Guild Wars 2

1) Could we please not be re-linked with the same host this time around?

Many of us on linked servers are looking for a little variety – as having a truly, balanced matchup appears to be out of reach for WvW at the moment. Variety of allies and opponents seems the only thing remaining to keep WvW a little more interesting.

2) Could we please have the pairing of links to hosts that considers timezone strengths and weakenesses?

For example – When pairing a heavy SEA timezone host server with a heavy SEA timezone link server, it makes for a really overpowered timezone, and not a lot of fun for anyone. This lasts for two months. Is it possible to avoid stacking timezones when links are re-paired?

3) Could we please have adjustments to links when material changes occur to populations that are linked?

For example – A Host server with two links bulks up due to movement onto 1 or more of the links, or the host goes to full status. Can we adjust for material changes that occur rather than having a disproportionately out of balance situation last until the next relink? It affects very little to relink based on material changes to populations, and would go further to creating better matchups overall if adjustments were made to links due to material population changes that occur AFTER the relink.

Thank you for considering.

When are the servers getting relinked? Should be soon right?

4) Add a 6th tier for eu. It’s starting to get overcrowded.

Dianekas.4359:

When are the servers getting relinked? Should be soon right?

This Friday – last Friday of even months.

Pensadora.9478:

1) Could we please not be re-linked with the same host this time around?

Seconded. Variety is the spice of life, doncha know?

1) ANet has only N different ways to do the linking without creating huge population imbalances. I suspect that N is less than 1. ANet suggested to double the number of worlds, so that they would have more choice. But that suggestion was shot down fast by the players. In addition EU language specific worlds impose more limitations.

2) I bet they do consider the coverage. Unfortunately the players of similar time zones tend to flock on the same worlds. This is mission impossible without forced migrations. (linking is a form of forced migration itself)

3) A solution would be to relink every week, but players wanted to have 2 months periods instead. There was a poll about it.

What can be done then? I’d say end world linking since it does so much harm to the game mode. ANet promised to rebalance the world populations before adding any meaningful rewards for winning a matchup, but that seems forgotten.

Links need to be removed….. Its a one down/up system,. While half of the population gets relinqued to another random server…(removed ofensive bashing torward Anet awfull design).

It feels like a mesa do band aids…on top of another.

I just came back and I’m confused. Can someone explain the linking to me and where to see who’s linked? I know there is a new link tonight but that’s it.

Check this wiki page

Links are supposed to be in Beta, an attempt at resolving massive out of balance matchups between existing worlds. Low population worlds are linked to Host servers, which do not have enough population to be competitive.

Problem is, without the true management of population – both active and potentially active of each server – imbalance continues and is a part of the issue of why WvW is not considered fair, balanced or competitive.

Read the following referenced thread for discussion and suggestions for the whys and ways to get populations reset in WvW, with some Dev response to suggestions made.

This post (<- click there) is a summation of the ideas put forward by Skyshroud, which I support in whole. Others have made suggestions that would require less dramatic change, which also have merit. The Dev response follows shortly after the summary.

MaxwellM.2075:

I just came back and I’m confused. Can someone explain the linking to me and where to see who’s linked? I know there is a new link tonight but that’s it.

Some info about world linking:
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-Beta/first

You can see the current links on for example: http://mos.millenium.org/matchups

Korgov.7645:

1) ANet has only N different ways to do the linking without creating huge population imbalances. I suspect that N is less than 1. ANet suggested to double the number of worlds, so that they would have more choice. But that suggestion was shot down fast by the players. In addition EU language specific worlds impose more limitations.

I’m thinking it’s probably time to put things back to a vote. We now have a more informed WvW population, that can clearly see the results of the link system.

Korgov.7645:

2) I bet they do consider the coverage. Unfortunately the players of similar time zones tend to flock on the same worlds. This is mission impossible without forced migrations. (linking is a form of forced migration itself)

I’m not convinced. Dragonbrand and Darkhaven have been linked multiple times in sequence. Both have substantial SEA representation, but not a lot in other timezones, as I recall.

Korgov.7645:

3) A solution would be to relink every week, but players wanted to have 2 months periods instead. There was a poll about it.

