Guild Wars 2

Cause Anet likes to silence The truth.

medusashadow.3567:

Cause Anet likes to silence The truth.

And even knowing that, you continue? Just accept it and move on buddy. Like most of us already did.

Cecilia.5179:

Liston.9708:

Sarika.3756:

I see a lot of situations where two servers hit a single objective. That’s not collusion. It’s how the game works…

If you were on BG during Season 2, you know the difference.

or you were sbi when yb/ebay turned the match into a real 2 v 1 in seasons as well…

Omg I was there. I think that was one of those things that made large amounts of people quit WvW.

I’m on SBI and loved that match.

Oh, and it produced the greatest matchup thread of all time. 30 pages! In fact, I just Googled it and was able to find it. Oh man, anyone who wants a great read…

We’re already passed the denial, anger, bargaining, depression phases, we’re on the acceptance phase, git with the program sir.

Jeknar.6184:

Sylvyn.4750:

Nuzt.7894:

… well I don’t know what to say, I guess sorry that Anets hates you.

I didn’t get a screeny of it, but we saw an Anet tag on one of SBI’s soldiers tonight…your theory has been confirmed…lol!

But I’ve seen a Anet tag on Dh showing up in the last two weeks (haven’t played much on this one to say if he was still running).

Wonder if they are checking out all sides of the imbalanced matchup in T4? One can only hope!

I’d imagine they are getting some real world experience on what it is like through out the week in t4 to see either:
- if they can help drum up some numbers (unlikely, and would only apply to the Dbay side)
- or if it’s as badly imbalanced as people claim it is

I’m sure they will change up the pairings heavily in DH’s favour next linking. Possibly even bump SBI back up by reverting the glicko change and CD will be back down, with maybe 1 less pairing

“- or if it’s as badly imbalanced as people claim it is”

This past re-set there were a few A-Net people running around on DH+E-Bay. After about an hour or so in we were ticking less than 30. The only thing we had was Our Garrison in APBL and a few camps scattered across the other maps. The only reason we held onto Garri is because the SBI groups failed to work together. (even though it was usually SBI and a SF group at the same time)

Anet can’t save dead servers only players can. Get over it, WvW is not about even numbers, even fights, fair match ups. The old days of guilds anchoring a wvw time zone are long gone.

Across all the servers, how many guilds can you name that are able to anchor their respective time zones by themselves? The current list of elite wvw guilds are minimal. Curent guilds just want to nut hug and complain about uneven fights, pugs, and anet. There aren’t too many elite guilds left across the board.

I miss the days of the standard routines… guilds all working together slotting their respective time slots and (if during prime) maps. The hand offs between the guilds… it was rewarding work … and a great way to learn all the prospective ways of contributing to WvW in a larger picture.

Now, there are very few who do this … and to be honest, it seems like most are the guilds who were more in the backseat of the past, who are now some of the prime identities. Good to see some of them last, but definitely miss the feeling and responsibility of owning your accountability and objectives until the next guys come along and you officially hand it off to them.

Nowadays it is definitely more relaxed (which is good too) but definitely feels less organised and more reactive.

Hexinx.1872:

I miss the days of the standard routines… guilds all working together slotting their respective time slots and (if during prime) maps. The hand offs between the guilds… it was rewarding work … and a great way to learn all the prospective ways of contributing to WvW in a larger picture.

Now, there are very few who do this … and to be honest, it seems like most are the guilds who were more in the backseat of the past, who are now some of the prime identities. Good to see some of them last, but definitely miss the feeling and responsibility of owning your accountability and objectives until the next guys come along and you officially hand it off to them.

Nowadays it is definitely more relaxed (which is good too) but definitely feels less organised and more reactive.

Sorry, I come from the bronze tier and I don’t understand what you are saying.

Johje Holan.4607:

Cecilia.5179:

Liston.9708:

Sarika.3756:

I see a lot of situations where two servers hit a single objective. That’s not collusion. It’s how the game works…

If you were on BG during Season 2, you know the difference.

or you were sbi when yb/ebay turned the match into a real 2 v 1 in seasons as well…

Omg I was there. I think that was one of those things that made large amounts of people quit WvW.

