I used to play WvW on Gunnar’s Hold, then I took a flawed serverlink to the knee.
(edited by Gunner Morton.8340)
Server linking should be removed ASAP
There will be no transfer penalty.
I still like the linking system. Keep it.
SBI
Part of the problem with removing the linking at this point is the “slave” servers" get nothing as far as glicko is concerned so what would you do with them? They get absolutely nothing from links other than punted around every couple of months. Right before the linking, my server could barely hold its own in prime & was outnumbered pretty much all of the time. No OCX/SEA/EU coverage to speak of and it hit the point that logging in every morning meant out color had been wiped from every map. Anet might as well burn the “slave servers” down & start over at this rate.
Anvil Rock: Beta →Friday 13th 1/13/2017
Crystal Desert: 1/13/2017
Crystal Desert: 1/13/2017
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.
I don’t think how many people realize how much a 1 month relink will discourage band wagoning. It will cost to much to do for the usual wvw player. Band wagoning in some form will always be a thing, because people always try to game the system.
You are never going to stop these kinds of movements, and taking options away from the player base is only going to be met with backlash. You want to stop server server stacking?, then give players incentives to stay on their server. It could be as simple as giving wvw reward tickets for staying on a server every month after being there longer than 2 months.
Imbalances will not have 2 months to widen, instead they will have half the time which will result in better linkings and match ups.
Lastly, I get your from EU, it the linkings may not be working there. Here in NA it’s a totally different story (aside from the same bandwagon problem). WvW has not been this lively in a long time.
[Cya] TC Roamer/Scout
I Play WvW to have fun. I don’t find it fun anymore. Therefore I don’t play.
I Play WvW to have fun. I don’t find it fun anymore. Therefore I don’t play.
(edited by Eval.2371)
EU does not have the population to support 27 servers or anything close to it. All that would be achieved by unlinking is a few more dead tiers. Obviously Anet made a huge mistake with Gunnar’s link and SFR seems to have collapsed but that does not mean linking has not been a good thing for most servers.
People seem to forget how empty WvW was in the lower tiers before linking while now as least you can find fights whenever you log in.
Server pride or identity for the “guest” servers need not be an issue for linking. If Anet had allowed us to keep our server identity and our names were visible it is possible for server communities to survive or even grow.
I’m on Isle of Janthir and our first ever linking was with Jade Quarry. The players at JQ made us feel welcome and I believe we got on well with them. If IoJ had been able to retain our name and some form of score then we would be able to show how much we had contributed to the matches.
If the other servers can look at you as a “guest” and say – “yeah, this server is a good one to be linked with and will help us” then you have a chance to build a reputation and recruit. In other words you could have an identity even with linking. There should be threads with servers asking to be linked to the “guest” servers because of the reputation we’ve built for coverage, or support or tenacity or whatever.
I’m not even sure Anet can fix this now. I have a suspicion that linking works by simply “teleporting” the linked players into the host map and labelling them as being on the host server – literally this is guesting for WvW and may be why we were called “guest” servers in the first place.
What should have happened is that “guest” players should retain their server name and their server should gain score, with the total score for all the servers in the link used as the final figure. Making new links would be clearer and the “guest” servers retain their identity. It would also make it much clearer whether any server would be able to stand alone, or which servers need a link, and who to link with whom.
I don’t think how many people realize how much a 1 month relink will discourage band wagoning. It will cost to much to do for the usual wvw player. Band wagoning in some form will always be a thing, because people always try to game the system.
Changing to 1 month relinking wont change much as transfering to a medium population server only costs 500 gems, which is currently roughly 81 gold. You can get that amount by farming PvE for 1 or 2 hours.
I used to play WvW on Gunnar’s Hold, then I took a flawed serverlink to the knee.
EU does not have the population to support 27 servers or anything close to it. All that would be achieved by unlinking is a few more dead tiers. Obviously Anet made a huge mistake with Gunnar’s link and SFR seems to have collapsed but that does not mean linking has not been a good thing for most servers.
People seem to forget how empty WvW was in the lower tiers before linking while now as least you can find fights whenever you log in.
Why should ANet have to give Free Server links to help these players find a “zerg” fight?
