Guild Wars 2

i am really discouraged to pay for a server transfer

wvw has not seen any nice up dates at all and makes me feel like it is not worth the money to swap servers

i dont think a server merge would hurt

unless someone has a better solution to balance wvw 24 hours a day

I think a variant of a WVW battle group system could work.

My idea would be to create random battle groups each week out of the servers based upon rank/tier (creating 6 groups in NA each week/7 in EU… not sure how to resolve that for EU). Membership would consist of one random gold, silver, and bronze league server. Battle groups would be randomly reassigned each week (as would the opponents). Points would be accrued by the group as a whole, but maybe award bonus points per server for claiming locations and event completion? Ideally, this would give smaller servers some bigger allies to back them up in wvw without sacrificing server identity or forcing transfers.

I do recognize that this isn’t perfect, but maybe you guys could expand on this a bit more to see if it is worth consideration? Thoughts/Civil criticism welcome!

Best solution is when we all stop buying gems! I stopped since last week, come join me!

If enough people stop purchasing gems then this issue is fixed in no time!!

I thought there was somebody from Anet watching on this list? Where did it go?

Videles.6759:

I thought there was somebody from Anet watching on this list? Where did it go?

moved to another table?

Rune.5890:

Videles.6759:

I thought there was somebody from Anet watching on this list? Where did it go?

moved to another table?

perhaps another room

so it’s been 3 months and theres still no consensus?

Zackie.8923:

so it’s been 3 months and theres still no consensus?

Come back in 3 years, maybe something happend then but dont hold your breath please.

Simple sulotion is to close the 3 lowest rank servers tier 9 is that in EU and let them have a free transfer to the 2 lowest tiers 7 and 8.
And if they want to join higher ranked servers they need to pay gems to transfer to there.
Same you can do with NA servers but they have 1 less tier (8 tiers total).

So if they want to go:
Tier 7 or 8 its free
Tier 5 or 6 its like 600 gems
Tier 3 or 4 its like 1200 gems
Tier 1 or 2 its max gems 1800 gems.

By doing this you will get it a little bit more balanced.
For Pve its not any problem because of the mega servers.

regards me

Jim Hunter.6821:

There is one thing every competitive sport and/or game has in common: even number teams.

Cool idea but I think 50 is a bit low. I’d rather see a floating number, something along the lines of SmallestServer*1.25 or something, with a minimum amount being like 50 per team. There is something to be said for organizing and fielding more people, the problem is when it totally takes over the game to the point no one else has a chance of victory.

urieldhynne.2743:

Gaile Gray.6029:

Feel free to post your thoughts, but please stay on topic and make positive, meaningful suggestions.

You can learn from mistakes too. You should learn from mistakes.

That is the problem with Anet, only want nice comments. Constructive criticism are good too, this is not kindergarten. You should understand why WvW is what it is now and is not because good decisions. Don’t repeat that please, listen the community, you repeated it AGAIN one month ago with this last, swiss style, tournament.

Don’t take this wrong, I am trying to telling you you shouldn’t repeat the same mistake over and over. Just that.

QFT, cause this is the most constructive criticism I’ve seen contributed and I find it funny that since then, no one else from anet has commented on this thread for nearly 3 months.

lolfunny.

FugueState.3842:

urieldhynne.2743:

Gaile Gray.6029:

Feel free to post your thoughts, but please stay on topic and make positive, meaningful suggestions.

You can learn from mistakes too. You should learn from mistakes.

That is the problem with Anet, only want nice comments. Constructive criticism are good too, this is not kindergarten. You should understand why WvW is what it is now and is not because good decisions. Don’t repeat that please, listen the community, you repeated it AGAIN one month ago with this last, swiss style, tournament.

Don’t take this wrong, I am trying to telling you you shouldn’t repeat the same mistake over and over. Just that.

QFT, cause this is the most constructive criticism I’ve seen contributed and I find it funny that since then, no one else from anet has commented on this thread for nearly 3 months.

lolfunny.

There’s a new WvW boss in the house since 3 months ago and I’m educated guessing that means a new tone of what is allowed to be communicated.

Artaz.3819:

FugueState.3842:

urieldhynne.2743:

Gaile Gray.6029:

Feel free to post your thoughts, but please stay on topic and make positive, meaningful suggestions.