I’m on SBI and loved that match.

Oh, and it produced the greatest matchup thread of all time. 30 pages! In fact, I just Googled it and was able to find it. Oh man, anyone who wants a great read…

I’d have to obtain anti venom before reading that.

I live next to the Pacific Ocean, so there’s enough salt content for me.

Johje Holan.4607:

Cecilia.5179:

Liston.9708:

Sarika.3756:

I see a lot of situations where two servers hit a single objective. That’s not collusion. It’s how the game works…

If you were on BG during Season 2, you know the difference.

or you were sbi when yb/ebay turned the match into a real 2 v 1 in seasons as well…

Omg I was there. I think that was one of those things that made large amounts of people quit WvW.

I’m on SBI and loved that match.

Oh, and it produced the greatest matchup thread of all time. 30 pages! In fact, I just Googled it and was able to find it. Oh man, anyone who wants a great read…

to be honest, I enjoyed the forum thread more than the actual match. Ebay and Yb having a Que v Que dance party at SBI spawn on EBG at the end of the week was enough of the match for me (and I have never been on SBI) ….

(cough) buy gems and transfer (cough)

The only real solution is merges, T4 will still most likely be the deadest of matches but it would prevent some of the server hopping fluctuation.

The issue with Linking is it can be manipulated easily. If we use BG/AR as an example, you can jump to T1 for a mere 500 gems knowing you will be there for 2 months with AR. If BG gets a new low pop server 2 months later it’s pretty easy to justify buying 800 gems to jump again or use gold accumulated over the last 2 months. If servers were merged you wouldn’t be able to bypass the price tag of BG by joining the lower population which would make people think twice about stacking on a T1 server.

People would still stack just as they did prior to links but at least now there is half as many tiers to spread the population between. It would really depend on how well Anet managed to merge.

Nuzt.7894:

It would really depend on how well Anet managed to merge.

And that’s the problem.

sydney.4901:

“- or if it’s as badly imbalanced as people claim it is”

This past re-set there were a few A-Net people running around on DH+E-Bay. After about an hour or so in we were ticking less than 30. The only thing we had was Our Garrison in APBL and a few camps scattered across the other maps. The only reason we held onto Garri is because the SBI groups failed to work together. (even though it was usually SBI and a SF group at the same time)

sadly that’s why we (sbi) never really go anywhere meaningful or do anything important in matchups.
we’re sort of like the sith empire, amazing potential if we decided to work together, and have some very strong guilds and players, but put us together and it ends up being like a power grab, with nothing happening but weaker servers than us getting beaten into utter submission.

Lightsbane.9012:

we’re sort of like the sith empire, amazing potential if we decided to work together, and have some very strong guilds and players, but put us together and it ends up being like a power grab, with nothing happening but weaker servers than us getting beaten into utter submission.

With Darth Bannok MIA, the Sithbluff Isles have their throne open for the next emperor.

Avengedeath.4671:

As I look at the scores the other 3 tiers seem pretty evenly matched. I am hoping with the next link our tier is also more evenly balanced.

The solution is Anet paying attention to six servers against one and they aren’t.

Pathetic that SoS and CD (and linked servers) are working together against a single server.

WvW isn’t part of GW2 any longer, it’s just a forgotten and abused place where thousands are waiting for help.

medusashadow.3567:

Cause Anet likes to silence The truth.

#Truth

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

SoS and CD are doing what they want to do, six against one and then thinking they have so much skill when numbers and nothing more are tearing Tier 4 into a “we don’t want to run today, they just blob us out” for most guilds.

atheria.2837:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

SoS and CD are doing what they want to do, six against one and then thinking they have so much skill when numbers and nothing more are tearing Tier 4 into a “we don’t want to run today, they just blob us out” for most guilds.

Wait I thought it was YB & SoS vs CD, can you guys please make up your minds it’s starting to get so confusing which conspiracy theory is the most absurd.

Nuzt.7894:

atheria.2837:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

SoS and CD are doing what they want to do, six against one and then thinking they have so much skill when numbers and nothing more are tearing Tier 4 into a “we don’t want to run today, they just blob us out” for most guilds.

