Guild Wars 2

I have some suggestion which can be interesting:
- for players, who suffering from huge queues
- for guilds, with members splitted between different servers

And suggestion is – temporal guild binding for servers, which need more players.
Some kind of guild mission…
- your guild make request to join wvw fight
- system suggest some list of servers your guild can join (outnumbered 2nd and 3nd places, for example)
- after guild choose server each guild member can join it for free
- you can still play your account-bound server, but wvw-guild can be only one
- add some more restrictions to prevent system abuse… (too lazy too write them now)
- different time intervals for guild binding can be discussed – several hours, several months, until current skirmish end.. no idea which is better

what do you think? does it worth it?

Balthazzarr.1349:

Truly you guys should read the posts here.. at least a couple of them. Since this new PIP system the populations have exploded. Queues are not uncommon and frankly splitting it all back up again would open the door to more of these people that want to come in but decide not to a lot of prime time because of the queues.

It’s NOT like it was before the linking.

NA T1 server here, and except for reset there is generally 1 BL plus EBG queued through the rest of the days, and generally that BL queue is less than 10. This whole queue thing you speak of isn’t a problem on YB, and I imagine it’s really not that much of a problem outside of BG.

ANet has allowed players to vote on permanency of linking, and if I remember right it was a pretty heavy majority that wanted linking to continue. Those of you that want to blow the system up are most likely sitting on servers that might have one or two major WvW guilds during NA. What about servers that have no major WvW guilds left? How fun would WvW be for them?

I think Linking has helped the situation but we can take it one step further…

Remove all server links from T1 and T2 servers (6 servers no longer have links)
Add in a fifth tier (This will help to alleviate the bandwagoning individuals and queues)
Everyone from T3 on down would have 1 matched server.

atheria.2837:

Linking has failed.

Many servers that are linked ride a wave of ‘winning’ only to fall hard once the link is changed or removed.

On top of that mess, the queues since adding “Legendary Armor” has pushed Prime Time queues to all time highs – at least since the last official tournaments.

Please, give us back our servers and watch as the populations and the queues even out and get better.

Give us our servers back – we didn’t sign up to be linked as an add on to a host server.

No thanks. My server before the links was dead / semi-dead, and that was at prime time to the point where WVW was basically no longer playable. Don’t even get me started on the off hours.

Ques outside of reset, are only and exclusively a problem for some select links, largely those made up of players / guilds who have intentionally or out of their disregard and ignorance, CAUSED these problems in the first place. Rest of us get lucky if we get 1 or 2 maps qued for 5-10 minutes.

The links were done for people other then overstackers on overstacked servers, and its a very good thing. yes it comes with some negatives and bad side effects, but all of which don’t even come close to empty maps and no WVW at all.

hunterAS.5107:

I think Linking has helped the situation but we can take it one step further…

Remove all server links from T1 and T2 servers (6 servers no longer have links)
Add in a fifth tier (This will help to alleviate the bandwagoning individuals and queues)
Everyone from T3 on down would have 1 matched server.

^ This. As someone from a server (Gate of Madness) who would likely be placed in T5, I would be completely fine with this compromise.

Kaiser.9873:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Truly you guys should read the posts here.. at least a couple of them. Since this new PIP system the populations have exploded. Queues are not uncommon and frankly splitting it all back up again would open the door to more of these people that want to come in but decide not to a lot of prime time because of the queues.

It’s NOT like it was before the linking.

NA T1 server here, and except for reset there is generally 1 BL plus EBG queued through the rest of the days, and generally that BL queue is less than 10. This whole queue thing you speak of isn’t a problem on YB, and I imagine it’s really not that much of a problem outside of BG.

ANet has allowed players to vote on permanency of linking, and if I remember right it was a pretty heavy majority that wanted linking to continue. Those of you that want to blow the system up are most likely sitting on servers that might have one or two major WvW guilds during NA. What about servers that have no major WvW guilds left? How fun would WvW be for them?

They would rebuild. Maybe YB doesn’t have queue issues most of the time at primetime but I guess the folks in BP and whoever we get linked up with really like WvW… and now with the PIP system there are more people than ever.

It won’t blow things up… it might cause a pause for a short bit, but I believe the net change would be more people coming into WvW. The highest time for people to come in is during the weekend evenings… Reset of course is always queued. The other nights are hit and miss but a lot more hit than before. It’s backing off a bit now that some people are just giving up. But if there were open servers that needed backfilling I think we would find that people would start filling those spaces fairly well.

