Guild Wars 2

A lot of people think server mergers (particularly of the lower tier servers) will fix the problems in WvW.

Unless the underlying problems of WvW are resolved, it’s just a band-aid, until populations decrease enough to require another merger; then another; then another.

I’m sure a lot of T1/T2 people don’t care what happens in the lower tiers but remember there are map caps. The fewer servers there are, the smaller the theoretical maximum WvW population, the fewer resources Anet can justify into the game mode. Before the time comes where mergers kill every server but those in T1 and T2, you can bet the entire game mode will be shut down. It is in the interest of T1 and T2 to keep the lower tiers alive and decently populated.

Don’t argue for server mergers. It’s not a viable long term solution.

And if a server merger is announced, that means there is no expectation of return to previous population levels (otherwise, it’d be stupid to merger). Basically, it’d be Anet saying “I give up.” That’s why there is such stigma in the MMO world against the words “server merger” and why we have “megaservers” instead.

Caveat: All of this is only if you think Anet has intentions of putting dev resources into WvW. If you think Anet intends to keep the current level of attention to WvW, you may as well argue for mergers because there is no long-term future for WvW, so you may as well make the short-term more fun.

Agreed. The real problem is PPT and server scoring. It encourages and rewards server stacking. Hence, in NA we now have 7 over populated servers and the rest in varying states of under population. Some combination of real outmanned buffs, and PPT scaling combined with increased player rewards would be a great start to motivating people to move off super populated servers and to get more PvE and PvPers into WvW…

Actually those seven servers are only overpopulated in WvW.

Actual server population is pretty even if we look at whatever “Very High” means.

We have four “Full” servers, three of them are T1, and the other had to fight hard for place #5.

Every other server is “Very High”(during NA EST at least), and it leads me to believe that its really just a matter of getting more PVE players into WvW.

etrigan.4213:

Actually those seven servers are only overpopulated in WvW.

Actual server population is pretty even if we look at whatever “Very High” means.

We have four “Full” servers, three of them are T1, and the other had to fight hard for place #5.

Every other server is “Very High”(during NA EST at least), and it leads me to believe that its really just a matter of getting more PVE players into WvW.

I wouldn’t be surprised if “Very High” is inflated to sound better, like grade inflation. If you’re not giving metrics out to the public, it’d almost be foolish to not call your lowest population level “Very High.”

In any case though, you’re right, the goal should be to increase the overall WvW population, not declare defeat and consolidate those still playing WvW into fewer and fewer servers.

IMO the underlying problem is the staleness of WvW:

• lack of updates (new maps) and dev attention, combined with
• out of touch devs leading to failed updates (bloodlust ruins, EotM).

As we’ve seen, you can’t retain players this way.

I see no evidence Anet is doing anything about these two problems though, so maybe there is no hope?

This is the most absurd logic I think I’ve ever heard on this topic.

The game is dying. The playerbase can no longer support the number of servers it has. It does more harm than good keeping the player base fragmented because people see fewer and fewer playing each day and they get more and more bored.

You’re right. The game mode needs to change so it’s worth people’s time and energy to play. But in 3 years have you gotten any hint from ANet that they are capable of this? I haven’t.

Server mergers are a necessary way of life with MMOs. They all do it. The fear that the expansion will cause some huge influx of players is also unfounded. This happens in other MMOs too. You know what they do? They open another server and allow servers to transfer to the new one for free.

This constant shuffling of servers ensures the players are always presented with a viable playerbase to enjoy the game with. It’s a far better alternative to the ‘lets wait until ANet fixes WvW and makes it worth doing’ theory you’re trying to suggest.

I will say it again, in no way the population listed as “Very High” is accurate, true, for all servers. It does not demonstrates the real population of the servers, much less the world vs world one. All servers were changed for “Very High” by the end of the 3rd tournament. It is only market, a way to (not) mislead new players while choosing a server.

Do not base anything regarding a server population by what you see clicking the world selection and checking out the population.

Edit: Server merge again… to the post above, can you explain how that will help servers from t3 and below? Most players are based on NA prime time and that’s when have full activity for these tiers. Merging servers that only can field players during the same time zone, will fix anything, will only create queues, which already happens for tier 3 to tier 5. Servers like DH, HoD, SBI, NSP can queue 2 maps during NA prime time, even tier 6 can queue a map.

