Guild Wars 2

Long ago, not sure how long is that, maybe 2 years? A small group of players, including myself, advocate for something really simple and that is deletion of servers. We saw something many couldn’t and that is a inherent imbalance between servers, something that is pretty much impossible to fix without hurting everyone’s gameplay.

There was a few officers from some t1 wvw guilds opposing it greatly citing community reason but well, we all know that isn’t true since they always transfer around. However, many months down the road, those same officers asked for deletion. The reason being because the t1 servers they were in got affected by the imbalance. This make me realize one very important thing and that is unless the majority get affected by this imbalance, the majority will not care enough to know. In fact, they have no idea what is it all about. Realistically speaking, by the time for the silent majority to actually learn about what all these balancing about, the tiers would likely to be compressed to 2 by then which pretty much too late for any rectification.

Back then, I suggested deletion repeatedly over many threads and I am sure, really sure devs did read it because devs did drop hint that nuke is a option, with repeatedly nuking every few months. It was almost like what I suggested.

Of course, we all know linking is used in the end which I assume because is the least resistance change.

Still, months and years down the road, has the balancing improved? Not really. The only noticeable different is all of us get more people but imbalance still the same in ratio. Are people happy with the balancing? I don’t think so since we do have groups of guild leaders and officers across servers banding together talking about the imbalance. They plan to submit something concrete to the devs, honestly speaking, I have no idea how far they went since I stopped keeping up to the progress.

I personally wanted a more balance gamemode, I am not expecting perfection but at the very least, a fighting chance and not just a one sided gameplay. Unlike back then, now I have even better understanding of the servers and now thought up a slightly different approach.

Regardless, I ask of you all, do you all want balance or do you want to keep the current imbalance?

PS: I will talk about servers and the modified approach on the next two posts.

I am gonna explain for the benefits of the anyone that has no idea what the server really looks like using a simple diagram, diagram 1.

Despite having megaserver, it doesn’t change how the server looks like from a formal perspective.

We still have our main container where all the pvers, pvpers, wvwers chose the same server in. This main container is the server base population, all your pugs population come from there. This main container is a accumulation of players over the course of near 5 years. Can you imagine just how much accounts are in there?

Next we have the pump, basically the incentive to get people to play WvW. Initially is all about fun, then we have the reward patch.

Next is the wvw itself. Currently, the server status is not calculated base on that main container but rather wvw itself. It uses a population algorithm that calculate server status base on play hours. So, 500 people that play 1 hour theoretically same as 250 people that play 2 hours. At least I believe that is how it works but I am sure it has couple more math formula to improve the accuracy, still that is the gist of it.

Basically, that’s the entire makeup of a single server.

What happens if we put multiple the servers side by side? (Diagram 2)

I am sure you starting to see the differences.

Starting from the main containers. Why is the main containers so different from each other? Simply because the server status wasn’t calculated using wvw population at the start. Anet only change the algorithm 2 years ago. They only did that because DH and DB were full at that time due to their huge pve populations yet empty wvw populations. That is to say anet never gave a single thought about population imbalance since day 1. Still, why is base population different in so much? Another reason is because threshold for servers were not the same for all servers at the beginning as well. There were a number of times where anet repeatedly mentioned they raised t1 servers cap and likewise I am sure great deal of players prefer to choose a “Very High” server than a “Medium” server. The compounding effects resulted in the current base populations we have.

Moving on to WvW population. I am sure you will notice the differences, why are some server bigger than another yet lower in activity level? This is because of algorithm that calculate play hours so server 2 play longer hours than server 1. There are flaws accompanying this approach and the main flaw is if server one play an hour more, they may overwhelm server 2.

Moving on to the threshold. Now, unlike the past, we all share the same threshold, hurray! Still, it isn’t a good time to celebrate because the threshold is a fixed threshold and can only be adjusted by anet. It is the only logical conclusion of why some servers are full when they couldn’t match the coverage of some other servers. With this fixed threshold, we can all come to a conclusion that matchup can be unbalance. Let say server 5 fight against server 1.

Now, you might want to argue that they are in different tier but that’s not exactly it. We also have something called matchup algorithm that goes one up and one down. So, one of them will pit against server 1 and 2. Likewise, what if we don’t have 3 equal servers of equal strength? One of the servers will suffer in that matchup.

