Guild Wars 2

As we all know major issue with server linking is transferring. A lot of people have transfered for t4 to upper tier but then again there are some people who want to transferase to upper tier because tier 4 is literally kitten right now. With linking servers server stacking is still a thing and there is no other way to avoid that but merging server. You merge servers put a population cap on the server and boom have total of 12 servers but do that after relinking the servers because tier 4 loosing players everyday! But again’t anet y’all aren’t gonna do that becuase you guys will loose all that money you make out of transfer lel.

We need to vote for server merging instead of linking!

After merging, we need make the bottom 3 populated server free to transfer in for a period of time, to destack T1. Of course, make sure there is a check in place to prevent bottom 3 servers to be over stacked due to free transfer. And double of course put some costing for people moving from T3 to T4 to deter T3 destacking. Server transfer cost should not be universal, should be used as a mean to deter destack and stacking depending on what server you are from.

It’s best to keep servers linked in order to split up bandwagon servers. The problem is that 3 months is way too long and should only last a month before changing pairings. Those who want to blobwagon will have to keep paying for it.

Dhemize.8649:

It’s best to keep servers linked in order to split up bandwagon servers. The problem is that 3 months is way too long and should only last a month before changing pairings. Those who want to blobwagon will have to keep paying for it.

Yep. +1 on that comment.

disagree.

world relinking while can punish bandwagoners, it also punish other innocent players and guilds. is a complicated issue. i personally think that consistently relinking without resolving the fundamental logic flaws with server status and underestimating the undesired effects of numerous servers will bring more harms than good in the long run

SkyShroud.2865:

We need to vote for server merging instead of linking!

This ^

Dhemize.8649:

It’s best to keep servers linked in order to split up bandwagon servers. The problem is that 3 months is way too long and should only last a month before changing pairings. Those who want to blobwagon will have to keep paying for it.

Completely agree.

The problem with a straight Server Merging is that we keep all the current weaknesses of the Server structure. Especially the wonderful Server Stacking issue, that has caused NA a lot of problems. That alone is a good enough reason for me to prefer Server Linking, but it certainly needs some tweaking.

WvW needs to be structured in diferent way, a small merge or linking empty servers with almost empty server while bandwagons move to one that will imbalance population again, wont solve the main issues.

Imo we need far more less servers, and more maps :\

Long Story Short…

Players will still want to BE PART of the World that Wins More.

Players will continue to Stack on the Strongest of the 3 Worlds being Matched Up.

What do you propose to do after ALL Worlds are Merged into just 3 Remaining Worlds?

OR

Do you propose we should merge ALL Worlds Down to Only 6-9 Worlds & Use World Linking to Crudely Mix things up?

No Thank You…I’ll sit this week out…and then some

I don’t want to be on the “winning” world. I want to be on a competitive tier. That is why I asked them to find out why people are transferring servers, before they made decisions. Not everyone transfers to bandwagon. :/

If you have two servers paired together that are forming a massive bandwagon then merging the two servers together will only make matters worse. I don’t care how you try to argue the point, but making the pair permanent will not fix the balance issue. The only way to stop servers from abusing the system is to unlink the newly fat bandwagon servers and pair them with an appropriate, smaller server that could use them.

“But it will hurt my guild!” You should have thought of that before you started poaching players from the linked server knowing full well that they would eventually be paired with somebody else.

“We built a community!” No, you didn’t. It’s been a month. It’s nothing special. I’ve had closer ties with the toilet paper I wipe with and flush.

“Relinking servers makes me fight a guild I previously played with!” This happened all the time before linking was even a thing. You should be use to it.

There is absolutely no good reason to merge servers as opposed to switching/evening pairs whenever some have very clearly been stacked. Saying a blobwagon server should be permanently merged together is absurd and outright wrong. Again, if people really want to game the system they should have to pay the gems every month when the two stacked servers are separated. It’s Anet’s chance to finally step in and fix what people simply don’t care about: balancing. If you want to mindlessly blob ktrain, pay up.

Dhemize.8649:

If you have two servers paired together that are forming a massive bandwagon then merging the two servers together will only make matters worse. I don’t care how you try to argue the point, but making the pair permanent will not fix the balance issue. The only way to stop servers from abusing the system is to unlink the newly fat bandwagon servers and pair them with an appropriate, smaller server that could use them.

“But it will hurt my guild!” You should have thought of that before you started poaching players from the linked server knowing full well that they would eventually be paired with somebody else.

“We built a community!” No, you didn’t. It’s been a month. It’s nothing special. I’ve had closer ties with the toilet paper I wipe with and flush.