Lord Kuru.3685:

etrigan.4213:

Actually those seven servers are only overpopulated in WvW.

Actual server population is pretty even if we look at whatever “Very High” means.

We have four “Full” servers, three of them are T1, and the other had to fight hard for place #5.

Every other server is “Very High”(during NA EST at least), and it leads me to believe that its really just a matter of getting more PVE players into WvW.

I wouldn’t be surprised if “Very High” is inflated to sound better, like grade inflation. If you’re not giving metrics out to the public, it’d almost be foolish to not call your lowest population level “Very High.”

In any case though, you’re right, the goal should be to increase the overall WvW population, not declare defeat and consolidate those still playing WvW into fewer and fewer servers.

IMO the underlying problem is the staleness of WvW:

• lack of updates (new maps) and dev attention, combined with
• out of touch devs leading to failed updates (bloodlust ruins, EotM).

As we’ve seen, you can’t retain players this way.

I see no evidence Anet is doing anything about these two problems though, so maybe there is no hope?

I agree with you on the funkiness of “very high” server thing, but we are getting a new map and they are changing things to be more rewarding for holding and defending. So, it’s late but they are apparently learning, and I think that their original strategy for WvW was megaserver and when that was completely rejected by the players it threw their WvW plans down the toilet so to speak.
Also, EotM was a complete slap in the face for WvWers, since it’s clearly designed for PvEers to get WvW achievements done, not for WvWers to play while cued for the real WvW maps…. In general, the Devs are pretty tone def to what the WvW community wants… unfortunately.

Balance issues will never be fixed. Using my server as a example. If we are winning and doing well, the PvE players all come out to play for map completion or in search of a karma train.

Another fact, Yea, My server is top dog in t2 at THIS moment. So we get lots of people transferring. We are simply the flavor of the month.

In time, we could implode, start loosing bad. If and when that happens, the PvE players will stay away, and people will transfer to the new flavor of the moth server.

Last but least, With the expansion coming, who knows how many will continue to play WvW or find the new PvE stuff more enjoyable. You also have to consider, the Game is getting old. People have had there fun, and moving on to other games. Thats just my 2 cents.

Oops forgot. Having commanders on map really makes a difference. Again, we are Winning, Everyone wants to tag up. We are loosing, Good luck finding anyone to tag up.

The greatest myth of the server merger is that you cannot merge servers to achieve balance. Because of the 24/7 game mode, the earth’s distribution of population is not equal amongst all time zones. So when you take the highest pop time zone and fill every map, there will be low pop time zones where some maps will be empty.

Either change the 24/7 game mode or balance map cap per time zone.

Since EotM can’t even be balanced within a 3 hour game mode I don’t see variable map caps working.

Well when I mentioned server populations…what I meant to convey is that ANET knows these metrics…

Whether they plan to use those metrics when HOT comes out or just expect a new BL and players coming back will fill WvW remains to be seen.

They clearly don’t have any immediate plans for WvW, and certainly haven’t shown us they have any interest. Which leads me to believe that the numbers they are seeing in WvW do not warrant any new content.

They can go crazy during the living story events, releasing a new portion every two weeks…but WvW gets next to nothing.

Like I said, they have the metrics, and know exactly whats going on and who/how many participate in WvW.

etrigan.4213:

Which leads me to believe that the numbers they are seeing in WvW do not warrant any new content.

Metrics can be great, but there’s always the danger of interpreting them wrong, which I think Anet does a lot.

The way I see it, numbers are low likely because of lack of new content, which leads to no more new content because numbers are low.

azyume.6321:

Servers like DH, HoD, SBI, NSP can queue 2 maps during NA prime time, even tier 6 can queue a map.

As far as I’ve seen NSP does not ever queue 2 maps outside of reset — and possibly not reset either (I rarely play reset). And it’s T3!

Lord Kuru.3685:

Metrics can be great, but there’s always the danger of interpreting them wrong, which I think Anet does a lot.

The way I see it, numbers are low likely because of lack of new content, which leads to no more new content because numbers are low.

What metrics are you suggesting they misinterpretation? What are those metrics? How are they misinterpreting them?

