Guild Wars 2

This is mainly for NA. I posted this in another thread, but wanted to see if others thought this would be a good idea, and add their own ideas and suggestions.

The idea is simple for NA, basically unlink tier 1 and tier 2 servers, create a fifth tier and allow tiers 3/4/5 to each have a 2v2v2 matchup. And reduce each linking schedule to one month, it doesn’t necessarily mean each linking has to change each time, but would just be reevaluated each month instead of the current 2 months. This could potentially help encourage players to destack the top servers and help populate the lower tiers, while also discouraging bandwagoning.

Another option would be to keep the 4 tier structure, but make tiers three and four 3v3v3 matchups.

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?

How will this help unstack BG When BG doesn’t have a link.
How will this help unstack MAG, when MAG is open
As it stands, it appears every server needs a link except 2 servers.
The games population isn’t big enough for 5 tiers and 15 servers.

I believe they should just perma merge servers and be done with it.

Another option ….

((o_Deployable cannon_o))==< – - – - – o [current tiers and glicko]

Using more tiers as a solution to improve the situation thats entirerly caused by tiered matchups is like using a landmine as toiletpaper because you ran out of snakes.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

How will this help unstack BG When BG doesn’t have a link.
How will this help unstack MAG, when MAG is open
As it stands, it appears every server needs a link except 2 servers.
The games population isn’t big enough for 5 tiers and 15 servers.

I believe they should just perma merge servers and be done with it.

The current 2 month linking schedule encourages stacking on a new server each time, basically a new flavor of the month type of thing. The lower cost of transferring to a linked server adds to this effect, so we will basically see people constantly shifting from one server to another each linking. If you remove the links from the top 2 tiers you remove that incentive and encourage players to look at other options instead of just automatically stacking to a upper tier server.

Linking is an interesting idea in theory, however it needs to be implemented properly. Adding a tier 8 world to a tier 1 world adds very little in terms of population, you can have that temporary surge of population because of transfers to the linked server thus causing a the rise and fall that we have been seeing. It just causes to much instability for upper tiers. This especially becomes true when a server that was rising up loses its link and then begins to decline, it is not a stable system for upper tiers because you never know if you will get/lose a link.

Linking can be beneficial though for lower tiers to help boost their populations if you add 2 or 3 worlds together and instead of having an imbalanced matchups like the last linking where it was 4v3v2 for example, just allow it to be 2v2v2 or 3v3v3. Allow linkings to do the most good where it can, the lower tiers.

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

@XTD – actually one of the best ideas I’ve seen in here so far. As a person who’s in the linkup with Mag (many of whom make it clear almost daily that they got to T1 alone and actually ask BP folks to leave a BL if they want “their” people to be able to get in.. lol )…

It would be nice to see something like what you’re suggesting. To me it makes more sense, period.

Getting the ‘low’ servers off of the highest servers would definitely go a good distance in slowing down the bandwagoning of people popping onto the ‘low’ servers because it’s cheaper (500 gems instead of 1000 or 1800).
Leave the high servers alone to do their things as they always have since they aren’t the ones that actually had any issues with numbers…. and so on…

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

He is, look at his post on other threads. He is defending parts of the game that benefit TC and not the rest of the community.

It would actually work for EU even better than NA I think.

In fact something similar was suggested awhile ago. So are you proposing to create an impenetrable wall between T2 and T3?

Also what if one of the high tier servers needs a link to be competitive at the top? What if one of the bottom tiers servers gets bandwagons to? What if 2v2v2 doesn’t produce good matches? As mentioned above Anet balances by population not number of tiers.

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Great, leave the server population to anet. They need to better manage their servers and realize that this isn’t gw2 day one any more.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Each linking is going to produce the same results, imbalance, stacking, and instability as I explained above. If you were fine with the system before linking, why wouldn’t you be fine with essentially the same thing as I proposed. If you get a link and rise up, you will eventually lose the link, lose coverage and numbers and drop, it only produces short term gains for upper tier servers it is not a long term solution. One linking your server will see a rise in numbers, and the next linking, another server will rise and fall same as yours.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Great, leave the server population to anet. They need to better manage their servers and realize that this isn’t gw2 day one any more.

Yes. the mechanics that govern population are left up to Arena Net. Yes, they do need better server management with mechanics. Correct, this isnt day one anymore.

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Each linking is going to produce the same results, imbalance, stacking, and instability as I explained above. If you were fine with the system before linking, why wouldn’t you be fine with essentially the same thing as I proposed. If you get a link and rise up, you will eventually lose the link, lose coverage and numbers and drop, it only produces short term gains for upper tier servers it is not a long term solution. One linking your server will see a rise in numbers, and the next linking, another server will rise and fall same as yours.

I never said I was fine with the system before the link. You put those words in my mouth. BG got a link and was unlinked and they did not fall. Why? Because their coverage comes from their server and not their paired server.

Johje Holan.4607:

It would actually work for EU even better than NA I think.

In fact something similar was suggested awhile ago. So are you proposing to create an impenetrable wall between T2 and T3?

Also what if one of the high tier servers needs a link to be competitive at the top? What if one of the bottom tiers servers gets bandwagons to? What if 2v2v2 doesn’t produce good matches? As mentioned above Anet balances by population not number of tiers.

No it wouldn’t be impenetrable at all, if the relinking reevaluation was also done on a one month basis as I suggested it would also result in better matchups, because the linkings could be changed much more quickly rather then having to wait 2 months. A server at the top doesnt need a link to be competitive this is my whole point. The link is only a temporary boost, because eventually that link will be removed and that winning server will start losing and drop, the link is only a short term boost. As long as the server is not full it can recruit people.

