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.
You just don’t want to accept that he do have a point.
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.
You just don’t want to accept that he do have a point.
His point has literally nothing to do with anything, people are talking about the CD quad server, say it with me, the CD quad server.
We could sit here all day and talk about stuff that has not happened and may not happen and try and justify it but what exactly is the point? This thread is about the current match up not some imaginary one that coulda shoulda woulda been balanced.
You know what else would have been awesome and worked? If on day one Anet had balanced all classes properly, paid more attention to WvW since release, found a way to prevent server stacking. You know what though, it doesn’t matter because it didn’t happen.
So can we continue talking about the match up that did happen and was unbalanced instead of trying to justify some imaginary match up that has yet to happen?
Futher more I will give you one legitimate reason why a quad server will never work in GW2. Because Anet.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
His point has literally nothing to do with anything, people are talking about the CD quad server, say it with me, the CD quad server.
People are complaining about CD quadserver even when CD quadserver isn’t able to compete with the 2-server links from T3. Honestly, you weren’t in T4 to see the ammount of moaning about CD having 4 servers that I saw right on the reset of the first week. People DID QUIT even before seeing how the populations would fare simply because 2v3v4 wasn’t fair. Hell, we’re losing a lone server server now! You gonna tell me that the 3-link of SF+ is unfair to YB? Because these people would.
The ammount of linked servers isn’t the issue, the population is. They can link 10 servers if they want as long the population in the match get somewhat balanced.
Actually yes, I have 5 account one of which is on DH, don’t assume to think you know what people have and have not witnessed. Once again, for someone who lurks both here and the cancer forums you just can’t seem to grasp what I’m saying. The quad server ruined T4, even by your own admission people were quitting before it started as a direct result of tri and quad servers. However what I’m saying is any pairing that has yet to happen does not matter whether it is 1 or 10 servers because it has not happened. Lets focus on what IS happening not what might happen. We will cross that bridge and determine if it’s balanced or not if/when it happens.
I do think it’s funny that you proved my point and still want to argue it, the linkings made people quit before they saw the balance is a good indication that it was a not healthy for the game because people were aware that the balance was off. Now if all 3 servers had a quad linking it may have been different but that did not happen so it doesn’t matter.
Seeing that CD isn’t doing so hot in T3, let’s flip the argument around…it’s not that the Quad Server idea was bad or that the population generated was too much, because it obviously isn’t for T3, it’s that SF and DH were left with being UNDER populated compared to everyone else. It’s like 10 famous Major League football team quarterbacks got to pick all the MVP players to complete their teams, and as an afterthought, two minor league guys got to pick a few of the leftovers and are being thrown into major league games without a full roster. There’s just no way to fix it without giving the two minor league teams some of the MVPs that the other teams got. They need to shoot for all server pairings to have roughly the same populations, because just like in sports, it’s all about coverage.
Seeing that CD isn’t doing so hot in T3, let’s flip the argument around…it’s not that the Quad Server idea was bad or that the population generated was too much, because it obviously isn’t for T3, it’s that SF and DH were left with being UNDER populated compared to everyone else. It’s like 10 famous Major League football team quarterbacks got to pick all the MVP players to complete their teams, and as an afterthought, two minor league guys got to pick a few of the leftovers and are being thrown into major league games without a full roster. There’s just no way to fix it without giving the two minor league teams some of the MVPs that the other teams got. They need to shoot for all server pairings to have roughly the same populations, because just like in sports, it’s all about coverage.
This is true, had they split the linking up better it probably wouldn’t have been such an issue. The fact that DH got Ebay and only Ebay just shows how inaccurate Anets “metric” truly are, or they just didn’t care enough to pay any attention to balancing and let random rolls take over. All other tiers are relatively close to balanced, YB is the other exception which is why had they done something like Give YB the lowest pop of the quad server, given DH the Middle pop and Ebay, and let CD retain the highest pop of the linking it probably would have been more balanced. DH would have had 3, SF would have had 3, YB and CD would have had 2, this would have put YB closer or equal to the rest of T3 and CD more in line with T4. Again it doesn’t matter at this point because coulda shoulda woulda, I just hope they either Merge or learn from this, pay attention, and manually adjust when needed.
