Guild Wars 2

Pros:

• Brought a lot of people back.
• Big battles
• WvW fun
• Its new and different

Cons:

• Queues
• Didn’t solve off-hours population coverage issues
• Didn’t solve matchmaking issues

Suggestions:

• Don’t wait 3 months to adjust the pairings if it stays this way.
  • BGET is too populous. They probably don’t need to be paired.
  • TCKain may be too populous too.
  • DHFC and NSPSF are underpopulated still.
  • Mag doesn’t play well with others so maybe they don’t need to be paired.

• And/Or if the imbalance is because of time zone coverage, institute time sliced matches.

X T D.6458:

Im still curious about some things.

-How will the linked servers be affected in terms of scores, ratings, rewards if there is another season?

-How long will servers stay locked, and are these servers locked for new players as well

-How long does the beta test last

the sticky “world link beta” says glicko will not be updated for the guests (as of Friday anyway). While the links are not locked, how would they re-link in a different form other than tracking users / hours played…. On a different note, why would a guest server be open for transfer when the host is full?

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Liston.9708:

I wonder if after a set period of time 2 weeks / 4 weeks / etc the linking was removed. At that point the guests could move for free to their respective host limiting the stacking of any 1 server.
1) It would provide a path for those that do like the zergs to continue with that playstyle.
2) It also provides for the return of small scale that some really prefer.
3) It allows the guest to escape the host where there is culture clash.
4) It restores an identity to the guest server that simply no longer exists.
I admit I don’t know what happens after, but the linking didn’t resolve population balance anyway IMHO.

edit: added 4

Well there is population balance, then there is coverage imbalance. Population balance is easier to work on, basically combine as many people as technically possible on a server, as it the case with server linking, its essentially a soft version of a server merge except with linking it allows servers to remain and be rotated periodically. This was actually a smarter move then simply removing some servers altogether because it leaves them room to use servers should the need arise, if they had removed them, they lose that. Coverage issues would require a little more work, now that each server has more people, what is needed is a rework of the scoring system.

No argument here on coverage and scoring. Was the population balance really resolved by the linking or did people come back because of the other patch changes which were pretty darn good? We only got to see 3-4 days without the link, but I know BG, JQ and YB had many more peeps playing tues, wed, thurs after the patch.

Its hard to say, in a technical sense, the chance for better balance is there because each server has been paired up with another similar type server. Now if it was a tier 1 server getting linked with a t3 server, yea that wouldn’t work, but since all three tier 1 servers were linked with all three t8 servers it is theoretically a more balanced approach. Having said that, whether or not it produces a balanced effect is up to players themselves.

Say for example each server has 1000 people-

Server A-300 login
Server B-500 login
Server C-100 Login

The base numbers are all the same, however the effect is different because as stated it is always dependent on player involvement.

Liston.9708:

but many of the players on the lower tiered servers WANTED that style – some even paid to move there. If they wanted the bigger pop they have had 3 years to move. Now they have no choice and no identity at all.

In a perfect WvW scenario there are no tiers and no difference in play style between servers. What we know as “the lower tier servers” should have as much a chance to compete with the “high tier servers” and the matchups would vary on a weekly basis as a result.

There should have never been a “choice” in how to play wvw; that there was just hints at the imbalance issues that are the exact thing they are trying to fix.

Mind you this doesnt mean there isnt any variance in the game mode: T1 for example has its blobs of course but it also has its small 5-10 person guilds that do their own thing and cap objectives away as well as the groups of roamers; and its not an issue of how good/useful those people are in fact often times those small guilds can be the most skilled/useful.

Regarding the "lower tier play-style" there are a few ways it could be retained without creating any/much problems to the rest of the game mode.

* One option would be to pick *3* servers and designate as "Bronze servers", aka low pop. Set them in a fixed match-up, and let people spread out on those if they want the play style. If you want a balancing tool on them, set whichever one is the highest populated as auto full to avoid worst stacking. This isn’t optimal, but neither would it cause much problem to make/adjust from the current system.

* Make a own "Small Scale Map", have it set with a lower total map population, and focus on small scale play. Add it to every match-up, so those that want can go there. Making a map is a lot of resources, but I think a temp place holder could be Alpine with a few changes, mainly just keep all outer keep walls/gates in permanent wrecked state that can’t be repaired. And reduce the keeps points a bit so they’re +15, just above a tower. (to prevent the worst karma train stuff).

Edit: Going to make a call on the "Bronze League", Kaineng, ET, AR.

Rasudido.6734:

In a perfect WvW scenario there are no tiers and no difference in play style between servers.

Tier fanboys and rank warriors gonna hate you for this…
Godspeed, Leonidas………