Guild Wars 2

I think it’s fair to say that 3 months is TOO long to ‘beta’ different server combos to create any sort of balance. Anet really needs to try shorter time (min 3weeks or Max 6 weeks) to try to ‘combine’ different servers in WvW so that glicko spreads out and filters down to create dynamic matches every week. Glicko is already starting to settle and it looks like kitten,T3,T4 will have gaps once again that will lock these servers. Stale matchups every week ruin the fights/game. In my experience JQ has had lots of fun in T2 because we have had a different matchup every week with different server coming up from T3 and coming down from T1. We really need to keep this going.

They need time, to see how many of rerturners will go away again, and then make adjustments to it again.

Servers population are very unstable…. it needs time.
Altough i feel the result will be always the same….

Yea, I believe the quarterly schedule on server pairings is more for Anet to analyze the data, make changes, prep changes, etc…..

Ideally, I would like to see the pairings change about every month, if they keep this system after beta.

Teon.5168:

Yea, I believe the quarterly schedule on server pairings is more for Anet to analyze the data, make changes, prep changes, etc…..

Ideally, I would like to see the pairings change about every month, if they keep this system after beta.

How many people would be willing to pay the transfer fee potentially every month in order to play with the locked server they want to or with their guild that is on a locked server?

Jaina Ashlynn.1043:

Teon.5168:

Yea, I believe the quarterly schedule on server pairings is more for Anet to analyze the data, make changes, prep changes, etc…..

Ideally, I would like to see the pairings change about every month, if they keep this system after beta.

How many people would be willing to pay the transfer fee potentially every month in order to play with the locked server they want to or with their guild that is on a locked server?

hopefully not many, that way people will actually spread out properly.

Nate.3927:

Jaina Ashlynn.1043:

Teon.5168:

Yea, I believe the quarterly schedule on server pairings is more for Anet to analyze the data, make changes, prep changes, etc…..

Ideally, I would like to see the pairings change about every month, if they keep this system after beta.

How many people would be willing to pay the transfer fee potentially every month in order to play with the locked server they want to or with their guild that is on a locked server?

hopefully not many, that way people will actually spread out properly.

I’d fall under the “not many” category. My guild is locked on BG and I have no desire to transfer to ET in order to run guild WvW missions due to potential shuffling of linked servers. The guild leader even told me they’d pay for the transfer, but why waste resources if in a couple of months, ET gets linked to another server.

Jaina Ashlynn.1043:

Nate.3927:

Jaina Ashlynn.1043:

Teon.5168:

Yea, I believe the quarterly schedule on server pairings is more for Anet to analyze the data, make changes, prep changes, etc…..

Ideally, I would like to see the pairings change about every month, if they keep this system after beta.

How many people would be willing to pay the transfer fee potentially every month in order to play with the locked server they want to or with their guild that is on a locked server?

hopefully not many, that way people will actually spread out properly.

I’d fall under the “not many” category. My guild is locked on BG and I have no desire to transfer to ET in order to run guild WvW missions due to potential shuffling of linked servers. The guild leader even told me they’d pay for the transfer, but why waste resources if in a couple of months, ET gets linked to another server.

you can actually still do some of them even if you’re not on the same server e.g. fairly sure the OS mission and the WvW Rank missions are all doable while not on the same server.

Since it is beta testing they should probably try switching links every 4 weeks or so. The problem is if it’s kept short, players will be unwilling to move and spread out.

Ultimately I’m sure that’s what they would like to see happen, if players are having problems with queues on say BG for a while then maybe they would be willing to move servers(fat chance), but they would have to move to the lower population servers to jump to a server in the higher matchups.

As it is, it looks like T1/2 will have a rotation and having fun with that, T3 has a good chance to roll up into T2, while T4 is close to being stuck in a glicko hole of almost 200 points behind and leeching off themselves with no one wanting to transfer there.

Xenesis.6389:

while T4 is close to being stuck in a glicko hole of almost 200 points behind and leeching off themselves with no one wanting to transfer there.

And guilds are starting to leave T4. Remember, these were the middle-tier servers before server linking. Three months does seem like a long time.

Chaba.5410:

Xenesis.6389:

while T4 is close to being stuck in a glicko hole of almost 200 points behind and leeching off themselves with no one wanting to transfer there.

And guilds are starting to leave T4. Remember, these were the middle-tier servers before server linking. Three months does seem like a long time.

Yup, Ehmry just lost 2 of it’s biggest guilds, thinking of getting one of my accounts back up into T1/2 again cause it seems like it’s could be a lot of fun, even T2 right now is a really close match with a 9k spread.

T3 is losing guilds to BG/T1 as well. Funny how the stacking hasn’t stopped even as people are still crying for population balance. Servers being able to roll up/down a tier and being able to be competitive in those tiers when they get there are completely different things. There is still a population difference between the different tiers that caused those glicko walls to begin with. No one wanted to roll up/down a tier and either be rolled by superior numbers all week or run over the competition for the entire week. Only way for these match-up changes to be anywhere near fun enough to encourage those walls to not get rebuilt is to actually truly achieve some sort of population balance. Currently we do not have that and T1 is stacking just like old times.

