Guild Wars 2

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

The guilds on servers that game the current system will be the same guilds that game the battlegroup system.

Step 1: Have everyone in your guild create an alt-account, maybe more. (assume that this hasn’t already happened)

Step 2: Have each alt-guild join a different battlegroup.

Step 3: Wait for Anet to create matchup, then play for battlegroup where you play with other battlegroups you like.

Step 4: Voids in opposing battlegroups, (by you not playing on your alts) will be filled by pugs.

Step 5: Win and profit.

I can only name 3 guilds that have made Alt account guilds in this fashion. 1 of them was a roaming/ dueling guild and I’m the guild leader of another. The question I have, is do you see this becoming the norm and why would it? If the Tiers are rotating, you’d therefore give everyone a chance to fight a dead server. Furthermore, the amount of effort it takes to organize and gear an entire alt guild is quite the effort.

In fact, gaming the system now with alt accounts would be easier because I could do this with a linked guest. It would be like having double the flexibility and no draw back to transferring around. To think about it, it’s why I’m seeing more alt accounts as of late.

As I said. I say this with great experience in making an alt account guild designed to effect WvW PPT. The only reason those types of guilds are beneficial are because the game’s tiers are stale. That means the same match-ups happen all the time. We are so beyond that point and still would be with battlegroups.

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

Jayne.9251:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Jayne.9251:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).

Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..

This sounds like pvp and not wvw.

Even your scratched out post hints at that.

And the problem with poaching ideas from pvp, for a format people want more pvp oriented is..?

It’s not even remotely the same game.

If spvp was so optimal, you’d think they’d get more than 50 players for its big competition.

There’s a reason people play and are attached to wvw more than spvp.

So you think wvw is about the k-train & PvD?

ok.

Still not seeing your problem with taking inspiration from pvp.

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

Yeah, YB in a T1 match with zero first place skirmishes and a KDR of 0.5 along with NSP with 6 first place skirmishes and also a KDR of 0.5 must be tons of fun for both of them.

Artificially rotating servers into a matchup that they don’t belong is not going to spread out the population.

Swamurabi.7890:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

Yeah, YB in a T1 match with zero first place skirmishes and a KDR of 0.5 along with NSP with 6 first place skirmishes and also a KDR of 0.5 must be tons of fun for both of them.

Artificially rotating servers into a matchup that they don’t belong is not going to spread out the population.

Hrm Last week YB came in second in Tier 1 and beat two Tier 1 servers in Tier 2 the week before and KDR doesn’t mean coverage. Try not to focus on 1 week or 1 tier.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

Yeah, YB in a T1 match with zero first place skirmishes and a KDR of 0.5 along with NSP with 6 first place skirmishes and also a KDR of 0.5 must be tons of fun for both of them.

Artificially rotating servers into a matchup that they don’t belong is not going to spread out the population.

Hrm Last week YB came in second in Tier 1 and beat two Tier 1 servers in Tier 2 the week before and KDR doesn’t mean coverage. Try not to focus on 1 week or 1 tier.

YB did not come in “Second” in the last two weeks.

The only reason we did three weeks before was because DK came out of hiding and didn’t tank.

Now we’ve been told to stand down and tank. Tanking hurts players. Tanking is manipulation.

Manipulation of the game, the players and massive abuse of those who will not stand down is in progress – and not one has addressed the blatant 2v1 we see in every Tier and on most servers.

Maybe it’s time for WvW= 1v1 server and forget the third.

atheria.2837:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Swamurabi.7890:

The problem is that there is no “rotation” in NA. Where did all the SoR players go? Where have all the DB players gone? The only rotation in NA is the players jumping from one dying T1 server to the next bandwagon T2 server. Until recently, JQ was always T1. And for years it’s been BG>TC>FA>Mag, with DB and SoS rising and falling.

There has never been more than a 4 server rotation in NA, unlike the 9 server rotation in EU. Your rotation dream will never happen because of the attitudes of the NA players, who’d rather stack to win instead of trying to win an even numbered fight through skill. This attitude of the NA players has caused server locking to fail, it’s caused server linking to fail and it will cause battlegroups to fail.