Why should ANet force an entire Server to help them find “zerg” fights?
World Linking strips lower tiered servers of their identity & destroys the communities that existed on them that managed to survive without “zerg” fights.
I’d highly suggest that people that want to find “zerg” fights from the lower tiers be the ones to transfer themselves instead.
Each player should be given 1 free transfer if they’ve never transferred before.
I like the pairing system when it’s fair (ofc), anet developers got no extra tools to help balance the linking? All systems may be flawed, that’s where people working on it put their brain and efforts; if not to solve it, at least improve it.
Main issue is the gem / gold / money flow works against any correction. That’s the impression I got. Good for Anet in the short term, but not so good for wvw players and communities.
Perhaps linking should be done away with for EU. Or at least only link the bottom servers. I’m from NA but from what I’ve seen on the forums EU was working pretty well for the top few tiers prior to linkings. Anet is there any reason EU and NA can’t be treated differently?
For NA linkings has been a big success I believe. NA had serious problems for a long time before linkings.
There are still issues though and you point them out in your 3 observations.
- Bandwagoning. I don’t thik Anet is going to ever restrict changing servers. But there is something they can easily do. All the servers in a link should be the same cost to transfer to. I’m flabbergasted that Anet hasn’t realized this yet. You can’t have a T1 server cost only the “Medium” price!
- Balance. Balance in NA has been pretty good with some exceptions. A lot better than prior to linkings. They do need to take into account what happens with mass transfers. And it would be nice if they could link to create more time zone balance but I know that’s hard. I think much of the balance issue would be taken care of if they fix bandwagoning.
- Server Identity. I’m on a host server. But I can sympathize with those on guest servers. I think the guest server name does need to be displayed more prominently. One thing they could try is simply use the abbreviations for servers. Everyone knows them. Instead of the full host server name on the players, use the abbreviations of all linked servers – it would actually be shorter to do so in many cases.
The idea behind the pairing was right. The execution was not.
What Anet needed to do (at least for NA server) is to simply merge the bottom 2 tiers with the next bottom two tiers.
The higher tiers, while they were indeed unbalanced, the linking didn’t really help fix that either.
Look at how effective someone is in a full Soldiers set.
Look at how effective someone is in a full Dire set.
Nice balance.
Look at how effective someone is in a full Dire set.
Nice balance.
Its not about zerg fights Diku, if it was not at prime time, it was often hard to even find a single player to fight when roaming on the borders. You could walk up and cap a T3 keep without seeing anyone else if you had the patience to do so even to the point where a friend solo capped an entire border without seeing anyone at all.
All you would see is people transfer and populate the top 4 tiers anyway. Its nice to not have to play dodge the blob but if there is no-one to fight then people will leave the server. Going back to 27 servers would be ridiculous and lead to more complaints.
Changing to 1 month relinking wont change much as transfering to a medium population server only costs 500 gems, which is currently roughly 81 gold. You can get that amount by farming PvE for 1 or 2 hours.
Create a free account. Mine is completely independent. I won’t be able to go full ascended, granted, but other than that I’m a splendid zergling. Just look at all the scouts and invaders: Free accounts.
ETA: So yeah: Remove links, make links of the former T8 and T9 and permanently merge/link them with each other. Stop transfers here and there like it was once linking was introduced, work on wvw combat and leave it alone for a while. Once the weaker servers recover make an interim phase in which the scoring of the now fatter server is toned down, then separate them and give them more points for what they’re doing for a while.
Yes, I do think that wvw can recover. And I want lower populated servers to have a chance to become independend again.
(edited by Jana.6831)
I think linking is working just fine but some could use some tweaks:
1. Link on a more frequent basis
2. Forget linking; just merger servers and let’s move on
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.
I don’t think how many people realize how much a 1 month relink will discourage band wagoning. It will cost to much to do for the usual wvw player. Band wagoning in some form will always be a thing, because people always try to game the system.
You are never going to stop these kinds of movements, and taking options away from the player base is only going to be met with backlash. You want to stop server server stacking?, then give players incentives to stay on their server. It could be as simple as giving wvw reward tickets for staying on a server every month after being there longer than 2 months.
