Guild Wars 2

As some of you may remember, when the server linking was announced, I had made a thread that I believe will be the consequences of the Server Link.
To avoid making this thread longer than necessary, please see below for the [Merged] Thread if you’d like to read my points that I firmly believe still stand:-

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-Feedback-merged/first

Lately, I’ve been keeping track of the WvW forum and it appears that a lot of negative feedback threads are symptoms of the server link.

I firmly believe that after accepting that the server link was accepted, my gf and I have honestly tried to play with the server link and we’ve noticed the following:-

1) Community clashes – Loss of teamwork cohesion

As stated in one of my points, COMMUNITY is very important to WvW.
Currently, the server link bundles 2-3 (sometimes more) active WvW players into one whole playground. Suddenly, you have 2+ communities who are unfamiliar with each other attempting to “work together” to compete.

From OUR experience, in the last 8 months and I do believe I can speak for most of FC as we are a very close (and now also smaller) community, what tends to happen is that the host server will become the dominant and main commanders, and suddenly, the main commanders of the smaller communities (servers) play very little part in the overall success of the match-up.

Now it might just be my view of FC’s wonderful community, but before the server link, we very rarely saw commanders verbally abusing each other (with malicious intention) on map chat, about how well we were doing as a zerg, and instead were supportive (Thus I love FC).
Since the server links, I’ve seen nothing but abuse from egotistical commanders from EVERY server we’ve been linked to so far.

I have personally blocked a large majority of these so called “commanders” and I know that most of FC will have done the same and this results in a lack of teamwork cohesion.

As a result, each server will stick to their own familiar commanders that suits their own vision and skill of what a commander should be doing.
I argue that, before when we had our separate servers, we could have our own separate identities where people could CHOOSE to flourish in either a welcoming community or to my taste, a less welcoming community. AT this current moment, due to server link, we are being unwillingly bundled with communities we simply do not like.

2) WvW for smaller servers

Again with the server link, this has resulted in an increase in active wvw players in active wvw times in our respective servers.

If you’re in a small-medium sized server such as FC, we will most certainly struggle to find the manpower to be able to put up enough numbers to be able to compete against far greater numbers.
Furthermore, there WILL be some of us who do not always want to tag and wish to roam by ourselves capping things.

Since the server link, even a small party of 2-5 will struggle moving out of our spawn point and capping a camp, against a server link with higher active WvW players.
There have been many times in the last few months, we have tried to cap a camp, attempted to move on to find a band of borderland guardians and result in death by superior numbers. We’ll move to a separate direction and suddenly, we die to superior numbers yet again!

Again I argue, while there are WvW players who enjoy following a tag 24/7, there are some of us who enjoy travelling the borderlands doing our own thing as well.
Personally, I love commanding myself, and I thank the support from FC players that show their support in following me whenever I tag, however not every single player in FC, myself included, love to follow a tag or be a tag 24/7.

Conclusion
Whilst I have many more things to say, I do believe at this current moment, the 2 points that I have included in this thread and the points on the merged server link thread will sufficiently explain my argument.

I therefore call for an official 2nd poll, now that we’ve all had an experience of the server link, to SCRAP the server link/glicko. Furthermore, it’s likely that the people who didn’t vote in the first poll, may actually vote the 2nd time round due to their own frustrations or love for the server link. This will give them a chance to vote.

Whilst it’s never nice to roll back an update that have had work put into, it takes great leadership to recognise that the server link has caused a lot of controversy and in my opinion, actually raised the minimum players required – see point 2 to even begin to have fun in WvW nowadays. Imagine being a new player in WvW and being run over by a zerg left, right & center.

For those who are struggling to follow my logic in asking for a 2nd poll, I’ll use the following real life scenario:-

1) BREXIT :-
We, in the UK, have voted in a referendum to come out of the EU.
Regardless of your standing (if you’re in the UK or interested in our politics), this comes after years of relationship since the UK has decided to go into the Single Market back in the 1970-1980s.
Back in the day, the UK thought it was a good idea to join the single market (see how the wvw population thought it was a good idea to try out the server link.)

Instead, we have argued for another referendum since we’ve been in the common market and we feel that it’s not good for us (argument for 2nd poll) and that the younger generations feel that they personally haven’t had a voice regarding such a system (more wvw people voting).

Yes, it may hurt to damage the work and relationship we’ve had but it may actually better for us. The successful negotiation and our future requires leadership to see us through this.

Thank you

2nd poll would be great, because at the time of first poll, MANY servers (my server too) didnt had a linking until the moment the poll was started and couldnt analyse the pros and contras.

i think NOW all servers had a better overview about the changings for communities and wvw which comes with server linkings. so i would really agree with a 2nd poll.

I still think removing links would be a mistake as it will once again create several tiers with dead matchups. If a poll is to come up, I’ll be voting to continue with it.

Maybe it’s better just to merge certain server. Only downside is that Anet won’t get much money from transfers which is most likely the idea behind tossing worlds around every 2 months.

