Guild Wars 2

Ah – so this is the forum bug that tops each page… sorry – first time for me

Make new game mode. It’s kind of clear that this system doesn’t motivate players to try. 3 hours matches, good rewards, real match/player statistics and leechers get kicked after 30 sec.

I Vote to Delete This Thread…

Yuffi.2430:

I don’t see it as that similar, sorry.

-the similarity i mention was players will be put to other servers/tiers temporarily

however the dissimilarity here is sinister

-on the eotm style change ktrain again would be inevitable thus it would reshape WvW as we know it,

-the other was you would be assigned randomly to fill the gap of other poeple’s, server’s, guild’s lack of manpower

linking is as close as Anet’s propaganda of turning WvW into a 3 colored theme fights or EoTM as we know it, to make the long story short you want linking to be further decreased into only one tier

EoTM is only one tier, newbies learn WvW there
then lemme call vets WvW, as EoTM 2 instead so Anet wouldn’t have a hard time thinking a name for it

the truth is why i hated linking was, the trolls of their represented servers, dont get me wrong i was a also troll and probably one of the best, so many cried at my posts on the old http://www.gw2wvw.net/
but linking made WvW a bit more active, but the other side of me thinks its just placebo………. few servers died on linking………….. i don’t want mine to be the same….

btw you can easily spot one troll
take this for example
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/PoF-Top-10-WvW-Guild-Reference/first#post6697460

Deaeira.2651:

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.

That is wrong. My argument assume not everyone is honest in their opinions. Just because one phrase their opinions in certain manner doesn’t means they mean it that way. It is quite easy to make use of sympathy as arguments to convince people, it is also quite easy to turn it into strawman argument. It is way easier to just say don’t delete my server I like it instead of explaining the real reasons behind it. What I am doing here is to identify their honest reasons and convince their reasons are not an issue in the new system.

Edit:
As for your server community, as already mentioned, if your server community is as united as you make it out to be, they can always arrange to move to a specific server. For big fat servers like the ones in T1, it may be impossible but for smaller servers, it is very possible. However, as mentioned, I do think that guilds will end up using this chance to explore.

you have my sympathy Sky…..
if your guild is not treated by your server very well that must be frustrating…..
i guess your guild doesn’t have a place to call home yet

i remembered one quote on a final fantasy character

“If this world seeks my destruction… It goes with me…”
-Genesis

heres the poem he recited, i hope that can help you make up your mind, its called loveless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6BpXEBw66Y

…i offer thee this silent sacrifice.

whether you are loved or not loved by your server, always take care of your guild, they are your ingame family

this thread pretty dumb

Norbe.7630:

you have my sympathy Sky…..
if your guild is not treated by your server very well that must be frustrating…..
i guess your guild doesn’t have a place to call home yet

i remembered one quote on a final fantasy character

“If this world seeks my destruction… It goes with me…”
-Genesis

heres the poem he recited, i hope that can help you make up your mind, its called loveless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6BpXEBw66Y

…i offer thee this silent sacrifice.

whether you are loved or not loved by your server, always take care of your guild, they are your ingame family

It is funny how you were complaining about trollish behavior on another post and yet here you are doing the same, it speaks volume.

SkyShroud.2865:

That is wrong. My argument assume not everyone is honest in their opinions. Just because one phrase their opinions in certain manner doesn’t means they mean it that way. It is quite easy to make use of sympathy as arguments to convince people, it is also quite easy to turn it into strawman argument. It is way easier to just say don’t delete my server I like it instead of explaining the real reasons behind it. What I am doing here is to identify their honest reasons and convince their reasons are not an issue in the new system.

Without further knowledge about a player, I must either give all of them the benefit of the doubt and assume honesty or I must distrust all of them equally. Since you want to be taken as honest, please extend the courtesy to all others. Since you are versed in philosophy and its fallacies, you surely know about the Categorical Imperative.

SkyShroud.2865:

Edit:
As for your server community, as already mentioned, if your server community is as united as you make it out to be, they can always arrange to move to a specific server. For big fat servers like the ones in T1, it may be impossible but for smaller servers, it is very possible. However, as mentioned, I do think that guilds will end up using this chance to explore.

I am from Vabbi (and have always been). We have lived, amongst other things, through a year of constant bottom rank #27 in the league (about 3 years ago), being 15 people on all maps during primetime (shortly before links) and nine months of being a mercenary server. When the hype is gone, we will probably end up back there. Still, a good core of 30 people refused to leave the server and will most likely stay, no matter what. You are overstepping your bounds by telling me to do as you please.

Just to be clear: I strongly reject this proposal.

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

That is wrong. My argument assume not everyone is honest in their opinions. Just because one phrase their opinions in certain manner doesn’t means they mean it that way. It is quite easy to make use of sympathy as arguments to convince people, it is also quite easy to turn it into strawman argument. It is way easier to just say don’t delete my server I like it instead of explaining the real reasons behind it. What I am doing here is to identify their honest reasons and convince their reasons are not an issue in the new system.

Without further knowledge about a player, I must either give all of them the benefit of the doubt and assume honesty or I must distrust all of them equally. Since you want to be taken as honest, please extend the courtesy to all others. Since you are versed in philosophy and its fallacies, you surely know about the Categorical Imperative.

As you already said, without further knowledge but what if I do have some other encounter of mentioned players? Afterall, it seems to me that you are standing up for a few instead of every poster as I respond differently to every poster.

I appreciate that you know about categorical imperative but that isn’t how you use it. What is the “maxim” for this case, everyone’s and mine?

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

Edit:
As for your server community, as already mentioned, if your server community is as united as you make it out to be, they can always arrange to move to a specific server. For big fat servers like the ones in T1, it may be impossible but for smaller servers, it is very possible. However, as mentioned, I do think that guilds will end up using this chance to explore.

I am from Vabbi (and have always been). We have lived, amongst other things, through a year of constant bottom rank #27 in the league (about 3 years ago), being 15 people on all maps during primetime (shortly before links) and nine months of being a mercenary server. When the hype is gone, we will probably end up back there. Still, a good core of 30 people refused to leave the server and will most likely stay, no matter what. You are overstepping your bounds by telling me to do as you please.

Just to be clear: I strongly reject this proposal.