BOA smid.1783:

T3 is losing guilds to BG/T1 as well. Funny how the stacking hasn’t stopped even as people are still crying for population balance. Servers being able to roll up/down a tier and being able to be competitive in those tiers when they get there are completely different things. There is still a population difference between the different tiers that caused those glicko walls to begin with. No one wanted to roll up/down a tier and either be rolled by superior numbers all week or run over the competition for the entire week. Only way for these match-up changes to be anywhere near fun enough to encourage those walls to not get rebuilt is to actually truly achieve some sort of population balance. Currently we do not have that and T1 is stacking just like old times.

The top tier servers are “stacking”, but they aren’t stacking themselves. They are stacking their lower tier counter part. Guilds go to the lower ranked server to play with the higher tier server (b/c they can’t go to the higher tier server). This in and of itself could balance populations from top to bottom “IF” ANet somehow locks down transfers (though I don’t see this happening since transfers = $$$). I know many guilds would be pretty upset if they got locked into a lower tier server and then had to play on a lower tier match up (that, say, maybe didn’t get as well stacked on other servers).

I’m interested to see what comes of this after beta. I’ve been enjoying Mag (who said that? looks around) and have been working to become an active part of their server play, but it would be cool to get linked with someone indefinitely so I could put down my roots proper though.

Apparently they are hung up on the quarterly number per Reddit. Will lmao when ET server status becomes very high or full (unless of course Anet has now locked statuses as well)

Sus.3610:

The top tier servers are “stacking”, but they aren’t stacking themselves. They are stacking their lower tier counter part. Guilds go to the lower ranked server to play with the higher tier server (b/c they can’t go to the higher tier server). This in and of itself could balance populations from top to bottom “IF” ANet somehow locks down transfers (though I don’t see this happening since transfers = $$$). I know many guilds would be pretty upset if they got locked into a lower tier server and then had to play on a lower tier match up (that, say, maybe didn’t get as well stacked on other servers).

With the model they’ve chosen they need to redo linkages often and they need to increase the cost of transfers so the bandwagoners can’t just jump from ET to BG’s next partner when it changes for 100 gold which can be earned easily.

Sus.3610:

Guilds go to the lower ranked server to play with the higher tier server (b/c they can’t go to the higher tier server). This in and of itself could balance populations from top to bottom “IF” ANet somehow locks down transfers (though I don’t see this happening since transfers = $$$).

I don’t believe this. Do you? Guilds will move again so they can fight different guilds. Tyler’s message on Reddit said 4-6 matches for glicko to stabilize. I don’t think it should be allowed to stabilize, TBH.

morrolan.9608:

Sus.3610:

The top tier servers are “stacking”, but they aren’t stacking themselves. They are stacking their lower tier counter part. Guilds go to the lower ranked server to play with the higher tier server (b/c they can’t go to the higher tier server). This in and of itself could balance populations from top to bottom “IF” ANet somehow locks down transfers (though I don’t see this happening since transfers = $$$). I know many guilds would be pretty upset if they got locked into a lower tier server and then had to play on a lower tier match up (that, say, maybe didn’t get as well stacked on other servers).

With the model they’ve chosen they need to redo linkages often and they need to increase the cost of transfers so the bandwagoners can’t just jump from ET to BG’s next partner when it changes for 100 gold which can be earned easily.

100g, 200g, it doesnt matter. As long as people can do it, they will. And when GW2 WvW become a race to not play WvW and instead farm gold in PvE for the next transfer, it will become a kittenty game.

Dawdler.8521:

morrolan.9608:

Sus.3610:

The top tier servers are “stacking”, but they aren’t stacking themselves. They are stacking their lower tier counter part. Guilds go to the lower ranked server to play with the higher tier server (b/c they can’t go to the higher tier server). This in and of itself could balance populations from top to bottom “IF” ANet somehow locks down transfers (though I don’t see this happening since transfers = $$$). I know many guilds would be pretty upset if they got locked into a lower tier server and then had to play on a lower tier match up (that, say, maybe didn’t get as well stacked on other servers).

With the model they’ve chosen they need to redo linkages often and they need to increase the cost of transfers so the bandwagoners can’t just jump from ET to BG’s next partner when it changes for 100 gold which can be earned easily.

100g, 200g, it doesnt matter. As long as people can do it, they will. And when GW2 WvW become a race to not play WvW and instead farm gold in PvE for the next transfer, it will become a kittenty game.

Then as I and others have said they need to change the entire structure of WvW cause the mode is kittened.

Next world linking should look like this going by rankings /populations

1-no linking
2-24
3-23
4-22
5-21
6-20
7-19
8-18
9-17
10-16
11-15
12-13-14

And increase transfer prices for the 23rd and 24th rank server .

Chaba.5410:

Sus.3610:

Guilds go to the lower ranked server to play with the higher tier server (b/c they can’t go to the higher tier server). This in and of itself could balance populations from top to bottom “IF” ANet somehow locks down transfers (though I don’t see this happening since transfers = $$$).

I don’t believe this. Do you? Guilds will move again so they can fight different guilds. Tyler’s message on Reddit said 4-6 matches for glicko to stabilize. I don’t think it should be allowed to stabilize, TBH.

Maybe not guilds. I’m quite certain individual players are moving around to the lower tier servers. Why not? From what I’ve heard moving to some of those lower tier servers is 500 gems. People like to win. Coverage does that. Which is odd because sleeping without anything on is much more enticing.

I agree with you about the glicko stabilization. If we get some surprises each week with servers moving up and down throughout the tiers glicko will continue to spike. Plus this is still in beta. I think.