Guild Wars 2

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

Yes, I have difficulty organizing all the ideas, formatting them and write them in a concise manner. =(

Strider Pj.2193:

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

It is still forced. And you can’t guarantee that guilds would remain together.

Not missing the point at all.

It is true, not all guilds will be together. That ’s absolute truth but what so different from now? Guilds are being forced to move out of their servers with the lowered threshold or guilds can stay to slowly be drained over the weeks, months or years. That is something you repeatedly agree with others (in your post histories) and understood but apparently, you are not admitting the similarity.

SkyShroud.2865:

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

Yes, I have difficulty organizing all the ideas, formatting them and write them in a concise manner. =(

Strider Pj.2193:

It is still forced. And you can’t guarantee that guilds would remain together.

Not missing the point at all.

It is true, not all guilds will be together. That ’s absolute truth but what so different from now? Guilds are being forced to move out of their servers with the lowered threshold or guilds can stay to slowly be drained over the weeks, months or years. That is something you repeatedly agree with others (in your post histories) and understood but apparently, you are not admitting the similarity.

You are correct. Aspects of it are happening now. Where I disagree is that under the options listed here, we lose the option to move. It will be initially forced on us. It takes away a choice. I cannot agree with that.

I appreciate that you feel a small number of people will be negatively impacted by this, but if people in my guild cannot get into the world I am on, because they were on vacation, or away from the game, or just took a break, it would truly hurt the game experience that I enjoy. I am unwilling to take that risk.

Strider Pj.2193:

@skyshroud: there are no attacks. I am simply pointing out my disagreement with your premise and why. Much like you are doing,

Also, your last quote takes my comment out of context. With context, my statement about the GM of MaS choosing to move.

And yes, you chose to stay.

Again, both not attacks but accurate statements.

I am not here to attack you nor Pensadora. I respect the work that you have put into this idea.

I respectfully disagree and have been vocal in that disagreement. That’s all.

You would like people to vote for deletion. I would not.

Please watch the video.

Ad Hominem attacks is having you criticizing Pensadora’s decisions to move server and not critising Pensadora’s suggestion in itself.

Furthermore, you also wrote Pensadora and myself are from same server thus implying we some evil agenda thus using that to discredit the suggestion. Again, not criticizing the suggestion itself. Of course, I counter argue I made similar post 2 years ago, thus proving you claims false. Please be objective.

SkyShroud.2865:

Strider Pj.2193:

@skyshroud: there are no attacks. I am simply pointing out my disagreement with your premise and why. Much like you are doing,

Also, your last quote takes my comment out of context. With context, my statement about the GM of MaS choosing to move.

And yes, you chose to stay.

Again, both not attacks but accurate statements.

I am not here to attack you nor Pensadora. I respect the work that you have put into this idea.

I respectfully disagree and have been vocal in that disagreement. That’s all.

You would like people to vote for deletion. I would not.

Please watch the video.

Ad Hominem attacks is having you criticizing Pensadora’s decisions to move server and not critising Pensadora’s suggestion in itself.

Furthermore, you also wrote Pensadora and myself are from same server thus implying our agenda thus using that to discredit the suggstion. Again, not criticizing the suggestion itself. Of course, I counter argue I made similar post 2 years ago, thus proving you claims false. Please be objective.

Ok… no… but ok. Good luck in this. I DO appreciate your effort in this, and inDO appreciate that you feel it is in the best interest of the game mode.

I disagree.

Again context.

Good luck.

Strider Pj.2193:

@skyshroud: there are no attacks. I am simply pointing out my disagreement with your premise and why. Much like you are doing,

Also, your last quote takes my comment out of context. With context, my statement about the GM of MaS choosing to move.

And yes, you chose to stay.

Again, both not attacks but accurate statements.

I am not here to attack you nor Pensadora. I respect the work that you have put into this idea.

I respectfully disagree and have been vocal in that disagreement. That’s all.

You would like people to vote for deletion. I would not.

This guy gets it. ^^^^^

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

Yes, I have difficulty organizing all the ideas, formatting them and write them in a concise manner. =(

Strider Pj.2193:

It is still forced. And you can’t guarantee that guilds would remain together.

Not missing the point at all.

It is true, not all guilds will be together. That ’s absolute truth but what so different from now? Guilds are being forced to move out of their servers with the lowered threshold or guilds can stay to slowly be drained over the weeks, months or years. That is something you repeatedly agree with others (in your post histories) and understood but apparently, you are not admitting the similarity.

You are correct. Aspects of it are happening now. Where I disagree is that under the options listed here, we lose the option to move. It will be initially forced on us. It takes away a choice. I cannot agree with that.

I appreciate that you feel a small number of people will be negatively impacted by this, but if people in my guild cannot get into the world I am on, because they were on vacation, or away from the game, or just took a break, it would truly hurt the game experience that I enjoy. I am unwilling to take that risk.

Yet you agree that guilds now should be slowly drained over the weeks, months or years or choose to pay $$ to save themselves from a decision of anet where they forcefully reduced the threshold?