If the 2v2v2 doesnt produce good matchups, it can be changed a lot faster with a one month linking schedule.

I thought linking was supposed to encourage players to buy gems to go stack on the best servers or to get off the worst servers.

Am I wrong?

No matter how you set up the game, you still have to find a way to limit the distribution of the population so the players can’t game the system.

In NA, the 5th and 6th servers have never been able to compete with the top four servers without a massive influx of players.

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

Norbe.7630:

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

Been suggested many times for years.

I think some people are taking the 5th tier suggestion the wrong way. Reestablishing the fifth tier, which is one of the suggestions the other being keeping it a four tier system, is to keep the lower tiers balanced in terms of links so there would not be anymore tri/quad server messes like we had before. If there was a fifth tier, then tiers 3/4/5 can be 2v2v2, if we keep the 4tier system then tiers 3/4 can be 3v3v3, this would be done by unlinking tiers 1 and two (which is also something Tyler hinted at awhile back). The other part of my suggestion would be to have the relinking evaluation schedule set to 1 month in order to provide faster adjustments to matchups this would help compensate for glicko which can take a long time to adjust matchups.

Norbe.7630:

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

I’ve seen people say this, “Remove the tiers”. What does that mean?

Tiers aren’t some artificial construct. They simply result naturally from the fact that it is a three way battle. Tiers are nothing more than the matches going on during a particular week. T1 = match between the 3 highest rated servers that week (after RNG), T2 = then next 3 servers, etc.

Johje Holan.4607:

Norbe.7630:

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

I’ve seen people say this, “Remove the tiers”. What does that mean?

Tiers aren’t some artificial construct. They simply result naturally from the fact that it is a three way battle. Tiers are nothing more than the matches going on during a particular week. T1 = match between the 3 highest rated servers that week (after RNG), T2 = then next 3 servers, etc.

Yeah except that’s not really the case it? Matchups are randomized to the point that T1 servers can meet T3 servers. Therein lies the problem. You can never balance fights that way. That’s why server links wont work. That’s why adding more tiers wont work. With 4 tiers you are artificially locked to 4 matchups. With 5 tiers you are locked to 5 matchups. No more, no less. Nothing will work as long as tiers remain. The only way to move WvW forward is to remove them, period.

ESO is the best example (well, is it the only current one?) of how WvW “matchmaking” can be done. Dont get me wrong now – there are many parts about ESO I dont like when it comes to their Cyrodiil PvP – but the basic idea of generating battles and then filling them up is a good idea. EoTM sort of does something to that effect but not quite.

When you can do any number of matchups – 3 matchups, 4, 6 or whatever then that’s when you solve varying (and declining) populations. Instead of saying that T1 servers should fight each other because, well they are T1, you simply say that server A, B, C fights vs server D, E vs server F, G, H. That’s “matchup #1”. What tiers they are is irrelevant. What matters is that the average population and activity of the three sides is roughly equal.

Will we still have blowouts? Sure, probably. But we would have so much more flexibility in how matchups are made instead of pointlessly arguing about tiers. We would also have more flexible “server” setups. You could have 12 servers or 30, the number doesnt matter anymore without tiers.

Exactly how the ranking system behind such matchups would happen I dont really know. What I have suggested before is 3 factions ranked independantly. You get assigned to a color for 2 months. If you win your matchups, you get glicko points in your faction depending on how your server performed (even if you are in an A, B, C combo). So competion is narrower and done per faction. We would have 3 rank 1 servers for example. After 2 months, glicko reset, your server get some token rewards based on your rank and your color is randomized again (ie all the servers in the 3 factions are shuffled).

Johje Holan.4607:

Norbe.7630:

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

I’ve seen people say this, “Remove the tiers”. What does that mean?

Tiers aren’t some artificial construct. They simply result naturally from the fact that it is a three way battle. Tiers are nothing more than the matches going on during a particular week. T1 = match between the 3 highest rated servers that week (after RNG), T2 = then next 3 servers, etc.

I’d totally recommend removing the tiers.

To do so would require a new game mode where servers attack each other directly…hence…no tiers.

Not going to explain it…cause I’ll incur the wrath of folks who are tired of seeing my posts.

This thread is about improving World Linking, but I can’t think of anything that would help…sorry.

Now back to the discussion of improving World Linking.

See below if you’re interested in a solution that “Removes the Tiers”.

Oh ok. So removing tiers means removing server vs. server and going to an alliance/factions/battlegroup type of arrangement.

Johje Holan.4607:

Oh ok. So removing tiers means removing server vs. server and going to an alliance/factions/battlegroup type of arrangement.

no

either a free for all match 1v23map (for NA)
or
change the tiers into modes, your server gathers points more from PPT you go left, your server likes killing you go right, your server is balanced you go center, maps from modes are different from left to right, not the current same as every tiers

hope that clears you how to remove those pesky tiers and glitchy glicko

Guys I appreciate your input, but please try to stay on topic. The subject of tiers is not the main focus of the suggestion, its just a part of it.

And Diku you know we love you

X T D.6458:

please try to stay on topic. The subject of tiers is not the main focus of the suggestion, its just a part of it.

as the title says, “Suggestion to Improve Server Linking”
………..i thought its a general suggestions to improve server linkings… /sry

just make it, [insert name]’s suggestion to improve server linking, that would be more understandable and no one else will post their own suggestion to improve the linkings

and btw, i think dawdler already explained how adding or removing another tier/tiers wont solve server linking problem or even any of main WvW problems