Guild Wars 2

I was on SoS and now I’m on NSP…what’s happening?

I’m so confused………….

That mean you are a NSP native player. NSP was linked to SoS until today, and now it will be the host server for DH and DR for the next 2 months.

Isn’t it one month?

But I was a native SoS player.

Paulie.6215:

But I was a native SoS player.

If you moved with NSP unlink, you clearly are not on SoS buddy. Accounts are tied to the server and they do not change unless you transfer.

If you go to the character select screen there’s a box to the left, with your character’s name, profession, guild, map completion, location and last the server you’re on.

Jana.6831:

Isn’t it one month?

I believe it was voted that way, changed to 2, and then when we complain we are told we voted that way

Akkeros.1675:

Jana.6831:

Isn’t it one month?

I believe it was voted that way, changed to 2, and then when we complain we are told we voted that way

A lot of the votes actually went for 1 month and 3 months, with some to 2 months and less to 4+ months. Since most players wanted 1 and 3 so they compromised with 2. It wasn’t a “majority vote” for one option.

Akkeros.1675:

Jana.6831:

Isn’t it one month?

I believe it was voted that way, changed to 2, and then when we complain we are told we voted that way

There was no majority vote

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.

(For clarity’s sake, I changed the order from “shortest” to “longest”. The numbers don’t add up to 100% because of those who chose not to vote at all.)

This can be summarized as:

• 54% wanted evaluations more often than the original 3 months
• ~29% wanted it to remain at 3 months
• ~12% wanted the time period to increase.

That’s how ANet explained to us why they chose two months (receiving only 16% of the vote) instead of one (which received more than double the votes at 38%).

tl;dr it started as 3 months, people voted to make it evaluations happen more often.

It’s probably time for ANet to poll us again to see if our opinion has changed about whether we still want linking and, if so, how often they should re-evaluate.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Akkeros.1675:

Jana.6831:

Isn’t it one month?

I believe it was voted that way, changed to 2, and then when we complain we are told we voted that way

There was no majority vote

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.

(For clarity’s sake, I changed the order from “shortest” to “longest”. The numbers don’t add up to 100% because of those who chose not to vote at all.)

This can be summarized as:

• 54% wanted evaluations more often than the original 3 months
• ~29% wanted it to remain at 3 months
• ~12% wanted the time period to increase.

That’s how ANet explained to us why they chose two months (receiving only 16% of the vote) instead of one (which received more than double the votes at 38%).

tl;dr it started as 3 months, people voted to make it evaluations happen more often.

It’s probably time for ANet to poll us again to see if our opinion has changed about whether we still want linking and, if so, how often they should re-evaluate.

agreed. 2 months last link was horrific and we knew it after 1 week…..

I’m just going to say as I see GW2 WvW players clear out. I’m noticing more of those guild names in another modern MMO that has a form of WvW starting to pop up more each week. I wonder how will ANet go into emergency mode to keep more players from trying out other WvW like MMOs, or will ANet just Milk the last of the bandwagoner’s till they empty their whole wallets on server transfers and move on as well.

Kinda hoping in these desperate times ANet would just temporarily suspend their short term money grabbing practices on Bandwagoner’s for the sake of the continuity of WvW.

I mean if blow outs in teir’s are starting to happen because of population imbalances just after week 1, that tells everyone starting. “Server Transfers” are broken and needs to be reworked. But on the same hand if ANet fixed population imbalances there will be no reason for Bandwagoner’s to fork out gems to hop to the next FoTM server for the next 2 months.

We can blame servers like BG and TC for player made population manipulation all we want. But in the end only one party benefits from such tactics and it’s none of the players or guilds playing WvW.

I really do hope ANet get some more drive to push WvW thru these hard times and bring it into a golden age for RvR like pvp mode in Gaming. Instead of just looking for the quick and easy buck. It just seems to me they are too afraid to commit, to the players of the WvW game mode in GW2.

Reaper Alim.4176:

Kinda hoping in these desperate times ANet would just temporarily suspend their short term money grabbing practices on Bandwagoner’s for the sake of the continuity of WvW.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Reaper Alim.4176:

I really do hope ANet get some more drive to push WvW thru these hard times and bring it into a golden age for RvR like pvp mode in Gaming. Instead of just looking for the quick and easy buck. It just seems to me they are too afraid to commit, to the players of the WvW game mode in GW2.

They won’t because they literally don;t know what to do.

When in doubt: open Blackgate

LetoII.3782:

When in doubt: open Blackgate

Yeah know what I’d love to see ANet manually set BG’s population to Medium and open up BG for even more people to stack on. Then the saying servers go to Tier One to die, would have absolute meaning.

Only reason BG haven’t been hit is because they use “smart-ish tactics” as have most of their guilds go into hibernate mode so ANet opens them up again, then even more people flood into BG because of how easy mode and stacked it already is. Then awake again to fest, then proceed to omin-blob the other servers to death. Then rinse and repeat.

I can only imagine the day where ANet allows BG to hold %99 of the WvW player population. Me and a few others who have abstain from the crap show will laugh from a distance.

#PointAndLaugh!

Reaper Alim.4176:

I’m just going to say as I see GW2 WvW players clear out. I’m noticing more of those guild names in another modern MMO that has a form of WvW starting to pop up more each week. I wonder how will ANet go into emergency mode to keep more players from trying out other WvW like MMOs, or will ANet just Milk the last of the bandwagoner’s till they empty their whole wallets on server transfers and move on as well.

Kinda hoping in these desperate times ANet would just temporarily suspend their short term money grabbing practices on Bandwagoner’s for the sake of the continuity of WvW.

I mean if blow outs in teir’s are starting to happen because of population imbalances just after week 1, that tells everyone starting. “Server Transfers” are broken and needs to be reworked. But on the same hand if ANet fixed population imbalances there will be no reason for Bandwagoner’s to fork out gems to hop to the next FoTM server for the next 2 months.

We can blame servers like BG and TC for player made population manipulation all we want. But in the end only one party benefits from such tactics and it’s none of the players or guilds playing WvW.

I really do hope ANet get some more drive to push WvW thru these hard times and bring it into a golden age for RvR like pvp mode in Gaming. Instead of just looking for the quick and easy buck. It just seems to me they are too afraid to commit, to the players of the WvW game mode in GW2.

They tried it. Not long ago either, remember all the Full upper tiers servers ? Unfortunately they caved in to the whining from the people responsible for this state of things who are continuing to make things worse.