In other words, you rather watch your friends’ guild or even your own guild be slowly drained while they not able to do anything other than transfer off?

Yet in other words, you rather have your own friends or your friends’ friends who want to join you in the game now get stuck outside of the server due to full server, then being force to choose a new server and have to pay for transfer to move in when open?

SkyShroud.2865:

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

Yes, I have difficulty organizing all the ideas, formatting them and write them in a concise manner. =(

Strider Pj.2193:

It is still forced. And you can’t guarantee that guilds would remain together.

Not missing the point at all.

It is true, not all guilds will be together. That ’s absolute truth but what so different from now? Guilds are being forced to move out of their servers with the lowered threshold or guilds can stay to slowly be drained over the weeks, months or years. That is something you repeatedly agree with others (in your post histories) and understood but apparently, you are not admitting the similarity.

You are correct. Aspects of it are happening now. Where I disagree is that under the options listed here, we lose the option to move. It will be initially forced on us. It takes away a choice. I cannot agree with that.

I appreciate that you feel a small number of people will be negatively impacted by this, but if people in my guild cannot get into the world I am on, because they were on vacation, or away from the game, or just took a break, it would truly hurt the game experience that I enjoy. I am unwilling to take that risk.

Yet you agree that guilds now should be slowly drained over the weeks, months or years or choose to pay $$ to save themselves from a decision of anet where they forcefully reduced the threshold?

In other words, you rather watch your friends’ guild be slowly drained while they not able to do anything other than transfer off?

Yet in other words, you rather have your own friends or your friends’ friends who want to join you in the game now get stuck outside of the server due to full server, then being force to choose a new server and have to pay for transfer to move in when open?

As opposed to having a choice?

Yes.

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

Yes, I have difficulty organizing all the ideas, formatting them and write them in a concise manner. =(

Strider Pj.2193:

It is still forced. And you can’t guarantee that guilds would remain together.

Not missing the point at all.

It is true, not all guilds will be together. That ’s absolute truth but what so different from now? Guilds are being forced to move out of their servers with the lowered threshold or guilds can stay to slowly be drained over the weeks, months or years. That is something you repeatedly agree with others (in your post histories) and understood but apparently, you are not admitting the similarity.

You are correct. Aspects of it are happening now. Where I disagree is that under the options listed here, we lose the option to move. It will be initially forced on us. It takes away a choice. I cannot agree with that.

I appreciate that you feel a small number of people will be negatively impacted by this, but if people in my guild cannot get into the world I am on, because they were on vacation, or away from the game, or just took a break, it would truly hurt the game experience that I enjoy. I am unwilling to take that risk.

Yet you agree that guilds now should be slowly drained over the weeks, months or years or choose to pay $$ to save themselves from a decision of anet where they forcefully reduced the threshold?

In other words, you rather watch your friends’ guild be slowly drained while they not able to do anything other than transfer off?

Yet in other words, you rather have your own friends or your friends’ friends who want to join you in the game now get stuck outside of the server due to full server, then being force to choose a new server and have to pay for transfer to move in when open?

As opposed to having a choice?

Yes.

Thankyou. Now I understand it isn’t about friends or guilds or community like what you keep claiming.

SkyShroud.2865:

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

Strider Pj.2193:

SkyShroud.2865:

Quaygal.5327:

Tiny Doom.4380:

No. I’d sooner they deleted WvW altogether than delete the servers.

Server pride doesn’t just matter. It’s the only thing that matters. Without it the game mode is Nothing vs Nothing.

I’m just going to quote this guy as an example of someone who doesn’t comprehend the suggestion. I know a lot of you are intimidated by blocks of text, so here’s my TLDR. What if you choose your server when you stepped into WvW for the first time. Not right before you pick your first character’s hair style? The big advantage being that any server could recruit any unassigned player. The rest of the ideas are optional tweaks in my opinion.

SkyShroud, two words, elevator pitch. Work on it.

Yes, I have difficulty organizing all the ideas, formatting them and write them in a concise manner. =(

Strider Pj.2193:

It is still forced. And you can’t guarantee that guilds would remain together.

Not missing the point at all.

It is true, not all guilds will be together. That ’s absolute truth but what so different from now? Guilds are being forced to move out of their servers with the lowered threshold or guilds can stay to slowly be drained over the weeks, months or years. That is something you repeatedly agree with others (in your post histories) and understood but apparently, you are not admitting the similarity.

You are correct. Aspects of it are happening now. Where I disagree is that under the options listed here, we lose the option to move. It will be initially forced on us. It takes away a choice. I cannot agree with that.

I appreciate that you feel a small number of people will be negatively impacted by this, but if people in my guild cannot get into the world I am on, because they were on vacation, or away from the game, or just took a break, it would truly hurt the game experience that I enjoy. I am unwilling to take that risk.

Yet you agree that guilds now should be slowly drained over the weeks, months or years or choose to pay $$ to save themselves from a decision of anet where they forcefully reduced the threshold?

In other words, you rather watch your friends’ guild be slowly drained while they not able to do anything other than transfer off?