Actually, as per usual, the poll answers that ANet provided did not even have 2 months as an option for the players to select. It was a solution ANet decided on because the players were split between 2 other options.

Korgov.7645:

What can be done then? I’d say end world linking since it does so much harm to the game mode. ANet promised to rebalance the world populations before adding any meaningful rewards for winning a matchup, but that seems forgotten.

I would only support this if they get to making some adjustments to how population is managed.

I would much rather see relinks every week. Would permit adjustment for material changes in population. When material changes in population occur AFTER the relink, the situation would last for only 1 week, rather than for 7 weeks. Much less negative impact on opponent servers that didn’t get a material increase in population.

Two months, in my opinion, is way too long to suffer either the false sense of ‘winning’, or the agony of continued defeat, solely because your server didn’t win the “Luck of the Link”.

if i post something here, will you say i ad hominem you?
glhf on the upcoming relinking !

Norbe.7630:

glhf on the upcoming relinking !

And, to you as well!

Pensadora.9478:

Korgov.7645:

1) ANet has only N different ways to do the linking without creating huge population imbalances. I suspect that N is less than 1. ANet suggested to double the number of worlds, so that they would have more choice. But that suggestion was shot down fast by the players. In addition EU language specific worlds impose more limitations.

I’m thinking it’s probably time to put things back to a vote. We now have a more informed WvW population, that can clearly see the results of the link system.

I also believe the vote results would be different now. However don’t want voting. I hope for a game designer that wants to promote player generated content and competiveness. Unfortunately WvW does not have that kind of champion.

Pensadora.9478:

Korgov.7645:

3) A solution would be to relink every week, but players wanted to have 2 months periods instead. There was a poll about it.

Actually, as per usual, the poll answers that ANet provided did not even have 2 months as an option for the players to select. It was a solution ANet decided on because the players were split between 2 other options.

Yes, that is more accurate description.

Pensadora.9478:

Korgov.7645:

What can be done then? I’d say end world linking since it does so much harm to the game mode. ANet promised to rebalance the world populations before adding any meaningful rewards for winning a matchup, but that seems forgotten.

I would only support this if they get to making some adjustments to how population is managed.

I would much rather see relinks every week. Would permit adjustment for material changes in population. When material changes in population occur AFTER the relink, the situation would last for only 1 week, rather than for 7 weeks. Much less negative impact on opponent servers that didn’t get a material increase in population.

Two months, in my opinion, is way too long to suffer either the false sense of ‘winning’, or the agony of continued defeat, solely because your server didn’t win the “Luck of the Link”.

If we go for weekly relinking, ANet should also make the transfers take effect at reset and not announce link decisions before the reset.

The linking solved a real symptom when it was introduced: low tier matchups were ghost towns. Unfortunately the root problem was never solved. The devs have been too busy doing more important stuff, like jump pads, gliding and hay bales.

Without population rebalancing and a proper transfer policy or incentives, the world linking should stay.

Who ever doing this linking…
Do you play wvw ?
Did you check queue times ?
Do you have any idea about populations ?

+50 queue each map is kitten.

Delink all servers. If someone likes to wait queue they will go full server.

there are always queues on reset days – and pretty much none except for EB on every other day, so what is the problem?

The only downside I see is: I meet a lot of nice people from Vabbi and UW when we were linked. Now they are gone. That makes me a sad panda.

On the other hand, I have the chance to meet some new people to befriend, yay.

Pensadora.9478:

1) Could we please not be re-linked with the same host this time around?

Many of us on linked servers are looking for a little variety – as having a truly, balanced matchup appears to be out of reach for WvW at the moment. Variety of allies and opponents seems the only thing remaining to keep WvW a little more interesting.

First I think you’d need to do a poll on whether those of us on linked servers truly want variety before you make the claim that “many” in fact do.

Second, while you might get some variety being linked with a new host, you’re still stuck with those on your own server unless you pay to transfer off. If you pay to transfer off, then that pretty much shows an unwillingness to work with what you have, as the grass is always greener on the other side.