Server merger would not even have a temp. fix you would just make NA pop. all the higher to the point of being mostly Q for ppl during NA prime. It dose nothing to changes the fact that you cant make ppl play when you want them to the only true problem with GW2 wvw and RvR games over all.

Yes , ranking is based on the WvWvW players skill + population + strategy .

Anet could merge the servers but it will not as it will only show defeat. Instead they will work on future mega-server systems for wvw maps to save face.

Unlike DAoC (During its pre-merger state), GW2 permits you to move you and your entire friends to any server which is not full. Or if full, wait for blackouts or of-hour time peaks.

Anet servers work in the cloud so resources are easily available to growing servers or shrinking servers.

I still think, that it would be wise to give some the lower tiers free transfer window periods before it is too late.

Atherakhia.4086:

It does more harm than good keeping the player base fragmented because people see fewer and fewer playing each day and they get more and more bored.

Those bored players have the option of moving to another server. Why punish those who enjoy the current play style on their server?

People like to win. Superior numbers win. So all they go where are the people.
I think the merging itself is not a sollution. What if the players must choose a guild what they can change every week freely. The game dish out guilds depend on some kind of score. First guild on server 1, second on server 2 etc… Repeat. It will balance the numbers and gives new and new matchups every weeks.
Yes, it destroys “server pride” but empowers the guilds. Guilds finaly not fall apart again and again if they change server

First a little background. Never played below T5(CD). Played about 9 months in T1(BG). Bounced around a bit in T2/T3(SoS and YB).

The following will be a little long.

I personally have never enjoyed dead BLs, and when CD suffered their 2nd or perhaps 3rd exodus my old guild left CD for BG. BG was fun, but way too crowded especially during S1 for my guild and I(almost killed the guild it got so bad), so shortly after S1 we left for SoS. T2/T3 was/is really nice at the time, and even today T2 is great for what I like to do in W3.

I get it that the T2 level isn’t for everyone, but I really think many of the people that proclaim they don’t want anything to do with higher populations found in tier 1 and 2 have never experienced tiers 1 and 2, and so they really don’t have any idea of the playstyle in tiers higher than their own.

My proposition
For a period of 1, 2, or even 3 weeks try something entirely new.
Anet has a golden opportunity here with the introduction of a new BL when HoT rolls out. Forget cycling out old BLs. Add this one and make 5 BLs instead of 4 (If the populations are too high for this then add a clone of EotM that is tied into the weekly score). Then allow for partnering; not merging; of servers. Partner the #1 in T1 with the #3 in T8. #2 in T1 with #2 in T8 and #3 in T1 with the #1 in T8. Do the same with T2 /T7, T3 /T6, and T4 /T5. This will spread the populations over 5 BLs instead of 4, and thereby(hopefully) queues won’t be as much of an issue(at least during NA when we see the most queues).

This is sure to be a contentious suggestion, but as we see with megaservers it’s well within Anet’s abilities to do, and who knows, it might generate some interest.

Instead of merging low pop servers they should merge BL maps. 3 BL maps +SM is too much for low tiers.

Make it 1 BL + SM + New HoT map.

roamzero.9486:

Instead of merging low pop servers they should merge BL maps. 3 BL maps +SM is too much for low tiers.

Make it 1 BL + SM + New HoT map.

I’ve been thinking about this idea a whole lot, I made a thread about this earlier as well. But I think it should have a system to adapt the number of maps to the amount of players. Though there are obvious problems with the idea.

But yes, for the lower tiers a reduction in maps wouldn’t be a bad idea.

roamzero.9486:

Instead of merging low pop servers they should merge BL maps. 3 BL maps +SM is too much for low tiers.

Make it 1 BL + SM + New HoT map.

In my earlier post I pointed out I’ve never been below T5, but what do the BLs really look like below T5? Is it more time of day(I’m guessing OCX/SEA) when you don’t see many players, or more often than that?

Would it make sense to get rid of BLs altogether, and make one large map(not EotM, but kind of like that) for the players to congregate on? Maybe like a mixture of EotM and EBG?

Kaiser.9873:

roamzero.9486:

Instead of merging low pop servers they should merge BL maps. 3 BL maps +SM is too much for low tiers.

Make it 1 BL + SM + New HoT map.