Actually yes, I have 5 account one of which is on DH, don’t assume to think you know what people have and have not witnessed. Once again, for someone who lurks both here and the cancer forums you just can’t seem to grasp what I’m saying. The quad server ruined T4, even by your own admission people were quitting before it started as a direct result of tri and quad servers. However what I’m saying is any pairing that has yet to happen does not matter whether it is 1 or 10 servers because it has not happened. Lets focus on what IS happening not what might happen. We will cross that bridge and determine if it’s balanced or not if/when it happens.
I do think it’s funny that you proved my point and still want to argue it, the linkings made people quit before they saw the balance is a good indication that it was a not healthy for the game because people were aware that the balance was off. Now if all 3 servers had a quad linking it may have been different but that did not happen so it doesn’t matter.
What is your point? Because Jeknar proved my point. Maybe we have the same point and don’t realize it.
All I was saying is that some people seem to be focusing on the number of servers in a link when they should be focusing on population. If people became emotional about 4 servers being linked then that is a problem. They shouldn’t worry about how many servers are linked.
So are you pointing out that this specific 4-server linking was faulty and that the players knew that based on their knowledge of the servers involved? (Given you say above that we are talking about the CD quad server then maybe this is what you are saying).
Or are you saying that Anet shouldn’t do 4-server links vs. anything less at all? (This is what I thought but given your above post maybe not – but this is what I was responding to because some people kept saying 4 v 3 v 2 or 4 v 2 v 1 in a general sense). If so, given human psychology, I would say perhaps you are right. But this gives Anet less options as far as linking servers trying to balance the population. And I say they shouldn’t worry about this for now, maybe it was just the particular servers involved that caused the emotional response.
(edited by Johje Holan.4607)
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.
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?
I definitely think they should charge gems at the highest ranked server in a linking. I would even say if a server is full, then their linked servers should be marked full too.
Close t4 and link it with t3, I would be interested to see if they could compete with t2 or even t1 then. XD
Nope.
As you see the results from YB. YB doesn’t have a link and is doing fine, actually completely blowing out T4 while being somewhat balanced (minus timezone coverage gaps) for current T3.
The only way SOS and SBI could compete vs T2 would be if they remain linked with a strong server or 2 weak ones, while YB, FA, Mag, JQ, BG, TC and DB stay as single servers.
As for T4, or rather T8-T7-T6, I have been on it for a long time before finally giving up, and I firmly believe they should have been dissolved long ago never allowing the situation to get so out of hand that these links became necessary just in order to find any action / play whatsoever in the 1st place.
YB has t3 pop, but limited off hours coverage. However, it’s still stuck in glicko freefall due to the way glicko works, combined with Anet giving temporary glicko points to the CD combo.
There are some loud voices that dislike YB for historical reasons. But none of you want your server to end up the victim of a perfect storm of stupid that you can’t get ahead of. And YB today isn’t the same as YB from two years ago. Nor is it the same as the YB the alliance decided to push up tiers.
Always remember that the circumstances that dropped YB so fast can happen to your server, too. Glicko is a fickle, inherently non working mistress.
Regarding SoS/YB vs. CD, I’ve seen it. I have a video of it. YB held SMC and briefly before the reset last week, CD grabbed it (I believe we lost it again just before reset). We owned (mostly) the south corridor. We fought YB in the NW corridor and SoS in the NE corridor. Did YB/SoS fight each other? Nope.
I’ve also seen, but don’t have a video for, YB and SoS grabbing the CD towers on either side of the CD EBG keep.
If it isn’t coordinated, they’re certainly making it strongly feel like it is.
It may look like it to you that CD was double teamed but you wasn’t. Most of the YB commanders don’t play like that. It was just by chance that YB was hitting one tower while SOS was hitting the other one. As for SMC, it was just smart play style that it happened that way.
Close t4 and link it with t3, I would be interested to see if they could compete with t2 or even t1 then. XD
Nope.
