU aren’t people? :p

But there’s something to the idea, it would improve the WvW experience as a whole but Anet would need to be mindful about the servers that has queues, yet this is a good way to boost up the action in the lower tiers as others have said.

With the megaserver eliminating server identity pvewise, it should open up possibilities for improvement, god knows WvW sorely needs it.

Bertrand.3057:

I like the OP. His responses are prompt and reasonable, and he’s seized upon an important fault of the game while proposing a solution that would address it.

Thanks.

Bertrand.3057:

The fault is that the game and the PPT match does not function properly when servers have gaps in their coverage, and the solution is to remove enough redundant servers so that those gaps no longer exist.

Mostly true. I don’t think of that as a fault, because I’m so used to playing the always-on style of online competition that I’m fully acclimated to the facts about “coverage”. The vocal minority here (the majority of respondents that a thread like this will attract) have spent the past year-and-half complaining about that “fault” from all possible angles (except for mature and realistic angles, because those preclude the argument itself), and I’ve watched with mildly interested bemusement.

I think the complaints are cute. I also think that ANet should deliver some sort of forced accept-this-to-proceed disclaimer regarding the 24-hour nature of the game… in the same way that I wish all web browsers came with forced user-competence tests that would uninstall the software on failure.

Bottom line is that the Internet is never “turned off”, and neither are MMO games. That’s actually the point of having them around: to be enjoyed whenever, wherever.

Bertrand.3057:

I do wonder which time slot the OP plays in

I have played from NA Eastern and Central, but I’m an abnormal sleeper and a bit of an insomniac. For a few years, I used the Firefox about:me addon to track page-load times, and my 24-hour graph nearly flattened out (even distribution, narrow variance across hours). My peak hours were outside of normal NA primetime.

This is more normal for heavy Internet users than it is for others. Google it.

Bertrand.3057:

and if this is blinding him to the obvious problem with this proposed solution.

I doubt it. My attention to this scenario as a gameplay and design problem predates Guild Wars (the first).

Bertrand.3057:

If you look at T1 off-peak coverage, that’s where most people accuse the players of stacking onto servers. Before a lot of players moved to these servers, they would have encountered fairly sparsely populated maps. As such they were not creating a problem by moving to servers with better off-peak coverage but amending one, at least as far as their experience was concerned.

However, this problem of having a low population only exists at certain hours for nearly every server, and you would need to travel at least 3-5 tiers down the ladder to find servers that don’t generate queues at their peak coverage hours. What I found imperceptive was the OP’s response to my first reply, where he said that multi-hour queues were “acceptable”. This was conditioned on being “in the current server and queue system”, I’m not entirely clear on what’s implied there.

Under the current design, multi-hour queues are unavoidable, and are thus acceptable to a reasonable player who is willing to work around it. All players react accordingly.

I submitted the OP and all replies under pretext that Megaserver would be used to alter the design significantly in ways that address this problem, as evidenced by EoTM map (despite ANet statements against or leaning away from direct implementation of the EoTM overflow scheme for general WvW). It’s obvious that the EoTM design work lead to Megaserver, and the related portion of the WvW CDI was to gauge the popularity of their available options for implementing that work in the WvW context.

Kaos.9162:

I’m fairly certain this is something anet won’t implement. With the current set up, people who feel the way you do have the option to, at a cost (which generates income for anet). People who like the smaller servers are free to stay where they are, and no one is forced to do anything. It seems to me that if the majority of people on the servers that you want to merge wanted to play on more populated servers, they would.

You’re correct that design changes must be justifiable as business decisions, but it’s also clear that much flexibility exists in their choices. Ideas are quick, but the work is hard.

ANet would be quite well served by leaving WvW exactly as it is, and discontinuing the remaining two WvW sub-forums. It would be quick, easy, and sound very reasonable in the boardroom. The player base is only marginally served by most discussions here, and it’s not just that PvP-types are combative by nature.

The people who prefer the smallest WvW servers can be summarized easily:

• I’m emotionally attached to my server name and my peers whom log into the same place, because that is where we have access to each other as combat allies
• I have a low-performance computer or network link, so I lag too much in large fights
• I prefer the experience of small fights, and greater empty space around the fights

The server names are irrelevant (but the peer relationships are not). User PC performance is a user responsibility. Variance in battle population is incidental to other factors (such as server population and time).

ANet doesn’t need 24 server names available to offer the current set of possible experiences. They can reduce the server count, increase player freedom to choose an experience, and continue to sell something like “server transfer”. Failure to understand that is bound to lack of imagination.

Kaderin.7584:

Why just NA, EU aren’t people? :p

cuz merica

Kaderin.7584:

With the megaserver eliminating server identity pvewise, it should open up possibilities for improvement, god knows WvW sorely needs it.

Exactly.

The “alliances” ideas floated here and previously have merit, but their proponents usually dump all over their own ideas right around the time that they begin to think about “server” and “queue” and themselves. That’s why I don’t take them seriously.

ANet won’t take them seriously if the ideas are too far afield of what already exists and what is already planned.

Account Wide extravaganzas in the next patch in a first step towards merging servers. Next in line would be the single chapter of guild, no more separate influence and upgrades.

Players and Guilds will always pile up on the top servers, there is almost no way to get them to not do so.

KOPPER.1458:

Players and Guilds will always pile up on the top servers, there is almost no way to get them to not do so.

There is an very effective one: map-queue
Especially well organized WvW-raid guilds leave overstacked servers rather sooner than later, if queues hinder them to get all guild-members onto the map. Leaving just the trouble making WTJs that leave for greener fields after looses come in.

Therefore https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-decrease-the-player-cap-on-WvW-maps will work

Dayra: Clearly that doesn’t matter. The queue’s are ridiculously long as it is on T1s and it doesn’t deter players.

I would hate to see even less players on a wvw map as it is. Some servers are just always going to be very popular.

Clearly EotM improved queue-tolerance and league-rewards are doing it’s part as well. (That’s why I think this league was one of the ugliest moves of ANet, destroy any remaining WW-competivity for a few gems immediate cash) But as usual, after the league people will complain about the cheap-rewards again, and be less tolerant against queue.

And even if not, a map-capacity of 50% will make more server competitive, as they can then fill all 4 maps instead of the current just 2.

There are guilds that could easily cap those maps if you lower the capacity by 50%. I don’t see how having less people to fight makes it more fun and enjoyable. Large scale battles is what wvw is all about.

I am not sure that EOTM helped queue tolerance all that much. Most of my guild doesn’t even bother going there, they sit in a city until they get in. Too small a sample size perhaps but sitting on the servers TS and most of them in queue aren’t in EOTM. Although it does seem to fill up just fine.

I don’t know what you mean by “destroy any remaining WW-competivity for a few gems immediate cash”

KOPPER.1458:

I don’t know what you mean by “destroy any remaining WW-competivity for a few gems immediate cash”

Look yourself: Match balance before anouncement (http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/history/136) of league and match-balance after all the resulting WTJ-stacking transfers (http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups/history/162) (the few gems immediate cash)

No idea what I am looking at. It also looks like you are using EU servers? I don’t know anything about those servers and how their populations stack up sadly. I only know what I experience on a day to day basis.

I think it’s a bad idea personally. You feel strongly that it is a good idea.