Wait I thought it was YB & SoS vs CD, can you guys please make up your minds it’s starting to get so confusing which conspiracy theory is the most absurd.

It’s all in the eye of the beholder…one vs another with a 3rd party taking advantage of the other two being distracted. Now…in T4, it is obvious that SF & DH never teamed up against either CD or SBI…so much for the Rebel Alliance…more like Battlestar Galactica’s “ragtag, fugitive fleet, on a lonely quest.”

Nuzt.7894:

atheria.2837:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

SoS and CD are doing what they want to do, six against one and then thinking they have so much skill when numbers and nothing more are tearing Tier 4 into a “we don’t want to run today, they just blob us out” for most guilds.

Wait I thought it was YB & SoS vs CD, can you guys please make up your minds it’s starting to get so confusing which conspiracy theory is the most absurd.

I am pretty sure that was a joke.
From wwwintel it looks like YB has lowest number of deaths. So CD is probably the one being focused.

You people are turning this unto a matchup thread.
Inb4 zealous moderator close it.

Lightsbane.9012:

sydney.4901:

“- or if it’s as badly imbalanced as people claim it is”

This past re-set there were a few A-Net people running around on DH+E-Bay. After about an hour or so in we were ticking less than 30. The only thing we had was Our Garrison in APBL and a few camps scattered across the other maps. The only reason we held onto Garri is because the SBI groups failed to work together. (even though it was usually SBI and a SF group at the same time)

sadly that’s why we (sbi) never really go anywhere meaningful or do anything important in matchups.
we’re sort of like the sith empire, amazing potential if we decided to work together, and have some very strong guilds and players, but put us together and it ends up being like a power grab, with nothing happening but weaker servers than us getting beaten into utter submission.

It’s gotten better. though. Better than the days of 3 groups of 20 trying to glory hog and wiping separately vs 25, lol

Here are all the things Anet could be doing to fix this:

- Weekly relinks. Screw the “inconvenienced TS admins”, it’s either them or the rest of us.
- Free transfers to the lowest ranked pairing of the week.
- Mechanic buffs for the losing side, for example instant white swords, 100% sentry reveal map coverage, deaths don’t give points to winning sides etc.
- Mechanic nerfs for the winning side, for example no white swords, no sentry reveal, no PPK etc.

Here are all the things Anet will do to fix this:

Grav.3568:

- Free transfers to the lowest ranked pairing of the week.

A free transfer to a bad server isn’t going to entice anyone to move. They need to offer a reward to active WvW players that make the switch. Offer some gems or something else of value to the players who help balance out the population. Make it worthwhile to switch.

When one side of the matchup gets ahead by 100k, the other 2 sides get free super powered golems with lasers and missile launchers. Winning side gets to face a horde of crazy mecha pilots until the score gap closes to 70k. Golems get buffed when fighting the winning side.

xzzx.7408:

Grav.3568:

- Free transfers to the lowest ranked pairing of the week.

A free transfer to a bad server isn’t going to entice anyone to move. They need to offer a reward to active WvW players that make the switch. Offer some gems or something else of value to the players who help balance out the population. Make it worthwhile to switch.

How about both?

Akkeros.1675:

xzzx.7408:

Grav.3568:

- Free transfers to the lowest ranked pairing of the week.

A free transfer to a bad server isn’t going to entice anyone to move. They need to offer a reward to active WvW players that make the switch. Offer some gems or something else of value to the players who help balance out the population. Make it worthwhile to switch.

How about both?

I was just trying to say that a free transfer might not entice enough players to transfer to balance out the population. Maybe if they threw in some gems along with the free transfer, it might encourage more players to take them up on the offer.

The one caveat being that before giving out the reward, they should verify that these players who are transferring are active WvW players and not just PvE players looking for free gems.

How about removing server pairing? These alliances are nothing but a nuisance…

There could be a pairing between the last 4 servers (let’s say), but now we face multiple blobs on a same map… Once it was our (single!) server against 3 paired servers and 2 paired servers. 5 against one, bravo…

Either find a better algorithm to balance the server pairing, or remove pairing at once. So far, the only thing this pairing has brought is disgust and removed our will to play.

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.

Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Johje Holan.4607:

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Amem brother.

Strangely in most discussions no one mentioned about the role of commanders and how they affect each server’s/server group’s performance. There are good and bad ones and some that really stands out as par excellent. Maybe it is a sensitive subject. For example, I have followed one that does not speak English nor is on TS, but yet when he is leading, you will find scores of players joining in knowing they are in for a good time. Then there are others that care nothing about their followers nor what is happening on the map, focusing on taking camps and forts whilst their keep is being taken out. Some are kamikaze commanders, their groups being wiped time and again, yet doggedly attacking same objective against all odds.

The problem with the CD quad servers not doing well in T3 is basically CD itself is not up to par as a T3 server. Maybe not even T4 standard and their partners may be uncomfortable following a sub-par server. Unlike their previous linkup to T1 servers, namely BG and TC that carried them successfully, CD is no where close to their standards, without proper TS links, members that focused mainly on setting up defenses and defending, providing Speedy Yaks etc. For example, TC has not one but many TS groups, CD has what, one? I could be wrong so correct me. CD can succeed in T3 provided their linked servers have some confidence in their leadership as the lead server, otherwise most will stay out until the next linkup with what they hope will be a better lead server than their current one.

You just described fairweathers buddy. “These guys can’t carry me anymore, so I’ll just sit out of the match until I can be carried again”.

He also mentions the problem with the server links having a harder time coordinating on comms. It was easiest with coordinating your own server on TS, it was a bit harder with having a partner server and jumping between a couple TS channels, but with 3 and 4 servers in a link, no one even bothers trying to coordinate a multi-server pug group anymore on comms, we’re back to just typing in map chat. At that point, it seems easiest to just go hang on your own server’s TS and see if you can join a small group, which means large groups have no real-time coordination and are more likely to get stomped by a large group from a single server on comms.

As Johje pointed out, population and coverage disparities are still too extreme with the server links. Even the server links with 3 and 4 servers do not have the population or coverage to take on Tier 1 servers. Ideally, the server linkings should strive to make team populations in each tier capable of advancing to T1. As it is, the bottom two server groups in this current rotation, SF & DH, can’t even compete with any server group that gets the short straw and is thrown into T4. That’s where the imbalance really makes itself known and creates a situation that none of the 3 server groups in T4 wants to be in. Close battles are fun, severely outnumbered battles are not.

However, to combine the two thoughts above, to create larger populations that can better compete with any other tier and to improve communications within that population, I think it continues to point towards server merges as the solution. What about bandwagoners that continue to create population disparities? Once servers are merged, have a minimum and maximum population limit that each server must maintain, where transfers to a server can’t go above the maximum limit and transfers out are not allowed once the minimum limit is reached.

Johje Holan.4607:

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

It’s completely relevant when talking about T4, it may not have an effect in T3 but for T4 it had a large effect. This thread is about T4 and the balance issue with it of which the quad server was the direct cause.

Jeknar.6184:

You just described fairweathers buddy. “These guys can’t carry me anymore, so I’ll just sit out of the match until I can be carried again”.

Not entirely true as every server has their fair share of similar player base. The facts are there if one were to visit the websites of all the servers which by themselves shows the quality of the server community. How dedicated they are in recruiting, how to join their TS groups, what meta builds are current etc.

When another server is linked to a host server, it would be easy for them to get to know their host server by going to their website that provide all the information without the need to ask too many questions. That is one of the reasons for successful linkages between servers but if the Host server has poor communication nor an active community, then we see the Host server and their partner servers underperforming.

If WvW players are 100% your ideal type i.e. “non-fairweather” then there is no need for further discussion but they don’t exist and will never happen as every player in PvE, sPvP and WvW are playing the game for their own selfish reason.

GROMIT.7829:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.

Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.

And what happens when a server pushes into T1 and the former T1 server goes down and is facing servers with links like happened with YB? I know YB is close to universally disliked but still what happened to them was absurd.

morrolan.9608:

GROMIT.7829:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.

Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.

And what happens when a server pushes into T1 and the former T1 server goes down and is facing servers with links like happened with YB? I know YB is close to universally disliked but still what happened to them was absurd.