You can learn from mistakes too. You should learn from mistakes.

That is the problem with Anet, only want nice comments. Constructive criticism are good too, this is not kindergarten. You should understand why WvW is what it is now and is not because good decisions. Don’t repeat that please, listen the community, you repeated it AGAIN one month ago with this last, swiss style, tournament.

Don’t take this wrong, I am trying to telling you you shouldn’t repeat the same mistake over and over. Just that.

QFT, cause this is the most constructive criticism I’ve seen contributed and I find it funny that since then, no one else from anet has commented on this thread for nearly 3 months.

lolfunny.

There’s a new WvW boss in the house since 3 months ago and I’m educated guessing that means a new tone of what is allowed to be communicated.

Absolutely nothing?

Seems like a terrible business practice, but whatever. It’s their ball they can play the game however they like.

Here is the solution I put in the other dev brainstorming thread. It works directly with the answer posted here.
This is my solution. Not server merges, but Teaming. My idea is harder to implement for Anet, because it would require a physical changeover of server location 2x a day.
We have 26 North American and 26 European Servers. Someone mentioned bringing that number down to 20, Maybe that is necessary, maybe its not.That would depend on predicted competitiveness.
There are 3 things to consider when making a successful solution:
1: Solving Coverage wars. No matter what server you are on, you can agree that the biggest issue with this game is that if a server has a lower population during X time, that will be taken advantage of. Most servers believe that “If only we had people in X time, we would be competitive”.
2: Not turning this game into Blob Wars for lower tier servers. People on lower tier servers are there for a reason, and the reason is that they DO NOT WANT TO BE PART OF QUED MAP KARMA BLOBS. The reason is not a skill issue as those who are in T1 and T2 believe, it is often though that their computers cannot handle 200 people going at it OR that they simply do not enjoy that style of game play. Any solution has to take this into account.
3: Server identity. Any Solution should, for the great majority of the servers, encompass allowing us to fight for our server. Yes I agree that in some cases that may be untenable.
So, My Solution is Server Teaming . That has been discussed here, however I would like to do it differently. Instead of teaming up NA Servers to fight other NA servers, Team NA Servers with EU servers based upon known coverage gaps. These gaps have been recorded by Mos Millenium and other sites. “Just” ( this word always encompases a ton of work that the guy saying it doesn’t think or know about) Team up a NA server with the EU server that has somewhat the same population and coverage situation.
To me the problem with this idea would be the lag for each side if the server placement for the maps were static. EU would hate life with a server in Texas. NA would hate life with a server in Madrid.
The answer to this would be some sort of changeover period. Hopefully, since information on server status could be sent live from one server set to the other, very brief. People would need to be kicked from maps, but you guys dont seem to have a problem doing that to hot fix the flight path of ambient mosquitos, and we have gotten used to build “Dangits” so Im pretty sure we can work with this too. A couple minutes to change over the server placement during say 3:30AM and 3:30PM EST wouldn’t kill us.
These teams could be permanent or they could be temporary based upon changes in population on each server, changes in how each server competes, etc.
Most importantly, each server would get a strong NA and a strong EU presence. This would change coverage wars in the lower tiers. Perhaps the upper tiers just don’t get teamed at all. Fly on Alone Little Blackgate! Be Free Seafarers Rest!
This allows 40+ servers to keep their identity, and for those in “silver and bronze” Get their fondest wish: Someone to fight in that G-d kitten time period when we arent awake or are at work.
This type of move would increase competitiveness on all servers. And, if made a weekly change, can be worked on until its done right.
This move also stops you from destroying communities by sending down what lower tiers perceive as “Arrogant SOBs” or pushing up what higher tiers perceive as “Skill-less Noobs”. None of us. NONE. OF. US. Want that drama.

At this point, we should just wait for the expansion that is around the corner. Heard that WvW will change a lot.

The case for an Alliance system:

The problem of lopsided tiers will always remain due to bandwagoning and natural chance. The glicko ratings just determine the pace of that change. Currently the problem is very pronounced at t3 due to the limited musical chairs at t2.