Yet in other words, you rather have your own friends or your friends’ friends who want to join you in the game now get stuck outside of the server due to full server, then being force to choose a new server and have to pay for transfer to move in when open?

As opposed to having a choice?

Yes.

Thankyou. Now I understand it isn’t about friends or guilds or community like what you keep claiming.

Great bait. Enjoy your weekend.

Yuffi.2430:

SkyShroud. I completely agree about the importance of server identity, but more on that later.
In response to your points:
1. Four tiers is correct, or five for EU. The idea was to maintain a similar structure to the current WvW because people know it and don’t like change. Each tier would promote a different approach to combat, with T1 being about large scale fights and T4/5 about small groups (party of five) and roamers. Other tiers in between. This could be done with different map population limits, but ultimately it would be nice to see specific custom maps. I’m sure the community could provide plenty of ideas if Anet asked us to get the ball rolling.
2. This bit I need to explain more. Each player (individually) can choose which tier they want to play in each time they enter WvW. You can play in T1 (large fights) get fed up with it and go roam in T4 (or stay to roam in T1 if you dare). The idea is that players on a server (or guild) could spread themselves out across the tiers if they wish, or they could also all play on the same tier if they wish. This really would be an ongoing choice.
3. Correct – the tiers themselves are not ranked, so it doesn’t matter which one you play in – you can choose how you want to play and still have your score count towards your guild and server rank.
4. Yes. There has to be a way to split the players into three sides and keeping the colours is the easiest way to do this. If Anet can then use this to balance the total population per colour it means that there will be a similar number of players available on each side (across the tiers). Being able to mix servers together in this way is more flexible for balancing, and since colour does not affect score in anyway it doesn’t matter which colour a server is. I know how disruptive moving servers around is, so I would hope Anet makes as few moves as possible and then only rarely.
5. Yes.
6. I’ll explain below: (I apologise in advance if I over explain things)

• Server league table – a list of all the servers ranked in order of score. The ultimate aim is to become top of the league, or simply beat the score of a rival server. The league table could be divided into three divisions (say gold, silver, bronze – I’d want about 6 servers per division I think) so servers can aim for the top of their division against similar scoring opponents. It would even be possible to put EU and NA servers together on the same list…
• Guild league table – a list of all the guilds in order of score. As players gain score for their server so the same score gained could be added to a total for the guild they are representing. In this way individual guilds can compete for rank. This would work even for guilds within the same server, or guilds who have members across several servers.
• Player league table – a list of players in order of score. This could be interesting as the top scoring players might not be on the top scoring servers…

The idea is to re-energise server identity for the linked servers, and to allow host servers to retain their identity too. The league table means that we can separate servers from tiers so no server gets swamped due to population. If many players bandwagon to one server it will probably be top of the league, but crucially this wouldn’t affect the actual fights in the tiers. If a server loses players until it only has ten members (an extreme example I admit) it can still have a server identity (if the players talk to each other) and can still participate in any fight in any tier. There is no need to close small servers, although they might need to do a bit of recruiting to be able to climb the league table. Also a guild or player in a bottom of the league server could easily be much higher in the other rank tables…

Communications would be the biggest problem. Language differences in EU in particular. Team channel would be colour based so would reach all players on a wider number of servers. From a server point of view we would keep server TS/Discord. Regular commanders would work out a way of communicating between servers; probably a Commanders Guild so they can use the guild chat.

Just previewed this and it’s a “kitten of a wall” of text – sorry.
I’ll stop and let you all think.

I still don’t understand how this will allow one server to continue foster their identity and community when the people you see from WvW are mixtures of players across servers.

Strider Pj.2193:

Yuffi.2430:

As far as I can tell from the posts here, SkyShroud has suggested a way of resetting all the servers. This puts everyone in the same position of starting afresh. I have offered an alternative concept that retains existing servers and guilds. You seem to disagree with both ideas. Are you happy with WvW as it is then? Do you have any better ideas to put forward?

Missed the reponse to that question in bold @Strider. What say you?

Strider Pj.2193:

Pensadora ~six months ago moved his guild from BG to HoD in an applaudable move to destack, and shortly after the move, all of the servers were locked.

It wasn’t shortly after. It was a full 5 months after, in June, that the host servers were locked down.

And, may I remind again that this lockdown, which we assume is to force people to move to lower pop servers in the name of ‘balance’, was preceded (just a few days before) by the unlocking of Blackgate to receive 3 main guilds onto that hegemony of a server.

Strider Pj.2193:

Sure, I understand that once everyone was displaced, they would have a choice about where they go, but you, and they cannot guarantee me I can play with the people I play with now,…

Omg, Strider… I have been on Blackgate for 3 years, and at no time was I ALWAYS playing with the same people, or even the same guilds, throughout that time. As good of a community as I have always believed it to be, it was never, at any time, ALWAYS the SAME community of players and guilds.

Even now, with 3 guilds moving onto Blackgate from other servers – neither any longer is the SAME server or has the SAME players – neither Blackgate, NOR the servers those guilds left.

That is simply my point and one they are unwilling to concede.

Yep, and no one, NO ONE, can guaranteed you that. Blackgate will not be composed of the same players 6 months from now or a day from now if ANet opens them for transfers.