Finally, their are those of us who appreciate stability and the benefits they bring. For example, my guild on GoM has a well respected commander and we have even recruited players to our guild from the other linked servers. If the links change frequently, we end up with our members scattered to the winds or having to pay for transfers. We also have lost some continuity with our group composition and expertise. It essentially makes it harder to retain members and “git gud” with the lack of stability and the lack of server recognition, as the host gets all the credit.

Sylvyn.4750:

Pensadora.9478:

1) Could we please not be re-linked with the same host this time around?

Many of us on linked servers are looking for a little variety – as having a truly, balanced matchup appears to be out of reach for WvW at the moment. Variety of allies and opponents seems the only thing remaining to keep WvW a little more interesting.

First I think you’d need to do a poll on whether those of us on linked servers truly want variety before you make the claim that “many” in fact do.

Yep. You’re right. Let me restate: Many of the people who are on linked servers, that I know or talked to before transferring to a linked server, and some of those posting about links here on the forum…..

Sylvyn.4750:

Second, while you might get some variety being linked with a new host, you’re still stuck with those on your own server unless you pay to transfer off. If you pay to transfer off, then that pretty much shows an unwillingness to work with what you have, as the grass is always greener on the other side.

One of the benefits we see in being on a link at the moment is new friendships and new challenges. Maybe you meant “host” rather than “link” as it refers to transferring off. If you are referring to MAS guild, we moved to get to an unlocked server and for the variety of the pairings?

Sylvyn.4750:

Finally, their are those of us who appreciate stability and the benefits they bring. For example, my guild on GoM has a well respected commander and we have even recruited players to our guild from the other linked servers. If the links change frequently, we end up with our members scattered to the winds or having to pay for transfers. We also have lost some continuity with our group composition and expertise. It essentially makes it harder to retain members and “git gud” with the lack of stability and the lack of server recognition, as the host gets all the credit.

You do realize that your server, GOM, is a link server? So, the reasons things are changing around you is because of the 2 month re-link. If you recruit players from the host you are linked with, and they choose not to transfer onto GOM, they will be separated from your guild at relink time. This is an issue with player choice or commitment to your guild, unless your server is locked down for transfers, and that is preventing them from transferring. As of this moment, GOM is still open for transfers.

As for the host server getting the recognition. I do see that point. However, most regular WvW players fully grasp that the Host server with link(s) in no way deserves all the credit for the win or the loss in any current pairing. So, focusing on your guild and your guild’s performance probably makes the most sense, as we now have very little control over our server, server links, server reputation, server population, etc., so no sense to stress over these things.

HOD has fat link, is crazy.

Finally DB and DH are not together, finally anet give them a NA link where they needed it the most.

Anet put something in place which most of us voted for. it started as a solution and would probably of continued as one, but the players insist bandwaggoning to a linked server which will have the most favourable outcome. This is basically fighting against the system that was put in place, then blaming Anet for it falling apart. I mean yes they not doing this system any favours in making it so easy to transfer so frequently but the players that are looking for the easy wins arnt helping either.

Yeh it probably does need another vote now we have all seen what linking is about or maybe a mid period readjustment. Personally i would put a cap on transfers, to 2 times a year per account, and let nature take its course with this current linking system. Maybe in desperate situations if you had hit your cap you could apply to Anet to look into your reasoning to be allowed to transfer past your cap, but dont make it so easy.

It always boils down to that one thing that mucks it up, “the players”, and thats something which is not so easily fixable.

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

Lahmia.2193:

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

They don’t want to be linked with anybody and the verbal abuse DR is taking is just wonderful and so fun to play around, (insert sarcasm). This is our second time being paired with Mag and some of DR faithful players transferred just because of this linking.
I am starting to think ArenaNet does not like DR what-so-ever because this has to be some sort of sick joke on their part.
Queue time is epic and it is going to be a long 2 months.

I’m boggled at how Maguuma got paired with another server and I feel awful for DR for getting dragged into it.

Seriously.

mygirlparadise.7583:

Lahmia.2193:

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

They don’t want to be linked with anybody and the verbal abuse DR is taking is just wonderful and so fun to play around, (insert sarcasm). This is our second time being paired with Mag and some of DR faithful players transferred just because of this linking.
I am starting to think ArenaNet does not like DR what-so-ever because this has to be some sort of sick joke on their part.
Queue time is epic and it is going to be a long 2 months.