It’s not about what we voted on before… that was BEFORE the PIPs that brought a lot of people in to WvW trying to get that “awesome” backpack etc…

An open mind goes a long way to understand what I’ve been trying to say. You are right in what you said and it applies to BEFORE PIPS… now it’s time for a change.. again

Please don’t forget that there’s NA and EU – the two always had different problems and having only one tier turned into links worked pretty fine for us.
Granted we’ve now had the influx of PvE player or players stay longer to get more pips – but no idea how long that will last.

I’m fed up with making friends, getting to know people, forming great teams and then… BAM – relink. Have to start all over again.

Scrap all existing servers and make new ones, then combine NA and EU tiers so we can all play together.

I didn’t transfer to and stayed on EU for no reason – being latency. And I want to keep it like that. So no to your idea that EU and NA should be combined.
I don’t really care with whom we’re linked, actually – but that is again a bigge rproblem which is again coupled with other bigger problems and so on. Wvw just hasn’t got any identity anymore, it’s that unbalanced that the bigger group almost always wins, so I’d work on that before scrapping links for good.

XenesisII.1540:

If they break links, are people going to come back in here to complain about how about their low server populations and how links destroyed their servers?, even though they were well on that way at the time of links. Because if they break links not one person should come in here to complain about populations again.

Linkings did destroy more than half the server though…
If anet ever does unlink those servers they will be a ghost town pretty much…

Linkings revitalized WvW. Now with a surge of people playing WvW due to pips, linkings are less significant, but that population surge is not going to last long.

Linkings were always a band-aid stopgap measure however. We can’t go back to having multiple tiers with almost no one playing in them. It is bad for the game mode, despite what a vocal minority of roamer types say.

What is needed is a new system, a revamp of WvW that is designed to maintain population balance and promote even numbers. Is the current system bad? Yeah. Would going back to no server links be better? No.

We need a new way to handle population.

Caliburn.1845:

Linkings revitalized WvW. Now with a surge of people playing WvW due to pips, linkings are less significant, but that population surge is not going to last long.

Linkings were always a band-aid stopgap measure however. We can’t go back to having multiple tiers with almost no one playing in them. It is bad for the game mode, despite what a vocal minority of roamer types say.

What is needed is a new system, a revamp of WvW that is designed to maintain population balance and promote even numbers. Is the current system bad? Yeah. Would going back to no server links be better? No.
.

If that’s true then they should simply remove the linking altogether and make a new set of servers. Total revamp of WvW. Give them new names, or just remove old names… make it possible for people to move around a bit to be sure they are with their guild mates and/or friends. This linking as it is, is continuing to just make things worse regardless of what some people might say.

It’s not JUST the roamers that are making these comments so it’s probably best not to clump a suggestion and apply it to one specific group. People on both sides of the fence feel as strongly about their positions. Hopefully ANet will come up with a solution that actually makes WvW an attractive place to be other than farming for a legendary backpack… ugh, which I’m not!

atheria.2837:

Linking has failed.

I want so desperately to disagree. Linking has potential to solve a lot of the population issues, but having just had a relink LAST WEEK, this happens at reset (see image). I expect better from a brand new linkage.

The server populations need to be more even, regardless of whether that means gigantic queues or not! If there are gigantic queues for all of the servers in a tier, that’s more balanced. That is more desirable than having Dominators.

One poor server has to come 2nd in this match and face these dominators again next week.

Linking, indeed, seems to have failed.

Straegen.2938:

Unlinked servers were a disaster of their own with bottom tiers nearly void of players during huge swaths of a day. Linking is the lessor of the two evils.

You’re so very wrong.

I was on Jade Quarry.

Guess what server couldn’t pull togehter five people on any tag that decided to tag up for over six weeks?

No, the servers are being manipulated by buying and selling of servers and the mercs rule when people play and when they do not.

I have been on six servers (wish Anet had a history somewhere) was on FA to start, moved to IoJ for a microsecond, moved to HoD until the end of their winning season, then moved to two other servers and then to Yak’s Bend.

I spent 3.5 years on YB.

I moved to JQ.

I moved to Ferguson’s Crossing, so whatever number that is, I have a lot of experience outside of normal NA prime time.

Linking has made for a disjointed and untenable “I don’t know you so why would I work with you” on most servers. Trust can’t happen in a link, not really.