Imbalances will not have 2 months to widen, instead they will have half the time which will result in better linkings and match ups.
Lastly, I get your from EU, it the linkings may not be working there. Here in NA it’s a totally different story (aside from the same bandwagon problem). WvW has not been this lively in a long time.
Scoring adjustments per tiered outnumbered across all WVW maps per each skirmish can negate the entire bandwagonning without preventing people from playing together or how they like, or in tiers they like for fights size etc. Its a Win-Win-Win situation.
BTW I like the links and strongly disagree with the OP. Yea, he/she got shafted on the particular link and matches, but that does not mean things will not change with next links or that its bad for most of the other servers.
Heavy Deedz – COSA – SF
(edited by Tongku.5326)
Server linking is not being removed. Let’s move on to other subjects.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
Idea for a SNL Skit on Server Link Match-Ups…that only a WvW player can understand…
Telephone: Brrring
Somebody Picks Up Telephone: pur-chuppa
- Girl: Hello?
- Mountain: Can I pretty please speak to Muhammad?
- Girl: I’m sorry, but Muhammad can’t be bothered at the moment…he’s really upset that he can’t find a battle to fight in. Is there something that you want me to tell him?
- Mountain: OH Noo! That’s ok…I really understand & don’t bother…I’ll come over right now by myself. I’ve got lots of fun & exciting battles for Muhammad if that’s ok with him?
- Girl: Okaay, but he might not like it…plus he says he wants all kinds of battles & you better be ready to change it more often for him. He’s really busy searching his room so you might not get to see him immediately.
- Mountain: Oh my. Didn’t think about that. My bad…hmmm…well that’s ok. I can wait for him if I have to…plus I’ll do my very best to quickly change battles often & give him lots of variety like he wants. I’ll be right over this instant…bless you…and thank you for letting me come over.
- Mountain Hangs Up Telephone: click
- ANet Announcer: Live from New York…It’s Saturday Night!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X9zGUC9Wmw
(edited by Diku.2546)
Bandwagoning is and always will be the issue unless anet ups the cost alot for transfering.
Transfer needs to be 2k gems,it shouldn;t be something you can do every week.
(edited by Caedmon.6798)
The focus should not be on taking away player’s choice and freedom, that never works out well. The focus should be on taking away the incentive to constantly shift servers. Unnecessary restrictions on where a player can go will just damage the game mode. Players move for a variety of reasons and it their right to do so. Servers also need to constantly recruit new players to stay competitive. Locking people somewhere they don’t want to be is just a terrible idea and will do so much harm.
Lower linking reevaluation to 1 month and unlink top servers, that’s how you disincentive constant bandwagoning and server stacking, and help server stability. Will fix all the problems completely, of course not, nothing will, but you cant just say we need to go to extremes just because other solutions people have suggested wont completely solve the issue.
I say what needs to be said, get used to it.
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<
Bandwagoning is and always will be the issue unless anet ups the cost alot for transfering.
Transfer needs to be 2k gems,it shouldn;t be something you can do every week.
Do you really believe players want to constantly move servers? Do you really think people find that fun? They do it primarily because server instability causes a lackluster playing environment, so they leave to a more active server. Since linking can cause so much instability, this effect will continue happening.
I say what needs to be said, get used to it.
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<
Give players a reason to maintain & keep their WvW Rank above a certain level:
- Reset a player’s WvW Rank to zero when they change Server
- Allow players to earn Ranks in WvW on EB & BL maps only – Not in EotM
- Require a minimum WvW Rank to setup & use Siege
- Setup 2 entrance queues into WvW based on Rank Level – Veteran & Standard
- Personal WvW Rewards tied to Rank Level
(edited by Diku.2546)
They need to realize that EU and NA are different beasts, including playstyle, population and language.
Do these fixes for NA; they clearly need it.
Revert EU to the way it was with solo servers.
Give people options.
L’enfer, c’est les autres
Bandwagoning is and always will be the issue unless anet ups the cost alot for transfering.
Transfer needs to be 2k gems,it shouldn;t be something you can do every week.
Do you really believe players want to constantly move servers? Do you really think people find that fun? They do it primarily because server instability causes a lackluster playing environment, so they leave to a more active server. Since linking can cause so much instability, this effect will continue happening.