In my earlier post I pointed out I’ve never been below T5, but what do the BLs really look like below T5? Is it more time of day(I’m guessing OCX/SEA) when you don’t see many players, or more often than that?

Would it make sense to get rid of BLs altogether, and make one large map(not EotM, but kind of like that) for the players to congregate on? Maybe like a mixture of EotM and EBG?

Eh, it depends a lot upon the server. I’m on Kaineng and we got one of the games weirdest coverages, so we’re a horrible example.

But in general from what I’ve spotted from the others servers I’ve played against:

• Prime time home BL usually have at least 10-20 around.
• Prime time enemy BL usually have at least 1-5 around.
• Non Prime time home BL anywhere from 1-10
• Non Prime time enemy BL anywhere from 0-5

This is just a very rough generality, every server have their differences, take into consideration that weekends have a bit more, and week-days a bit less, usually.

EBG is a chapter for itself, and usually have the largest amount of players, many servers can still Que EBG especially on reset.

PS: If you want to see the games weirdest Coverage match-up, take a look at our current match-up. Kaineng vs FC vs SoR. It’s haywire. All of us have completely different coverage, and none of us have what would be considered a “normal” coverage. (We’re probably the games most quiet servers in terms of PvF…)

@joneirikb

That seems awfully underpopulated. I remember Kaineng from the old WM days when I was on CD, and they were always fun to play against.

Is the lack of players a motivational thing, a population thing, or do the players down there like it like that? I know many players feel tremendous server loyalty, and don’t move because of that. Do you find that’s the case?

Hmm, it is probably a bit more than that to be honest, consider my previous post a sort of "minimum" sort of thing. And as said, EBG is usually lively enough, but I’m so rarely there myself, so I can’t say I have anything near proper numbers for that. And the EBG group(s) often map jump to save home BL, or do a quick raid on enemy BL etc, so numbers do happen.

Lots of different reasons as to why. Some have server pride, others have what I call Server Lazyness (to lazy to change server, doesn’t care enough about it), lots just likes it where they are because of friends and guilds, some enjoy the low population (roaming specifically). I can’t say how many are of each, no idea.

For myself, I’ve server hoped a lot over the years since GW2 was released, because I play with friends in both EU and US, and the stupid guesting and megaserver won’t let me jump over the pond!

Ended up on Kaineng which was the cheapest US server to transfer to at the time. But I never played WvW until I ended up on Kaineng, and now I don’t want to move, because I like the crazy lot I play with. Also lucky enough, I like roaming and small group fighting (and fall asleep during zergs), so I sort of hit the jackpot.

I do not think it fair to new players coming in to be denied the same wvw experience that they could receive on other servers, for example, my friend started playing GW2 couple of weeks ago, and forgot to ask me what server I was on to play with, so he went with Anets recommended server… ANVIL ROCK. Yes, Anet is showing new players the best wvw has to offer as being ANVIL ROCK. SO now for him to get out of what he considers a kitten hole, he has to pay to leave. HE just started this game and is already having to pay more to even have an equal opportunity to play competitive wvw as it was meant to be played. He just gets to watch us enjoy our wvw experience by looking over our shoulders as we play or gets to fork out gems to be able to experience that at all,

I think this is a terrible wrong to incoming players, and definitely not what you want to show people you want to play your game for many years to come. ALL players should have the same opportunity to experience the same level of game play. Denying them that because some people dont want other players around isn’t fair to those who actually want to play a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing game with Massive amounts of people.

We need more people to be able to play together, not less. That is what Massively Multiplayer games are meant to be. Other wise it should just be a corpg.

@lil devil x

I do agree with you, new players should not be forced to pick servers the first time they enter the game, without any information or knowledge about their choice. And I do find the whole GEM transfer costs to be a big bother for something I believe they do automatically.

* Don’t make people choose server until they:
* Walk into WvW for the first time
* Join a guild, open box asking if you want to join same server as guild

* Give people at least 1 free transfer afterwards, for example tied to joining guild.

* Reduce the gem costs to something anyone can handle, say 5$

Also, can’t really say I agree with WvW being competitive. But that is probably a matter of perspective and opinion. I wouldn’t mind letting people actually guest to other servers and try WvW there, I realize there would be a bunch of people trying to troll and sabotage that way though. I just don’t think people should take winning in WvW so serious, it is a game, and the way WvW is designed it will never really be competitive.