So, stop already. Those making thoughtful proposals, have offered to you on several occasions, ways in which they have designed for guilds to stay together.

Keeping all the players you play with the same, as you suggest is your core requirement, is absolutely impossible now, and will continue to be impossible with whatever changes are coming in the future.

Pens: I think you missed the quote where I applauded you and your guilds decision to destack.

Again, it is about choice to me. I don’t care as much about the other guilds I play with and around.

And if you read what you quoted you will note it is about my guild.

Yuffi offered options about keeping guild mates together.

I have only noted that the choice should be just that: a choice. Not something forced on us by deleting the servers.

That is the crux of my disagreement with the ideas presented here.

Strider Pj.2193:

Pens: I think you missed the quote where I applauded you and your guilds decision to destack.

Again, it is about choice to me. I don’t care as much about the other guilds I play with and around.

And if you read what you quoted you will note it is about my guild.

Yuffi offered options about keeping guild mates together.

I have only noted that the choice should be just that: a choice. Not something forced on us by deleting the servers.

That is the crux of my disagreement with the ideas presented here.

You know. I am a guild oriented person.

I am so guild oriented that in many threads that argue about guilds, you can find me posting in there.

I am so guild oriented that I don’t approve of cross chat function because it spread attentions of the players thus encourage negative guild behaviors like treating guild as tools, lfg, disrespect etc.

I am so guild oriented that I agree rep rule is a good thing for guilds that want to be a guild and more but majority disagree with rep rule. I don’t give a kitten .

I am so guild oriented that if anyone that try to take advantage of my guild without giving anything in return, they will feel my wrath.

I am so guild oriented I don’t fit well for this game.

I can definitely assure you that guilds can keep their members together, as long as they don’t follow others’ foolish idea to stack server. And even if server is full, the server should open up relatively faster than the current system. Likewise, your new guild mates will not be forced to choose a server at start thus can join the server for free. One is given much more freedom in the new system than the people here have now. The only thing needed for everyone is to agree with the change.

I’ve been thinking similarly about how to help WvW.

My thoughts are to assign servers one of six colors, trying to even out representation of the three time periods.
Then, you use the megaserver model for entering a borderland. Giving preference to guild and squads. Once that version of Red BL fills, a second instance opens. If the map you’re trying to enter is queued, you are given choice to queue up or to enter next version of the map, having the ability to requeue once in so that you can eventually join your guild’s raid.
While there are still some staunch proponents for server identity, most WvW players (by my experience) would rather have a night of good fights, rather than server purity.
It also allows for the opportunity to possibly run with some folks that you normally wouldn’t get a chance to without a server transfer.
We know that “seasons” are dead, so there’s really no reason to maintain server-based scoring, other than the current matchup process.
This method also allows for more style based play because those that like guild raids will be able to get in with guildies and run groups against full borderlands of other groups. Those that like to roam, most likely, end up in borderlands with a lot of other roamers, so that you can fight your 1v1s without much concern for being blobbed down.
It’ll also take away the intentional tanking by servers, so that you get a better relink.
All the developers will have to worry about is rotating colors (you were red last week, this week you’ll be purple)
All the players have to worry about it joining the fight in a borderland. You won’t have those “wonderful” times when ten people are trying to defend air keep from a full map blob. Or, at least, they should be very rare.

SkyShroud.2865:

Ermmm.

1. There are 4 tiers
2. Each server’s players are able to choose one of the 4 tiers, at any time, to play. They just cannot split themselves up to play in two places at the same time.
3. Each tier are design in sizes than actual rank, in other words, different map cap.
4. Servers are assigned with certain colors which is decided by anet
5. Servers with color A will play at A side, B at B side, C at C side
6. There is a server league (not much info what this is)

Is that right?

I will start with server identity first. Server identity isn’t something that can be easily detonated using a leaderboard, it isn’t just a name on a list. Server identity or more importantly pride is the result of shared feelings born from connections between players doing things day and night in the wvw, people want to protect those feelings.

However, in your approach, if server’s players are allowed to choose tiers base on their choice, that also means the players are spreading out. When players are spreading out, it won’t be that easy to build that connections and without it, we can’t develop feelings. Not to forget, servers are mashed together because of their colors. This means that there will a range of players from different servers playing side by side with you. The sense of server identity will become vague at that point.

Another issue will be the guild recruitment. Guild currently and in your suggestion has a common recruitment issue and that is the server issue. Guild only has few choices they can make; Get the person to transfer over, Pay for the transfer, Explicitly not recruit different server or Just recruit into roster and hope one day will be on the same side. Most guilds are unlikely to take the last option because it affects long term combat quality of the guilds. However, you stated that guild mates can select same tier to play with which kinda imply that they can play on same side even if their server are assigned different colors. Is that what it is or did I read it wrong?

hmmmm…..
i posted this few months ago on what a server is and explained why i don’t want it just to vanish instantly……

“the server is the informal alliance of guilds” in gw2

and btw if your guild doesn’t like your alliance currently

you might as well check out my server or scout from one of your guildies to do some research, try scouting other servers too

though its hard to differentiate because of the linking situation

-from a fellow SEA player

You can form a new alliance.