Then, we also have something called attrition. Guilds have to replace their players that went ianctive or quit somehow. For server 1, they could try their luck on their main container. How about server 6 though? Their main container pretty small so chance is that they will shrink to go below threshold, then recover to go up and locked. In this manner, they can never hope to handle server 1 or 2.

Next is we also have something I would call inflow of new players. New players have to choose servers. The obvious choice is server 3, it sound really alright. In reality, we have 24 NA servers and we have to spread new players over 24 NA servers. Do you really think gw2 is still popular like in the past to attract enough to spread 24 servers?

That is the simple explanations of the servers. There certainly more depths than that but this is the gist of it.

No. /15 characters

I mentioned about a slightly improve idea than the nuking every 3 months. The diagram shows that idea.

Base on the understanding I have on the servers, it aims to eliminate all the problems it has now.

First, we start with merging all the tanks into a true common tank. To do that, we have to make servers non-mandatory. This is really important because we can eliminate the differences between the main tanks and not only that, we can pour the new players into a common tank for all the guilds to compete over with. We also eliminate the upsurge of players due to the pump (like reward patch). This is due to the fact that we make them choose a server before they can join in.

Now, you might think what difference will that make in long run. It is a huge difference because the solution isn’t in parts but as a whole. We next need to look at the WvW container. When we all choose servers, people get assigned the server tag and if they go inactive, they will remain in the server tag, at least that’s how the current server works. However, in this approach, we gonna purge all the inactive accounts, untag them, periodically let say 3 months inactive. We will put them all back to the main tank and if one day they want to WvW again, they have to choose a new server while subjecting to the status cap. You might ask if they be unhappy? The answer is most likely no since you get to choose a new server for free again.

Finally, we need to shrink the number of servers so we can implement the dynamic threshold. Currently, anet is forcing servers to shrink down, in attempt to spread evenly across servers, I believe. However, that is not appropriate because you will lose more overall populations in the long run. Furthermore, to spread to 24 servers also means that none of the server will be able to have a 24 hours coverage, we just don’t have enough to go around. Thus, we need to shrink the number of servers and not only that, we need a dynamic threshold to handle population imbalance between server dynamically. The idea is to simply decide a acceptable disparity between A and B, if A far exceed the allowed disparity, you close off A until B catches up. Doing so, you give everyone in every server a chance a grow, a sense of hope that they can recruit and fight back. This also should be able to handle any sudden surge of populations without ridiculously locking everyone out. Likewise, keep population similar and thus reasonable balance.

This approach cannot be implemented on current servers. The populations disparity is too huge. We would have to force merge a lot of servers and we can arguably say that deleting is better than merging when come to long term balancing. Some servers might be locked for a very very long time if go by merging route.

Edit: Some might be confused over “server” this term. In this approach, “server” is misleading, “fraction” is the more appropriate term since you can join and leave the fraction though the leaving part is decided by the purge. You can transfer between fractions.

No, you just want WvW with free bandwagon transfer.

i vote for thread deletion

dynamic queuing is an alternative balancing to linking

sadly no more outnumbered pips bonus………

ThunderPanda.1872:

No, you just want WvW with free bandwagon transfer.

You should read the post, it takes quite a bit of effort to put them together. Possibilities of stacking servers is slim under dynamic capping. Stacking servers is the result of not only guilds but also the accumulated base populations over the years. By remaking the servers, one is forcing that accumulated populations to spread and second is to make wvw population truly only wvw population. All stacking attempt will be futile under the system for the server will only open if the disparity is acceptable.

Norbe.7630:

i vote for thread deletion

dynamic queuing is an alternative balancing to linking

sadly no more outnumbered pips bonus………

We already have people complaining about server full, unable to recruit to replace and fight other servers. We also had map queues complain during starting of rewards patch. Now, you want to force a map limit base on the lowest pop while shutting the side with more people, you are inviting complains and it is way more intrusive than my suggestions.