Those are strong words. I would like to make it really clear that if one reject any proposals to populations balance and all of these proposals will definitely will not leave any communities untouched, please do not complain or rant about population imbalance, please do not QQ about blobs running over the zerg, please do not rage quit wvw just because you are outnumbered. Oh, do note that there will be people in your server or community not as easily contented as you, you will lose them.

Conner.4702:

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.

I did left out the implementation part off the first few posts. I will try squeeze up a summary and include it in it.

Anyway, the implementation part is critical in balancing coverage, this is base on the human behavior of wanting to join WvW asap when something new happen. That is to say devs can take advantage of this behavior and choose a suitable timing where most and least of prime time and off hours time are on, implement it. The players will flow in and slowly fill up the different servers, guided by the dynamic capping. If players have specific servers they want to join, they have to wait for other players to fill up other servers. First come first serve approach isn’t foolproof but it will balance majority of it.

An additional safety net can be added by monitoring and tagging players by play timing, this can be done a few months before the new system. Then, modify the dynamic capping to support dynamic threshold by timings. Though this will not prevent new or returning players from screwing up, it can still lesser the imbalance problem. It can also coupled with the transfer incentive of a full server, to encourage players based in a stacked timezone to move off to a less stacked timezone.

SkyShroud.2865:

It is funny how you were complaining about trollish behavior on another post and yet here you are doing the same, it speaks volume.

i am not complaining, i was just telling him/her the truth
he/she just want WvW to be EoTM,

WvW = BG vs YB vs JQ
EoTM = OG vs FR vs BL
WvW/EoTM combine = Green vs Blue vs Red

this thread is the same too,
Death to all servers except one two and three

SkyShroud.2865:

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

That is wrong. My argument assume not everyone is honest in their opinions. Just because one phrase their opinions in certain manner doesn’t means they mean it that way. It is quite easy to make use of sympathy as arguments to convince people, it is also quite easy to turn it into strawman argument. It is way easier to just say don’t delete my server I like it instead of explaining the real reasons behind it. What I am doing here is to identify their honest reasons and convince their reasons are not an issue in the new system.

Without further knowledge about a player, I must either give all of them the benefit of the doubt and assume honesty or I must distrust all of them equally. Since you want to be taken as honest, please extend the courtesy to all others. Since you are versed in philosophy and its fallacies, you surely know about the Categorical Imperative.

As you already said, without further knowledge but what if I do have some other encounter of mentioned players? Afterall, it seems to me that you are standing up for a few instead of every poster as I respond differently to every poster.

I appreciate that you know about categorical imperative but that isn’t how you use it. What is the “maxim” for this case, everyone’s and mine?

I will highlight the maxime from your quote: not everyone is honest in their opinions. If this is the general principle, the question is: why should I assume you yourself are honest when you claim unnamed others are not? If you want to be given the benefit of doubt, you need to give it to others yourself. Furthermore you generalize from the particular case: you use your unnamed dishonest persons to disregard everyone else of the same opinion.

SkyShroud.2865:

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

Edit:
As for your server community, as already mentioned, if your server community is as united as you make it out to be, they can always arrange to move to a specific server. For big fat servers like the ones in T1, it may be impossible but for smaller servers, it is very possible. However, as mentioned, I do think that guilds will end up using this chance to explore.

I am from Vabbi (and have always been). We have lived, amongst other things, through a year of constant bottom rank #27 in the league (about 3 years ago), being 15 people on all maps during primetime (shortly before links) and nine months of being a mercenary server. When the hype is gone, we will probably end up back there. Still, a good core of 30 people refused to leave the server and will most likely stay, no matter what. You are overstepping your bounds by telling me to do as you please.

Just to be clear: I strongly reject this proposal.

Those are strong words. I would like to make it really clear that if one reject any proposals to populations balance and all of these proposals will definitely will not leave any communities untouched, please do not complain or rant about population imbalance, please do not QQ about blobs running over the zerg, please do not rage quit wvw just because you are outnumbered. Oh, do note that there will be people in your server or community not as easily contented as you, you will lose them.

You are again subject to the logical fallacy of faulty generalization: I reject your proposal, not any proposal. You know enough about these fallacies when they are applied against you, please also take care that you are not trapped by them yourself.

I suggested something similar 2 years ago.
However, time has changed, and I understand that the community is an incremental part of the wvw experience. Still I believe that there is a way to implement this change without destroying these communities:

Keep the servers.
But only in WvW.

Basically just keep the server-names as wvw-team options and unasign ALL accounts from all servers at a given date. After this initial purge – and a routine purge of inactive accounts (more than 1 month no wvw-login) every 3 months – all players are put under a specific condition:
- they are not member of a server anymore.
- their previous server will be logged and remembered by the game
- for the next 7 days, they can only enter wvw if they sign up for their !previous! wvw-server for free / they skip the “trial phase” (see below).
- after these 7 days, they loose this restriction and can sign up to any server they like for free / returning players will skip the “trial phase” for their previous server as well.

- once a player chooses a server for the first time in his account history (also after the introduction of this change), he joins for a trial period.
- once a player has joined for trial, he can play wvw on his chosen server with the following restrictions:
— he can’t place siege
— he can’t activate tactics
— he can’t use siege-golems
— he can’t claim objectives
— trail members are marked with a symbol next to their nameplate
- the trial-phase remains until the next reset
- after the next reset he joins this server for good
- if a player transfers during trial phase, he gets locked out from wvw until the next reset has happened. After that, his trial continues to the next reset. This is only possible 5 times per account.

- transfer fees for active accounts remain
- active accounts skip the trial phase after transfering

the effects would be:
- that everyone can join up immediately with their community again after the purge happens, therefore current communities will be preserved
- returning players can join up with their communities or are free to choose a new one (if said community was the reason for their absence, f.e.)
- wvw-servers keep their identity / name / tier
- all wvw-guilds now compete about the same pve/pvp player-pool for recruiting-purposes
- pve players can test out up to 4 wvw servers without being forced to join it immediately. their 5th transfer should be their final decision which was their favorite one (and they should be informed by the game about it)
- possible trial-phase abuse (free spying) is only possible in limited quantities per account.
- the pay-wall still offers limited protection against bandwagoning and spies.

If you like this idea, please +1 it.
If a mod checks who / how many have liked it, he can estimate the popularity of this idea.
Please only reply to this post if you have constructive critique, or have spotted an actual flaw.
“This is crap” is not a flaw

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

That is wrong. My argument assume not everyone is honest in their opinions. Just because one phrase their opinions in certain manner doesn’t means they mean it that way. It is quite easy to make use of sympathy as arguments to convince people, it is also quite easy to turn it into strawman argument. It is way easier to just say don’t delete my server I like it instead of explaining the real reasons behind it. What I am doing here is to identify their honest reasons and convince their reasons are not an issue in the new system.