Anet, do appreciate that there are very dedicated players (like our thread starter) trying to give some good feedback and it really disappoint me to see that none of you even take the effort to respond to this thread.

give smaller groups the ability to take down bigger ones…
ill say it again for the last time…

Delete them all. Every month randomize guilds/players into pools to fight each other for tournament tickets that are used to buy legendary WvW armor and weapons. Create as many or as few pools as necessary to keep a relatively balanced set of matches. Simple and stops stacking.

Long read with a simple answer. NO

Stand The Wall.6987:

give smaller groups the ability to take down bigger ones…
ill say it again for the last time…

Ermm….do you mean it in the skill/game balance perspective?

From servers’ perspective, I do believe servers need to be open and locked necessary to allow servers the opportunity to fight and not overwhelm.

My competitive personality disagree with how WvW is now and believe strongly it can be improved very significantly with proper changes.

My guild oriented personality is very unhappy with how WvW is now. Guilds are being starved on a extended period of time due to balancing issue. the only choices for guilds are to be starved or move out, neither is a compensation.

My intellect personality says that the pros far outweigh the cons in proposed model. And in comparison to the current model, the pro’s of proposed model outweigh the current model’s. Finally, as it is now, what one has now is temporary as the starvation will continue until what you have dies out. To protect what you have, to make a gamemode more sustainable, the only option is to change for the better.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Long read with a simple answer. NO

Your post history indicate you want population balance but here you say no. What do you really want then? How can you achieve population balance without change and using the current model?

SkyShroud.2865:

Your post history indicate you want population balance but here you say no. What do you really want then? How can you achieve population balance without change and using the current model?

I don’t have the answer to the population balance issue. However, that doesn’t mean your answer is the right one.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

SkyShroud.2865:

Your post history indicate you want population balance but here you say no. What do you really want then? How can you achieve population balance without change and using the current model?

I don’t have the answer to the population balance issue. However, that doesn’t mean your answer is the right one.

I do!

Create a maximum population for every server. For primarily pve folks, it doesn’t matter what server they’re on — this only has implications for wvw.

Once the population cap has been determined; start booting out accounts that are over the population cap. Two factors should be used when determining who to boot: 1. Account age on set server — how long has this account been on X server? and 2. How often do they actively play WvW?

Based on those two factors, accounts that are above the population count will be booted from the overfull server and offered a free transfer to any other open server.

Then Anet locks down transfers for a full year and has “Transfer Day” where people can move to other servers, once a year. No exceptions.

Allow two weeks for people to transfer preparing for this change. After the two week window, lock all servers down for a year. Send out emails to every single player, WvWer or not, to notify them of the impending change so they can plan — do it at least a month in advance.

If you’re split from your guild because of the move, then you either move to where your guild has gone (if to a lower pop server), or your guild moves for you to a lower pop server.

Lion’s Arch is changed to be linked to servers; so if your wvw population is low, you can go to LA and recruit. It’s up the various teams to get the players to come out — this means that players can do things like zerg sessions, community events, etc to show people that wvw is fun.

For those pve players affected by the boot, reemphasize that because of the megaserver setup there’s really no issue being on a different server — ensure that all guilds, no matter what server they’re on, have access to a single guild hall. kitten what other factors may influence pve players if they change servers because of seniority.

While the OP did take a lot of time to think out a solution, I’m with the others in this thread, I don’t think it will work. It’s a very short-term fix that will wind up having us back to where we are now, albeit a year later.

I want wvw to last longer than just a year. And the reason it has so far is because of the communities that have been built. The OP suggests you can remake alliances and friendships; I’m suggesting that while that may be true, it will turn off a heck of a lot of people who already have solid friendships in game, and play wvw because of that.

There’s a reason why people kept playing WvW for years and years without rewards. It was because of the community.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

I don’t have the answer to the population balance issue. However, that doesn’t mean your answer is the right one.

And what is it wrong?

SugarCayne.3098:

While the OP did take a lot of time to think out a solution, I’m with the others in this thread, I don’t think it will work. It’s a very short-term fix that will wind up having us back to where we are now, albeit a year later.

It doesn’t take a lot of time to think of a solution but it does take some time to put into the words to explain to people the situations and the issues thus why the solutions will work. Unfortunately, a lot of people either got intimidated by wall of text and didn’t read it or simply screen through it without really understanding it.

The solutions is literally a long term fix. Why we have the issue we have today is simply because of the accumulated populations over the years. This accumulated populations is the primarily reason why wvw populations is unbalance and will continue to be unbalance. It isn’t the stack issue but it is still a issue and it will be solve along with it.

The solution is the result of understanding the fundamental problem. By eliminating the accumulated populations, we eliminate long term imbalance issue. In order to eliminate accumulated populations, we need to purge inactive wvw and all non-wvw players out of the servers. In order to purge inactive wvw and all non-wvw players out of the server, we need to make servers non-mandatory. It is simple but it isn’t simple to carry it out. As it is now, the accumulated populations have far exceed what any incentive can hope to solve. The reward patch has already drive most the accumulated populations (used to be non-wvwers) into WvW, the time bomb already exploded. Of course, a few years ago veteran gamers already warn about this which is why it is called time bomb.

