Guild Wars 2

I had written this in another thread, but I think it might be worth its own discussion.

What if there was a rule that any server that goes into T1 does not get a link?

So with linking every two months, if your server (combos), push into T1, at the next linking you become unlinked.

It’s like a threshold that will enable other servers the chance to rally a bigger population and rotate in and out of T1 — and generate variety of matches.

So in T1 you either stand on your own as a server, or you get picked off and drop back down again.

And Anet remains resolute on keeping full servers closed; only allowing in new players through attrition.

Thoughts?

You can’t determine that. A 2 month cycle is too long under a rotation. Our positions change too drasically and so does how population cap. If Arena Net were to say upon a link time that Tier 1 servers are not to have a link, then within 1 or 2 weeks that Tier 1 server will be in another tier imbalanced without a link. An example of this is Jade Quarry or even Dragonbrand.

2 month reevaluation is too slow given player movements. No other server can stand up against BG without a link, and BG doesn’t have one and server-links doesn’t give enough incentive BGers to move thus not giving the surrounding servers a link around BG, will leave that tier imbalanced for 2 months.

ArenaNet needs to figure out a way to balance the servers that are too populated to retain a link.

How would you decide which server should enter t1? The host server?
In EU the number 1 server is 3 servers linked together. How would you do in a situation like that?

In EU for example. FSP, Piken and Jade Sea would all become unlinked and play as solo servers next linking.

If servers that are paired from below push up into T1 then they become unlinked at next pairing.

The minute you enter the T1 threshold, you have to be able to stand on your own or fall down.

In BGs case, keeping the server locked to transfers will offer challenges, and will, at the very least rotate out the other two opponents, giving match variety.

IF the servers push up with a link, they will be able to maintain. If they are unlinked they will drop like a rock and cause an exodus if they cannot rise again.

There is no challenge fighting a server you cannot beat. There is more demoralization and attrition then there is an challenging experience. Furthermore, with your example on current scenario, servers are trying to tank to get a link or to open. What you suggest would make this greater and people will tank match ups before a link, just to drop to Tier 2 and receive a link for the next two months.

All that would achieve is T1 servers dropping out of T1 and T2 servers going T1. Would just make the revolving door effect even worse.

It won’t really change much just servers going up and down within a band of T1-2 possibly some from T3 or any other crazy linking of lower tiers like all French servers being bundled into 1 server.

What needs to be addressed is population movement during linked periods, and how it allows someone to constantly be on the bandwagon server for 2 months for 500 gems. This skews the linkings when the bandwagon players move off it to the next low server that is with a high pop server.

In NA no single server can match BG without a link. That’s a fact. When the needy T1 servers lose their links bad things happen to them; see YB and DB. Also declaring no T1 server gets a link hands the win for two months to BG.

Arbitrary rules lead to a complete lack of flexibility, which leads to a game that is even staler and more imbalanced than the current iteration of the game.

Eh it was just an idea to try to stem bandwaggoning. Guess it’s not worth pursuing. I see all of your points.

I have made this suggestion several times. The instability that linking causes for tiers 1 and 2 is clearly visible. Linking needs to be used to boost populations for lower tiers. The short term boosts for the upper tiers combined with the uncertainty of not knowing if/when you will get a link again leads to a roller coaster type of effect on servers effectively punishing a server for winning.

In order to properly unlink tier 1 and/or 2, the relinking schedule needs to be shortened to 1 month in order to reevaluate matchups more quickly and compensate for glicko.

Quite honestly I am tired of watching servers rise and fall because of linking, this is not healthy for WvW, and makes for terrible matchups. Each linking there is basically the new flavor of the month for people to transfer to, not necessarily because there is incentive to win, but because it is becoming an active server at least for a short time. But eventually it will lose its link, lose people, lose coverage, and drop. We have already seen the effects of this, and will continue seeing it.

Anet is already doing this for NA servers.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

You can’t determine that. A 2 month cycle is too long under a rotation. Our positions change too drasically and so does how population cap. If Arena Net were to say upon a link time that Tier 1 servers are not to have a link, then within 1 or 2 weeks that Tier 1 server will be in another tier imbalanced without a link. An example of this is Jade Quarry or even Dragonbrand.

My examples would include BG, Maguuma, YB and TC. Don’t pretend to be so upstanding.

morrolan.9608:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

You can’t determine that. A 2 month cycle is too long under a rotation. Our positions change too drasically and so does how population cap. If Arena Net were to say upon a link time that Tier 1 servers are not to have a link, then within 1 or 2 weeks that Tier 1 server will be in another tier imbalanced without a link. An example of this is Jade Quarry or even Dragonbrand.