Without further knowledge about a player, I must either give all of them the benefit of the doubt and assume honesty or I must distrust all of them equally. Since you want to be taken as honest, please extend the courtesy to all others. Since you are versed in philosophy and its fallacies, you surely know about the Categorical Imperative.

As you already said, without further knowledge but what if I do have some other encounter of mentioned players? Afterall, it seems to me that you are standing up for a few instead of every poster as I respond differently to every poster.

I appreciate that you know about categorical imperative but that isn’t how you use it. What is the “maxim” for this case, everyone’s and mine?

I will highlight the maxime from your quote: not everyone is honest in their opinions. If this is the general principle, the question is: why should I assume you yourself are honest when you claim unnamed others are not? If you want to be given the benefit of doubt, you need to give it to others yourself. Furthermore you generalize from the particular case: you use your unnamed dishonest persons to disregard everyone else of the same opinion.

Whoa whoa, stop right there. Since when did I disregard everyone else of the same opinion? That is your perspective, I even did mentioned I responded to everyone differently. Likewise, in your perspective, does “not everyone is honest in their opinions” means every single one? It seems to me that way? /shrug

A principle must be truthful, apparently you trying to draw a black & white here, poor attempt to start a strawman argument.

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

Deaeira.2651:

SkyShroud.2865:

Edit:
As for your server community, as already mentioned, if your server community is as united as you make it out to be, they can always arrange to move to a specific server. For big fat servers like the ones in T1, it may be impossible but for smaller servers, it is very possible. However, as mentioned, I do think that guilds will end up using this chance to explore.

I am from Vabbi (and have always been). We have lived, amongst other things, through a year of constant bottom rank #27 in the league (about 3 years ago), being 15 people on all maps during primetime (shortly before links) and nine months of being a mercenary server. When the hype is gone, we will probably end up back there. Still, a good core of 30 people refused to leave the server and will most likely stay, no matter what. You are overstepping your bounds by telling me to do as you please.

Just to be clear: I strongly reject this proposal.

Those are strong words. I would like to make it really clear that if one reject any proposals to populations balance and all of these proposals will definitely will not leave any communities untouched, please do not complain or rant about population imbalance, please do not QQ about blobs running over the zerg, please do not rage quit wvw just because you are outnumbered. Oh, do note that there will be people in your server or community not as easily contented as you, you will lose them.

You are again subject to the logical fallacy of faulty generalization: I reject your proposal, not any proposal. You know enough about these fallacies when they are applied against you, please also take care that you are not trapped by them yourself.

And you are doing an ad hominem attack on me. /Shrug
Also, this isn’t a logical fallacy either. All the proposals to date touch the servers or communities in one way or another. That is the nature of balancing, to balance something you have to disrupt something.

Anyway, I find your opinions contradictory with your post histories. It seems to me that you are not here to constructively list out the flaws of my proposals but rather attempting to attack me as a person, ignoring most of what I have wrote.

@Arantheal.7396

Basically, is gist of it is to make servers non-mandatory right? Then periodically purge inactive so that it will the inactive will not cause a sudden spike of populations which in return unbalance it and at the same time, make use of the returning players to help to balance the wvw populations. You then addon trial period to allow them to test the wvw environment.

Well, the non-mandatory server is part of this proposal but as mentioned in long texts, implementing this on current system will not have a maximum effect. Firstly, the threshold is fixed, they can choose a already populated server to stack on, ignoring the emptier servers. Secondly, the reward patch already driven most of those non-wvwers into the wvw, that is one major loss of opportunity to balance the populations.

@ skyshroud
the goal is NOT to balance all servers population-wise.
imbalance is part of the game, and result of bandwagoning / server-success. And imbalance is needed to provoke competition: “There are new hights to reach! lets try harder!”. All is fair and square in war and love.

the goal of this change is to equalize all servers in terms of chances.
there is no hidden population-cap anymore, since all draw from the same pool of players, and therefore have equal chances to compete and shift the balance between them. So you remove the “ice” as you coined it, but on the same time keep the communities / server-identities alive. Therefore I believe that this change would satisfy both sides of the fence, resulting in A-net to actually implement it, and therefore improve the game for all of us.

Norbe: I think I understand now why you keep saying my idea is EotM when I’ve clearly stated I don’t see it that way. You’ve not read/understood the original post and you are still hung up on the idea that servers are assigned tiers. You said: “the similarity i mention was players will be put to other servers/tiers temporarily”.

This is NOT what I propose.

There is no temporary guesting in what I suggest. You would stay on your own server and gain score for your own server; unless you choose to transfer to a different non-full server of course.

I have suggested that servers are not assigned tiers at all. The old system has servers fixed in matches that can be very uneven. It can be demotivating to be stuck in the bottom tier. Tier 1 play can become boring. My idea offers players the chance to be free of this by offering the choice of what tier to play in, each time they play (subject to map population limits), , and without transfers or guesting.

SkyShroud understands this, but is concerned that server identity may be lost if players don’t associate a server with a specific tier. I believe that just as guilds survive happily within servers and maintain an identity as an independent group of players, so server communities can flourish independently of the tier the server is in.

Essentially it comes down to a choice:

• Either continue as we are with all the issues this has (and I’ll be honest and say I don’t think it’s as bad now as it has been in the past)
• Remove linking; and the only fair way to do this is what SkyShroud suggested – making new servers.
• Try something different – such as I suggest.

Of the three choices, the first one is easiest to do, SkyShrouds’ is a brave new start, my suggestion is an evolution of what we have already.

Thanks for the reply Norbe, even if it is completely wrong. You’ve made assumptions about what I want that are just not true.
I’ve never changed server, and have no desire to do so.
I don’t lead a guild, and the five guilds I am in are happy where we are doing what we do.

I would like to see my server identity returned. We still have some, but as a linked server it’s not easy.

I don’t like ideas that force players to do something such as move server or pick only one guild. I’ve tried to envisage a solution that allows players to choose their future.