What? This made no sense. The tiers aren’t locked. The match up changes frequently. The rankings changes frequently. As we progress, it happens at an greater effect to the point now, where we are seeing NSP in Tier 2 and Yaks Bend in Tier 1 coming from Tier 4. Each time people are forced to move. They are also forced to spread. Every 2 months a reevaluation happens to set this into greater effect.

There is indeed a rotation of servers hoping throughout the tiers. The Tiers are not locked nor should they have ever been locked.

Yeah, YB in a T1 match with zero first place skirmishes and a KDR of 0.5 along with NSP with 6 first place skirmishes and also a KDR of 0.5 must be tons of fun for both of them.

Artificially rotating servers into a matchup that they don’t belong is not going to spread out the population.

Hrm Last week YB came in second in Tier 1 and beat two Tier 1 servers in Tier 2 the week before and KDR doesn’t mean coverage. Try not to focus on 1 week or 1 tier.

YB did not come in “Second” in the last two weeks.

The only reason we did three weeks before was because DK came out of hiding and didn’t tank.

Now we’ve been told to stand down and tank. Tanking hurts players. Tanking is manipulation.

Manipulation of the game, the players and massive abuse of those who will not stand down is in progress – and not one has addressed the blatant 2v1 we see in every Tier and on most servers.

Maybe it’s time for WvW= 1v1 server and forget the third.

Anet, this is why you need to keep NA players in the dark regarding which shards get linked. An expectation has been set that rank 1-3 servers do not get a server link and players will use that knowledge to try to game the system.

JQ is purposely tanking too.

I started out on a small server that was mid tier-ish. It was a good community that worked together and fought hard.
In fact more often than not they held their own till they were faced rolled for months on end by servers that expanded with guild transfers. Then one day I looked up and everyone was gone. So I transferred and ended up on a T1 server.

You’d think everything would be peachy after that but it wasn’t. The server ended up with many of the same problems with guilds moving off, and flooded with other guilds which left the server’s WvW community divided. Frustrated I transferred again, and went down to about mid tier hoping to escape the drama and find a nice little WvW community again.

That’s all I want. I’m not ate up with being #1. I just want to WvW and work together again as a community in fair match-ups where everything is not all about blobbing.

I have nothing against those that like that sort of WvW play. I just miss the community I lost and would like to have something like that once again.

R.I.P. AR.

Kamara.4187:

I started out on a small server that was mid tier-ish. It was a good community that worked together and fought hard.
In fact more often than not they held their own till they were faced rolled for months on end by servers that expanded with guild transfers. Then one day I looked up and everyone was gone. So I transferred and ended up on a T1 server.

You’d think everything would be peachy after that but it wasn’t. The server ended up with many of the same problems with guilds moving off, and flooded with other guilds which left the server’s WvW community divided. Frustrated I transferred again, and went down to about mid tier hoping to escape the drama and find a nice little WvW community again.

That’s all I want. I’m not ate up with being #1. I just want to WvW and work together again as a community in fair match-ups where everything is not all about blobbing.

I have nothing against those that like that sort of WvW play. I just miss the community I lost and would like to have something like that once again.

R.I.P. AR.

The main problem with NA WvW is that the top tier servers have always looked to recruit experienced lower tier players to fill a perceived coverage imbalance. Linking just makes it easier for them to assimilate you.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

JQ is purposely tanking too.

From where I’m sitting Mag and YB are purposefully tanking.

morrolan.9608:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

JQ is purposely tanking too.

From where I’m sitting Mag and YB are purposefully tanking.

YB is. They’ve even said it. I have no clue about MAG. Why would MAG tank? They are open and they have a link.

As far as the history of NA servers, the reason NA looks different than EU is not primarily the fault of the NA players.

First, most SEA and OCX players play in NA not EU. This has led to coverage wars which EU has not experienced at the same level. NA could easily have nine relatively well matched servers during NA primetime if SEA and OCX players were not around. But early in the game, the first few months after release, the competitive WvW players came to understand that coverage was important, and that started the chain of bandwagon servers we have seen, as well as the tier stratification.

