Guild Wars 2

The only way I think population is going to balance itself is by making the current servers go KABOOM and create new servers… have 9 total servers 3 tiers.. lock servers once they get full at 80% and then open 3 new servers… Seriously the way everything is I think linking was a good idea at first but right now it hasnt done nothing but kill 2 servers maybe more…. I will just say its time for kaboom I know a lot of people will say its a bad idea but seriously though this is literally the only way now to fix population issue.. In one of the post before anet also said that they can make all servers go KABOOM and do a fresh start. WvW does need a fresh start.

and I am back from the ban

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Resetting the worlds could make them more competitive for wvw, but the server system is also used in other parts of the game. It could cause problems resetting. Any time you’re in an instance with a party (guild hall, fractals, etc), whoever opened the instance – their server hosts the instance.

I think there are technical reasons why rerolling the servers could be problematic.

A better method would be to incentivize players to go to lower servers. Right now the incentive is to move to higher servers to farm bags and/or karma.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

After the chaos of the first 3 months ends, what happens? Why do you think that starting from scratch is going to result in something better for the long term?

And in the first 3 months, how do you prevent bandwagoning? If everyone gets to choose their world, then win-focused WvW guilds are going to team up and push to get to the same 2-3 worlds (bandwagoning), leaving some worlds with lots of the top strategists and some with only a few.

And if we don’t get to choose our world, how does ANet choose for us, without alienating everyone?

So even in the short term, bandwagoning is likely.

The trick is to figure out a way to encourage people to spread out and to keep spreading out. Right now, it’s a prisoner’s dilemma — it’s in everyone’s best interest if the rest of the WvW community spreads out, but it’s in our own personal best interest to pick a “winning” server (by "winning, I mean one that fits our personal criteria for success, which might be good fights or no queues or lots of karma trains or whatever).

Because as soon as a server loses a match or two half of it will bail because they want to be carried by a winner.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Are you saying people cannot transfer once they pick? They’re stuck with that choice? If so, can do that now.

Sounds cool why they cant just try it next reset only for that matchup and see.

Jayne.9251:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Are you saying people cannot transfer once they pick? They’re stuck with that choice? If so, can do that now.

Everyone will get 2 free transfers after the kaboom to get with their family/friends/guilds and etc and after transfers should only open when they introduce 3 new servers or raise the pop cap for the server thats doing poorly in a matchup

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Are you saying people cannot transfer once they pick? They’re stuck with that choice? If so, can do that now.

Everyone will get 2 free transfers after the kaboom to get with their family/friends/guilds and etc and after transfers should only open when they introduce 3 new servers or raise the pop cap for the server thats doing poorly in a matchup

Imbalanced pop cap is not the solution.
The game used to count only active wvw players and not all players on the server.
As result SFR became the dominant server with queue in all borders on reset night.
With much more total players than the rest.
All servers need same amount of players or they can just scrap ranking alltogether.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Are you saying people cannot transfer once they pick? They’re stuck with that choice? If so, can do that now.

Everyone will get 2 free transfers after the kaboom to get with their family/friends/guilds and etc and after transfers should only open when they introduce 3 new servers or raise the pop cap for the server thats doing poorly in a matchup

Yeah that’s not going to work, if you’ve read this forum long enough.

Still doesn’t explain how you defeat the bandwagoners.

You realize tier 1 barely ever has queues, right? 3 tiers would still lead to 1 tier getting stacked because people like playing on populated servers.

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Bandwagoning takes gems…why would they “solve” a revenue source? Of course when we all get tired of being horribly unbalanced or tired of hopping servers and there’s nobody playing, nobody will be buying gems for anything…

Extreme.8350:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Are you saying people cannot transfer once they pick? They’re stuck with that choice? If so, can do that now.

Everyone will get 2 free transfers after the kaboom to get with their family/friends/guilds and etc and after transfers should only open when they introduce 3 new servers or raise the pop cap for the server thats doing poorly in a matchup

Imbalanced pop cap is not the solution.
The game used to count only active wvw players and not all players on the server.
As result SFR became the dominant server with queue in all borders on reset night.
With much more total players than the rest.
All servers need same amount of players or they can just scrap ranking alltogether.