SkyShroud.2865:

Norbe.7630:

i vote for thread deletion

dynamic queuing is an alternative balancing to linking

sadly no more outnumbered pips bonus………

We already have people complaining about server full, unable to recruit to replace and fight other servers. We also had map queues complain during starting of rewards patch. Now, you want to force a map limit base on the lowest pop while shutting the side with more people, you are inviting complains and it is way more intrusive than my suggestions.

ive bolded the words
its like prime vs prime
NA EU SEA AU etc

however yours is not bad…. its just WvGlobes thingy before

OK with this suggestion we should rename WvW to Edge of the Mists !!!

This will be the final nail to WvW, Delete your thread dude …

The OP clearly wants to smash the final nail in WvWs coffin….
NO
NO
NO

I kinda agree to thread starter, it been frustrating that servers are full, Anet should really do something about it.

I see what you’re trying to achieve SkyShroud and it’s good to see some serious thought on alternatives other than restart everything. But, how does your idea work better than the one I posted here (sixth post or so down) ?

Oh and responding to your title: I vote to keep servers and server identity.
Despite the trauma of linking I still feel a loyalty to, and camaraderie with, my server through my guilds and my friends. I doubt I am alone in this.

You’re not alone in this. I’ve been on Gandara since beta, and in spite of transfers and bandwagoning ($$$$$) ruining a lot of communities (thanks for that), we keep rebuilding and it still matters to many.

Communities, guilds, friends and enemies are what makes this game mode work. Any future solutions or changes should bear that in mind and encourage it, not seek to destroy or anonymise it.

From A Message from the Game Director

This year we also took a different approach with PvP and WvW releases. In PvE, we make fresh new content with the goal of surprising and delighting you with our work, but in competitive modes, the community owns the game modes and chooses what we work on, and we definitely shouldn’t be surprising you with where we take those game modes. Instead our goal this year was to develop more incrementally, test with the community on the live side, and take feedback every step of the way.

The “owners” of WvW have been complaining, with good reason, about the population imbalance for years. After all, with BG and JQ as top servers for what, at least four of the five years, you’d think that would indicate that the game setup is flawed.

Locking only prevents a very high server from competing with an overfull server and in NA, linking hasn’t made it so a linked server combination can compete with an unlinked overfull server.

It’s time Anet started to fix the problem with overfull WvW servers.

I vote for the deletion of daredevils in wvw

Juba.8406:

OK with this suggestion we should rename WvW to Edge of the Mists !!!

This will be the final nail to WvW, Delete your thread dude …

Edge of the mist is megaserver like solution. This isn’t, this is similar to merging servers but instead of merge, deletion is carried out due to better spread on the players. You are still tied to the server, unless you went inactive for 3 months then the purge will purge you out. As long you are active, you are still subject to the transfer cost if you want to transfer. The purge is there to ensure no inactive accounts are residing in the servers otherwise we will just revert back to the current server of accumulated populations and be screwed over by returning players every once in awhile. There is a some depths on what is accumulated populations.

You should really read the posts, afterall, I did put quite a bit of effort to put them together.

Yuffi.2430:

I see what you’re trying to achieve SkyShroud and it’s good to see some serious thought on alternatives other than restart everything. But, how does your idea work better than the one I posted here (sixth post or so down) ?

Oh and responding to your title: I vote to keep servers and server identity.
Despite the trauma of linking I still feel a loyalty to, and camaraderie with, my server through my guilds and my friends. I doubt I am alone in this.

You meant this https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Has-the-time-come-for-some-Brave-New-Worlds/first#post6650866 right?

That approach seems megaserver like to me and server identity is not gonna be maintained in that approach since players get to choose up to 4 different tiers. I believe server identity only come to be when everyone in the server stick together days and nights to achieve something. However, you are splitting them up like how guild system let people join 4 guilds but in this case, without the cross chat function. Their identity is the guild they are in and in this case would be the tier they are in. However, their identity isn’t going to last because you are resetting the colors every now and then and so is the group of players you play with. It also will make recruitment hard for guilds.

In my approach, we are indeed rebuilding the words but it also means everyone are given a chance to build a concrete server identity unlike now where guest servers are being pushed around like some pushovers.

hotcatz.6834:

The OP clearly wants to smash the final nail in WvWs coffin….
NO
NO
NO

Elaborate please.