“Relinking servers makes me fight a guild I previously played with!” This happened all the time before linking was even a thing. You should be use to it.

There is absolutely no good reason to merge servers as opposed to switching/evening pairs whenever some have very clearly been stacked. Saying a blobwagon server should be permanently merged together is absurd and outright wrong. Again, if people really want to game the system they should have to pay the gems every month when the two stacked servers are separated. It’s Anet’s chance to finally step in and fix what people simply don’t care about: balancing. If you want to mindlessly blob ktrain, pay up.

Read before making comments please. I clearly said “relink server before merging them”.

@CrimeMaker.8612, i did not notice that many players on t4……. when theres a blob will still look for empty stuff to take and change map if theres a defender or a group taking care of BL ….i changed my group play to defending and small havock near camps and towers, player only fight if they outman the target…

@Diku, i would say people need to fight if they want to win, instead of stack and expect to swarm everything to win, sadly this is my experience, seing servers winning due coverage and blob and go afk when match becomes balanced in player quantitiy because envolves fighthing and they loose every fight with similiar numbers, you cant imagine how happy i get when i find obtuse groups that dont quit a tower or certain obgectives.

part of the winning world would need to have effeort to win, imo this is the hard solution we need into WvW.

If im not on the winning world well…. bummer need to see whare we fail and make it better next time.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Dhemize.8649:

If you have two servers paired together that are forming a massive bandwagon then merging the two servers together will only make matters worse. I don’t care how you try to argue the point, but making the pair permanent will not fix the balance issue. The only way to stop servers from abusing the system is to unlink the newly fat bandwagon servers and pair them with an appropriate, smaller server that could use them.

“But it will hurt my guild!” You should have thought of that before you started poaching players from the linked server knowing full well that they would eventually be paired with somebody else.

“We built a community!” No, you didn’t. It’s been a month. It’s nothing special. I’ve had closer ties with the toilet paper I wipe with and flush.

“Relinking servers makes me fight a guild I previously played with!” This happened all the time before linking was even a thing. You should be use to it.

There is absolutely no good reason to merge servers as opposed to switching/evening pairs whenever some have very clearly been stacked. Saying a blobwagon server should be permanently merged together is absurd and outright wrong. Again, if people really want to game the system they should have to pay the gems every month when the two stacked servers are separated. It’s Anet’s chance to finally step in and fix what people simply don’t care about: balancing. If you want to mindlessly blob ktrain, pay up.

Read before making comments please. I clearly said “relink server before merging them”.

I wasn’t replying to your OP again; it was towards the others. But even if you “relink servers before merging them” players will still bandwagon after the fact. Periodically relinking when an imbalance takes place is the only way to fend off against it.

joneirikb.7506:

The problem with a straight Server Merging is that we keep all the current weaknesses of the Server structure. Especially the wonderful Server Stacking issue, that has caused NA a lot of problems. That alone is a good enough reason for me to prefer Server Linking, but it certainly needs some tweaking.

The primary cause of the server stacking was due to anet lack of concern for population control for the first 3 years. After megaserver, server status continue to include PvE population, until close to 2 years later. There’s also the infamous “black out” method prior the server status algorithms change. Not to forget the experimental method like free transfer to the lowest 3 servers in that division (gold, silver, bronze) during the WvW season. There wasn’t any population control existed and if you let it go on for close to 3 years like that, you get servers that is excessively stacked while having servers that are like ghost towns.

Moving on, the numerous servers also contribute to related population issue which is inflow of players. There are a lot of servers, there isn’t enough inflow of players to all servers, this will then too contribute to population issue.

Server merging will literally reduce the number of servers overall, improve the rate of growth per server due to concentrated inflow of players. Not only that, with less number of servers, it become much easier to resolve population unbalance issue as you will not have to brainstorm on how to link that and link this while making sure communities or guilds don’t get split apart. They can move on using incentive and locking servers to rebalance servers with server merging. Server linking is actually a complicated thing to do in long run, if you are doing it, you will understand what I mean.

Server linking was chosen as a method not because server merging is inferior but because server linking is more acceptable to the community, mainly due to the silly server identity mentality. Dev too have the thoughts of deleting all the servers and recreate a X number of servers depending on population but it is highly not acceptable by the community, but logically, it is the best way to redistribute and rebalance every server.

Server merging does have its own problem, for example, once you merge it, you cannot unmerge it if there is a sudden spike in population. However, it is unfortunate, wvw and gw2 as it is now, there isn’t really enough population to spread across 24 servers.