I mean if you have an better idea then please tell me because linking hasnt done kitten but killed 2 servers already and many guilds. linking is like a jigsaw puzzle anet is trying to solve and hoping one day they will get it right. by then it will just be too late.. so they are just better to do a kaboom in my opinion and start of with 9 server maybe 12.

At this I honestly feel like anet knows they can save WvW so they are just doing whatever updates they can to show “they care” and make as much money as possible from us WvWers

CrimeMaker.8612:

The only way I think population is going to balance itself is by making the current servers go KABOOM and create new servers… have 9 total servers 3 tiers.. lock servers once they get full at 80% and then open 3 new servers… Seriously the way everything is I think linking was a good idea at first but right now it hasnt done nothing but kill 2 servers maybe more…. I will just say its time for kaboom I know a lot of people will say its a bad idea but seriously though this is literally the only way now to fix population issue.. In one of the post before anet also said that they can make all servers go KABOOM and do a fresh start. WvW does need a fresh start.

and I am back from the ban

This solution has been considered but anet deem this solution not acceptable by the majority and thus shelved it. However, this solution is the closest to balancing. Afterall, if remaking servers every X months while having additional joining rules in place can’t achieve the closest balancing, I wonder what will.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Extreme.8350:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

Jayne, How exactly will this cause bandwaggoning? you are starting of with 9 servers I think there is enough population to fill each server 80% full once all those servers are 80% full you open 3 more server or raise the population cap for each server.

Are you saying people cannot transfer once they pick? They’re stuck with that choice? If so, can do that now.

Everyone will get 2 free transfers after the kaboom to get with their family/friends/guilds and etc and after transfers should only open when they introduce 3 new servers or raise the pop cap for the server thats doing poorly in a matchup

Imbalanced pop cap is not the solution.
The game used to count only active wvw players and not all players on the server.
As result SFR became the dominant server with queue in all borders on reset night.
With much more total players than the rest.
All servers need same amount of players or they can just scrap ranking alltogether.

I mean if you have an better idea then please tell me because linking hasnt done kitten but killed 2 servers already and many guilds. linking is like a jigsaw puzzle anet is trying to solve and hoping one day they will get it right. by then it will just be too late.. so they are just better to do a kaboom in my opinion and start of with 9 server maybe 12.

At this I honestly feel like anet knows they can save WvW so they are just doing whatever updates they can to show “they care” and make as much money as possible from us WvWers

Basicly. This is how it used to work. Which means if some of those wvw players.
Didn’t play on reset night. They would not count towards total players.
The overstacked server would still be open. So as long as not everyone were playing every matchup. The server would never actually be full.
It is so unfair for everyone and should never have been made in the first place.

You are looking at it the wrong way, it isn’t a server issue.

Take it down to the lower level where it belongs. Players, guilds, and correlate it to a web portal breaking it down to the top 25 – 50 players per week. Total, by class, by guild, by points, by what is claimed, for how long, player deaths, longevity, kill streak, etc.

See what I did there? There isn’t a server issue anymore because who comes in first, second, or third no longer matters. What matters is what you, your team, or guild does. This isn’t rocket science.

Crapgame.6519:

YWhat matters is what you, your team, or guild does. This isn’t rocket science.

You have pvp for that.

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

You can’t stop the bandwagon. It exists because people don’t want balance. A balanced WvW would mean your server has a 33% chance to actually win each week. That means a 67% to lose every week. Ask yourself do you want to lose 67% of the time by a tiny margin? No? Well that’s balanced!

And that’s not the only reason people bandwagon. I jumped on so I could do EoTM as green and level alts, but Anet totally got me on that one removing XP. With reward tracks I don’t care win or lose because as long as I have 100% participation, I get ticks. So that’s a good change. Baggies are nice, but there are better places to farm rewards like that.

Coyote.7031:

Jayne.9251:

This won’t solve anything. It will alienate the loyalists, cause chaos for a couple of months, then be stuck with same issue.

You need to solve bandwaggoning.

You can’t stop the bandwagon. It exists because people don’t want balance. A balanced WvW would mean your server has a 33% chance to actually win each week. That means a 67% to lose every week. Ask yourself do you want to lose 67% of the time by a tiny margin? No? Well that’s balanced!