PS: Remind him that if he has only played for a couple of days/weeks etc, stuff all his things in the bank, delete characters, and transfer for free. I do hope he ends up somewhere he can enjoy.

joneirikb.7506:

@lil devil x

I do agree with you, new players should not be forced to pick servers the first time they enter the game, without any information or knowledge about their choice. And I do find the whole GEM transfer costs to be a big bother for something I believe they do automatically.

• Don’t make people choose server until they:
  * Walk into WvW for the first time
  * Join a guild, open box asking if you want to join same server as guild

• Give people at least 1 free transfer afterwards, for example tied to joining guild.

• Reduce the gem costs to something anyone can handle, say 5$

Also, can’t really say I agree with WvW being competitive. But that is probably a matter of perspective and opinion. I wouldn’t mind letting people actually guest to other servers and try WvW there, I realize there would be a bunch of people trying to troll and sabotage that way though. I just don’t think people should take winning in WvW so serious, it is a game, and the way WvW is designed it will never really be competitive.

PS: Remind him that if he has only played for a couple of days/weeks etc, stuff all his things in the bank, delete characters, and transfer for free. I do hope he ends up somewhere he can enjoy.

He purchased the heroic edition and would lose his free skins and other non tradeable items he has already purchased. That was the first idea we thought of for him, but he really doesn’t want to lose what he paid for already.

It is competitive if you play it that way. Try having 40 BG and 60 TC in your gari both trying to kill you and not fighting each other and see how competitive it can be!

I love those battles that go on for hours, all walls and gates down and you are still standing outnumbered in a battle that seems hopeless and you still manage to pull it out and win against all odds. Those are what make the game worth playing for me. I love it!

No idea what comes with the Heroic edition, but shouldn’t skins unlock to the accounts wardrobe ? And at least everything I’ve bought on the gem store is account bound. And if he bought soul bound equipment etc, they usually don’t cost to much (at least not compared to transfer gems). Ah well, probably something I can’t think off.

The optimal solution would be that the two of us could play on the same server, but play the style each of us enjoyed. So that you could have your big EBG battles, and I could have my small group roaming in borderlands without getting blobbed down etc.

The way the maps and system works right now, server merges would kill some of that. There are definitive things that could be done to change that, but it would require ANet to put resources and time into restructuring several parts of the core system of WvW, and put in a couple of alternative maps for more play modes to be satisfied (with different rules, like say a borderland map with max cap 40 etc).

joneirikb.7506:

No idea what comes with the Heroic edition, but shouldn’t skins unlock to the accounts wardrobe ? And at least everything I’ve bought on the gem store is account bound. And if he bought soul bound equipment etc, they usually don’t cost to much (at least not compared to transfer gems). Ah well, probably something I can’t think off.

The optimal solution would be that the two of us could play on the same server, but play the style each of us enjoyed. So that you could have your big EBG battles, and I could have my small group roaming in borderlands without getting blobbed down etc.

The way the maps and system works right now, server merges would kill some of that. There are definitive things that could be done to change that, but it would require ANet to put resources and time into restructuring several parts of the core system of WvW, and put in a couple of alternative maps for more play modes to be satisfied (with different rules, like say a borderland map with max cap 40 etc).

That is the thing about the different playstyles, I play ALL play styles depending on what is needed, or what I feel like doing. The first thing I did when I came to T1? I went and solo’d QL from Black gate. You can still do that even on populated servers… The thing about having balanced severs, is that is able to happen much easier than on servers where one side is heavily populated and the other is not. I just let the zerg distract them at bravos and their keep and when they were keeping them busy I ninja’d it from them!

Havoc and roamers can still be very effective even on T1, In fact we rely on them and frequently ask them to take out targets while the zerg is busy. On a good server, the whole server is working together as one team, the roamers, scouts, defenders, havoc, gank squad, and zerg all coordinate targets and help one another as needed. You are one team, playing different positions, not just a bunch of random people on the same map.

This was part of what he received:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Heroic_Chest
He also has hair kits and this I think:
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Introductory_Package

Items that are put in personal bank are not deleted even if you delete all your characters and transfer.

Also currency are not deleted either (example gold). You don’t even have to do anything and the currency will be kept.