On some levels I agree with you, I think there would be a an unsettled period if we deleted all the servers and remade them. I know it would annoy some players, and would suggest from the posts here that it would not be a popular option. However it would be fair because it would be the same for everyone. I don’t like it myself but I’m willing to discuss the idea and to acknowledge the thought SkyShroud has put in.
Because I don’t think it’s the best option, I’ve offered an alternative.

Arantheal: So you would keep existing server names and tiers… what happens with linking?
I like the idea of guilds being able to recruit from the server-less population, but it would still be dependent on your server being open for transfers, and according to Anet the WvW active population is what decides when a server is full so we may well see the same limitations we see now.

I don’t have a strong opinion on linking either way.
While it obviously diminishes server-identity, it also prevents dull match-ups where one server steamrolls both of the others to the point of constant spawncamping.
I’d say, let it be for now.
On the long run, you could do the following:

- Give servers time to profit from these new fertile grounds, and then remove linking when they all have a decently active environment.
And once that’s done:
- Introduce a “purgatory” period. Servers that A ) get steamrolled 3(or any other number of) times in succession and B ) have very low activity will be purged from the server-list permanently. Former players of this server get free transfers.

Some communities are simply not able to survive in a competitive environment. And playing against them often is no fun for the stronger server, either. So the weakest servers should be able to be removed to improve the state of the game. And since they would logically have a really low population-count, they could band together and transport their community intact to another server, where they will merge over time with the present culture…

You see this happening to regular guilds as well. They form, erode, split, disband, die a slow death and disappear eventually. The struggle to prevent this is part of what glues guild-players together. Allowing this to happen on server scale might actually improve the situation for the weaker servers.
As of now, they just stagnate for eternity, so they would still drag down the wvw-experience for everyone involved, if linking wouldn’t prevent this. I say: turn off the life support, and allow servers to die like regular guilds as well. Some things must be put to rest to allow new ones to rise.

And especially for the latter, I’d do the following:
Allow mega-guilds (250+ players) to contact A-net and ask an Admin for permission to open a new server and be placed on it immediately. Once a Server and its name gets purged, an Admin could follow through and introduce this new guild server to replace it…

Yuffi.2430:

Thanks for the reply Norbe, even if it is completely wrong. You’ve made assumptions about what I want that are just not true.

its know its not what you want, that reply isn’t for you

here is my reply to you then:
do you agree to remove the linking and place a dynamic queue instead for balance?
do you agree to remove the map capacity in order to lessen the queues on WvW on every tier?
do you agree that these are better alternative than deleting each server’s hard work and bonds that they had for years?

…to artificially rewind time , and make new servers but sacrificing old bonds and memories for?

a guild’s selfish reason……

linking had cons, but it has pros too
when you play WvW before linking, you met someone help you and made friends with him even though hes from another guild you go play with him on WvW
from 2 persons experienced it was multiplied throughout the server and thus that kind of community began, when one is down others boosts his moral and encourage to stand up ,play with them and try harder to succeed

that function introduces a more interaction not by just one server but every 2 months you get to meet new friends or trolls from other servers not just the guilds from your server

but further decreasing the space is will not be the same as making friends, it would only provide chaos,

the answer if you want to have more interaction between player is to reduce each linking time to about a week or less and expand the linking tiers if they want to keep the tiers

we already had one big link, its called PvE
we already had 3 link mode, its called EoTM
so you guys propose what again?

if you still insist that i don’t understand you…..
well do you understand me in the first place?

PS: nice vote Juba

Remove blackgate, then it’s all fixed xD

j/k

Norbe:
I understand that linking means you get to meet some new people every two months – but this is a mixed blessing. You talk about developing relationships with other players to for a server community – a list of players you know you can call on to help out, or to run with. the problem is that every two months these new friends disappear when my server is moved, and the process of building new relationships must start again. The only consistent players that can form a community are those on my own server.

So really the question is how do you keep server communities and remove linking while keeping the benefit of improved player numbers (perhaps the one good thing about linking).

SkyShroud has offered a solution that forms new servers and effectively new communities. I have offered a solution that keeps every server we currently have but reduces the impact of their uneven populations. Both are worth discussing.

I do not understand your response to be honest.
Re-linking every week would be utter chaos and in my opinion would do more harm than good. You should know this as a linked server player yourself.
PvE is not 1 linking – it is one common pool of players.
EotM is not 3 links – it is players from all servers split into 3 serverless factions.

I propose a model for WvW that retains current servers and gives the players and guilds the choice of playing in any tier, at any time (subject to map pop caps). Since servers would not be assigned to specific tiers, we would use a server leader board to track scores and provide competition. This leader board could easily be divided into leagues, like many sports do.

^_^

i already said enough for this thread
i have no interest on discussing further conversations

thanks for the conversation and your time on this WvW dilemma
we all want here WvW to be a better place, its just that none of us can agree to a one specific conclusion……

Arantheal.7396:

@ skyshroud
the goal is NOT to balance all servers population-wise.
imbalance is part of the game, and result of bandwagoning / server-success. And imbalance is needed to provoke competition: “There are new hights to reach! lets try harder!”. All is fair and square in war and love.

the goal of this change is to equalize all servers in terms of chances.
there is no hidden population-cap anymore, since all draw from the same pool of players, and therefore have equal chances to compete and shift the balance between them. So you remove the “ice” as you coined it, but on the same time keep the communities / server-identities alive. Therefore I believe that this change would satisfy both sides of the fence, resulting in A-net to actually implement it, and therefore improve the game for all of us.

Yes, as mention in the long wall of text, I too mentioned about giving servers fighting chance. However, the fixed threshold is not gonna provide servers fighting chance. The long wall of text, while intimating and tiring to read, is a near complete solution aim to tackle great majority of the issues.

Still, by purging players out, you are touching the communities. It is something inevitable. At the same time, as mentioned in the wall of text, even applying the non-mandatory and dynamic threshold will not help the imbalance issue much because of how the algorithm works alongside with stacked coverage, it just means that there will be server becoming full because of their imbalance coverage. Finally, to give servers fighting chances is to also include limiting the growth of specific servers and we all know that some servers vastly bigger than some servers, this tend to lock these servers for long period thus guilds in those servers will eventually feel the stress of not able to replace or expand which can lead to negative emotions of wanting to quit.

Norbe.7630:

….

Is this post targeting me?

Now you are doing ad hominem attack on me and not only that, you attack my nation too. You really want to be banned from forums, right?

If you want to attack my credibility, I can easily attack your’s and I mean it, it is really easy to attack your’s.