This is true, DH/Ebay is another bad joke by Anet. Linking is a failure, I honestly don’t believe it will work no matter what they do.

As is typical anet have stuffed up the implementation of links. There needs to be flexibility in the system for it to work as well as linking being done with some forethought, which is why monthly relinks should have been chosen. 2 months is simply too inflexible, as well as the stupidity of linking the 4 servers together, some of whom were previously linked to T1 servers and were the apparent beneficiary of significant transfers with those links.

Nuzt.7894:

Johje Holan.4607:

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

It’s completely relevant when talking about T4, it may not have an effect in T3 but for T4 it had a large effect. This thread is about T4 and the balance issue with it of which the quad server was the direct cause.

My point relates to T4 as well. I am saying that people shouldn’t focus on the number of servers but on the population. Inherently, it has to do with the population, not the number of servers. If Anet needs to link multiple servers together to equal the population of a single link then they should do so.

I did say in another thread that human psychology comes into play. And maybe the fact that 4 servers are linked gets everyone excited. And therefore the fairweather effect takes over and gives them an advantage. And the servers with less links irrationally get discouraged just by seeing that they’re up against 4 servers. Is that what you’re saying?

morrolan.9608:

GROMIT.7829:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.

Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.

And what happens when a server pushes into T1 and the former T1 server goes down and is facing servers with links like happened with YB? I know YB is close to universally disliked but still what happened to them was absurd.

YB lost people and fell in the rankings. And it actually happened very fast historically speaking. In the past, servers have been stuck in a tier where they were outmatched for months and months. YB fell to T3 within weeks and found a good place.

morrolan.9608:

As is typical anet have stuffed up the implementation of links. There needs to be flexibility in the system for it to work as well as linking being done with some forethought, which is why monthly relinks should have been chosen. 2 months is simply too inflexible, as well as the stupidity of linking the 4 servers together, some of whom were previously linked to T1 servers and were the apparent beneficiary of significant transfers with those links.

I agree that monthly links should have been chosen. That’s what I voted for.

However I disagree they Anet should by default limit themselves in the number of linkings that they can create. I think it has more to do with their data being out of date than anything else.

Johje Holan.4607:

Nuzt.7894:

Johje Holan.4607:

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

It’s completely relevant when talking about T4, it may not have an effect in T3 but for T4 it had a large effect. This thread is about T4 and the balance issue with it of which the quad server was the direct cause.

My point relates to T4 as well. I am saying that people shouldn’t focus on the number of servers but on the population. Inherently, it has to do with the population, not the number of servers. If Anet needs to link multiple servers together to equal the population of a single link then they should do so.

I did say in another thread that human psychology comes into play. And maybe the fact that 4 servers are linked gets everyone excited. And therefore the fairweather effect takes over and gives them an advantage. And the servers with less links irrationally get discouraged just by seeing that they’re up against 4 servers. Is that what you’re saying?

Your argument is irrational, it wasn’t/isn’t a fair weather effect at all, it’s not a case of people just getting excited, the population wasn’t even remotely close. You can fabricate any excuse you like but the reality is that quad server destroyed any remote chance of balance they had in that tier. Stop reaching for excuses for Anet, they messed up, plain and simple.

Nuzt.7894:

Johje Holan.4607:

Nuzt.7894:

Johje Holan.4607:

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

It’s completely relevant when talking about T4, it may not have an effect in T3 but for T4 it had a large effect. This thread is about T4 and the balance issue with it of which the quad server was the direct cause.

My point relates to T4 as well. I am saying that people shouldn’t focus on the number of servers but on the population. Inherently, it has to do with the population, not the number of servers. If Anet needs to link multiple servers together to equal the population of a single link then they should do so.

I did say in another thread that human psychology comes into play. And maybe the fact that 4 servers are linked gets everyone excited. And therefore the fairweather effect takes over and gives them an advantage. And the servers with less links irrationally get discouraged just by seeing that they’re up against 4 servers. Is that what you’re saying?

Your argument is irrational, it wasn’t/isn’t a fair weather effect at all, it’s not a case of people just getting excited, the population wasn’t even remotely close. You can fabricate any excuse you like but the reality is that quad server destroyed any remote chance of balance they had in that tier. Stop reaching for excuses for Anet, they messed up, plain and simple.