As you see the results from YB. YB doesn’t have a link and is doing fine, actually completely blowing out T4 while being somewhat balanced (minus timezone coverage gaps) for current T3.
YB isn’t a “t4” server, the 4 in the 4 link are though. I’m interested to know if you fold the t4 servers onto the t3 servers, how big would their population be? enough to compete with t1 servers?
I’m wondering if it’s better to try and build bigger t3 servers to compete with the top 6, would it be better to try and produce 9 servers for a better rotation between tiers instead of the walls that keep getting created between tiers.
I already know we’ll get complaints from players who want to play on emptier servers, but you know what, that eventually will happen anyways as we continue to lose players from wvw and gw2.
I’m interested to know if you fold the t4 servers onto the t3 servers, how big would their population be? enough to compete with t1 servers?
No… Maybe the servers from the SF links, but Dh and EBay would at best make a T3 server be ‘competitive’ to T2.
hmmmm, my former guild transferred on Ebay pre linking, mind you, thats the biggest WvW guild of GoM at that time, got kicked out for staying on GoM, so i think DH and EBay just having a slumber party on WvW
hmmmm, my former guild transferred on Ebay pre linking, mind you, thats the biggest WvW guild of GoM at that time, got kicked out for staying on GoM, so i think DH and EBay just having a slumber party on WvW
And what guild it would be…?
hmmmm, my former guild transferred on Ebay pre linking, mind you, thats the biggest WvW guild of GoM at that time, got kicked out for staying on GoM, so i think DH and EBay just having a slumber party on WvW
And what guild it would be…?
I’m also interested in knowing…
people and guilds cant be voted off the island. web site and ts yes – server no…….
I’m interested to know if you fold the t4 servers onto the t3 servers, how big would their population be? enough to compete with t1 servers?
No… Maybe the servers from the SF links, but Dh and EBay would at best make a T3 server be ‘competitive’ to T2.
Who said anything about only adding dh/eBay to their own link lol, we all know one of the 4 link should have been with them.
YB isn’t a “t4” server, the 4 in the 4 link are though. I’m interested to know if you fold the t4 servers onto the t3 servers, how big would their population be? enough to compete with t1 servers?
I’m wondering if it’s better to try and build bigger t3 servers to compete with the top 6, would it be better to try and produce 9 servers for a better rotation between tiers instead of the walls that keep getting created between tiers.
I already know we’ll get complaints from players who want to play on emptier servers, but you know what, that eventually will happen anyways as we continue to lose players from wvw and gw2.
The Quad server is more T3 by sheer population/coverage rather than T4, though. They are a lot closer in score to the T3 servers than they ever were in T4, clobbering the other 2 server pairings in T4 by 100-150k points each cycle.
I agree, we should just have all T4 servers rolled into T3. SF & DH don’t have the population to be host servers, and the remaining servers they were combined with didn’t have much population left to speak of, either.
IMO if Anet isn’t going to do server merges then the linking system needs a major revamp. Main thing that needs to change is guest servers being able to have their own score over time, and more recognition of their accomplishments such as names over objectives. There should be a fixed set of criteria for promoting guest servers to host servers based on their performance/individual server score.
Even if this is done, removing the old lower tier servers and creating new ones might be a necessary step – hopefully let players start on new server with new history.
The Quad server is more T3 by sheer population/coverage rather than T4, though.
Well yeah combined they are closer to t3, but by themselves they’re all t4, they wouldn’t replace any of the current t3 servers as a host.
YB SoS SBI are all still t3 sized servers, even if YB doesn’t look like t3 to some, their celebrity commander has been missing who use to be able to pull big numbers around him and keep their ppt up, they’re still bigger than the other t4 servers.
Crystal Desert, Kaineng, Eredon Terrace, Borlis Pass, Sorrow’s Furnace, Ferguson’s Crossing, Gate of Madness, Darkhaven, Ehmry Bay are all t4 type servers that could be used as links to balance out t3. And maybe make t3 big enough to compete with t1 and t2.