A systematic problem demands a [self-correcting] systemic solution. One such solution would be to pair up servers under one color (i.e., “an Alliance”) so that, conceptually -
Green Team = highest + lowest ranked servers
vs
Red Team = second highest + second lowest servers
vs
Blue Team = third highest + third lowest servers

Basically this would halve the number of matchups while doubling yet leveling out the average population of each colored team. Overall Points for victory will be cumulative by Alliance color, but PPT contributions will still be calculated separately by server for glicko ratings.

And in another version (for those that don’t want the higher populations of this solution, say for NA) Anet could break down these pairings into two brackets:
#1+12 vs #2+11 vs #3+10
#4+9 vs #5+8 vs #6+7
and
#13+24 vs #14+23 vs #15+22
#16+21 vs #17+20 vs #18+19

In any setup, each server maintains its name and identity, but there may be options (need?) for improved cooperation well beyond what is seen in Edge of the Mists between Allied servers. Such details require fleshing out but this solution should help address fluctuating server population imbalances in a more self adjusting manner while preserving server identities. Thoughts?

Not sure this has been suggested at all (too many pages to go through), but … why not instead of assigning guilds to a server (based on the guilds decision), why not distribute the guilds across a mega-server WvW on a weekly basis. That way, it isn’t Server vs Server vs Server. It’s guild(s) v guild(s) v guild(s).

ANet can then create balance by having the “mega-server WvW” instance assigned guilds/ individual players such that each time slot has the same “active” number of WvW players based on past history.

I’m sure they know how big guilds are (not membership size, but how many people the can actually field), and when they are most active in WvW (and size) already, so it’s just mining this data to determine where your guild is assign for WvW. If you want to go even further, I’m sure ANet can balance the size of guilds (and thus guild blobs) that are fighting each other in each time-slot so that you don’t have giant guild blobs going against a bunch of small guilds groups.

kutshotz.8574:

Not sure this has been suggested at all (too many pages to go through), but … why not instead of assigning guilds to a server (based on the guilds decision), why not distribute the guilds across a mega-server WvW on a weekly basis. That way, it isn’t Server vs Server vs Server. It’s guild(s) v guild(s) v guild(s).

ANet can then create balance by having the “mega-server WvW” instance assigned guilds/ individual players such that each time slot has the same “active” number of WvW players based on past history.

I’m sure they know how big guilds are (not membership size, but how many people the can actually field), and when they are most active in WvW (and size) already, so it’s just mining this data to determine where your guild is assign for WvW. If you want to go even further, I’m sure ANet can balance the size of guilds (and thus guild blobs) that are fighting each other in each time-slot so that you don’t have giant guild blobs going against a bunch of small guilds groups.

Although it makes sense considering the name of the game is GUILD Wars, and not WORLD Wars, this just makes it harder for the casual player to join WvW, which I’m assuming is a majority of GW2 players. You want to incentivize casual gamers to join WvW, not deter them from joining by making it a requirement that they must join a guild to play.
I want to highlight some suggestions I personally think would be good:

Increase the gold earned on loot bags
Do this by either increasing material drop rate, add more potential items in loot bags, or decrease the required damage needed to tag people (I’m not 100% on how tagging works). This allows for loots bag to be either more valuable or more bountiful. Personally I think an increase in the amount of loot bags that pop after a fight would hurt the economy, so this should be approached with care if considered.
Besides the discouragement of playing WvW after losing multiple times, another reason for poor WvW participation is the the poor gold to effort ratio. Some players like farming, and the best place to do that is PvE.

Better rewards for participating in WvW
This would immediately increase WvW participation. How great would it be if you earned a laurel or something cooler for completing a quest/achievement or leveling in WvW?
Badges of Honor should see another use besides buying siege equipment. Make crafting ascended gear easier if the player has more Badges of Honor.

Shift the idea of GW2 endgame from fractals to WvW
Let’s be completely honest, GW2 lacks “endgame” unlike other MMOs (cough WoW). The game’s name has “war” in it, why not focus on that aspect?
While making WvW endgame might result in server stacking (players wanting endgame equips quicker by joining servers that are winning WvW battles), actions can be taken to prevent this. One would be to prohibit server transfers to same tier servers. Another idea would be to handicap the server that is in first place (and stays in the same tier). If the server stays in first with the handicap (handicaps will increase with each win), the rewards for winning increases as well.