My argument is completely rational. People who are saying that a 4-server link is over powered simply because its 4 servers then their argument is not rational, its emotional.

All I’m saying is that the 4-server link wasn’t over powered because it was 4 servers, it was overpowered because it had more population.

The question is, “Why was the 4-server link over populated?”.

You say Anet messed up. Yes, they messed up. But how? It wasn’t simply that they linked 4 servers together.

• Was their data flawed?
• Did populations change after they took their data?

I don’t think there is any other explanation than one of the above – but how, why? How/Why was the data flawed? How/Why did populations change after they took their data? These are things that need to be figured out in order to improve the linkings.

You’re giving them far to much credit, we the players don’t have access to this “data” and yet somehow we all knew what the results would be. Why did the mess up? because as usual they don’t listen to us, their “data” is wrong as usual which makes one wonder what they are actually basing this “data” off of because it can’t be WvW.

You’re trying to make an argument where there isn’t one, the quad server was the issue. Whether you think 4 other servers would have worked is irrelevant because it is not the case in point.

Johje Holan.4607:

morrolan.9608:

GROMIT.7829:

Gudradain.3892:

The solution is better server pairing. Anyone could see after the first day that CD quad server alliance was too strong for the rest of tier 4.

Exactly this, do not pair the top three servers, I’m from Piken and we haven’t been paired with anyone yet but it hasn’t hurt us in any way.

Simply don’t pair anyone in T1 and problem is solved, why should 1 server who was at the bot now be number 1 coz they are paired with the number 1 server. bring all the lower tier servers together to match the T1 in numbers and you’d get more even fights.

And what happens when a server pushes into T1 and the former T1 server goes down and is facing servers with links like happened with YB? I know YB is close to universally disliked but still what happened to them was absurd.

YB lost people and fell in the rankings. And it actually happened very fast historically speaking. In the past, servers have been stuck in a tier where they were outmatched for months and months. YB fell to T3 within weeks and found a good place.

morrolan.9608:

As is typical anet have stuffed up the implementation of links. There needs to be flexibility in the system for it to work as well as linking being done with some forethought, which is why monthly relinks should have been chosen. 2 months is simply too inflexible, as well as the stupidity of linking the 4 servers together, some of whom were previously linked to T1 servers and were the apparent beneficiary of significant transfers with those links.

I agree that monthly links should have been chosen. That’s what I voted for.

However I disagree they Anet should by default limit themselves in the number of linkings that they can create. I think it has more to do with their data being out of date than anything else.

the data they use to link is clearly out-dated when they make the link. Yb is a prime example ranked as #1 the first link and #3 (no-link) the second go around. Like the algorithm, if there is even one, doesn’t recognize recent trends at all. It certainly doesn’t recognize recent mass movements…..

the problem is that even if they were current and well done, the players continue to mass move on the cheap and everything is out of balance again. If the re-link was every month, I wonder if servers would continue to buy guilds / players continue to pay gems to keep moving. It is one thing to pay 500 gems every month versus every other month… Maybe the simple answer to charge gems at the highest ranked server in any linking. Would ET, DR, IOJ have gotten that fat (at least temporarily) if it wasn’t so cheap?

Johje Holan.4607:

I wish people would stop talking about 4 servers vs. 2 servers, ect. with regards to the linkings. Its not the number of servers that matter, its the population and coverage!

Look at T3 now. The 4-servers are getting beat handily. Getting beat by both other linkings which only have 2 servers in them. Its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

Even if you combined all the NA servers below T2 they couldn’t match DB, BG, TC. Because its not the number of servers, its the population and coverage!

On a BL, server A has around 40 people.
On the same BL, server B has 20. Server A wins.

With servers pairing, server A still has 40 people.
But server B is linked with C and D. B is 20, C is 30, D is 15, that’s 65 playing as a blob.

Population IS now a problem of servers pairing. If without pairings, a server is on the 8th place for weeks, and after it goes down to the bottom on the list because it’s facing paired servers (you know, 80ppl blobs all prime long), it’s really a problem of pairing.