It’s just a thought on a scenario that could have 3 competitive tiers, and not t1 rotating sometimes with t2, t3 forced to endure t4 servers, t4 forced to endure t3 server, mismatches and barely any fun thanks to poor links. But I know there are players who don’t want to be on t1 sized servers anyways.
To be fair both SoS and SBI have a linked server YB does not. There is actually a lot of servers that could be T4, HoD, AR, SoR, pretty much every linked server by themselves could be considered T4.
It’s just a thought on a scenario that could have 3 competitive tiers, and not t1 rotating sometimes with t2, t3 forced to endure t4 servers, t4 forced to endure t3 server, mismatches and barely any fun thanks to poor links. But I know there are players who don’t want to be on t1 sized servers anyways.
Having played on GoM for about a year now, I’d say it is too small to go back to being its own separate server. Man, it was even dead in EBG before the linkings…I could be the only one defending SMC against a zerg of 5 enemy soldiers…epic, right? Since then, we’ve lost some core fighters and commanders, and server pride and identity is about as low as it can get. I think many realize this and are probably ready to move on to the next phase of WvW, whatever that ends up being, as long as it keeps things alive and interesting.
IMO if Anet isn’t going to do server merges then the linking system needs a major revamp. Main thing that needs to change is guest servers being able to have their own score over time, and more recognition of their accomplishments such as names over objectives. There should be a fixed set of criteria for promoting guest servers to host servers based on their performance/individual server score.
Even if this is done, removing the old lower tier servers and creating new ones might be a necessary step – hopefully let players start on new server with new history.
Much have been said about the CD quad servers. In T4 they were too strong but in T3 they are getting stomped. Actually the CD quad servers can do much better but for many reasons they are not as well as they were in T4.
It is reasonable to think that many players in KN, ET and BP are not putting much effort in T3 as they did in T4. Firstly, their server has no identity except for the host server CD.
While CD has been complaining about their Glicko ratings, and that they deserved to be in T3, this is not necessarily the opinion of their partner servers.
Both KN and ET were formerly linked to TC and BG respectively and the vast difference between their former hosts and current one may have lessened their enthusiasm in participating in WvW and wait for a better linkup.
The latest patch plus Living World Season 3 drew many away to play PvE rather than WvW.
There is not much communication between the 4 servers.
I hope ANet reads this and do something about the linking as many WvW players dislike how it was done. The problem with merging has much to do with the PvE population in each server. Separate PvE and WvW players altogether and merged the WvW players will work.
Both KN and ET were formerly linked to TC and BG respectively and the vast difference between their former hosts and current one may have lessened their enthusiasm in participating in WvW and wait for a better linkup.
You do realize that some of us also boycotted entire wvw when linked to those T1 servers, and rather enjoy life back in the lower tiers right ?
I do realize that some probably feel like you say, but on the other hand, don’t you think most of those already transfered off to another server or made up a new account ? Some of us actually like it down here.
“The glory of being linked with TC”, sure, some liked it. Personally I just started prioritizing housework instead, as I suddenly got a whole lot more time on my hand.
Don’t worry, the next relink will have the top 4 servers without link, then the rest with links. The main goal is to make every server become similar population to make tier meaningless. The issue is SEA/OCX is always hardest to make up with linking alone since those timezone are stacked on specific servers.
I’m genuinely curious how they decided on the SF and DH linkings when it was obvious they couldn’t compete with any of the other linkings ingame. It definitely doesn’t make me confident that they’ll be able to make decent pairings without forcing one or two of them to be completely dominated by its tiermate. At the same time the real lack of action in fixing the issue has killed up to 5 servers.
Time to blow it all up, hit that giant reset button and start over, it couldn’t possibly be worse for the game. On SBI we went from T3 to T4 for only 2 weeks and that was demoralizing regardless of landslide victories, I can only imagine how demoralizing it would be to be linked in a higher Tier only to be dropped to the depths of T4.
Just start over Anet, you talked about a reset button in the past, push it.
Just end with it, create 3 factions that want control over Mists energy/resources, add several maps.. no more loosing time with glicko/links, population changes that will bork up link etc.
It is 4 years of most broken matchups and karma train smaller maps or being karmaed…
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.