Over all I think server links have been good. While the server that I am on has only been linked with 2 different servers, " AR and FC " we enjoyed working with both of them. We always look for the strengths of who we are paired with and played off that. If they would find a group much bigger then them and needed help, we would provide the support that they needed and go from there.

Has FC been paired with some servers with toxic commanders, you might have. It is a shame because FC has some very nice players/Guilds that have a great understanding of WvW and how to get things done.

Jeknar.6184:

I still think removing links would be a mistake as it will once again create several tiers with dead matchups. If a poll is to come up, I’ll be voting to continue with it.

True and for some servers, it will go back to being just as bad if not worse than before the link. How many people left the linked servers for whatever reason and how many will actually return if the linking is removed? I finally left the server I had been on since beta and have no plans to ever return, especially if the link is removed.

Don’t really see linking any different than having a bunch of new guilds transfer in to your server, or even a bandwagon, every two months. They stay for a few months then move on. Pretty much every server has it’s own kitten holes you have to ignore with or without links.

While many view that as bad, if they were to break links now you would see a lot of dead servers at this point, and maybe even players moving up again to get to more populated servers making them even more dead.

I’m not for or against links, it doesn’t solve the real population issues but at least it has given servers more players to play with and against. The other issues like small group stuff and roaming are problems I believe created with HoT along with the “revamp” of the combat system, traits, elite specs, new stat sets, conditions.

But bring on the re-poll.

Y’all are not getting another poll on this subject… A developer clearly stated that participation has increased since linking and reward tracks were introduced. Time to get over it and move on.

Swagger.1459:

Y’all are not getting another poll on this subject… A developer clearly stated that participation has increased since linking and reward tracks were introduced. Time to get over it and move on.

When did they state that? at the beginning of links or recently?

smashie.3074:

As some of you may remember, when the server linking was announced, I had made a thread that I believe will be the consequences of the Server Link.
{snip}
Lately, I’ve been keeping track of the WvW forum and it appears that a lot of negative feedback threads are symptoms of the server link.

I firmly believe that after accepting that the server link was accepted, my gf and I have honestly tried to play with the server link and we’ve noticed the following:-

1) Community clashes – Loss of teamwork cohesion
{snip}
2) WvW for smaller servers
{snip}

Agree 110%.

Offair.2563:

Maybe it’s better just to merge certain server. Only downside is that Anet won’t get much money from transfers which is most likely the idea behind tossing worlds around every 2 months.

Also agree 110%.

ANet either needs to crap or get off the pot and either unlink servers or finally delete and permanently merge, and THEN unlink servers. This whole rotating links thing is just a play to get more kittening Gemstore sales for transfers, and it’s frankly insulting.

Imagine if for the PvP Pro leagues they were forced to pay for Gems to transfer Worlds, or unlock builds? The community would (rightfully) have a fit, but WvW players can get treated like this crap?

Diku.4620:

Let’s have a 2nd Poll on World Linking, but can we have a Poll to use Server Guesting for WvW?

The Server Guesting link goes to a 404 but assuming guesting is still a thing it’s an interesting idea. Allow players to set a WvW Guest Server once per match on the first WvW log in that week, perhaps? You could exclude Full servers (sorry BG – I know you need more people…).

As a player on both Host and Guest servers on two accounts I quite like linking but it’s clearly not an ideal solution. I’m sure someone could come up with something better.

Also, the Brexit analogy is wrong in so many ways I wouldn’t even begin. Just…no.

You don’t even need to set the guesting to a week, as I mentioned wow does it for 30mins, also the old guesting for gw2 was set for 24 hours I believe, which sounds reasonable.

The limitations I would set is:
1. Guesting for 24 hours.
2. You cannot guest to a server in your home server matchup, so if you’re on BG you cannot guest to Mag or TC currently, but all the other tiers are fine.
3. Limited to paid accounts not free accounts.
4. Set a maximum amount of guest to a server of say 500 for the day.
5. Could even consider setting the limitation to the server that’s currently losing the matchup, which would bring it down to 3 possible servers to guest on every day.

Personally, I think the pros of Linking outweigh the cons.

Or at least, now that it’s happened there is no going back without frustrating those who have seen the benefit and making things worse. It either means taking it further and permanently merging servers or taking a different approach, such as GW1 Alliances, as to how worlds are divided.

I believe many will support linking as it does improve the populations and overall activities but if you want to be convinced that majority do support it with a newer poll, sure, why not.

All in all, while I think linking is better (for the hosts) than the 24 server alternative, there needs to be a goal for our guest servers as well, a realistic way to EARN/STEAL ie remove a bad or unworthy host from their coveted host position and provide more movement / shifting in the 12 hosts every 2 months.

Linkings don’t need to be evenish for “fights” because most current hosts don’t really want fights, they just want to maintain their current glicko so they don’t fall out of host position.

If there was an actual consequence for the hosts tanking for “fights”, or advantages for a guest helping a host rise, then we’d see a change in the staleness that linkings have brought for many guests.

I have the feeling a 2nd poll would still favor linking as people who do not like it are probably not playing because of said linking and won’t be around to vote :P
Still I miss life on Borlis Pass before linkings.