Dhemize.8649:

If you have two servers paired together that are forming a massive bandwagon then merging the two servers together will only make matters worse. I don’t care how you try to argue the point, but making the pair permanent will not fix the balance issue. The only way to stop servers from abusing the system is to unlink the newly fat bandwagon servers and pair them with an appropriate, smaller server that could use them.

“But it will hurt my guild!” You should have thought of that before you started poaching players from the linked server knowing full well that they would eventually be paired with somebody else.

“We built a community!” No, you didn’t. It’s been a month. It’s nothing special. I’ve had closer ties with the toilet paper I wipe with and flush.

“Relinking servers makes me fight a guild I previously played with!” This happened all the time before linking was even a thing. You should be use to it.

There is absolutely no good reason to merge servers as opposed to switching/evening pairs whenever some have very clearly been stacked. Saying a blobwagon server should be permanently merged together is absurd and outright wrong. Again, if people really want to game the system they should have to pay the gems every month when the two stacked servers are separated. It’s Anet’s chance to finally step in and fix what people simply don’t care about: balancing. If you want to mindlessly blob ktrain, pay up.

As mentioned in my post above. Population control did not exist for the first almost 3 years which result in servers getting excessively stacked. If anet implement a dynamic capping while using the target server and lowest servers disparity difference as reference instead of a fixed capping, it will effectively prevent stacking from occurring. As for now, this method will not work with world linking as there is a philosophy difference between linking and merging.

Server merging is static and you will see the slow and steady decrease in WvW population as players get fed up with an unbalanced game.

Server linking is dynamic and has been partly the reason for the increase in participation. Stability changes and the return of alpine helped also. But for those on formerly lower tier servers, they can now play WvW on a large scale.

All Anet has to do now is find a way to fix server stacking.

Disagree. The increase in participation is a combination of increase in population due to world linking, rewards track and changes to EOTM. The decrease in wvw population is due to stale wvw development and inadequate new players to replace the one that left. People stack for a simple reason, because there are more activities up there. Why are they are more activities? Simply because there are more populations. World linking proves that more people = more activities which result in more vibrant wvw. The numerous number of servers is a obstacle to population concentration, it has to go.

Anet can never find a way to resolve population imbalance with any of the current approach. As long as majority decide that server identity is more important than population balance, we will never see a greater variety of matchup. At least in NA.

Swamurabi.7890:

All Anet has to do now is find a way to fix server stacking.

I’d suggest replacing the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model.

This is the source of all evil…imho

Players want to BE PART of the World that Wins More.

Players will continue to Stack on the Strongest of the 3 Worlds being Matched Up.

Replace the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model with something that CAN:

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

There’s a Better Possible Long Term Solution…imho

Diku.2546:

Swamurabi.7890:

All Anet has to do now is find a way to fix server stacking.

I’d suggest replacing the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model.

This is the source of all evil…imho

Players want to BE PART of the World that Wins More.

Players will continue to Stack on the Strongest of the 3 Worlds being Matched Up.

Replace the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model with something that CAN:

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

---

There’s a Better Possible Long Term Solution…imho

Unfortunately, the 3 way fight model might be hard coded and would be something that’s not open for discussion.

WvW is probably forked on AB, was 2 faction system, i would be amuzed if WvW would became a continent with open pvp and territory to take.
THen add a ppt rate system for guilds and ladders, and for no guild players with havock missions.

Swamurabi.7890:

Diku.2546:

I’d suggest replacing the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model.

This is the source of all evil…imho

Unfortunately, the 3 way fight model might be hard coded and would be something that’s not open for discussion.

Which is why I’m suggesting to replace it.

Long Term impact would be positive & simpler to do for the following…imho:

1) Community Health
2) Match-Up Viability
3) Quality of Life Dev Projects

ANet is currently doing a whole bunch of Complex Solutions to compensate for this Fight Model.

However, I hope that replacing the Fight Model…Is Open for Discussion.

There’s a Better Possible Long Term Solution…imho

Aeolus.3615:

WvW is probably forked on AB, was 2 faction system, i would be amuzed if WvW would became a continent with open pvp and territory to take.
THen add a ppt rate system for guilds and ladders, and for no guild players with havock missions.

From my time in GW1, the front lines of the Kurzick/Luxon Alliance Battle was almost always deep in Kurzick territory. I never played in AB, but iirc, the farther the line was away from center, the more advantages the defenders had. This did nothing to move the line.

This is probably why Anet is reluctant to offer bonuses for outmanned or outpointed sides in WvW because it didn’t work well in GW1.