Not only that, we also have to accept the fact that there are just not enough populations to spread evenly across 24 NA servers or 27 EU servers without impacting the actual WvW gameplay. To put it into perspective, we do not have 24 PST, OCX, SEA and EU guilds in NA regions. You cannot achieve even 24 NA servers which allows you to link them properly, the problem will continue persist with the current servers, no matter what anyone do, it is just impossible to solve.

Merging thus is the only way out because we have enough to spread if we compress them. However, merging doesn’t solve the accumulation issue because merging is an act of combining servers together with whatever they have. Thus, we need to blow it all up and only that will allow us to fix the accumulated populations once and for all.

Like I mentioned, people are afraid of stacking thus I come up with the dynamic cap idea, this alone prevent stacking. Stacking is the result of a static threshold where people can fill a large gap which is the empty space between the threshold and the server wvw activity, this large space naturally allows huge movement. Dynamic cap aims to limit that large gap by using its flexibility nature, it is a simple and realistic concept.

While the solution is really simple, it also happen to have many huge benefits. Non-mandatory servers allow newbies to enter game without being forced to choose a server at start. This literally give all WvW guilds a chance to recruit from a way larger pool. This also literally give all the WvW guilds a good reason to go PvE map and spam recruitment message which in turn attracts players attentions on WvW due to all those spams. Literally killing two birds with one stone.

Likewise, having not forced to choose a server at start is also a form of compensation for people who invited their friends to join the game if so happen the server is full. They can wait it out and then join the server when open, without having to pay for a 1.8k gems like now. It is a huge benefit to the players, it doesn’t penalize them for being late to the party.

It basically not only maintained the current amount of freedom, it also gave players more freedom while not affecting population balance which is enforced by the dynamic cap and periodic inactive purge. If you compare mine to your’s, there are clear differences in the amount of freedom and fairness.

Of course, there is only one thing that is forceful about this entire solution and that is people have to give up what they have now. However, this is not without any compensations, the benefits are the compensations.

SugarCayne.3098:

I want wvw to last longer than just a year. And the reason it has so far is because of the communities that have been built. The OP suggests you can remake alliances and friendships; I’m suggesting that while that may be true, it will turn off a heck of a lot of people who already have solid friendships in game, and play wvw because of that.
There’s a reason why people kept playing WvW for years and years without rewards. It was because of the community.

The community you know of now is slowly dying to something called attrition which is caused by something called server full. You may not notice it if you are from a server with large base population but one day, you will notice it. When that day come, it also the day when you notice just how much of your community has changed.

Also, I can’t fathom your concept of community because in your suggestion, you did suggest purging players off the servers and these players can be players who happened to be really active players but became less active yet not complete inactive, these people too are part of the community. In your heart, you do know that you have to give up what you have now if you want balance.

PS: This forums lag is frustrating.

i’m wating for some huge changes for wvw with the expansion, otherwise gw2 is dead to me

You need a good editor. So much wall of text.

SkyShroud.2865:

In your heart, you do know that you have to give up what you have now if you want balance.

No, frankly I don’t care about balance. It doesn’t matter if we’re outnumbered; in fact, it takes away ez mode and forces you to get creative.

It also makes you a better player.

Go to any lower tier server and marvel at how 10 people will continually wipe 20, over and over again. More than 2 v 1? Not so much. But lower tiers didn’t have those problems normally.

But that’s when you do some sabotage. It ups the game. With your existing community.

Really, most of what’s being complained about is first-world Tier 1 problems. They’re the only ones who care about balance really.

SkyShroud.2865:

PS: This forums lag is frustrating.

Indeed.

I thought the current www population algorithm is not based on inactive server population. So I don’t understand what is so important about purging inactives.

maybe.5086:

I thought the current www population algorithm is not based on inactive server population. So I don’t understand what is so important about purging inactives.

The point the OP is making:

a) not all inactive population is always inactive, there is a not so small percentage of “fair-weather” player.
b) “fair-weather” player come when it is running good, turning a “running-good” into an imbalanced match. And staying away when it’s not running good, turning a “not-running-good” into an imbalanced matcch as well.
c) the base-population can always join a match on the side of a server, independently how full this server is.

and last but not least:
d) I am sure there is a not so small amount of people that have accounts on several servers. Of couse only, only one is active, but all other have their reserved place on servers, and become active, when it is needed least, namely when the ser ver is already winning.

maybe.5086:

I thought the current www population algorithm is not based on inactive server population. So I don’t understand what is so important about purging inactives.

Inactives can come back and create unbalance. If you’re not actively playing WvW, you won’t care if you come back and find that you have to pick another server — or you’d be actively playing the game.

This ensures that if there’s an expansion, or resurgence, that the servers have a chance to remain balanced. It also helps to determine close “ties” in who gets punted and who doesn’t. It’s more fair.