I have post histories of up to 5 years and anyone (of too much free time on their hand) can track back my posts year after year about me mentioning the same thing, population imbalance.

FYI, you won’t be the last one doing personal attacks on me anyway. I have plenty of people doing that, almost daily, behind my back or whatever. People find it really easy to blame me, a leader of large guild, for their servers dying or their guilds dying or simply to demean us to boost their own image or whatever, is really toxic.

Arantheal.7396:

I don’t have a strong opinion on linking either way.
While it obviously diminishes server-identity, it also prevents dull match-ups where one server steamrolls both of the others to the point of constant spawncamping.
I’d say, let it be for now.
On the long run, you could do the following:

- Give servers time to profit from these new fertile grounds, and then remove linking when they all have a decently active environment.
And once that’s done:
- Introduce a “purgatory” period. Servers that A ) get steamrolled 3(or any other number of) times in succession and B ) have very low activity will be purged from the server-list permanently. Former players of this server get free transfers.

Some communities are simply not able to survive in a competitive environment. And playing against them often is no fun for the stronger server, either. So the weakest servers should be able to be removed to improve the state of the game. And since they would logically have a really low population-count, they could band together and transport their community intact to another server, where they will merge over time with the present culture…

You see this happening to regular guilds as well. They form, erode, split, disband, die a slow death and disappear eventually. The struggle to prevent this is part of what glues guild-players together. Allowing this to happen on server scale might actually improve the situation for the weaker servers.
As of now, they just stagnate for eternity, so they would still drag down the wvw-experience for everyone involved, if linking wouldn’t prevent this. I say: turn off the life support, and allow servers to die like regular guilds as well. Some things must be put to rest to allow new ones to rise.

And especially for the latter, I’d do the following:
Allow mega-guilds (250+ players) to contact A-net and ask an Admin for permission to open a new server and be placed on it immediately. Once a Server and its name gets purged, an Admin could follow through and introduce this new guild server to replace it…

Trolololol. I am suggesting a equal sudden death for everyone and rebirth together. You are suggesting a natural death for everyone. Well, both are death. I do agree that servers need to be cut down in numbers. Just too many servers, not enough indians.

SkyShroud.2865:

Is this post targeting me?

you said everyone should be truthful right?

I’ve been banned on several forums for telling people the truth, i love telling the truth
why cant you just accept that you want free transfer ….sigh.

if you want further discussion we can do it on gw2wvw.net for interesting and unfiltered discussion bring your plenty of people with you there

with no further discussion here, and looks like you love to read a persons posts history for ad infinitum something, have you seen this one?

it came from your place, now its dead
GW2 and PSO2 has a nice ring to it, ain’t it?

i guess i want a new legendary WvW backpack called Ad Hominem … lol

ciao

SkyShroud.2865:

Arantheal.7396:

-snip-

Trolololol. I am suggesting a equal sudden death for everyone and rebirth together. You are suggesting a natural death for everyone. Well, both are death. I do agree that servers need to be cut down in numbers. Just too many servers, not enough indians.

If that is what you’ve gathered from my post(s), you haven’t gathered anything.
In my last post I mentioned that the threat of possible extinction for a server – just as it exists for regular guilds – could improve the server-experience and bonding process for new (and maybe even already existing) players of that community and forge them together more closely. While the deletion of irrelevant servers would certainly improve the gameplay for everyone else, I did not advocate for it to actually happen. If such an event would occur, it would be a disastrous one, and possibly discourage many people from such a server to continue playing wvw or gw2 at all.
Yes, pulling the life-support would thin out the irrelevant servers out there, but since my original proposal would allow all servers to grow from the same population-pool, this issue will most likely be offset over time.
I merely came up with this option after your question about linking or not in my proposal, and I responded that I don’t have heavy opinion on linking, so it may as well can stay in place for the time being.
In fact, the populationcap can stay in place as well. Every 3 months it would be reduced anyways as inactive accounts get unplugged from them, and therefore just cause smaller servers to catch up over time. Therefore a population-cap wouldn’t be an issue anymore (as you try to make it out to be) since every server has the chance to reach it eventually.

You and I do advocate for very different solutions.
I want to preserve the current wvw communities and their identity.
You don’t.

No idea if norbe tells the truth about your intentions, but he is certainly correct in his accusation of you using a disingenuous argumentation-style. Do us all a favor and quit the constant misrepresentations.
tyvm.

Arantheal.7396:

I want to preserve the current wvw communities and their identity.

You’re not alone about wanting to preserve wvw communities.

But I’m not a fan of your Darwinistic idea; it leaves very little opportunity for a comeback, and dismisses server communities that are still quite important to different players for different reasons.

you have to let some things go, in order to create something new.
F.e. every balance patch generates salt. Still it’s an important, ongoing process.
Anyways, I do agree to a certain degree in it being a sub-optimal solution. The pro’s and con’s are somewhat balanced. Hence I didn’t outright include it in my original proposal. Also if it works, deserted servers would a non-issue in the future anyways.

DONT!!! .. make more Servers so the Ranking will show the real Situation … not the ANeT-Ranking-Machine.

Arantheal.7396:

SkyShroud.2865:

Arantheal.7396:

-snip-

Trolololol. I am suggesting a equal sudden death for everyone and rebirth together. You are suggesting a natural death for everyone. Well, both are death. I do agree that servers need to be cut down in numbers. Just too many servers, not enough indians.

If that is what you’ve gathered from my post(s), you haven’t gathered anything.
In my last post I mentioned that the threat of possible extinction for a server – just as it exists for regular guilds – could improve the server-experience and bonding process for new (and maybe even already existing) players of that community and forge them together more closely. While the deletion of irrelevant servers would certainly improve the gameplay for everyone else, I did not advocate for it to actually happen. If such an event would occur, it would be a disastrous one, and possibly discourage many people from such a server to continue playing wvw or gw2 at all.
Yes, pulling the life-support would thin out the irrelevant servers out there, but since my original proposal would allow all servers to grow from the same population-pool, this issue will most likely be offset over time.
I merely came up with this option after your question about linking or not in my proposal, and I responded that I don’t have heavy opinion on linking, so it may as well can stay in place for the time being.
In fact, the populationcap can stay in place as well. Every 3 months it would be reduced anyways as inactive accounts get unplugged from them, and therefore just cause smaller servers to catch up over time. Therefore a population-cap wouldn’t be an issue anymore (as you try to make it out to be) since every server has the chance to reach it eventually.