And that’s not the only reason people bandwagon. I jumped on so I could do EoTM as green and level alts, but Anet totally got me on that one removing XP. With reward tracks I don’t care win or lose because as long as I have 100% participation, I get ticks. So that’s a good change. Baggies are nice, but there are better places to farm rewards like that.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d be perfectly fine losing by a tiny margin. It would mean that next week, adjust your strat, you’d have that 33% chance of winning. It would engage more players and solidify the need for team vs individual. It would give meaning to wins, which are meaningless now.

Jayne.9251:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d be perfectly fine losing by a tiny margin. It would mean that next week, adjust your strat, you’d have that 33% chance of winning. It would engage more players and solidify the need for team vs individual. It would give meaning to wins, which are meaningless now.

The average player these days don’t care about all that. It’s just win or nothing. That’s why badwagoners exist in the first place and nobody want to try uphill battles at the lower tiers.

Jeknar.6184:

Jayne.9251:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d be perfectly fine losing by a tiny margin. It would mean that next week, adjust your strat, you’d have that 33% chance of winning. It would engage more players and solidify the need for team vs individual. It would give meaning to wins, which are meaningless now.

The average player these days don’t care about all that. It’s just win or nothing. That’s why badwagoners exist in the first place and nobody want to try uphill battles at the lower tiers.

Exactly, players dont have that kind of passion for WvW since HoT came out. The only way to now get it back is by doing a kaboom for current servers and starting new ones. There is a chance it might also bring back the players that have quit because they just lost all interest after HoT.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Exactly, players dont have that kind of passion for WvW since HoT came out.

Players never had that kind of passion tbh… That’s why we always have server exoduses.

Jeknar.6184:

CrimeMaker.8612:

Exactly, players dont have that kind of passion for WvW since HoT came out.

Players never had that kind of passion tbh… That’s why we always have server exoduses.

Yeah… I want that old WvW where everyone was willing to push up tiers and come out to fight… not just sit inside towers and siege hump… I want that old WvW back cries

Jayne.9251:

Crapgame.6519:

YWhat matters is what you, your team, or guild does. This isn’t rocket science.

You have pvp for that.

It lists the top 25 players by class, by guild, ranks gained, players killed, kill streaks, duration of claimed item, camps flipped, supply yaks killed, sentries executed, etc?

Oh, that is right, it doesn’t.

Does it lists alliances? Oh yeah, nope. Not in this game either. We get a WvW ranking system that doesn’t have a ceiling and continues to loop through the same set of named rank and file. We can clearly see that server match ups and ranks don’t hold water. The system used to rank isn’t working. It isn’t clearly working when you manually have to add scores to move servers. Furthermore, you single out a server, CD, and get them to move up while leaving the rest behind.

Edit: Point is, there can only be 1 in first, someone has to be second, third, and so on. Remove server from equation focus on players and what they contribute to along with guilds. This probably goes away and it then becomes population which is still an issue.

Hmm…ever wonder why WoW decided to go the route of wintergrasp or bg’s? Because they saw what was happening to DaOC and our server population issues when 3 servers are fighting. This isn’t anything new but it is interesting to see this game developer face similar struggles only to try something different and flounder. Personally I’d take a step back and try something else.

It is working has designed – look at SBI’s matchup…total blowout and it is Sunday. We say this once we logged in and saw the matchup. GG.

Jeknar.6184:

Jayne.9251:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d be perfectly fine losing by a tiny margin. It would mean that next week, adjust your strat, you’d have that 33% chance of winning. It would engage more players and solidify the need for team vs individual. It would give meaning to wins, which are meaningless now.

The average player these days don’t care about all that. It’s just win or nothing. That’s why badwagoners exist in the first place and nobody want to try uphill battles at the lower tiers.

@Jayne, I couldn’t agree more. There is a massive difference between losing your weekly matchup by a small margin after a hard fought/well-balanced battle, and losing by 200k points – all the while knowing you weren’t even in it from the start. When you know you’ve actually got a shot at snagging the W, that’s the motivation to do just as you said, make some strategic adjustments and try for a better result next week.
@Jeknar I think calling it an uphill battle is quite the understatement and you know it. Why would players want to waste time in WvW when they know they’re going to get mopped? It may be an uphill walk, but that’s after you dig yourself out from 6ft under and open the coffin that’s been nailed shut. An uphill battle implies there’s a possibility of you walking away victorious, something which some servers haven’t had in months.