Second, EU has language based servers which have helped maintain more stable server populations, whereas that has not existed for NA. Transfer where ever you want, you’ll still speak the same language on NA.

As to tanking. Yeah YB is doing it, I suspect JQ is going to try it. And I’m sure it has been discussed among the various bigwigs on TC.

I don’t really think it will help anyone, but it is the way the game is set up at the moment sadly.

if TC tanked at one point I was left in the dust. 1 person brought it up in a TC meeting and everyone agreed it wasnt a good idea because it isnt.

The funny thing about YB’s take on this is that YB doesn’t want another ride down and up the glicko roller coaster. In general, the server wants to stabilize in t2. The last time it happened wasn’t fun for anyone. YB hadn’t imploded or lost nearly as much coverage as folks off server thought – but it couldn’t perform where glicko thought it should.

Given how disorganized the place is, the way they get there (if they do) will be typical YB anarchy. But right now, there’s good reason for them to be concerned about the potential yo yo effect of ending up without a link.

(Shout out to the fabulous folks on FC, BTW, who have been fantastic partners…)

Oh is that time of the month when your server tank hard because of the broken system

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

JQ is purposely tanking too.

Funny how TC gave up every single scrim first 30 hours of reset, after they dominated last weeks matchup.

JQ tanked in response to TC’s tank, now TC has an 80 man map queue spawn camping with siege, banners, and Ewps. Their EU is playing 5 hours past their raid time, WL playing from late NA to past SEA time.

90% of JQ isnt trying to tank. We have a queue in ebg, which is the max we normally have during a normal night.

Sarika.3756:

Given how disorganized the place is, the way they get there (if they do) will be typical YB anarchy.

The problem with tanking is that it is only temporary. Playing only in a matchup that is easier relative to population activity and then quitting in a matchup that is more difficult contributes to that yo-yo effect. Anet’s server linking and population calculation assumes that a server is performing to a norm, not yo-yo-ing.

It’s got nothing to do with easier match-ups. It has everything to do with the belief (right or wrong) that:

A) top three servers don’t get linked
B) other servers are believed to be tanking
C) not getting linked creates a situation that causes a glicko nose dive
D) been there, done that, don’t want to be there again

When you have a server that already performs erratically just by its nature, that level of volatility creates a lot of speculation and reaction, regardless of whether or not it’s either effective or good for the game mode.

The circumstantial evidence about the decision making process exists. Add in guilds that feel like they are forced to omniblob in t1 and don’t want to play that way, and you end up with the current situation.

Swamurabi.7890:

Kamara.4187:

I started out on a small server that was mid tier-ish. It was a good community that worked together and fought hard.
In fact more often than not they held their own till they were faced rolled for months on end by servers that expanded with guild transfers. Then one day I looked up and everyone was gone. So I transferred and ended up on a T1 server.

You’d think everything would be peachy after that but it wasn’t. The server ended up with many of the same problems with guilds moving off, and flooded with other guilds which left the server’s WvW community divided. Frustrated I transferred again, and went down to about mid tier hoping to escape the drama and find a nice little WvW community again.

That’s all I want. I’m not ate up with being #1. I just want to WvW and work together again as a community in fair match-ups where everything is not all about blobbing.

I have nothing against those that like that sort of WvW play. I just miss the community I lost and would like to have something like that once again.

R.I.P. AR.

The main problem with NA WvW is that the top tier servers have always looked to recruit experienced lower tier players to fill a perceived coverage imbalance. Linking just makes it easier for them to assimilate you.

I don’t want to be assimilated. In fact I went back to mid tier in an attempt to escape the cluster blob mass gank fest or stalemate mess. In my opinion between the players playing musical servers and Developers running in circles to accommodate them has ruined everything I loved about WvW and trashed the concept of server community.

I was a WvW nut. I guess I could go pvp but I doubt that will hold my interest long since its format is like most pvp platforms:/

Being honest I found the top tiers terribly boring with all the stalemates and colliding blobs. Or worse when two teams decided to broker deals and face roll a lesser team. If I had my wish a line would be drawn at tier 3 where all of you at the top were stuck with one another and unable to transfer guilds down and the lower tiers merged evenly with 1v1 server face offs. To me that sounds heavenly.