But again, I don’t really care about balance myself. I really believe this is Tier 1 (& possibly 2) issue.

The only problem I see from deleting servers, is when it comes to WvW.

There are people that calls for match variety but variety is only possible if servers are similiar in populations, otherwise it is not a learning experience for the weaker side but instead a massacre, it isn’t fun. What’s more, we have one up and one down, thus population balance is more important than ever.

Several times during this thread people have politely tried to vote no, each time the OP responds in an attempt to sway their opinions.

I will try to keep my response simple and DO NOT require a response.

Not all WvWvW ers are looking for the same thing. I read your posts and appreciate the work yourself and previous posters have gone to in designing a new system. Twice Guilds containing many people I respected have moved “up” the tiers seeking something.

I personally am not interested in playing GW2 beyond the existence of the Original server I chose when I started, it is who I am.

Good luck.

elkirin.8534:

Several times during this thread people have politely tried to vote no, each time the OP responds in an attempt to sway their opinions.

I will try to keep my response simple and DO NOT require a response.

Not all WvWvW ers are looking for the same thing. I read your posts and appreciate the work yourself and previous posters have gone to in designing a new system. Twice Guilds containing many people I respected have moved “up” the tiers seeking something.

I personally am not interested in playing GW2 beyond the existence of the Original server I chose when I started, it is who I am.

Good luck.

If one vote no because they preferred the system now, then I got nothing to say.

But if one vote no because they do not understand or logical reason like I am wrong then I need to make them understand or they need to give me intellect reply of why I am wrong.

And finally, a year later if any of players notice the sufferings then people finally realise what is going on, by then the fault is all on them afterall veteran gamers already warned about it for years that it will happen and not take it for granted.

TheAndoman.9317:

I’ve been thinking similarly about how to help WvW.

My thoughts are to assign servers one of six colors, trying to even out representation of the three time periods.
Then, you use the megaserver model for entering a borderland. Giving preference to guild and squads. Once that version of Red BL fills, a second instance opens. If the map you’re trying to enter is queued, you are given choice to queue up or to enter next version of the map, having the ability to requeue once in so that you can eventually join your guild’s raid.
While there are still some staunch proponents for server identity, most WvW players (by my experience) would rather have a night of good fights, rather than server purity.
It also allows for the opportunity to possibly run with some folks that you normally wouldn’t get a chance to without a server transfer.
We know that “seasons” are dead, so there’s really no reason to maintain server-based scoring, other than the current matchup process.
This method also allows for more style based play because those that like guild raids will be able to get in with guildies and run groups against full borderlands of other groups. Those that like to roam, most likely, end up in borderlands with a lot of other roamers, so that you can fight your 1v1s without much concern for being blobbed down.
It’ll also take away the intentional tanking by servers, so that you get a better relink.
All the developers will have to worry about is rotating colors (you were red last week, this week you’ll be purple)
All the players have to worry about it joining the fight in a borderland. You won’t have those “wonderful” times when ten people are trying to defend air keep from a full map blob. Or, at least, they should be very rare.

I am not sure about most players. As you can already see in the thread, a lot of people oppose greatly about deleting servers and remaking them (without trying to understand the logic anyway). Even though we do not know how many are still around with that strong sense of server identity, they are still around, at least there are quite a number of vocal minority around. We do not know if they using it as a convenient excuse or what, it is there.

While I don’t have that sense of server identity because I put guild over server, I still do play WvW for what it is but if you megalized it, it isn’t the same WvW anymore.

can we get an update on the diagrams regarding population change every relink? it would be in wvw’s best interest to stay informed.

IT WON’T WORK.

They would have to remove server transfers after the deletion…or the bandwagon will happen again.
Transfers cost money/generate revenue.

Anet will not do anything that eliminates a source of revenue.

Just delete maguuma problem solved, no one enjoys fighting stacked veteran servers.

Ubi.4136:

IT WON’T WORK.

They would have to remove server transfers after the deletion…or the bandwagon will happen again.
Transfers cost money/generate revenue.

Anet will not do anything that eliminates a source of revenue.

As mentioned, stacking is the result of players exploiting the gap between actual wvw populations and the fixed limit threshold. The dynamic threshold control that gap dynamically unlike the fixed threshold, thus stacking is not possible.

As mentioned, the thread is not about anet earning or not earning money, it is about designing a sustainable system.

I agree, burn it all to the ground. Destroy everything then rebuild from the ashes.
Kill all the guilds, all the server communities and whatever friendships they have made, they are weak and need to be sacrificed.
Burn it all.

/sarcasm

Henrik.7560:

Just delete maguuma problem solved, no one enjoys fighting stacked veteran servers.

You misspelled “Blackgate”.

SkyShroud: Sorry for the slow reply.
You questioned how my idea could support server identity. I need to ask, and it’s a genuine question: within WvW, what is a server and why do they matter?

At the moment I think a server is a collection of individuals and guilds that works towards a common aim. Currently that aim is winning the match the players are in. Server identity comes from this community working together.