Add Alts to the equation and it’s more than just a mess, it’s much worse than lower servers not having anyone for hours. Much worse.

I love where I am now. We would be a lower tier but a winner in our tier, so why can’t we prove it.

Why are we not allowed our server affiliations to mean what we are not what we are forced to be – and be dismissed or even derided for being the linked server… Many have seen it… Many are sick of it.

Did links increase the population per map? Yes they did
Did links lead to better matchmaking and more balanced matchups? No
Did links help populate the guest servers? No
Did links lead to a more competitive WvW? No
Did links have negative consequences with regards to server communities, bandwagoning and destroying some players preferred play style? Yes
Have links wasted developer time which could have been better spent on much needed gameplay improvements? Yes

There are ways to achieve higher map populations without many of the negatives that came with server linking. That’s why server linking has indeed failed.

Caliburn.1845:

Linkings revitalized WvW. Now with a surge of people playing WvW due to pips, linkings are less significant, but that population surge is not going to last long.

People have either forgotten how bad the population levels were before linking or they enjoyed PvD.

We could flip every camp on every BL and not see a soul prior to linking. A handful of us used to flip keeps out of boredom with nary an enemy in sight. It was completely empty.

Korgov.7645:

snipples

populations will never be equal if someone has a choice of what home world they want. instead of pushing for equal populations, which is counter productive to what wvw should be, push for smaller more organized squads getting the tools they need to defeat bigger ones. trying to equalize populations will always fail because that’s not the problem.

Vova.2640:

XenesisII.1540:

If they break links, are people going to come back in here to complain about how about their low server populations and how links destroyed their servers?, even though they were well on that way at the time of links. Because if they break links not one person should come in here to complain about populations again.

Linkings did destroy more than half the server though…
If anet ever does unlink those servers they will be a ghost town pretty much…

Most of those servers were already well on the way to being destroyed as ghost towns after HoT was released, with the combination of HoT upgrades and desert borderland destroying wvw population for 6 months.

Let’s not kid ourselves here, most of those servers would be absolutely dead right now.

Players weren’t moving to the bottom servers very much before, nothing else than links in the last year would have changed that, other than the few players wanting to play wvw like it’s a spvp game of 5v5. Maybe the new rewards? let’s see how that goes 4 months down the line when players start getting the legendary back piece, how many are going to stick around after that.

P.S I don’t speak for eu servers. The complaints about links from there tend to ignore language barriers problems with links, so anet should just do the same and unlink them all, and let the population chips falls wherever.

Or make linking actually work.

Last matchup, Blackgate won Yak’s Bend and Jade Quarry almost every skirmish. Yes, the 1st placed team winning both 2nd and 3rd team by over 100 points. Their population is about twice the population of my world Jade Quarry.

If Blackgate is too big, then link more worlds together. Maybe even the size of Jade Quarry + Fort Aspenwood if we are to stand any chance against Blackgate.

atheria.2837:

We would be a lower tier but a winner in our tier, so why can’t we prove it.

There really isn’t anything to prove in a system where population and coverage determines wins and losses.

xiiliea.9356:

Maybe even the size of Jade Quarry + Fort Aspenwood if we are to stand any chance against Blackgate.

The queues would be horrendous especially during NA Prime.

Chaba.5410:

xiiliea.9356:

Maybe even the size of Jade Quarry + Fort Aspenwood if we are to stand any chance against Blackgate.

The queues would be horrendous especially during NA Prime.

If you read my post, you’ll see that I prioritise [huge queues and fair matches] over [no queues for one server and queues for another and imbalanced matches].

Stand The Wall.6987:

Korgov.7645:

snipples

populations will never be equal if someone has a choice of what home world they want. instead of pushing for equal populations, which is counter productive to what wvw should be, push for smaller more organized squads getting the tools they need to defeat bigger ones. trying to equalize populations will always fail because that’s not the problem.

Players have had freedom to transfer anywhere they please and it has lead to stacked servers, bottom tier servers getting deserted and some ugly bandwagoning events. That’s why there needs to be a migration policy.

ANet has this brilliant system with Glicko that matches up servers with equal populations only. On top of that we saw all kinds of modifications: like different levels of randomness, resets, multipliers on victory points, even straight up manual rating adjustments.

System never worked because there are only so few teams playing (even fewer with world linking), the coverage determining success and no control over transfers.