Norbe.7630:

SkyShroud.2865:

Norbe.7630:

i vote for thread deletion

dynamic queuing is an alternative balancing to linking

sadly no more outnumbered pips bonus………

We already have people complaining about server full, unable to recruit to replace and fight other servers. We also had map queues complain during starting of rewards patch. Now, you want to force a map limit base on the lowest pop while shutting the side with more people, you are inviting complains and it is way more intrusive than my suggestions.

ive bolded the words
its like prime vs prime
NA EU SEA AU etc

however yours is not bad…. its just WvGlobes thingy before

Yes, the dynamic queue is limiting base on the timezone but not every server has equal number in those timing. People are gonna complain if they are stuck in queue. They will call that “discrimination” which it isn’t wrong and likewise “punishment”.

No, this isn’t WvGlobes but a merge yet instead we blow it up and add in couple of long term preventive measures to make sure the same issues don’t occur again.

I see what your trying to do. My vote would be an emphatic NO!!

Malerian.8435:

I see what your trying to do. My vote would be an emphatic NO!!

Elaborate please.

1. You are killing pre-existing server community. Longevity of WvW is based on the principle that allies and rivalries are just as important as the game mode itself. It’s what keeps people playing WvW. It keeps the team play and competition healthy in a very static map in a very static meta with a very static strategy based on your population at a given time.

2. You are making buckets for PUGs versus Guilds. Very bad idea simply because PUGs are not PUGs. PUGs are WvW players that don’t want to be lumped into some random function of chance that they get the right leader/active world. And in order for this to self-correct, you then have to wait ~3 months for the reset…yeah, that won’t kill WvW. /s

3. Your system mimics EotM too much. If you’ve spent any significant amount of time in EotM, you’d see the flaw with being lumped with strangers into a match destined for snowballing for one side over another.

4. There are simpler and much more easier to implement solutions. If you are trying to get server transferring for free and basically forcing everyone off their current game world to reset where people go, why not just do that. In your scenario, guild leaders get first crack at where they go but I’m not sure that even makes the most sense since all that does is encourage mega-guilds.

A much simpler alternative solution would open up free world transferring for a specific period of time (announce a month+ ahead of time so guilds can coordinate) using the server population cap of the highest WvW server currently (BG in NA). Then after a few weeks, force move (must choose a different server) the low population server players also for free. Everyone is now on a closer to “high” population server. Re-lock worlds/start new glicko and reboot as a new WvW season.

Artaz.3819:

1. You are killing pre-existing server community. Longevity of WvW is based on the principle that allies and rivalries are just as important as the game mode itself. It’s what keeps people playing WvW. It keeps the team play and competition healthy in a very static map in a very static meta with a very static strategy based on your population at a given time.

2. You are making buckets for PUGs versus Guilds. Very bad idea simply because PUGs are not PUGs. PUGs are WvW players that don’t want to be lumped into some random function of chance that they get the right leader/active world. And in order for this to self-correct, you then have to wait ~3 months for the reset…yeah, that won’t kill WvW. /s

3. Your system mimics EotM too much. If you’ve spent any significant amount of time in EotM, you’d see the flaw with being lumped with strangers into a match destined for snowballing for one side over another.

4. There are simpler and much more easier to implement solutions. If you are trying to get server transferring for free and basically forcing everyone off their current game world to reset where people go, why not just do that. In your scenario, guild leaders get first crack at where they go but I’m not sure that even makes the most sense since all that does is encourage mega-guilds.

A much simpler alternative solution would open up free world transferring for a specific period of time (announce a month+ ahead of time so guilds can coordinate) using the server population cap of the highest WvW server currently (BG in NA). Then after a few weeks, force move (must choose a different server) the low population server players also for free. Everyone is now on a closer to “high” population server. Re-lock worlds/start new glicko and reboot as a new WvW season.

12 bottom servers community already killed or near death when they are being shuffled around, perhaps the only remaining is DH. You need to recognize that.

I have no idea what your second point means. Players, be it pugs or guilds, all have to choose a new server. There is no discrimination. However, since servers are made non-mandatory, players do not have to choose it at the start of the game but rather only when they entered WvW. This server is tied to them, they have the option to transfer by paying gems just like now. If they ever gone inactive, the system will purge them out, leaving only active accounts in the server. Again, I really have no idea what your second point referring to and how you even come to that idea.