Gudradain.3892:

Items that are put in personal bank are not deleted even if you delete all your characters and transfer.

Also currency are not deleted either (example gold). You don’t even have to do anything and the currency will be kept.

Yes, but you do not receive the self style hair kits you used back, all the xp boosters you paid for, nor all the characters you were told to create asap so they all had birthdays.

I think WvW is inherently broken and unfixable. There will never be true balance. They could in theory use the mega-server technology to auto balance the maps and throw servers out the window, but then I think players would treat it like EotM, and no one wants that. Plus I actually like the idea of servers.

The problem is fun. Since I started playing for the sale my randomly chosen (well the name was cool) server has been out numbered every week. I have never seen a score that wasn’t skewed unfairly to another server. I don’t know, if it’s normal or how people put up with this, but it’s very much NOT fun. I also know that in the last 3 weeks we allegedly lost at least 3 guilds to other servers. So I know that unless we drop a few tiers, we will be unfairly matched. And I’m pretty angry. I don’t blame the guilds that left, or the servers stomping us. I blame the system. There’s nothing worse than playing PVP in any game and going into the map missing most of your team. It’s the worst. You can play as hard as you can, but you can never replace those missing players, and even if your side fills up, it’s unlikely you will recover.

That’s what I get for watching cool WvW guild videos on YouTube and assuming, wrongly, that any server would be like that. Which way to the bandwagon?

@Coyote:

I do agree that WvW is inherently flawed, and it basically forces players to make their own rules/restrictions in order to get a balanced match-up.

I don’t really know exactly what ANet wanted with this game mode, what their goals and design was based on. But I do get the feeling that they wanted it to be a whole lot more casual than what we currently see.

As such, I’m wondering, what would happen if we removed PPT ? and points entirely ?

I don’t even know what that would do to the game mode, but perhaps people would take it less serious, and just go play what they wanted to ? Or perhaps it would just turn into another EotM with no rewards.

I think ANet wanted their sPvP to be their serious competitive mode, and WvW to be the sort of relaxed place where PvP people could go to not take things to seriously, and PvE players could go to get a small taste of PvP in an environment they would be familiar with. And the whole points thing was just a way to channel people towards something.

Dunno. But I really do wonder what ANet’s design plan was for WvW. It is clearly not what it turned into, since they seem to be completely flabergasted what to do with it.

I think that if they raised the cap on custom PvP maps to 15 or 20, it would solve a lot of smaller issues around the game.

joneirikb.7506:

@Coyote:

I do agree that WvW is inherently flawed, and it basically forces players to make their own rules/restrictions in order to get a balanced match-up.

I don’t really know exactly what ANet wanted with this game mode, what their goals and design was based on. But I do get the feeling that they wanted it to be a whole lot more casual than what we currently see.

As such, I’m wondering, what would happen if we removed PPT ? and points entirely ?

I don’t even know what that would do to the game mode, but perhaps people would take it less serious, and just go play what they wanted to ? Or perhaps it would just turn into another EotM with no rewards.

I think ANet wanted their sPvP to be their serious competitive mode, and WvW to be the sort of relaxed place where PvP people could go to not take things to seriously, and PvE players could go to get a small taste of PvP in an environment they would be familiar with. And the whole points thing was just a way to channel people towards something.

Dunno. But I really do wonder what ANet’s design plan was for WvW. It is clearly not what it turned into, since they seem to be completely flabergasted what to do with it.

I think that if they raised the cap on custom PvP maps to 15 or 20, it would solve a lot of smaller issues around the game.

I would love larger sPVP maps, and if they had siege and keeps… /drools I am less fond of 5v5, but I still enjoy that from time to time. There’s too much pressure on each player and a weak player can cost you the game. A weak player in sPVP could just be one that’s support focused. And it sucks to get pigeon holed in a few select builds to be competitive. This is why I like larger scale PVP because it focuses more on group and cooperation, individual skill plays less, and you get a bit more freedom with your builds. Ideally this would be why I love WvW, but no build makes up for being severally out numbered.