If you go down the path of giving smaller servers handicaps, like 100% damage bonus or 50 Victory Points lead, any chance of competiveness goes out of the window.

Vova.2640:

XenesisII.1540:

If they break links, are people going to come back in here to complain about how about their low server populations and how links destroyed their servers?, even though they were well on that way at the time of links. Because if they break links not one person should come in here to complain about populations again.

Linkings did destroy more than half the server though…
If anet ever does unlink those servers they will be a ghost town pretty much…

They were ghost towns PRIOR to linking. That’s why linking was placed in the game. The linked servers will not “rebuild” as someone alluded to earlier. If they were going to rebuild it would have happened. In NA there has always been heavy migration to the top. That will continue until there are servers that have ZERO WvW presence. “Last player left turn out the lights.”

Mysteriax.6049:

hunterAS.5107:

I think Linking has helped the situation but we can take it one step further…

Remove all server links from T1 and T2 servers (6 servers no longer have links)
Add in a fifth tier (This will help to alleviate the bandwagoning individuals and queues)
Everyone from T3 on down would have 1 matched server.

^ This. As someone from a server (Gate of Madness) who would likely be placed in T5, I would be completely fine with this compromise.

This might be a workable solution for now, adding one more Tier to spread out the population a bit.

Sylvyn.4750:

Mysteriax.6049:

hunterAS.5107:

I think Linking has helped the situation but we can take it one step further…

Remove all server links from T1 and T2 servers (6 servers no longer have links)
Add in a fifth tier (This will help to alleviate the bandwagoning individuals and queues)
Everyone from T3 on down would have 1 matched server.

^ This. As someone from a server (Gate of Madness) who would likely be placed in T5, I would be completely fine with this compromise.

This might be a workable solution for now, adding one more Tier to spread out the population a bit.

While this may work in NA, it’s not a good solution for EU.

Svarty.8019:

Chaba.5410:

xiiliea.9356:

Maybe even the size of Jade Quarry + Fort Aspenwood if we are to stand any chance against Blackgate.

The queues would be horrendous especially during NA Prime.

If you read my post, you’ll see that I prioritise [huge queues and fair matches] over [no queues for one server and queues for another and imbalanced matches].

That doesn’t change the fact that queues would be horrendous in xiiliea’s suggested pairing.

But addressing your comment, queues do not equate to fair matches. I’m going to put a stop to that assumption right now. WvW is not an sPvP match where the system attempts to match an even number of players by skill. Having equal numbers creates only a fair chance under the combat system, which is why people ask about balance. In WvW all skill and experience levels are thrown together and you don’t get a choice. If competitive-minded players really had their way the system would be more like sPvP where both numbers and skill are balanced. All heavy queues result in is commanders and guilds logging out for the night when they disconnect in a fight and can’t get back in.

Korgov.7645:

snipples

ppl bandwagon cuz its effective. if smaller groups could beat bigger groups and win matchups there is no need to balance population.

Chaba.5410:

atheria.2837:

We would be a lower tier but a winner in our tier, so why can’t we prove it.

There really isn’t anything to prove in a system where population and coverage determines wins and losses.

You can’t speak for all of us.

Many of us are not playing WvW anywhere near as much as we used to – and with good reason.

We are being dismissed like FA can not understand because it is a host, not a link.

There is a huge difference between being a “link” and being a “host server" and therein lies the real issue – you can’t understand it from our point of view but we can from yours having been on both sides.

Links have failed.

Links, with the addition of Legendary armor, which is a long term endeavor, has made playing WvW during most prime time hours an impossible to improbable waiting game.

If the scores after every match were very close, I’d say the linkings were doing something good, but as it is anyone can look at the score history and the slammed state during prime times and know the linkings are a disaster to any who are in the links and don’t prove the server host can do anything by itself any longer.

atheria.2837:

you can’t understand it from our point of view but we can from yours having been on both sides.

Don’t assume. I’ve been playing on an account on a linked server too. Moreover, I don’t think you are speaking for players on linked servers either. Borlis Pass when they were in last place T8 before server links (back when you were on a stacked YB) was a ghost town outside of NA Prime hours. I appreciate you are all for team pride, but there’s a larger issue with regards to total playing population being willfully ignored.

atheria.2837:

Chaba.5410:

atheria.2837:

We would be a lower tier but a winner in our tier, so why can’t we prove it.

There really isn’t anything to prove in a system where population and coverage determines wins and losses.