The system doesn’t minic eotm. EOTM works by having the same colors on the same side while creating instances of it if too many people. That is eotm. The system I propose, on a even simpler terms, is similar to merging, shrinking total number of servers by at least half. At the same time, all the players that are not involved with WvW are not part of the server, they are “server-less”. However, explaining it in even simpler terms will make everything loses its depths and depths is really important when come to solutions.

Free transfer, yes, I have thought of that but that doesn’t change the underlining problems as mentioned in the previous posts. We do not have enough to go around and in the end it will affect the gameplay negatively.

I really did put some efforts in writing the posts, I do hope you really read them.

EotM system is best, but it should be more balanced.

SkyShroud.2865:

How to improve it! <snip>

Thanks for putting so much thought into this. With diagrams and all.

In short:

1. Kick inactive players from their servers every 3 months
2. Give serverless players a free transfer when they attempt to join WvW
3. Set servers’ Full status dynamically as the total WvW population grows or wanes

Did I miss something?

Base on the understanding I have on the servers, it aims to eliminate all the problems it has now.

Alas no. You need to give an incentive for over stacked servers to unstack.

Simply locking popular servers does not make players to transfer to dying servers. Players rather wait until the desired server unlocks.

Junkpile.7439:

EotM system is best, but it should be more balanced.

Those NPCs are always outnumbered. :P

Korgov.7645:

SkyShroud.2865:

How to improve it! <snip>

Thanks for putting so much thought into this. With diagrams and all.

In short:

1. Kick inactive players from their servers every 3 months
2. Give serverless players a free transfer when they attempt to join WvW
3. Set servers’ Full status dynamically as the total WvW population grows or wanes

Did I miss something?

Base on the understanding I have on the servers, it aims to eliminate all the problems it has now.

Alas no. You need to give an incentive for over stacked servers to unstack.

Simply locking popular servers does not make players to transfer to dying servers. Players rather wait until the desired server unlocks.

Yes, it would take time for the most populated server to shrink and likewise for other servers to catch up. I also agree that there is a possibility that catching up will take long due to the competition over the limited new players.

Thus I too agree that to hasten the progress, one can allow a cheaper transfer option for those in locked server to other non-locked server, instead of charging them with the original full cost. I do not really want to put too much idea into post as it will be quite difficult for some to absorb all of it.

I am glad you notice it.

Edit: Also, if dying server become more dead, then the server of their choice will never open because of the dynamic cap limitation.

SkyShroud – yes that’s the one, however from your response, I suspect you don’t quite get the key principles of my idea.

• Server identity would continue to exist because of the Server league table. Servers battling for rank is no different to what we have now since the tiers/glicko scores are the current rank position. I also introduce the idea of competition between guilds and between individual players…
• Players don’t select “up to 4 tiers”. Each tier would have a different population level (this could ultimately be different maps too but that depends on development) and players would be free to select the (singular) tier they wanted to play in at that time. You can only play in one map/tier at a time (not 4) but you are free to choose each time you log into WvW – this allows players freedom to play as they like, when they like.
• Don’t get hung up on the colours system – that’s only there so there can be three sides to each tier. The other thing the colours do is let Anet shuffle servers between these colours so the total population of each colour is roughly the same – if they want to balance things out.
• My idea is definitely not megaserver – there are a limited number of permanent instances just as now. If you are on, for example, the red side and you join the T3 maps your guild mates can also join the same map with no fear of being put in a different instance or being unable to play together (subject to map queues).
• My idea allows small servers to have an identity regardless of their population. Your idea deletes them due to their size. I’m not in favour of deleting any servers if we can avoid it.
• Guild and Server recruitment can still continue, since the biggest Guilds and Servers probably have the best chance of topping the league tables. However, this doesn’t affect the matches so much because several smaller servers can compete directly with one big server simply by playing in the same map. In fact I would suggest that having a greater number of players available on the Team channel makes for better recruitment potential (since Team channel should work across all maps for that colour).
  I’m sorry that I didn’t explained it well enough in the first instance for you to fully understand just how flexible and different-yet-similar WVW could be. Hopefully I’ve been able to make the idea clearer.

SkyShroud.2865:

Artaz.3819:

snip

12 bottom servers community already killed or near death when they are being shuffled around, perhaps the only remaining is DH. You need to recognize that.