People seem to suggest merging servers, while others suggest splitting up the T1/T2 servers. I don’t understand why you would want to split the T1/T2 servers unless it’s due to a personal grudge against those servers. The idea of merging servers makes more sense.
And when merging servers, the server names should be kept (to maintain server pride) and an alliance is created between the servers that were merged.

How many play pure WvW? At begin my char was first to die, and that was real showstopper. How many has stopped playing due the difficulty and instakills? If WvW playing would not be of level “very hard”, would more casual players fill the map.

yeah im kinda glad i started when everyone was upscaled and had no clue what they were doing. going into wvw now as a newbie is really deadly, most of the players you meet have been playing a long time, probably have ascended gear, more or less proper builds and a huge amount of experience. i dont see me having a good time as a fresh level 80 checking out the maps, getting instant-killed by invisible people or get steamrolled by melee trains, it must be frustrating. here is a video of when it all started, you see how much different wvw was before people figured out how to be efficient, i also think it was a lot more fun:

After reading this I had an idea. If your on one of the very populated tier 1 servers and the maps are pretty filled. Perhaps an option could pop up when you try to join WvW and it askes you to help in a less populated realm if your realms maps are pretty filled.

“We notice the battle in Jade Quarry is filled up, would you like to help the battle in Ehmry Bay? They could use more soldiers!”

*Joins Ehmry Bay Shard, receives Courageous Volunteer Buff; +30% WvW Experience, +30% Magic Find, +30% Karma. *

This is just an example of two realms. Maybe it could always match you up with the other servers who share EOTM with you.

Perhaps fixing the algorithm that matches up servers would be good. I’ve seen servers that have crushed their enemy stay on the same tier while one of the crushed servers gets moved up to the next tier where they have no business being. If you want to destroy the desire of people to play in WvW that is sure one way to do it. People in ANet know what server I’m on so it won’t take a rocket scientist to know what I’m talking about.

Get the matchups set so that servers that are fairly equal are battling each other.

Balthazzarr.1349:

Perhaps fixing the algorithm that matches up servers would be good. I’ve seen servers that have crushed their enemy stay on the same tier while one of the crushed servers gets moved up to the next tier where they have no business being. If you want to destroy the desire of people to play in WvW that is sure one way to do it. People in ANet know what server I’m on so it won’t take a rocket scientist to know what I’m talking about.

Get the matchups set so that servers that are fairly equal are battling each other.

The entire problem is that for many servers there are no two other servers that match well. That’s how bad the population problem is. At this point, there’s no hope Anet will do anything to fix this issue, though it’s nice to have a theoretical discussion so that maybe in a future WvW game by another developer, the same mistakes won’t be made.

In this case it’s not even a problem that you’re describing… You have a server with a 1304 rating in tier 5 against two servers with 1481 and 1498 ratings. Then you have 2 servers with higher ratings 1365 and 1392 back in tier 6 against a server with an 1167 rating. That simply doesn’t make sense. That is not a problem with servers that don’t match. That’s a problem with matching servers with similar successes/failures period.

Seems like this is becoming a topic of frequent discussion on the front page again, figured I’d bump this thread for those that hadn’t seen it yet. Lots of good discussion here.

This thread started 6 months ago, nothing is done, no point talking about it, time to look for a PvP oriented mmorpg.

O/ what about just merging the lower servers till the numbers all look good, refering to the amount of servers and the amount of people and also, yes we at the lower server have this competetive thing were we will hunt for vabbits when were against vabbi but more than that we want to have fun and wvw isnt that fun anymore when you can maybe just maybe get a little zerg. I cant remember when last Ive seen a big decent size zerg.

You guys at anet can always just randomly ask people in wvw to answer a few question that they can answer if they want or just leave, like for example asking the three lowest servers if they would mind if their merged

And if we merge just give us a new name, and also if we merged then I can bet you that no one would really be able to say that, that guy standing other there was a vabbit or not

At this point I don’t even care about them fixing population imbalance altogether, because let’s face it that’s not gonna happen.

I’d be a happy little customer already if they could finally just fix the godkitten matchmaking to prevent servers from getting stomped in matchups they have no business participating in due to atrociously unfair population & coverage issues.