You can’t speak for all of us.

Many of us are not playing WvW anywhere near as much as we used to – and with good reason.

We are being dismissed like FA can not understand because it is a host, not a link.

There is a huge difference between being a “link” and being a “host server" and therein lies the real issue – you can’t understand it from our point of view but we can from yours having been on both sides.

Links have failed.

Links, with the addition of Legendary armor, which is a long term endeavor, has made playing WvW during most prime time hours an impossible to improbable waiting game.

If the scores after every match were very close, I’d say the linkings were doing something good, but as it is anyone can look at the score history and the slammed state during prime times and know the linkings are a disaster to any who are in the links and don’t prove the server host can do anything by itself any longer.

Prime time this evening: two maps with small Q’s, other two open.

It’s not an impossible or improbable waiting game if you didn’t bandwagon to the most populated server (or end up on it).

Before linking most servers were dead outside of prime time, and even in prime time most had no queues except EB. Even after linking, many servers still did not have fully queued maps.

After just a few weeks the pve crowd seem to have gone off again and our q’s are back to what they were before the PIP system.

You can’t balance the population with what we have now, I don’t see any way to do it without having to move pops around or force forms of attrition on different servers.

I still support deleting and remaking servers empowered by completely new systems.

Right now even small servers are being populated due to pip system. Remove the link should be fine. at least for a year.

Remove link, and free pass for transfer pip penalty for a month. This should help spreading population amongst server.

Jayne.9251:

Sylvyn.4750:

Mysteriax.6049:

hunterAS.5107:

I think Linking has helped the situation but we can take it one step further…

Remove all server links from T1 and T2 servers (6 servers no longer have links)
Add in a fifth tier (This will help to alleviate the bandwagoning individuals and queues)
Everyone from T3 on down would have 1 matched server.

^ This. As someone from a server (Gate of Madness) who would likely be placed in T5, I would be completely fine with this compromise.

This might be a workable solution for now, adding one more Tier to spread out the population a bit.

While this may work in NA, it’s not a good solution for EU.

Vive la difference!

Balthazzarr.1349:

But taking shots at each other as if one caused the other to have a “bad day” just doesn’t make sense to me.. just sayin.

As stated…

> I mean no offense to either server, but their plan to cap all the host servers as full and force people to transfer to the smaller ones isn’t really working out in the lower tiers.

I have nothing against being linked with Borlis Pass, but the idea that Sea of Sorrows is left “full” because of it is pretty absurd; the combined population of Borlis Pass and Sea of Sorrows is not enough to help the server climb out of T4.

To make matters worse, there are players in my guild and friends outside of it that want to join SoS but can’t.

Phineas Poe.3018:

I have nothing against being linked with Borlis Pass, but the idea that Sea of Sorrows is left “full” because of it is pretty absurd; the combined population of Borlis Pass and Sea of Sorrows is not enough to help the server climb out of T4.

Huh? Most host servers went Full status with the flood of players due to the June 6th patch. Host server population status is not determined by the linked servers. Where did this idea come from?

Server population is determined by active participation of accounts on that server in WvW. Most host servers, including SoS, have been previously Full or Very High before the population calculation was changed and server links introduced so they have a large potential population of PvE players that can fill their WvW quotas if those players start playing WvW again.

Phineas Poe.3018:

I have nothing against being linked with Borlis Pass, but the idea that Sea of Sorrows is left “full” because of it is pretty absurd; the combined population of Borlis Pass and Sea of Sorrows is not enough to help the server climb out of T4.

I remember SoS used to have ppl like Toxic Justin and Stormcrow. Last time I checked They xfered out and bring some population with them.

Right now your server is probably full because of new player being flooded into wvw. They should be gone soon and there will be some room for more ppl

By then, You might have to consider an option like buying a guild in (one like [TW] please buy them. I beg you.)

Jayne.9251:

EU did not need linking to balance out the population.

EU populations were not balanced in the slightest, when FSP was stacked 2 years ago there were week nights (let alone reset) where you had queues on EB 150+ and 20-30 on every single borderland, despite the fact there would often be nothing to fight on 2 borderlands because non-stacked servers simply didn’t have the numbers to fight on all maps.

And the same thing happened the entire game, back when SFR was validating at one point 100 people a day, back when Vizunah had queues on multiple maps outside prime when the other T1 servers could barely fill one map, etc.