Jeknar.6184:

Jayne.9251:

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d be perfectly fine losing by a tiny margin. It would mean that next week, adjust your strat, you’d have that 33% chance of winning. It would engage more players and solidify the need for team vs individual. It would give meaning to wins, which are meaningless now.

The average player these days don’t care about all that. It’s just win or nothing. That’s why badwagoners exist in the first place and nobody want to try uphill battles at the lower tiers.

Until players themselves want a more uphill battle, NOTHING you, me or anyone can suggest in terms of alliances, ladders, server reboots, etc., will resolve this issue.

It’ll just be more of the same, with hundreds of posts on the forum complaining about it.

Any changes to make this game great rests with the player base. Not Anet.

Jayne.9251:

.Any changes to make this game great rests with the player base. Not Anet.

WvW can be great, but we’d need to change the Game Mode…imho

Switch the Game Mode’s Fight Model

FROM – System Manipulated 3 Way
TO – Player Driven King Of The Hill

There is a better solution that is Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled.

@OP

Nuking Servers will only Balance Population in the Short Term, but have Long Term Negative ripple effects…imho.

Player Bandwagoning will continue to cause Population Inbalance again in a few months.

If you Lock Servers…as you suggest…Players may quit, or stop playing the game when faced with being stuck on a “Loser” World.

Let’s face it…WvW is a Bully System…somebody has to be #3…given the current System Manipulated 3 Way Fight Model.

Whoever is stuck being #3 gets ganked by #1 & #2 in the Long Term.

Your solution will do nothing in the Long Term, but reduce Player’s Choices & Diversity…while encouraging a few Worlds to be stuck in “Loser” Hell…imho

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

As long as there are real people playing wvw, bandwagoning will exist. If Anet were to do something serious to limit bandwagoning, it would end up being so restrictive to players, that Anet would lose lots of its wvw players.

And some of this talk about wanting the old wvw back……that is remembering through rose colored glasses.

WvW, especially the serious type in games that were created with that mode in mind as being one of the main aspects to play toward(GW2 doesn’t have anything like that)….balance and bandwagoning has, and always will be a difficult, if not impossible problem to remedy. And imo, GW2 doesn’t really have a whole lot of reason to put much effort into that, as there really is no specific reason for wvw in GW2, except for just the sheer fun of it. The scores don’t mean anything, nothing you do in wvw affects your server(or linking), wvw rank doesn’t mean anything except for time spent there, etc….it’s just a fun mode in the game for those that like large scale pvp.

PvE has always been, and will always be, the main priority and focus of GW2.

You can’t beat bandwagoning. It is a psychological fact. You can take actions to stop it from getting out of hand. For example, you can lock servers that have too much incoming or outgoing traffic.

Cecilia.5179:

You can’t beat bandwagoning. It is a psychological fact. You can take actions to stop it from getting out of hand. For example, you can lock servers that have too much incoming or outgoing traffic.

They tried that.

This is what they got:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/About-Full-Server-Status-And-Guilds

And then you get this:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Linked-Worlds-Transfer-Restrictions

And then, inevitably, this:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/How-is-this-helping-balance

I could add a dozen different links all saying the same thing, but you get the idea.

Jayne.9251:

Cecilia.5179:

You can’t beat bandwagoning. It is a psychological fact. You can take actions to stop it from getting out of hand. For example, you can lock servers that have too much incoming or outgoing traffic.

They tried that.

This is what they got:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/About-Full-Server-Status-And-Guilds

I could add a dozen different links all saying the same thing, but you get the idea.

I would say offer support to guilds that get split in half. I doubt even a psychologist with a PhD can come up with a perfect, satisfy everyone solution. Still, leaving the game stagnant risks death. Try lying in bed and not moving for a month. Actually, don’t because it may kill you. MMO’s need to change to survive. GW2 WvW is no exception.