You and I do advocate for very different solutions.
I want to preserve the current wvw communities and their identity.
You don’t.

No idea if norbe tells the truth about your intentions, but he is certainly correct in his accusation of you using a disingenuous argumentation-style. Do us all a favor and quit the constant misrepresentations.
tyvm.

Nah, I gathered it as it is. I wasn’t the one that ask you about your opinions on linking, you already lost track of the conversation between yourself and others.

Furthermore, the natural death isn’t preserving a server community. Server community is way bigger than a guild of even 500 man. Implementing natural death in system perspective means you have to setup a criteria as guideline for it, that guideline will most likely exterminate the remnants even if they oppose it. It isn’t any much different mine. You are just selectively destroying server and I am choosing equal death to all in the spirit of fairness.

Also, even without natural death, as mentioned in my other posts (if you really did read them). You reducing the threshold again is selectively attacking server communities, in this case the top populated communities. To spread the populations, you have to take from somewhere, you cannot achieve populations balance in a reasonable short period of time without that. Likewise, to spread populations, you have to acknowledge the fact that there is not enough off hours guild to spread across 24 servers and likewise the coverage.

Anyway, you are selectively harming servers while I am being fair to all servers.

As for the ad hominem attack, if I were to say I am tired of getting smashed over by blobs over and over again, my server continuously go full thus recruitment increasely difficult, even full still not able to match other servers’ numbers, I with my pride refuse to stack on T1 and finally my guild is one of the very very few guilds in off hours capable of sustaining in a non-off hour presence server, would you believe that? It is my words against others, it is a pointless discussion, ad hominem attacks are just a pure waste of time.

There is nothing disingenuous about in my argument, if people continuously intending to move the topic off the point, I have to call them out for it. To sway topic off point itself is a fallacy.

Btw, did I question your intention when made your proposal? I only do question people’s intention if they continuously intending to sway the topic off point.

For others who don’t know what is ad hominem attacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg

Norbe.7630:

ill wait here so you would know what strawberry argument is

http://www.gw2wvw.net/index.php?/topic/690-wvw-backpack-called-ad-hominem/

you don’t want the fans to be bored by the same ad hohenheim, strawberry argument, or any disambiguation replies you can google just to ditch other peoples argument and if you don’t have an explanation you would just simply say its a personal atk.

thats why you are losing atm, you all cry when you get downed

Erm, my post got deleted, is fine because if other guilds or leaders or officers do ask me for opinions about servers, I will just tell them what I think. So, it doesn’t matter if you or others read that post or not.

Regardless, the fact that you continuously moving the topic off point via some fallacies don’t make my arguments disambiguation. In fact, I question you why you continuously trying hard to misrepresent my position while providing little to the actual topic.

SkyShroud.2865:

Erm, my post got deleted

too bad…….
well, you could say “hi” there at least as a courtesy to my invitation

i promise no harm to you will be done there

>you cannot achieve populations balance in a reasonable short period of time without that.
I do not intend to fix it within a short period of time.
I directly stated that I would allow time to correct this issue on the basis of these changes.
You are the one who wants to rush it and therefore takes server-loss into account.
You will find that there was zero mentioning of the deletion of servers in my first post.
Hence I stand by my assumption that you did not understand my post for what it is, and just correlate it to your own intentions.
I do not share yours.
Your frame of evaluation of its effectiveness under YOUR goals does not apply.
Deal with it.

>It is my words against others, it is a pointless discussion, ad hominem attacks are just a pure waste of time.
Therefore I did not engage in such manners. Do you assume I did? Do you strawmen again?
Welp, rhetoric question… In fact you did.

>Btw, did I question your intention when made your proposal?
No, neither did I. Your question is pointless.

Anyways, arguing you seems futile.
Sorry for hijacking your thread.
Maybe I open my own in a couple of months, if these problems for wvw still exist.
Good bye.

Arantheal.7396:

>you cannot achieve populations balance in a reasonable short period of time without that.
I do not intend to fix it within a short period of time.
I directly stated that I would allow time to correct this issue on the basis of these changes.
You are the one who wants to rush it and therefore takes server-loss into account.
You will find that there was zero mentioning of the deletion of servers in my first post.
Hence I stand by my assumption that you did not understand my post for what it is, and just correlate it to your own intentions.
I do not share yours.
Your frame of evaluation of its effectiveness under YOUR goals does not apply.
Deal with it.

>It is my words against others, it is a pointless discussion, ad hominem attacks are just a pure waste of time.
Therefore I did not engage in such manners. Do you assume I did? Do you strawmen again?
Welp, rhetoric question… In fact you did.

>Btw, did I question your intention when made your proposal?
No, neither did I. Your question is pointless.

Anyways, arguing you seems futile.
Sorry for hijacking your thread.
Maybe I open my own in a couple of months, if these problems for wvw still exist.
Good bye.

Since you are not attempting to fix it in a reasonable short period of the time, you are attempting to fix it via attrition by periodically reducing it bit by it is what I am saying, therefore harming the communites and in this case the top populated communites. In other words, you are just merely selectively harming communities to reach your goal. Not all that different, you are still harming communities, you are just doing it in a subtle manner and at the same progress, you will see people like myself and many others complaining about how unfair the full status is. Likewise, again, as mentioned, you are not fixing the coverage issue but rather the overall total numbers.

In your perspective I am reckless but in my perspective, you are not accounting for the different perspectives and scenarios during the whole progress. Ultimately, you are still not gonna get a comparable balance via overall total numbers alone.

Lastly, the ad hominem is reference to your reference on Norbe’s question and using his questions to cite disingenuous . Honestly speaking, if you can’t keep up with the conversation then don’t put it in. After all, you did completely miss the points.

Been saying for years that the only thing anet can do is kick everyone off all servers, then CONTROL the number of players allowed back in.

Of course guilds and claim a set number of places so that guilds dont get separated, but also we dont want all the hardcore wvw guilds to be only in the top 3 servers either.

>you are attempting to fix it via attrition by periodically reducing it bit by it is what I am saying
And you are wrong!
Dude, read my initial post again.
I said to first unhook all accounts from the servers, then allow those who actively choose to do so back in, and keep purging inactive accounts every 3 months, to make room for new, active ones.
And since now everyone can choose and try out any server that they deem interesting, all servers will get an influx of new, active wvw-players on reasonable rates.
This is the opposite of slow attrition!
This is slow invigoration!
AND it keeps all current communities alive and – on the long run – more prospering than ever!