I’m not sure what they had in mind either, but the idea is a good one. Castle wars with siege between three servers? That sounds awesome! And honestly? I don’t care about points or who wins. I care about outnumbered, not the buff, but actually being greatly out numbered. It’s about getting smashed by a much larger force to the point it’s not a battle, but a massacre. There’s no challenge for either side, where’s the fun?! But you know fun is subjective, maybe those servers love killing puppies? /shrugs

roamzero.9486:

Instead of merging low pop servers they should merge BL maps. 3 BL maps +SM is too much for low tiers.

Make it 1 BL + SM + New HoT map.

For removing BLs, note that in T1 , 2 maps can get ques during NA and SEA. So removing 1 BL will be a problem. However i do look forward to how they will fix the problem with another wvw map in the rotation. From dev internal response, they do not want another eotm

I would like to see a server merge between EU and NA. More players, more 24/7 coverage, and a major change to t3/t2.

The answer (which was obvious from when the game first released) is stop trying to match a fixed sized game (3 borders + EB) with various server populations.

1. The size of the game needs to scale with the number of participants.
2. Opponents needs to be matched to similar quality and quantity of opponents.

These can both be done, but you have to dump the server model. Let players fight for their guild, not for their server. Let guilds form a limited number of alliances such that they are more likely to be on the same team on a map, and less likely to be opponents.

Belorn.2659:

I would like to see a server merge between EU and NA. More players, more 24/7 coverage, and a major change to t3/t2.

cant find eneught + to upvote, that is one of the best solutions, but i imagine the cost of merging those two :<

They could change also the WvW model.. they already have a Tyria map done, we need the 4th great guild wars

Aeolus.3615:

Belorn.2659:

I would like to see a server merge between EU and NA. More players, more 24/7 coverage, and a major change to t3/t2.

cant find eneught + to upvote, that is one of the best solutions, but i imagine the cost of merging those two :<

They could change also the WvW model.. they already have a Tyria map done, we need the 4th great guild wars

I know I have seen a dev response to this which unfortunately stated that there were technical reasons why EU and NA servers could not be merged…

Tspatula.9086:

Aeolus.3615:

Belorn.2659:

I would like to see a server merge between EU and NA. More players, more 24/7 coverage, and a major change to t3/t2.

cant find eneught + to upvote, that is one of the best solutions, but i imagine the cost of merging those two :<

They could change also the WvW model.. they already have a Tyria map done, we need the 4th great guild wars

I know I have seen a dev response to this which unfortunately stated that there were technical reasons why EU and NA servers could not be merged…

Yes, specifically because the EU servers are separate physical servers in EU, and the US servers physically in US. This is also why you can’t “Guest” between US/EU servers, and why you can’t play with each others in MegaServer, or in EotM etc.

The only way they could fix that would be to merge the physical servers into one location. Which would increase lag to one or the other. If they moved all servers to US, then EU players would be forced to play on a server “over the pond”, which would give them a bit more lag. (Don’t know how much)

So, nope, this is not likely to ever happen.

Pikka.6023:

Let players fight for their guild, not for their server. Let guilds form a limited number of alliances such that they are more likely to be on the same team on a map, and less likely to be opponents.

How many of the players on your server are essentially pugs, with very few fellow guild members who play WvW?

In my experience — in T3 and below — that’s most players. Sure there are a couple big(ish) guilds per server, but most of the population are pugs. Despite the name Guild Wars, not much of this game is guild based.

@Lord Kuru

The name Guild Wars is actually for background/lore/fluff reasons. Though it looks they want to strengthen that aspect a bit in the exp.

joneirikb.7506:

@Lord Kuru

The name Guild Wars is actually for background/lore/fluff reasons. Though it looks they want to strengthen that aspect a bit in the exp.

Oh, of course, I just thought it was pretty ironic. In any case, I often see people suggesting making WvW based around guilds and guild alliances, but what I’ve observed from T3 all the way down to T7 is that most players are pugs and not running with guilds most of the time. T1 and T2 may be different, of course.

server merging is a clear indication of population decline in gw2
anet need to figure why ppl are quitting the game.

Kaiser.9873:

@joneirikb

That seems awfully underpopulated. I remember Kaineng from the old WM days when I was on CD, and they were always fun to play against.

Is the lack of players a motivational thing, a population thing, or do the players down there like it like that? I know many players feel tremendous server loyalty, and don’t move because of that. Do you find that’s the case?

Eh, [WM] is on Blackgate these days. Both members.