I just logged in for some quick WvW fun, checked our server’s TS to find out literally nobody’s there (at this time of the day you’d expect at least one big public raid) which already gave me an idea about what’s going on (same that has been going on in most matchups the recent weeks). Jumped on a non-home borderland and headed for western spawn camp – fully upgraded?! ..uhm, ok, outnumbered buff so we’re prolly around 3-5 people max on this map. They also have a scout in that camp, but I figure w/e because with that amount of people I’m not gonna do anything other than flipping camps anyways, so I can as well just try that 250 camp. I pull some of the guards and start killing them, scout joins but isn’t much of a threat so I continue for like half a minute when 3 additional enemies make their way to the camp guns blazing. I disengage and abuse the invulnerability spot, initial scout emote spams me for humiliation. I wait for his buddies to leave, kill him and take a look at the camp again – 2 scouts now. Ye…

Port back to spawn, heading east for the southern camp. Just as I arrive, a 30 men guild blob waltzes over the camp. Back to spawn → Log Out → Exit.

I am sooooo close to just switching servers, but since the server I’d aim for is in compareable matchups pretty regularly as well and I’m not in the mood to throw my money at them for my troubles, it’s just gonna result in a week without logging in. Again.

They don’t need to merge the lower tier servers…I liked the idea someone mentioned earlier of getting rid of the STACKED T1 servers and give them free transfers…of course they probably just stack to another server…cause you know…winning…

Dude listen, t1 prob has alot of big communities where as the lowest server have but they are just kinda small also we have little dedicated wvw guilds, so taking everying in account, merge the lowest servers and make 1 decent server would be best

FooDang.2498:

They don’t need to merge the lower tier servers…I liked the idea someone mentioned earlier of getting rid of the STACKED T1 servers and give them free transfers…of course they probably just stack to another server…cause you know…winning…

Trust me when I say, there are many many times throughout the week when even the T1 servers are running around with the outnumbered buff. I don’t really agree with merging the lower tier servers in the upper ones but it would solve the problem IF they merged the right time zones together. IE, merging SEA coverage times together with each other and NA times together with each other. It wouldn’t make sense piling everyone into NA times then have a 1000+ que.

They could solve the problem by simply just splitting the times of the match-up. 3 separate “PPT” times: 12-8am, 8am-4pm, and 4pm-12. Award each time slot 1 point for a win. Most points at the end wins. This stops the overwhelming SEA coverage times some servers have that generally win the match-up.

There have been a lot of good ideas on this topic since the beginning, but it is a tricky riddle to solve. Considered this one:

The WvW score will now include a “Match-up Point Modifier” that scales intelligently over time. This point modifier factors in a concept of diminishing returns in scenarios that a server is either dominating or getting crushed for an extended period.

Example Timeline:
– Servers A, B, C are all ticking between 180 to 300 points. The point modifier is 1.0.
– Server A starts dominating and reaches beyond 400 points. The point modifier remains 1.0.
– Server A continues to dominate for an hour at 400+. The point modifier drops to 0.5.
– 4 hours later Server A, B, C resume even match-up. The point modifier adjusts to 1.0.

The point modifier would apply to all servers. The end result is a reduction of a extreme swings (most likely) due to population imbalance. I think it’s important that the point modifier does not factor in current WvW population for reasons we’ve already stated. Rather the modifier factors in to reduce the effects of extended domination or of being crushed.

This solution does not completely eliminate all of the issues, but it greatly reduces the major score swings due to population imbalance. It also allows the population caps and server identity to remain in tact while improving the likelihood of a fair match-up. Night capping still exists but it shouldn’t leave a server with-out hope.

Why not just block all transfers to T1 until the deadlock up there is broken? Heck lock all of Gold if need be. That would end the practice of guilds moving into the top tiers, and if they wanted to move up they could move up into the T3/T4 area.

They can never “fix” the population imbalance with forced movement. Forced movement would just anger their customers, and result in greater levels of dissatisfaction.

Fusion of the servers into a megaserver ala EotM is a terrible terrible solution imo. At that point it would all resemble the pointlessness of current EotM, and all sense of pride and accomplishment would render down into certain guilds trying to go in and farm the farmers. There would be no larger strategy or tactics. Guilds would have to try and coordinate with guilds that at best are unfamiliar with each other. No shared TS, no shared goals, and no point.