@Kamara … +1

………………………………………………………

A big problem, so I guess, that EU has too many national servers:

7 German
5 French
1 Spanish
(Odd numbers)

and 14 EU server

Probably also a reason why the linkings in EU will never be balanced.

Peppel.9736:

@Kamara … +1

………………………………………………………

A big problem, so I guess, that EU has too many national servers:

7 German
5 French
1 Spanish
(Odd numbers)

and 14 EU server

Probably also a reason why the linkings in EU will never be balanced.

To sum this up:

14 servers have specific language requirements complicating linking
14 servers have to be linked in a way to balance out the aforementioned language requirements.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.

The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.

Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.

Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.

Heya

When is the new linking? Remains 2 Month or change it to monthly?

I cant recognize it from the post of McKenna. Sry for that.

Servers where most Guilds already died should be merged. I would distribute guilds to even out populations and give all moved players a free server change. If active population numbers are significant down then the three lowest server should be given up.

I don’t understand how a linked server with very high population (Yaks Bend) is placed in Tier 4. It makes for a week of complete face stomps for the other participants in that match who have at best medium population.

Any process that results in a matchup like that is no good.

apharma.3741:

Peppel.9736:

@Kamara … +1

………………………………………………………

A big problem, so I guess, that EU has too many national servers:

7 German
5 French
1 Spanish
(Odd numbers)

and 14 EU server

Probably also a reason why the linkings in EU will never be balanced.

To sum this up:

14 servers have specific language requirements complicating linking
14 servers have to be linked in a way to balance out the aforementioned language requirements.

You know that is an interesting dilemma but it is do-able. WvW right now pretty much has its own language bl=borderland, nwc= northwest camp. Turn those into recognizable icons for chat, or utilize click location in chat with swords on it? I run with a herd of asians in the morning and believe me when I say I am totally lost by what they are putting in the chat box but I get what they mean when they put the location in chat with “help plz” lol.

I don’t mind that our language is different. They are good players and teammates.

What bothers me the most about wvw right now is watching server communities decimated by musical guilds moving in, then moving out, and communities being rolled over to promote match-ups for the top tiers. That and I witnessed admin powers being abused for the benefit of a team that already had overwhelming numbers. So I’m not very hopeful when it appears by design they wanted it this way, and as long as its good for them the rest of us don’t seem to matter.

You really need to merge and stop this linking. So many people just bandwagon to their server of choice by joining the low linked server so linking never does any good. We were linked, had lots of players but they weren’t linked anymore with their server of choice so on they moved.

Its just so pointless

Merge already

Heather.4823:

You really need to merge and stop this linking. So many people just bandwagon to their server of choice by joining the low linked server so linking never does any good. We were linked, had lots of players but they weren’t linked anymore with their server of choice so on they moved.

Its just so pointless

Merge already

I agree…World Linking needs to be removed from WvW. It systematically neuters & seriously kittens the growth of guest server communities in the Long Term.

I’d prefer removing All Tiers & using Server Guesting tailored for WvW with limits on How many & Which servers that players can weekly visit to fight on instead.

Just make sure that players get rewarded more for attacking higher ranked servers & get rewarded less for attacking lower ranked servers.

Let the players drive the Match-Ups while ANet controls & regulates the flow to All servers to keep things “balanced”.

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes

Morning

sounds good Diku. I have an other suggestion

Example:
T1-3 for Blobfights and Queues.
T4-5 for medium Blobs
T6-7 for Roamer and small Guild fights

Anyone could choose what they just want. So no server membership, but simply after now just desire and mood, select in a field/selection, without transfer.

I have fun today/few hours on blobifights – I join T1-3

or

I wanna just roam today – I join T6-7

Peppel.9736:

Morning

sounds good Diku. I have an other suggestion

Example:
T1-3 for Blobfights and Queues.
T4-5 for medium Blobs
T6-7 for Roamer and small Guild fights

Anyone could choose what they just want. So no server membership, but simply after now just desire and mood, select in a field/selection, without transfer.