Gate of Madness is very much alive. Our guilds have spent a great deal of time and energy keeping our server community alive and thriving. I don’t want to see Gate of Madness (as a group/Server/community) removed from the game. In some capacity, original server identity needs to stay.

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.

Yuffi.2430:

SkyShroud – yes that’s the one, however from your response, I suspect you don’t quite get the key principles of my idea.

• Server identity would continue to exist because of the Server league table. Servers battling for rank is no different to what we have now since the tiers/glicko scores are the current rank position. I also introduce the idea of competition between guilds and between individual players…
• Players don’t select “up to 4 tiers”. Each tier would have a different population level (this could ultimately be different maps too but that depends on development) and players would be free to select the (singular) tier they wanted to play in at that time. You can only play in one map/tier at a time (not 4) but you are free to choose each time you log into WvW – this allows players freedom to play as they like, when they like.
• Don’t get hung up on the colours system – that’s only there so there can be three sides to each tier. The other thing the colours do is let Anet shuffle servers between these colours so the total population of each colour is roughly the same – if they want to balance things out.
• My idea is definitely not megaserver – there are a limited number of permanent instances just as now. If you are on, for example, the red side and you join the T3 maps your guild mates can also join the same map with no fear of being put in a different instance or being unable to play together (subject to map queues).
• My idea allows small servers to have an identity regardless of their population. Your idea deletes them due to their size. I’m not in favour of deleting any servers if we can avoid it.
• Guild and Server recruitment can still continue, since the biggest Guilds and Servers probably have the best chance of topping the league tables. However, this doesn’t affect the matches so much because several smaller servers can compete directly with one big server simply by playing in the same map. In fact I would suggest that having a greater number of players available on the Team channel makes for better recruitment potential (since Team channel should work across all maps for that colour).
  I’m sorry that I didn’t explained it well enough in the first instance for you to fully understand just how flexible and different-yet-similar WVW could be. Hopefully I’ve been able to make the idea clearer.

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?

Mysteriax.6049:

SkyShroud.2865:

Artaz.3819:

snip

12 bottom servers community already killed or near death when they are being shuffled around, perhaps the only remaining is DH. You need to recognize that.

Gate of Madness is very much alive. Our guilds have spent a great deal of time and energy keeping our server community alive and thriving. I don’t want to see Gate of Madness (as a group/Server/community) removed from the game. In some capacity, original server identity needs to stay.

I remember that GOM had a influx of guilds from the upper tier. I am not sure how many of those stayed but I am sure some have stayed. The thing is for bottom servers to even have the chance to progress forward, they need guilds for that to happen. Afterall, it is guilds that actively recruit people. However, for most parts, many bottom servers don’t have enough guilds or guilds that willing to put that effort to recruit more.

In some of the guest servers I have seen, there are a lot of guild-less players, not part of any guilds. This pretty much show just how little guilds there are in those servers. Naturally, many of those guild-less went into the host servers’ guild and transferred there. This of course resulted the complains from players about guest servers getting drained.

The thing is for guest server to maintain their identity is very hard, extremely hard. Likewise, for guest servers to actually build up their community is not easy when their players are getting drained by the host servers. I feel that it is very tiring thing for the guest servers. It is like a fighting for survival which you won’t even know when will get better.

I feel that is way less tiring and easier to get a new start and develop a new identity. Likewise, smaller servers will find it way easier to get together their community to enter any particular new servers as compare to the host servers where they might end up hitting the cap if they tried to.

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.

You can always develop a new identity, a new server pride.

No, no no no and no. I mean how can you even consider such thing when you see how the bandwagoners destroy WvW and you wan them to be able to bandwagon for free and build up even worse bandwagon. If anything servers need to be back and the small servers merged. I can’t even begin to understand how you think this is good?

Further more, i am not willing to remove servers and replace it with what have been tried in so many other games already with the same result. A group of bandwagon people move to one of the sides/colors/facctions/whateveryouwanttocallit. They run over two servers to a point were those two server will no longer play, because why would anyone want to be rolled over. And the bandwagoner will not move to the now empty servers because why would they want to be rolled over so they simply quit. This is the case in any other game that have this as a option.

The reason it worked in GW2 for so long is the servers, and the population on it. Because you know most of the players on your server and what you can expect from them and they know what to expect from you. This is still very valid on my server, and if it changes i am fairly certain that a big chunk of the players will leave WvW because we never wanted to be a bandwagon server, we wanted to be the server that can do a lot with what ever we have. And it mostly works.