And the current system rewards those who server jump, rather than sticking it out and investing in the community.
Any small guild or group can create that stability. You just have to stop thinking that tier 1 is the best tier.
I really like the idea someone pitched where each successive jump increases the transfer cost —- until it becomes too prohibitive.
L’enfer, c’est les autres
Bandwagoning is and always will be the issue unless anet ups the cost alot for transfering.
Transfer needs to be 2k gems,it shouldn;t be something you can do every week.
Do you really believe players want to constantly move servers? Do you really think people find that fun? They do it primarily because server instability causes a lackluster playing environment, so they leave to a more active server. Since linking can cause so much instability, this effect will continue happening.
Yes i do,I don’t do it myself.But i know about a dozen people that keep on doing it to try and get a #2 or #3 server to the #1 spot.
I don’t think how many people realize how much a 1 month relink will discourage band wagoning. It will cost to much to do for the usual wvw player. Band wagoning in some form will always be a thing, because people always try to game the system.
Changing to 1 month relinking wont change much as transfering to a medium population server only costs 500 gems, which is currently roughly 81 gold. You can get that amount by farming PvE for 1 or 2 hours.
Yea for a low tier server its 500 gems, high which is usually the more attractive bandwagon choice, is 1000 gems, and the remaining very high is 1800 gems. Your talking 125g, 250g and almost 450g per each transfer tier. your avg pve grind is only about 20g per hour. So were talking 6-23 hours of grinding which is a lot of game time to be playing just to be able to transfer in another game mode.
Doubling the frequency of the the relinks doubles the costs to always be on the bandwagon servers. Your avg wvw player isnt making that much bank a month nor has the time to grind that out have it be worthwhile, unless they literally have no other goals to put money towards.
[Cya] TC Roamer/Scout
I Play WvW to have fun. I don’t find it fun anymore. Therefore I don’t play.
I Play WvW to have fun. I don’t find it fun anymore. Therefore I don’t play.
(edited by Eval.2371)
I agree some restriction should be imposed on frequent server hopping.
I am tired of the excuse of that they need to play with friends.
Why can’t you and your friends just settle on one server for some time?
I agree some restriction should be imposed on frequent server hopping.
I am tired of the excuse of that they need to play with friends.
Why can’t you and your friends just settle on one server for some time?
Who are you to decide where someone plays? Why should someone be forced to stay somewhere they are not happy playing. Should we also decide what profession people are allowed to bring to wvw because of how useful it can be?
Taking away options from players is never a good idea. Rather, they should focus on fixing the issues that promote constant server transferring, mainly server instability.
I say what needs to be said, get used to it.
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<
Honesty is not insulting, stupidity is.
>Class Balance is a Joke<
I agree some restriction should be imposed on frequent server hopping.
I am tired of the excuse of that they need to play with friends.
Why can’t you and your friends just settle on one server for some time?Who are you to decide where someone plays? Why should someone be forced to stay somewhere they are not happy playing. Should we also decide what profession people are allowed to bring to wvw because of how useful it can be?
Taking away options from players is never a good idea. Rather, they should focus on fixing the issues that promote constant server transferring, mainly server instability.
When serving hopping begins to affect the health of the game, then it’s no longer about individual rights and more about the greater good. The jumping causes the server instability.
Besides, with increasing xfer costs with each successive xfer, you still have freedom of choice; it’s just going to cost you.
L’enfer, c’est les autres
Which is a bit unfair, cause I transfer a lot. Not really to bandwagon, I guess you guys know that. In the end: 15 is my favourite number (yes I was born on a 15th – I’m that creative).
Again: work on the reasons why people transfer and lock transfers from time to time. And don’t link low ranked servers with high ranked ones. That would likely solve a lot of the issues.
Yes, but if each time the cost to xfer doubled, you’d at least try to make due with the server you were on at some point wouldn’t you?
And that investment lends stability.
L’enfer, c’est les autres
That is all more complicated than you guys make it out to be.