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

I’m not sure that paywalls are a good move. Most people don’t want to pay more than the price of the game to change environments, and the people who do probably have lots of money to spend.
Also, link 1 shows that manually lowering the pop cap of all linked servers doesn’t mean anything when the high population servers just sit there at super full and one server can’t compete because it is less full than the tier above it.
Link 2 is Anet’s solution to this
Link 3 shows a weakness in linked vs unlinked servers creating population imbalance. However, it did shake up T1 so that’s not entirely bad, and BG and TC may not be trying right now.
I think a bigger problem is the Glicko wall that separates the bottom two servers from the servers above it. They have fallen so far that nothing short of folding them into t3 servers can save them.

They could reduce player cap for every tier. So t1 gets 2500 players on all servers
t2 gets 2000 , t3 gets 1800 and so on. This ofcourse fluctuate.
Could go to a maximum of 2500 if all 3 servers from same tier is full.
To a minimum of 200 on all 3 servers. Would also have to be considered in glicko.
Just an idea to make the game more balanced in general.
Dosent matter where players move because the pop cap will adjust itself.

Cecilia.5179:

I’m not sure that paywalls are a good move. Most people don’t want to pay more than the price of the game to change environments, and the people who do probably have lots of money to spend.
Also, link 1 shows that manually lowering the pop cap of all linked servers doesn’t mean anything when the high population servers just sit there at super full and one server can’t compete because it is less full than the tier above it.
Link 2 is Anet’s solution to this
Link 3 shows a weakness in linked vs unlinked servers creating population imbalance. However, it did shake up T1 so that’s not entirely bad, and BG and TC may not be trying right now.
I think a bigger problem is the Glicko wall that separates the bottom two servers from the servers above it. They have fallen so far that nothing short of folding them into t3 servers can save them.

Well that’s the whole point. Capitalize on player’s attachment to their “main account” and let them rationalize whether it’s easier to just buy a new account. But then you have to go through the hassle of levelling up.

The point being: It should give you pause before you jump.

That, coupled with hard server caps, say 2,500 as mentioned above, and those over the cap are pushed out based on first-come, first-served principle.

You are booted out and want to be Tier 1? Roll up you sleeves, recruit, and make that push.

Meanwhile , Anet gets significant capital from WvW transfers that it invests that capital back into WvW.

Jayne.9251:

Well that’s the whole point. Capitalize on player’s attachment to their “main account” and let them rationalize whether it’s easier to just buy a new account. But then you have to go through the hassle of levelling up.

My stalker is now on his 6th account to visit me in wvw – tell me about it.
If people want to hijack things they won’t bother the levelling.

I still think that making wvw a healthy environement is the way to go, not punishing people who think they’d be happier elsewhere.

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

Not saying your idea doesn’t have potential…..just saying, imo, that it won’t happen.

A lot of these ideas being thrown around might make a little sense if GW2 placed more priority on wvw……but they don’t, and they never will when it is a PvE centered game.

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

EQ2 used to charge $75 to transfer your account to another server. And people paid it. Just not that often.

Jayne.9251:

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

EQ2 used to charge $75 to transfer your account to another server. And people paid it. Just not that often.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall EQ2 having much in the way of large scale wvw like what exists in GW2.

And just to add, I did edit a bit my original post that you quoted.

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

EQ2 used to charge $75 to transfer your account to another server. And people paid it. Just not that often.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall EQ2 having much in the way of large scale wvw.

And just to add, I did edit my original post that quoted a bit.

Nope. But I dropped by the other day and the game is still thriving after 10 years WITH a monthly sub.

Jayne.9251:

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

EQ2 used to charge $75 to transfer your account to another server. And people paid it. Just not that often.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall EQ2 having much in the way of large scale wvw.

And just to add, I did edit my original post that quoted a bit.

Nope. But I dropped by the other day and the game is still thriving after 10 years WITH a monthly sub.

So is DaoC. Well, maybe not thriving,(but it is around 16 years old now) but wvw/rvr still has enough subs for the game to still be plugging along. And I can’t believe they’re still asking a sub for DaoC.

GW2 will be the same, at least the PvE part of it,(and I bet wvw, too) and with no sub.