All you do at this point is blatantly stating the opposite of what I actually said!
Your only valid critique-point left is coverage, and that one isn’t solved in your idea either, because the root of this issue is human decision: You can’t force anyone to choose a specific server, just to compensate its lack of nighttime coverage. Unless the very core mechanics of wvw get changed (no 24/7 wvw-server-uptime anymore / tick cap), this issue will always remain, and frankly, it’s not that big of a problem to beginn with either, since it’s a game that will always restart and reset, and not a rl-war with actual casualties.
If other servers have a nighttime advantage via population-timezones, deal with it and hope for the next matchup. And if you get night-capped ALL of the time, and it annoys YOU so much, pay the costs to transfer. That’s what the transfer function is meant for: For active players to choose their favorite environment.
If you only enjoy winning, join the winners, and make room for those who appreciate the environment of your current server more. GvG’ers come to mind, f.e.

Arantheal.7396:

>you are attempting to fix it via attrition by periodically reducing it bit by it is what I am saying
And you are wrong!
Dude, read my initial post again.
I said to first unhook all accounts from the servers, then allow those who actively choose to do so back in, and keep purging inactive accounts every 3 months, to make room for new, active ones.
And since now everyone can choose and try out any server that they deem interesting, all servers will get an influx of new, active wvw-players on reasonable rates.
This is the opposite of slow attrition!
This is slow invigoration!
AND it keeps all current communities alive and – on the long run – more prospering than ever!

All you do at this point is blatantly stating the opposite of what I actually said!
Your only valid critique-point left is coverage, and that one isn’t solved in your idea either, because the root of this issue is human decision: You can’t force anyone to choose a specific server, just to compensate its lack of nighttime coverage. Unless the very core mechanics of wvw get changed (no 24/7 wvw-server-uptime anymore / tick cap), this issue will always remain, and frankly, it’s not that big of a problem to beginn with either, since it’s a game that will always restart and reset, and not a rl-war with actual casualties.
If other servers have a nighttime advantage via population-timezones, deal with it and hope for the next matchup. And if you get night-capped ALL of the time, and it annoys YOU so much, pay the costs to transfer. That’s what the transfer function is meant for: For active players to choose their favorite environment.
If you only enjoy winning, join the winners, and make room for those who appreciate the environment of your current server more. GvG’ers come to mind, f.e.

In fact, the populationcap can stay in place as well. Every 3 months it would be reduced anyways as inactive accounts get unplugged from them, and therefore just cause smaller servers to catch up over time. Therefore a population-cap wouldn’t be an issue anymore (as you try to make it out to be) since every server has the chance to reach it eventually.

In that case, this part don’t make any logical sense. I thought is a mis-phrase but now since you say you gonna not reduce cap, then how does this logic even work. Why would people pick a emptier server if higher server are open? Why would emptier server even stand a chance when you don’t have enough people to spread to 24 servers? How can we have equal populations if we don’t have enough to go to 24 servers? How will that even impact the already full server that has a lot of players already driven to do wvw via the reward patch?

As for the coverage, I did explained about implementation timing and modification of algorithm to support identifying of player’s play timing, from there personalise transfer system. Also, I did mentioned (maybe in another thread) that you won’t have enough coverage to go to 24 servers.

Nightcapping isn’t all about win or lose, well, I do have to say the very term nightcapping is actually made by people who care only about win or lose. However, for people that are actually playing at that timing, it is a matter of gameplay. You are not fixing the gameplay for these people.

>Why would people pick a emptier server if higher server are open?
Because they are obviously not open.
The pop cap wouldn’t be an issue anymore, since all players contributing to it are actively playing on it, so further players would just mean higher Que’s, which are frustrating as well.
This in turn means that all servers will have a chance to reach the population cap eventually, IF the size of the general player-pool allows for it.

>How can we have equal populations if we don’t have enough to go to 24 servers?
We won’t, because equality of population isn’t the goal, it’s equality of recruitment chances. And that goal is reached, allowing for ongoing competition between the servers.

>How will that even impact the already full server that has a lot of players already driven to do wvw via the reward patch?
Most likely it won’t, which is the preferred outcome for the people on these servers. Still, as soon as a guild moves for whatever reason (drama, fresh start, whatever), their slots will be left open for the taking. Take your chances when that occurs.
Also, this is why we had tiers originally: to pair servers on a somewhat equal footing. And with these chances, they will develop more closely population-wise over time.

SkyShroud.2865:

from there personalise transfer system.

Do you realize that this can be called “discriminate based on individual player-habits” as well?
Do you seriously advocate for such a practice!?

Arantheal.7396:

>Why would people pick a emptier server if higher server are open?
Because they are obviously not open.
The pop cap wouldn’t be an issue anymore, since all players contributing to it are actively playing on it, so further players would just mean higher Que’s, which are frustrating as well.
This in turn means that all servers will have a chance to reach the population cap eventually, IF the size of the general player-pool allows for it.

>How can we have equal populations if we don’t have enough to go to 24 servers?
We won’t, because equality of population isn’t the goal, it’s equality of recruitment chances. And that goal is reached, allowing for ongoing competition between the servers.

>How will that even impact the already full server that has a lot of players already driven to do wvw via the reward patch?
Most likely it won’t, which is the preferred outcome for the people on these servers. Still, as soon as a guild moves for whatever reason (drama, fresh start, whatever), their slots will be left open for the taking. Take your chances when that occurs.
Also, this is why we had tiers originally: to pair servers on a somewhat equal footing. And with these chances, they will develop more closely population-wise over time.

I clearly state they are open. Sure, there will be “Full” servers, but there will also be “Very High” servers, why would people pick “Medium” over “Very High”?

Is there a point in giving servers false hope if equal populations imbalance continue to exist? I already stated that there will be existing servers far exceeding the full threshold, for new servers that are open and later turn full due to active recruitment, do you think they are capable of fighting toe to toe with those servers? If they can’t, how does that help? Then, on another paragraph, you expect those super full servers to shrink for whatever reasons, how is that any different from harming the communities? Is it alright to punish these servers for things that are mostly not their fault as it is designs failure in the first place?

Arantheal.7396:

SkyShroud.2865:

from there personalise transfer system.