Sorry to hear about that. But from what I heard, they were intentionally tanking (or at least part of the server was) so they could get a link. Possible slander I know but it does explain how they fell from t1 and stayed in t3 for quite a few weeks.

Lahmia.2193:

mygirlparadise.7583:

Lahmia.2193:

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

They don’t want to be linked with anybody and the verbal abuse DR is taking is just wonderful and so fun to play around, (insert sarcasm). This is our second time being paired with Mag and some of DR faithful players transferred just because of this linking.
I am starting to think ArenaNet does not like DR what-so-ever because this has to be some sort of sick joke on their part.
Queue time is epic and it is going to be a long 2 months.

Sorry to hear about that. But from what I heard, they were intentionally tanking (or at least part of the server was) so they could get a link. Possible slander I know but it does explain how they fell from t1 and stayed in t3 for quite a few weeks.

Pretty kittenty thing to do, especially when they easily have the best KDR of any server. Now we get to look forward to kittenty match ups every other week as the drop up and down.

I respect Mag for getting a lot of good players on one server but it’s really made fighting them lame.

Lahmia.2193:

mygirlparadise.7583:

Lahmia.2193:

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

They don’t want to be linked with anybody and the verbal abuse DR is taking is just wonderful and so fun to play around, (insert sarcasm). This is our second time being paired with Mag and some of DR faithful players transferred just because of this linking.
I am starting to think ArenaNet does not like DR what-so-ever because this has to be some sort of sick joke on their part.
Queue time is epic and it is going to be a long 2 months.

Sorry to hear about that. But from what I heard, they were intentionally tanking (or at least part of the server was) so they could get a link. Possible slander I know but it does explain how they fell from t1 and stayed in t3 for quite a few weeks.

Yes, they tanked intentionally but not to be paired with anybody. They were tired of JQ running them over. Trust me, they do Not want to be paired with anybody.

mygirlparadise.7583:

Lahmia.2193:

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

They don’t want to be linked with anybody

We did want a link and my advice on chat is to just ignore it, its essentially just memeing.

grifflyman.8102:

I’m boggled at how Maguuma got paired with another server and I feel awful for DR for getting dragged into it.

Seriously.

Mag by itself is T3 size, its not huge and is entirely concentrated in the NA timezone with our 1 sea guild leaving. My guild sox is the only oceanic guild and we only run 2 days a week now.

morrolan.9608:

mygirlparadise.7583:

Lahmia.2193:

How in Grenth’s hall did Maguuma get a link?! Bloody tankers get rewarded.

They don’t want to be linked with anybody

We did want a link and my advice on chat is to just ignore it, its essentially just memeing.

Rumor has it you were hoping for a certain link, not the one you got…

Pensadora.9478:

Sylvyn.4750:

Finally, their are those of us who appreciate stability and the benefits they bring. For example, my guild on GoM has a well respected commander and we have even recruited players to our guild from the other linked servers. If the links change frequently, we end up with our members scattered to the winds or having to pay for transfers. We also have lost some continuity with our group composition and expertise. It essentially makes it harder to retain members and “git gud” with the lack of stability and the lack of server recognition, as the host gets all the credit.

You do realize that your server, GOM, is a link server? So, the reasons things are changing around you is because of the 2 month re-link. If you recruit players from the host you are linked with, and they choose not to transfer onto GOM, they will be separated from your guild at relink time. This is an issue with player choice or commitment to your guild, unless your server is locked down for transfers, and that is preventing them from transferring. As of this moment, GOM is still open for transfers.

As for the host server getting the recognition. I do see that point. However, most regular WvW players fully grasp that the Host server with link(s) in no way deserves all the credit for the win or the loss in any current pairing. So, focusing on your guild and your guild’s performance probably makes the most sense, as we now have very little control over our server, server links, server reputation, server population, etc., so no sense to stress over these things.

Yes, we are a linked server rather than a host, which is why we don’t have the stability that will allow us to grow a healthy guild when some of those we attract are from one of the other linked servers, unless they can afford to transfer. We also enjoyed our last link and had some good coordination between guilds and servers. This link, not so much…