FooDang.2498:

They don’t need to merge the lower tier servers…I liked the idea someone mentioned earlier of getting rid of the STACKED T1 servers and give them free transfers…of course they probably just stack to another server…cause you know…winning…

T1 isn’t as packed as some like to believe. The reset queues die down pretty fast and having one server blob over near empty maps is a common occurrence.

P.S

Some people don’t care about the score since winning the week nets you nothing of value. They rather have some kind of action going on whenever they get to play.

Anet reply in this topic a whopping 6 months ago. States they are not going to fix it..

How to fix….transfer servers? /sarcasm

Joey.2769:

How to fix….transfer servers? /sarcasm

As we are far from any balance, the transfer-fee should be set to 0.

Everyone should freely move at least once a week. And whenever a match drops below X man-hours per weeks in WvW-participation the server in it are dissolved. Done. Sooner or later we will end with some balance and around 6 server in NA and EU. Then transfer-fee can be added again to protect a new balance.

But currently transfer-fee only preserve imbalance.

Ok so i think this is my first time on this thread so please don’t yell at me if this has been suggested already bc i don’t have the energy to read through all 26 pages of this thread lol. But what about breaking WvW into 3 Alliances. idk what they are called but for example you could use red, blue and green alliances. This would be a continual match up but here is where i think we could maintain identity and also add variety …..

No servers would have to merge but rather take 1 server from each tier randomly each week and place them in an alliance. Eternal Battleground would remain but every server’s BL would be an optional location for you to travel. Eternal battleground may need to be split into multiple new maps and ik the amount of commitment this would take on Anet’s side but i think this would help diminish imbalance. The only reason i say to split EB into multiple maps is that ik a lot of people prefer EB to BLs.

The only thing im not sure how to resolve in this scenario would be communication across servers. How to mitigate spies across servers and such. But anyways there’s my 5 cents

Anet is likely do nothing as usual but I still wanna post a very simple solution to population calculation.

If anet has the full statistic of the server wvw population in specific maps over couple of months. Anet can put a very simple calculation fix.

Currently, the WvW already has its cap and that is called queue. So, is there really a need for double cap? Maps cap and server cap? What I propose is simple. The map queues to reflect the server cap. If a server can queue all 4 maps, then set the server to full at that time. If 3 maps, set it to very high. If 2 maps then set it to high. If one map set it to medium, If half map set it to low. All base on real time total population in WvW maps.

This will accurately reflect the server population for WvW for every timezone. Now, you might worry that people will end up stacking up on a few servers. Now, I ask you this, do you like long queues? People who hate long queues will not stack on those already stacked servers. The proposal here is to balance the WvW population by abusing the map cap queue system. Players on the other hand have to make choice, the choice to stack on a super heavy server with long queues or go to other servers with less queue. Anet’s job is to balance the overall population, it is players’ job to find a fun server with acceptable queue.

I did mention about statistic data, not all timezones have enough population to cover all 4 maps. So, anet have to determine the population range for each different timezone and set the capacity range accordingly. For example, SEA timing might be 2 maps queue and server will be full.

I am not sure whether this has been suggested or not but here goes:
Introduce a dynamic hard capping of server population across all maps combined. Rules being

1: Across all maps combined, no server can have a difference of more than X numbers of players against each other.(let X = 5 for now)
2: If the population difference between the servers is less than 5, the hardcap is increased until the difference reaches more than 5.
3: If a server has players logging off at a signifiant rate thus increasing the population difference between servers over the threshold of 5, the servers with the higher populations will reduce its hard cap after a player from that server decides to log out.
4: Each map is still hard capped at around ~100.

Treeoflife.4031:

Ok so i think this is my first time on this thread so please don’t yell at me if this has been suggested already bc i don’t have the energy to read through all 26 pages of this thread lol. But what about breaking WvW into 3 Alliances. idk what they are called but for example you could use red, blue and green alliances. This would be a continual match up but here is where i think we could maintain identity and also add variety …..

An alliance system has been suggested and it even looked for a while like it may happen but I doubt it now.

That easy fix anet just has stop jq bg for buying guilds and share them between both severs and fixing matches and issues would be solved

People keep thinking about the WvW from 2 years ago. BG is a wasteland in every timezone but NA. There’s not enough people playing this game mode anymore.

morrolan.9608:

Treeoflife.4031:

Ok so i think this is my first time on this thread so please don’t yell at me if this has been suggested already bc i don’t have the energy to read through all 26 pages of this thread lol. But what about breaking WvW into 3 Alliances. idk what they are called but for example you could use red, blue and green alliances. This would be a continual match up but here is where i think we could maintain identity and also add variety …..