My examples would include BG, Maguuma, YB and TC. Don’t pretend to be so upstanding.

I choose recent examples. MAG has never lost a link after gainning one so they are no example. BG lost a link but did not fall because they have coverage that is well beyond that of their link. Also not an example. TC can be an example although TC has been floating between T1 and T2 for a long period. My examples were sound examples. Yours were not given my point. I also do not pretend. I say whats on my mind.

Jayne.9251:

So in T1 you either stand on your own as a server, or you get picked off and drop back down again.

As we can see from NA so far, this is a terrible idea. No server is able to compete against Blackgate without having a link and even then it depends upon how populous the link is. Moreover, it isn’t creating revolving servers, but revolving population transfers.

That is a bad suggestion. A link will always has the possibilities to exceed the activity level of a single full server and thus if a link managed to enter T1, base on your suggestion, wouldn’t there be a dilemma? A dilemma like all link servers are only “High” in populations. Are you really sure you want to unlink “High” servers?

Anet should focus on balancing all servers (regardless of links) and not attempt to make foolish balance within tiers.

Full servers should not get a link. “Very High” servers should only get a link if and only if they are at the bottom, towards the borderline “High” servers. If they are borderline to “Full” status, linking them should be reconsidered thrice. The only time “Full” and “Borderline Full” servers should get a link is when all other linked servers have exceed their wvw activity level. Also, do include bandwagon allowance calculation.

Also, if the server status is not calculated by individual wvw activity level, then anet should considering doing so. By using individual wvw activity level, any movements between servers can easily be factored in to server status at real time. This will reflect the server status true activity level and display in real time the afflicted cost. This will then become a deterrence to sudden bandwagon (to main or guest servers) and a clear risk factor (for guilds) to move into borderline full servers.

Jayne.9251:

Eh it was just an idea to try to stem bandwaggoning. Guess it’s not worth pursuing. I see all of your points.

This is a easy yet highly controversial problem to solve if ANet truly wants to nerf it’s income it gets out of bandwagoners. All you have to do is get rid of all the incentives that comes with bandwagoning. Since linking old threads are against the rules I’ll just repeat the short version.

NERF THE REWARDS FOR OUT ZERGING YOUR ENEMIES.

A.) Make players choose between out zerging down their enemies and getting almost no reward for it. Or split up for multiple even fights the produces more rewards or as much rewards as out zerging your enemy down now does.

B.) Split each WvW map up into smaller zones. Players who are heavily out numbered in a zone say 3 to 1 odds gets huge statistical bonuses depending and scaling based on how much they are out numbered.

Or you can do the reverse and give the players that are out zerging players down in a zone, statistical nerfs to bring them down “ALMOST” to the level of the players they are out zerging down.

C.) Lock out the first half of server link from server transfers. Say right now 2month links. So from day 1 of server relinks to day 30 or 31 no players can transfer servers till afterwards. Giving ANet and the WvW community that is left time for somewhat balanced match ups, for the first half. Also this allows the bandwagoners(the non competitive WvW players to have their unfair and easy wins through bandwagoning to stack a server or Tier.) This leave ANet to still make money off of the bandwagoners while offering other non bandwagoners time to enjoy unaltered match ups.

There yall go! I seriously believe anything outside of those options or a complete and utter tear down and rebuilt WvW system, there is no solution as. Players these days are just lazy and can’t be asked to compete on a equal playing field. So they use every single “cheesy tactic” in the book plus others. Just to get easy wins and rewards(bags and reward track progression) in WvW at the expense of the other players fun. As is proper for the current iteration of IRL modern world society as a whole.

TL:DR

People in today’s times are some of the biggest scumbags humanly possible, now even in games such as GW2. To fix the problem ANet has to completely nerf the rewards for such behaviors. Or things will get worst, or stay the same just with a different favor/setting. Anything other then nerfing the rewards, or punishment for such scummy behaviors. Just makes all attempts at fixing the problem null and void. Because their is profit at no risk for such scummy behaviors.

@ Reaper Alim.4176 +1

(A) Really agree that they should look into lessen the reward the higher numbers do things. For the simple reason of encouraging people to split up. Create some Risk for the Reward. Make players try to find the golden spot where they can feel they accomplish things while getting rewards for it.

(B) There was a suggestion for a “Local Outnumbered Effect” a while ago, and I think that would have handled this pretty well. If just linking this to static areas like for example the presence of the keep system, I’d be against it.

Also, I’m really not fond of messing with stats for Outnumbered, but there are other ways it could be handled I guess.

© Suggested same myself, it would be interesting to see how it interacted with the “Band Wagon’ers”. (And to find out how much really is perceived effect or not).