I have fun today/few hours on blobifights – I join T1-3

or

I wanna just roam today – I join T6-7

Hey Peppel,

Hmmm…if we tried & keep the Tier infrastructure…Server Guesting tailored for WvW wouldn’t work properly.

Sadly…Tiers systematically encourage the 800 pound Gorilla effect…imho

Here’s my most recent research & analysis concerning this well known WvW phenomenon:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Gonna-be-a-LONG-week/first#post6399041

Actually… IF Server Guesting tailored for WvW is enabled…players can visit Any Server.

So your wish to Blobfight or Roam…would still work…you’d just need to visit any of the “Lower” ranked servers within the New Sediment of a WvW universe without any Tiers.

i.e. for NA Players

Ranked 01-05 Servers – For Blobfights & Queues
Ranked 06-15 Severs – For Medium Blobs
Ranked 16-20 Servers – For Roamer & Small Guild Fights
Ranked 21-24 Servers – Peace & Quiet – Role Playing Guilds (joking…or do they exist?)

Plus, you can pick any Home Server to help build a Long Term Community with Friends & Family…if there’s an open slot.

If there isn’t an open slot…then perhaps you could convince your Friends & Family to pick a Lower Ranked Server to make it your Home…then work together to raise your Home Server’s Rank in the Long Term.

If you’re successful…then your Home Server will fill up any open slots…and “Fair Weather” players will find it harder to transfer & join into your Long Term Community.

Also, damage to Long Term Server Communities from the Locust Swarming behavior done by “Fair Weather” players can be reduced by imposing a minimum stay period that scales upward for players that frequently change their Home Server.

Full details behind this idea can be found in my below signature.

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Try a Google Search for – wvg world vs globes

3 server link is to over powered, example is HOD …..the server is overstack they have coverage 24/7 ,why ANET ?

swellercross.3974:

3 server link is to over powered, example is HOD …..the server is overstack they have coverage 24/7 ,why ANET ?

I don’t understand this, HoD is barely leading in the closest match-up this week, and they are “over-powered” and “over-stacked” ?

Dragonbrand link is also 3 servers. And the SoS link is 2. I don’t really see a problem in this. (Also, looking through the links, the 4 linked to DB and HoD are pretty small servers, honestly can’t see that making a difference).

I don’t know if I understand your suggestion, Belenwyn, but if I were on a server and I wanted to play on the team, and the team was always full and I couldn’t get on, then I’d be frustrated and move to another server. Oh, wait …

More then 2 links invites people to bandwagon on those un populated servers ,resulting to a more inbalance population ,some servers also hibernates to tank to get a good links ,this must stop bring the new world maps servers w/o links .

This ‘beta’ test, not even a year old, has failed miserably.

I have pages and pages of WvW contacts who no longer play.

How does linking work with AnetChrisB’s test

Diku.2546:

Please fix the 3 Core problems of WvW:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups.
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds.
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves.
   Literally...players should be able to verbally agree in-game with the players from other Servers that are in opposite time zones to attack each other’s night capping enemies. A proposed “Guesting” mechanic described below & tailored for WvW would enable players to do this. It’s a perfect example of players scratching each other’s back to reach an area that they can’t cover themselves.

Server stacking is a topic of it’s own so I’ll pass over it this time.

I don’t recognise #2 or #3 (anymore, really) as problems.

I think guesting in WvW is a cool thing in theory, but bad for WvW because;
Spies. Ye I know we all know people on other servers anyway and they could tell us where they are going etc etc. but this just seems this gives spies sanction to do it legitimately, which will imo exacerbate it as a problem.
I don’t think Tactivator Saboteurs should be so much of a problem if guests were able to be barred from using tactivators.
Also, why won’t your friend transfer?
Also, is this really an issue … at all? Seriously? I’ve never seen this ever.

Regarding Nightcapping, I think we’ve all accepted that the solution we have is the best Arenanet can do and thank them for their efforts. It’s a decent solution and let’s move on.

Gandara neds a secondary sub server ASAP, today there were a map without atleast 2 commanders and enemy aint even outnumbered pls fix it