Do you realize that this can be called “discriminate based on individual player-habits” as well?
Do you seriously advocate for such a practice!?

In the business world, personalizing service is actually a plus and it is very popular. Of course, in this case, it isn’t a service but rather restriction on movement. When anet decided to implement time slice, do you think the off hours people see it as a discrimination. I personally see it as a discrimination and I am from off hours, it is saying that you are doing way too well and you need to be restricted for that. Is it necessary inorder to create a more balance score system? It is. Freedom and balance don’t really go well with another, you want balance something, you need to limit something. It is a give and take.

>why would people pick “Medium” over “Very High”
Because some people really hate que’s and enjoy group / solo-roaming more than blobbing…
Your favorite way of playing wvw is not automatically everyones favorite way of playing wvw…

>I already stated that there will be existing servers far exceeding the full threshold
And guess what happens when my changes would be introduced:
As soon as everybody gets unhooked initially, those coming too late to the party will be locked out from rejoining their server, due to it being full already, causing them to tickle down into other servers. In some case even taking their guilds with them, resulting in even more free slots…

>Is it alright to punish these servers for things that are mostly not their fault as it is designs failure in the first place?
They do not own these servers. Being on them is a privilege, not a right. And if them being there is the result of a design failure – as you said yourself – correcting this issue would automatically mean that some will loose their erroneously granted privilege of being there and need to adjust to the new situation.
It’s the same principle of nerfing a class: Even tho it will kitten off some of the players playing it, it is necessary regardless to keep the balance of the game. Still, a nerf or population cutdown does not mean destroying / deleting a community, it merely means to hurt them.
And these wounds can and will heal, resulting an improved gameplay-experience for everyone who comes after them, and – after a period of adjustment – even improving the overall gameplay experience including for those who can’t enter their original servers anymore but had time to settle down elsewhere.

About your reply to my second post:
you collude 2 very different things.
One is a change of gameplay-mechanics that apply to everyone involved equally.
What you suggest are different transfer-prices for different people on a individual basis, so active discrimination of singled out individuals. Even worse, gems are bought for real money, and tempering with prices for services in a individual basis is just the start of a slippery slope down to place that you yourself wouldn’t want to end up in as well…

An issue that unbalances teams & server population severly are the “Fair Weather players” . They will login & boost your winning streak by a whopping extra +30% in games when you are already winning (a rough estimate). They dont actually help in flipping the coin to score the first win though, and they dont come at all if the server isnt winning. To put it simply: They help winners win and help losers lose. They are a totally useless but large chunk of a servers popluation. I’ve seen NPC Guards do more for a server than those guys, its ridiculous.

When the going gets rough, they will be quick to logout. Thats when you often start losing big as the enemy is prepared to meet your winning team plus those extra +30% & perhaps you get to see another t1 server crashing down through the tiers again.

It’s very easy to blame PUGs, however its incorrect. We have witnessed many times “top tier fight guilds” logout when outclassed on the battlefield with even numbers. Obviously, repeatedly losing is frustrating (for everyone).

Alot of longterm wvw players dont play primarily to win. Its about enjoying the competition, sportsmanship & excitement (though I don’t mean by playing wreckless). But, that usually means I will go do something else if we are dominating too much (alot of younger players dont understand that part).

If we want to play football, we need 2 opposing teams. We know we arent really enemies, but notice its more exciting when evenly matched. There’s not much excitement in walkovers, even though technically a win. Welcome to “the green room” ;-)

Arantheal.7396:

>why would people pick “Medium” over “Very High”
Because some people really hate que’s and enjoy group / solo-roaming more than blobbing…
Your favorite way of playing wvw is not automatically everyones favorite way of playing wvw…

This is a poor reasoning, linking invalid all of those. A couple of server continue to stay as medium despite many were full.

Arantheal.7396:

>I already stated that there will be existing servers far exceeding the full threshold
And guess what happens when my changes would be introduced:
As soon as everybody gets unhooked initially, those coming too late to the party will be locked out from rejoining their server, due to it being full already, causing them to tickle down into other servers. In some case even taking their guilds with them, resulting in even more free slots…

This is base on assumption on returning players, a lot of returning players. Assumption that guilds will transfer out for returning players. How many guilds in the already full server now have transferred so far?

Arantheal.7396:

>Is it alright to punish these servers for things that are mostly not their fault as it is designs failure in the first place?
They do not own these servers. Being on them is a privilege, not a right. And if them being there is the result of a design failure – as you said yourself – correcting this issue would automatically mean that some will loose their erroneously granted privilege of being there and need to adjust to the new situation.
It’s the same principle of nerfing a class: Even tho it will kitten off some of the players playing it, it is necessary regardless to keep the balance of the game. Still, a nerf or population cutdown does not mean destroying / deleting a community, it merely means to hurt them.
And these wounds can and will heal, resulting an improved gameplay-experience for everyone who comes after them, and – after a period of adjustment – even improving the overall gameplay experience including for those who can’t enter their original servers anymore but had time to settle down elsewhere.

So is ok to selectively hurt people and not ok to equally destroy everyone, erm…

Arantheal.7396:

About your reply to my second post:
you collude 2 very different things.
One is a change of gameplay-mechanics that apply to everyone involved equally.
What you suggest are different transfer-prices for different people on a individual basis, so active discrimination of singled out individuals. Even worse, gems are bought for real money, and tempering with prices for services in a individual basis is just the start of a slippery slope down to place that you yourself wouldn’t want to end up in as well…

You suggested selectively hurting server, I suggest selective hurting individuals, you can hurt server, why I can’t hurt individual? It is a matter of perspective but in this case, this isn’t really selective but every single one are subjected to it, as long your timezone is full, you are locked out

Also, base on categorical imperative (which the other posters love to point it out) on implementing solutions for system, your’s doesn’t abide to that since you are applying your punishment on selective basis and not subjecting everyone on the same punishment.

I agree the server concept is a failure. It is too slow to react to changes in population. This creates imbalanced servers for a long period of time. This causes people that are on the short end of the stick to find another game/game mode. Making it guild/alliance based would be an improvement.

I vote no. I do not want what is in essence another EotM.

I vote to get rid of the links. Some of us want our small scale combat back and to never see BlackGate again. Kaineng didn’t sign up for this.

Short couple hour matches is only option if anet wants players play WvW seriously and how it should be played. Of course this game mode would need good rewards and real match statistics because PvP is kind of pointless without statistics.