An alliance system has been suggested and it even looked for a while like it may happen but I doubt it now.

That’s too bad. I’ve though about it a lot before and i dont think giving ppl incentive to transfer or reducing map caps will help. there will always be imbalance with only 3 servers in a match up, where as constant shifting alliances like i recommended in my OP i could see somewhat correcting this. hope HoT has some plan to address this issue bc ppl burn out from the same match ups…. especially if they are always the underdog.

So… any news on this?

they will open free transfer again for sure «:(

Theres actually 2 ways to make it work, one with megaserver and a complete overhoul of wvw being based on tyria doomed map instead of copy pasta BL’s (maps are already done just needed a few tweaks)where guilds conquer territorial control (each server could control a region or city for example)or bring back servers to pve becouse that was a huge mistake that broken alot of organizations from some groups, luckly wvw players were already organized in ts servers.
megaserver cant exist with seperated wvw servers, makes no sense at all…

the elements of the new bl would be awesone form some maps… who would not like to hold a castle in ring of fire >_> ?? or fight for distiny reach?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Fixing-zerg-and-night-time-WvW-problems/first#post5127076

Torsailr.8456:

Completely abandon the concept of worlds and servers for WvW and replace it with Alliances.

To start with, let players create their own alliances. These alliances would probably start as guild alliances but there shouldn’t be any reason why an individual couldn’t join one. These alliances would then be registered as WvW participants. After alliances are registered, retire the world servers.

Alliances would have a tiered registration.
*Tier 1: less than 500 members.
*Tier 2: 501 – 1000 members.
*Tier 3: 1001 – 1500 members
*Tier 4: 1501 – 2000 members
Have a cap of 2000 members forcing people to create other alliances and stopping stacking/bloating of an alliance. Members will belong to 1 alliance at a time. Have no cap on the number of alliances possible in the game.

Match ups will be based on tier first, then either by leaderboard score or a round robin rotating selection. I believe there would be enough alliances to make a round robin selection possible and effective.

Current world bonuses from WvW would instead be alliance bonuses.

All existing players would have an option to join an alliance, either with a guild or individually.

New players would never get an option to select worlds, their data would just be stored on a random server. The server at this point would be irrelevant. New players would then get to pick an alliance via game play from recruiters just like guilds do. This would allow for a much more informed decision about it as compared to now and allow for better development of “identity” in an alliance as opposed to world servers.

Problems may occur with individuals belonging to different alliances than their guilds belong to. However, this was also true of people belonging to different worlds in the same guild. That issue seems to have had only minor problems and I wouldn’t anticipate alliances creating significantly more in that respect.

This may also make a use for the team chat channel and differentiate it from map chat.

In short, this would level populations, increase the number of “players/alliances” in WvW, create a better sense of identity post megaserver, and still allow people to keep playing as they have been.

“That” was an excellent solution. Just because a server may have a healthy population doesn’t necessarily mean that it has a strong showing in wvw population. This idea would also address that issue as well.

/hatsoff

so at the end would end with more alliances then the wvw servers can hold or a few super alliances for the 24/7 best coverege, imo has players tend tp behavior will lead to the oposite of what Skeletor.9360 thread posted.

quote:
“All existing players would have an option to join an alliance, either with a guild or individually.”

Q: so each guild could have their own spoter?

Sorry to be full negative, but this is a hard problem to get fixed tend in account players behaviour.

Aeolus.3615:

so at the end would end with more alliances then the wvw servers can hold or a few super alliances for the 24/7 best coverege, imo has players tend tp behavior will lead to the oposite of what Skeletor.9360 thread posted.

quote:
“All existing players would have an option to join an alliance, either with a guild or individually.”

Q: so each guild could have their own spoter?

Sorry to be full negative, but this is a hard problem to get fixed tend in account players behaviour.

We already have a massive spotter/spy issue which I’d like to see curbed or better incorporated by design to where all teams have the same tools available to them. Some on principle won’t use a second account to spy while others do.