The populations have never been remotely balanced on EU, which is why so few over the matchups of the course of this game have ended with three servers having even remotely close scores by the end of the week.

A server/world based system where you can easily transfer and where “worlds” only apply to one small aspect of the game, whether it is standalone or linked servers is simply fundamentally flawed in regard to getting even vaguely balanced populations.

zinkz.7045:

Jayne.9251:

EU did not need linking to balance out the population.

EU populations were not balanced in the slightest, when FSP was stacked 2 years ago there were week nights (let alone reset) where you had queues on EB 150+ and 20-30 on every single borderland, despite the fact there would often be nothing to fight on 2 borderlands because non-stacked servers simply didn’t have the numbers to fight on all maps.

And the same thing happened the entire game, back when SFR was validating at one point 100 people a day, back when Vizunah had queues on multiple maps outside prime when the other T1 servers could barely fill one map, etc.

The populations have never been remotely balanced on EU, which is why so few over the matchups of the course of this game have ended with three servers having even remotely close scores by the end of the week.

A server/world based system where you can easily transfer and where “worlds” only apply to one small aspect of the game, whether it is standalone or linked servers is simply fundamentally flawed in regard to getting even vaguely balanced populations.

Yes but server balance is a NA thing. Sure you got steamrolled by SFR or FSP from time to time, but the beauty of EU was that matches naturally changed each week, without manual adjustments or linkings.

Linkings brought the disassociation of server identity to EU, which was difficult to straddle given identity related to language that exists, and continues to exist, in EU. That disassociation, in turn, brought the bandwagon… More than we had ever seen prior. To an almost absurd level now.

What had been a reasonably healthy WvW scene in EU was gutted with the linkings. Sever identity was key to robust gameplay in EU. And a minimal glicko variance augmented changing matchups. It made the game worth playing, even if you were steamrolled some matches.

on the NA side linking didnt do anything else, its the same blob vs empty server, each server ktrain at a diferent time, populations peak happens at diferent times…

Theres a huge gap from server to server, and linking not doing much..since its pairing servers that play at same time against servers that play at diferent times :\, something like that.

Jirayu.5834:

Right now even small servers are being populated due to pip system. Remove the link should be fine. at least for a year.

Remove link, and free pass for transfer pip penalty for a month. This should help spreading population amongst server.

Yes, we can open free transfer, that’s what I used to suggest back then. But now, thinking about it, I don’t think it makes a real difference in long term because…

1. Not enough populations to go to all existing servers
2. Due to overall low population, they will have to lower the max cap further to keep servers equal
3. Due to lower cap, it also force servers to adapt very specific geodemographic otherwise servers will die to attrition due to max cap
4. Geodemographic is not that easily to obtain due to human nature, human want to stack at least 2 guilds per timezone and likewise not enough guilds to spread to all the servers for some timezones
5. The fundamental not-equal server pve population resulting in potential population gain due to events or holidays or random players mood is still not solved

edit:
so is still better to delete all servers and create just enough servers while having a complete new system that designed to tackle balancing that is sustainable

Jayne.9251:

Yes but server balance is a NA thing. Sure you got steamrolled by SFR or FSP from time to time, but the beauty of EU was that matches naturally changed each week, without manual adjustments or linkings.

Linkings brought the disassociation of server identity to EU, which was difficult to straddle given identity related to language that exists, and continues to exist, in EU. That disassociation, in turn, brought the bandwagon… More than we had ever seen prior. To an almost absurd level now.

What had been a reasonably healthy WvW scene in EU was gutted with the linkings. Sever identity was key to robust gameplay in EU. And a minimal glicko variance augmented changing matchups. It made the game worth playing, even if you were steamrolled some matches.

+1
Not sure if it’d still be like that, though.

SkyShroud.2865:

Jirayu.5834:

Right now even small servers are being populated due to pip system. Remove the link should be fine. at least for a year.

Remove link, and free pass for transfer pip penalty for a month. This should help spreading population amongst server.

Yes, we can open free transfer, that’s what I used to suggest back then. But now, thinking about it, I don’t think it makes a real difference in long term because…

1. Not enough populations to go to all existing servers
2. Due to overall low population, they will have to lower the max cap further to keep servers equal
3. Due to lower cap, it also force servers to adapt very specific geodemographic otherwise servers will die to attrition due to max cap
4. Geodemographic is not that easily to obtain due to human nature, human want to stack at least 2 guilds per timezone and likewise not enough guilds to spread to all the servers for some timezones
5. The fundamental not-equal server pve population resulting in potential population gain due to events or holidays or random players mood is still not solved

edit:
so is still better to delete all servers and create just enough servers while having a complete new system that designed to tackle balancing that is sustainable

I didn’t mean free transfer. I mean some period of time for transfer and still get pip after transfer. If unlink really happen, This should help small server to have a chance to recruit population or even buy some guild.