In my alternative to deleting these communities, I am suggesting that servers would remain as a collection of individuals and guilds working together with the common aim of improving their servers position on the leader board. This is very much how things were before linking.

The big difference would be moving from having to win a specific match to a “we must score more points” attitude. Winning a match is still ideal but the server total score would come from all the action the members took part in.

Would this be enough to keep server communities together? I don’t know, but I think so. There is still a common purpose – to climb the leader board. There is still the opportunity for rivalries between servers – even those on the same side. The crucial difference is that any player could select for themselves what style of play they want to take part in each time they enter WvW. This choice, and the fact that no one would ever get stuck in an unevenly matched tier, and the fact that Anet would be able to broadly balance population across time zones, could lead to more players enjoying their game experience.

Perhaps the best way to summarise my idea is like this:

What if you could play as you are now, and gained the ability to play in any of the tiers by joining the side with the same colour as your server?
Your server keeps it’s own score. Your guild stays intact. You can roam or zerg or havoc. And all this while being able to play in T1 or T3 or wherever you want.

EoTM at its finest
imagine EoTM will have an impact on war score….

not bad,
…brace yourself

Commander: aight scouts, search for a tier which doesnt huv nemies online, we can knock knock knockin on dankHeavens dhur

Scout: here com, go to dis teir no one else hir, come an well karma tier the sheez out of them for our servers war score

It’s true this could happen.

But would you really have no players in one particular tier, given that side/colour would have the total population of 8 servers in NA for example?
If a blob appeared you’d have four tiers worth of players available to respond to fight back… and they would be gaining score for their server, and guild, if they did so.

Also, and forgive me for suggesting this but it needs to be said, Edge of the Mists is only a karma train because players let it be so. I’ve been there a time or two and encountered both karma trains and fighting groups. The salt about “go back to WvW if you want to fight” was as real as it was amusing.

SkyShroud.2865:

I am not sure about most players. As you can already see in the thread, a lot of people oppose greatly about deleting servers and remaking them (without trying to understand the logic anyway). Even though we do not know how many are still around with that strong sense of server identity, they are still around, at least there are quite a number of vocal minority around. We do not know if they using it as a convenient excuse or what, it is there.

While I don’t have that sense of server identity because I put guild over server, I still do play WvW for what it is but if you megalized it, it isn’t the same WvW anymore.

I identify with the people I know and like to play with, if they are in my guild or not. Would my guild move to a different server, I would be heavily torn. It is not hard to imagine that these feelings are quite common. Yet you disregard it by writing “We do not know if they using it as a convenient excuse or what[…]”. During this discussion, you have pointed to ad hominem attacks against you. Nevertheless, your whole argumentation assumes that people share your guild over server identity feelings and ignores all others. It might be really helpful if you acknowledged that server communities hold people together with the similar strength as guilds do, even more the smaller a server is.

This doesn’t solve population imbalance at all in the long term. You don’t solve population imbalance by balancing prime time, you need to balance non prime time, which can not be done with this idea.

Take 4 decks of cards.
1 remain full
1 take out all black
1 take out all clubs and face cards
1 take out all clubs and diamonds.
Now shuffle them and make 4 new stacks and see how balanced the stacks are. They won’t be and that is the problem WvW with the current NA, EU separation has.

You can’t balance a 24/7 battlefield when the pool you are getting your people from isn’t 24/7 as well.

Yuffi.2430:

It’s true this could happen.

But would you really have no players in one particular tier, given that side/colour would have the total population of 8 servers in NA for example?

i know whats on your mind….
but making wvw ala eotm isnt a good one
if thats the case then, whats the difference between green blue and red to alliance vs horde, right?

take a look at this

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-2-0/first#post6395579

this is similar to your idea but no red blue or green limitation in other words, make wvw eotm

Consolidate more servers, expand the wvw player cap, expand the size of the maps. My short list.

I don’t see it as that similar, sorry. Your idea is guild centred, which is fine if you are in a dedicated WvW guild, but we have players who are in multiple guilds, or no guild at all, but who still make a valuable contribution to their server. I’ve tried to come up with something that would work for everyone.

I’m interested to know exactly what makes my idea so like EotM in your mind.
As I see things:

• in EotM you play for Red, or Green or Blue team. I propose you play for your server, your guild and yourself. The reason I suggest grouping the sides into “colour teams” is purely so you would know where you will spawn (and has the benefit that Anet can group the servers to give a more evenly spread time considered population).
• in EotM when a map fills a new instance is generated (which can split a party). I propose permanent maps just as we have now, although I would suggest that DBL is not always used for the red team.
• in EotM there is one map and fairly often one play style – blob. Neither offers much choice for players. I propose each tier is “labelled” as being mostly a particular play style (which is what we tend see anyway) and that players get the choice of which tier they want to spawn into, and therefore which play style they can expect.

Map wise, we would keep the existing maps; although it might make sense to have one “tier” as all DBL maps (this would be ok because you can choose which tier to play in). Another tier could be all Alpine, and if Anet get the time and resources other maps could be brought in so eventually each tier has a different set of maps designed to promote different play styles.

I don’t see these ideas as EotM at all, so what am I missing?