SkyShroud.2865:

joneirikb.7506:

The problem with a straight Server Merging is that we keep all the current weaknesses of the Server structure. Especially the wonderful Server Stacking issue, that has caused NA a lot of problems. That alone is a good enough reason for me to prefer Server Linking, but it certainly needs some tweaking.

The primary cause of the server stacking was due to anet lack of concern for population control for the first 3 years. After megaserver, server status continue to include PvE population, until close to 2 years later. There’s also the infamous “black out” method prior the server status algorithms change. Not to forget the experimental method like free transfer to the lowest 3 servers in that division (gold, silver, bronze) during the WvW season. There wasn’t any population control existed and if you let it go on for close to 3 years like that, you get servers that is excessively stacked while having servers that are like ghost towns.

Moving on, the numerous servers also contribute to related population issue which is inflow of players. There are a lot of servers, there isn’t enough inflow of players to all servers, this will then too contribute to population issue.

Server merging will literally reduce the number of servers overall, improve the rate of growth per server due to concentrated inflow of players. Not only that, with less number of servers, it become much easier to resolve population unbalance issue as you will not have to brainstorm on how to link that and link this while making sure communities or guilds don’t get split apart. They can move on using incentive and locking servers to rebalance servers with server merging. Server linking is actually a complicated thing to do in long run, if you are doing it, you will understand what I mean.

Server linking was chosen as a method not because server merging is inferior but because server linking is more acceptable to the community, mainly due to the silly server identity mentality. Dev too have the thoughts of deleting all the servers and recreate a X number of servers depending on population but it is highly not acceptable by the community, but logically, it is the best way to redistribute and rebalance every server.

Server merging does have its own problem, for example, once you merge it, you cannot unmerge it if there is a sudden spike in population. However, it is unfortunate, wvw and gw2 as it is now, there isn’t really enough population to spread across 24 servers.

Mostly agree with your reasoning, but put different value on some of them.

I certainly don’t think the server-linking is the solution, but I consider it a small step above merging.

But if we’re going to abandon server/community pride and all that, we might as well just roll everything into a 3-faction system like MegaServer/EotM. Merging servers is one thing, and I agree that having too many servers is bad for the game splitting the users, but at the same time you’re destroying someones home server and the focal point for their comunity.

If you’re first going to do that, then destroy it all at the same time, and make something new, that doesn’t have to go through this every single time.

Say this time they scrap: ET, AR and IoJ. Who is next ? SoR, Kain, BP ? And then ? At some point even those shouting to shut down the lower tier servers are going to go “oh kitten, my server is next!” and scream no.

At that stage I’d much prefer something like what Tyler talked about as one of their more complex options to Linking the “blow it all up, and assign 3 teams” idea. Just because at least it would be fair for every server/community, and actively change the numbers each time it “blew up”.

Starting to wonder if EotM isn’t working closer as they (ANet) intended WvW to work than WvW currently does.

They can choose to rename the merged server name to something else to create a whole new identity.

Of course, I do prefer to delete all the servers and recreate them dynamically every X period,, in fact, I was the one of the few that kept on suggesting that at the start. However, the problem is people acceptance towards that solution, you and I can easily guess that it won’t be easily accepted by the people although there are increasing number of people supporting this concept.

I don’t think I’ll ever support a 3-faction system.

However, I’m curious on How would you populate the 3 teams that would fight against each other in the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model of WvW?

If it makes it easier…ignore NA & EU Time Zones & any Language Differences.

Also, How would you re-balance population between the 3-factions if they become inbalanced?

Answer:

(Delete All Servers & Recreate them Dynamically every X)

Hmmm…that’s a little painful & impacts Long Term Community stability…imho

Most WvW Communities tend to run a full website, forum, and TeamSpeak server.

If WvW ever ends up going down this path…I’m guessing about the following…I could be wrong:

I guess the New WvW Community could be tagged as Red, Green, and Blue.

Then we’d probably have to sign-up for all 3 Factions to coordinate events depending on our given color of the moment.

Existing Community websites, forums, and Teamspeak servers could be split into Red, Green, and Blue sections to allow folks to gather for their assigned color(s) for the current period. Your Guild could be spread across multiple world(s) or color(s).

My game time in GW2 is already drifting away.

I’d probably quit playing GW2 all together & play once in a blue moon.

I’m pretty sure me quitting won’t have any impact on GW2…so please don’t start a lecture…it’d be wasted energy…because I’d just agree with you anyway.

Just wanted folks to think about the impact that going to a 3-faction system will do to your Existing WvW Communities in the Long Term.