For now, Some ppl choose to stick around because of pip penalty after transfer

Jayne.9251:

zinkz.7045:

Jayne.9251:

EU did not need linking to balance out the population.

EU populations were not balanced in the slightest, when FSP was stacked 2 years ago there were week nights (let alone reset) where you had queues on EB 150+ and 20-30 on every single borderland, despite the fact there would often be nothing to fight on 2 borderlands because non-stacked servers simply didn’t have the numbers to fight on all maps.

And the same thing happened the entire game, back when SFR was validating at one point 100 people a day, back when Vizunah had queues on multiple maps outside prime when the other T1 servers could barely fill one map, etc.

The populations have never been remotely balanced on EU, which is why so few over the matchups of the course of this game have ended with three servers having even remotely close scores by the end of the week.

A server/world based system where you can easily transfer and where “worlds” only apply to one small aspect of the game, whether it is standalone or linked servers is simply fundamentally flawed in regard to getting even vaguely balanced populations.

Yes but server balance is a NA thing. Sure you got steamrolled by SFR or FSP from time to time, but the beauty of EU was that matches naturally changed each week, without manual adjustments or linkings.

Linkings brought the disassociation of server identity to EU, which was difficult to straddle given identity related to language that exists, and continues to exist, in EU. That disassociation, in turn, brought the bandwagon… More than we had ever seen prior. To an almost absurd level now.

---

THIS!!!*

What had been a reasonably healthy WvW scene in EU was gutted with the linkings. Sever identity was key to robust gameplay in EU. And a minimal glicko variance augmented changing matchups. It made the game worth playing, even if you were steamrolled some matches.

This is the sentiment of most veterans in WvW.

Our server means something to us.

Identity is gone.

Close friendships are not possible in an ever-changing player base.

This game either wants longivity or it wants quick fixes.

Right now, I feel it went with a very horrid quick fix.

We, as players, deserve the server we chose, not one we’re forced to play in. One where many times we hear “I’m sorry, who are you? You don’t matter, link person.”

Sorry, but overall participation increased with linking…

None of you have provided any real evidence or rational arguments to remove linking. Some of you can type until your fingers hurt, but it doesn’t change the stated dev fact that wvw is healthier, in part, due to linking… All in all, it’s pretty irrational to want wvw back in the same failing state it was in before linking…. Makes zero sense and is counterproductive to wanting a more thriving game mode.

There’s not enough commanders/leaders willing to lead dead servers back to life. No guilds left like War Machine that are able to solo carry entire servers. There’s no point to get rid of links at this point because even now, there’s not enough leaders to go around to keep servers alive and healthy.

The GUILD is your identity. focus on that, you will have fun. server pride? there’s probably only 5 people on each server with server pride and 3 of them don’t login when you’re losing. Exception is Magswag, they have about 7.

Hoping Desolation will not get linked again any time soon even if we can’t keep up with the coverage of those servers.

shiri.4257:

The GUILD is your identity. focus on that, you will have fun. server pride? there’s probably only 5 people on each server with server pride and 3 of them don’t login when you’re losing. Exception is Magswag, they have about 7.

Pugging is dead. Long live pugging!

Swagger.1459:

Sorry, but overall participation increased with linking…

None of you have provided any real evidence or rational arguments to remove linking. Some of you can type until your fingers hurt, but it doesn’t change the stated dev fact that wvw is healthier, in part, due to linking… All in all, it’s pretty irrational to want wvw back in the same failing state it was in before linking…. Makes zero sense and is counterproductive to wanting a more thriving game mode.

How does WvW ‘thrive’ with people not working together on most servers other than to follow a blob or answer a blob?

…And you didn’t answer my ‘reasons’; our server identiy, which is important to any real WvW’er as well as knowing players we are playing with over time, and knowing them well. You can’t do that on a linked server set. Community, organization and cooperation doens’t usually happen amongst strangers.

How are my reasons not enough of a reason for someone who might play less than I do by far?