We’ve had a really huge guild on GH. The leader was bored and wanted to transfer. They might or might not have been trolled by another guild on our server (haven’t been there) and left (huge drama and people still think it’s GHs fault). So he decided he wanted to leave and everybody had to follow – and that’s how it goes. The costs wouldn’t matter much anyway as the guild usually pays for transfers if neccessary – in case of Ash.
I had/have different reasons to transfer and one golden rule (I broke with Piken) is that I stay at least for that long that I have an idea what the server is like – which is a bit complicated in times of links and blob-facerolling. I will likely return to Gunnars at some point.
The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote”, the final results are:
82.7% – Yes
17.3% – No
This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
That is all more complicated than you guys make it out to be.
We’ve had a really huge guild on GH. The leader was bored and wanted to transfer. They might or might not have been trolled by another guild on our server (haven’t been there) and left (huge drama and people still think it’s GHs fault). So he decided he wanted to leave and everybody had to follow – and that’s how it goes. The costs wouldn’t matter much anyway as the guild usually pays for transfers if neccessary – in case of Ash.I had/have different reasons to transfer and one golden rule (I broke with Piken) is that I stay at least for that long that I have an idea what the server is like – which is a bit complicated in times of links and blob-facerolling. I will likely return to Gunnars at some point.
Well that’s the thing. If the guild leader is having drama with people, that’s a personal issue and those in the guild have a choice to follow him or stay or try something else. If it’s one drama after another, folks might want to evaluate the leadership.
If a doubling of transfer costs is incurred each time the guild leader has a fight with someone; it’s going to provide a longterm solution quicker than this 500 gems here, 500 gems there situation.
And those guilds randomly transferring to different servers will have a choice to either dig in, elect someone new to lead, or disband.
The bottom line for the game and the rest of the population not involved in the drama is stability.
Choice remains with those who still want to jump. It’s just going to cost until someone makes a firm decision.
L’enfer, c’est les autres
Well that’s the thing. If the guild leader is having drama with people, that’s a personal issue and those in the guild have a choice to follow him or stay or try something else. If it’s one drama after another, folks might want to evaluate the leadership.
All 150 of them left and that’s the case with most guilds – if the leader decides to transfer they follow.
If a doubling of transfer costs is incurred each time the guild leader has a fight with someone; it’s going to provide a longterm solution quicker than this 500 gems here, 500 gems there situation.
He didn’t have a fight with anyone – he was bored and that’s usually the reason why guilds transfer “Yo guys, this leads to nothing – there are much better fights on server xy, we need to transfer – play pve the next 2 weeks”
I’m not so sure that those on the satelite servers are really guilds, I guess that’s rather people like me.
And those guilds randomly transferring to different servers will have a choice to either dig in, elect someone new to lead, or disband.
Most disband. Has always been the case.
The bottom line for the game and the rest of the population not involved in the drama is stability.
Choice remains with those who still want to jump. It’s just going to cost until someone makes a firm decision.
We’ve had a lot of drama while that guild was on our server – I still like them but they were a pain and I’m glad they left. Drama is never any good and mostly coming from those wo feel entitled and those are the ones who transfer.
So, really, work on the reasons why people transfer and one of the biggest is: Bigger = better. Population imbalances will always be an issue, no matter what you do, cause if you force people to stay somewhere they don’t want to be they just stop playing – problem solved?
ETA: Also linking low populated servers with high ranked servers wasn’t the smartest move.
There is a very simple solution. Lock server transfers after relinking. Give people 1 week the time to transfer before the relinking.
The bandwagon people will go mad, but atleast the population balance will actually help in servers like GH.
Obileen (lvl80 Guardian) Obilëen(lvl80 Warrior) Silwynai (lvl80 Thief)
The Clubbing Seals
“If you have more than 1 hp, you are ready to go” – SivHd
The Clubbing Seals
“If you have more than 1 hp, you are ready to go” – SivHd
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I’m gonna frame that.
ArenaNet Communications Manager
Please use this thread to provide meaningful and relevant input on server linking. Please do not start new threads that split the conversation and result in a diffusing of input on an important subject.
Gaile Gray
Communications Manager
Guild & Fansite Relations; In-Game Events
ArenaNet
Communications Manager
Guild & Fansite Relations; In-Game Events
ArenaNet