So no, just no. Servers are the reason why WvW is still a valid game. Removing them and it will be like any other game out there. And all of them have not managed to be what WvW are.

^. What he said.

Leaa.2943:

No, no no no and no. I mean how can you even consider such thing when you see how the bandwagoners destroy WvW and you wan them to be able to bandwagon for free and build up even worse bandwagon. If anything servers need to be back and the small servers merged. I can’t even begin to understand how you think this is good?

Further more, i am not willing to remove servers and replace it with what have been tried in so many other games already with the same result. A group of bandwagon people move to one of the sides/colors/facctions/whateveryouwanttocallit. They run over two servers to a point were those two server will no longer play, because why would anyone want to be rolled over. And the bandwagoner will not move to the now empty servers because why would they want to be rolled over so they simply quit. This is the case in any other game that have this as a option.

The reason it worked in GW2 for so long is the servers, and the population on it. Because you know most of the players on your server and what you can expect from them and they know what to expect from you. This is still very valid on my server, and if it changes i am fairly certain that a big chunk of the players will leave WvW because we never wanted to be a bandwagon server, we wanted to be the server that can do a lot with what ever we have. And it mostly works.

So no, just no. Servers are the reason why WvW is still a valid game. Removing them and it will be like any other game out there. And all of them have not managed to be what WvW are.

Those wall of text are written with some efforts, I do hope you can read them.

Stacking servers is not possible under dynamic cap. The moment the disparity between servers exceed the acceptable range, the bigger server will be locked and will continue to be locked until the disparity narrowed. It is a merciless system and to game such a design require the whole server efforts, including the pugs to boycott WvW for weeks for population algorithm to update. Even if by some miracle to be able to get great majority to cooperate to game it, the server will only end up in a extended period of lock due to huge disparity.

You mention it has been tried, I have played games for close two decades, including hardcore pvp mmorpg but I have yet to see similar approach. Can you tell me what games have tried it?

Edit: If you are talking just on “delete servers” alone, then please, read the posts.

I feel like the pool guy got a hold of OP’s computer.

I had to login to back up your idea. I played a long time in a dead server (T3) so I know the struggle. Unfortunately, people in this forum are very against server changes because either they are in T1 servers and don’t want things to shake up or they’re bandwagoners themselves.

Only issue I can find in your plan is that ANET maybe doesn’t have the tech and might have to develop it. Building a system like this seems like a monumental amount of work and, in their eyes, wouldn’t change much: this is an abandoned mode that seldom sees any updates and it the new server system wouldn’t add to their bottom line.

Anyway, great thread. I’m afraid your ideas are a tad too late to salvage this game mode.

dude can you make 1 page max summary of this? who do you expect to read all this…

didnt read it all but servers should stay, server community is important, especially now when theres less wvw guilds

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.

No thankyou. Permalocked core servers means they’ll get starved out and people will slowly but surely migrate into the link servers, which can be effectively managed.

Sarrs.4831:

No thankyou. Permalocked core servers means they’ll get starved out and people will slowly but surely migrate into the link servers, which can be effectively managed.

Agreed. The OP and their server mate would like to force a change on us because they made a choice to go to the server they are on, (or in the case of this OP stay on the server they are on) which did not work out as they intended. Now that they are locked, they want to nuke the servers.

They made a choice, and had that opportunity, but because that choice did not work out the way the wished, they want to take away our choice.

It’s classic really. But that is what this comes down to.

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.

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.

Strider Pj.2193:

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

Not missing the point at all.

Listen buddy. Sky is shelling out a lot of ideas here, and yes that would happen if you did all of them. But you are kind of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I know the title says delete the servers, but that’s not actually necessary. What if you were playing sPvP and found a talented player that hasn’t played WvW yet, you could recruit them at no cost to anyone. Now that’s cool. The idea that you don’t choose a server until you are actually in the game, meeting people, and joining guilds, is refreshing. It lets servers pull players from a much larger pool and would probably help better to shape the identity of every server.

Strider: the alternative I suggested allows servers and guilds to stay together whilst greatly reducing the impact a stacked server would have on actual fights. Isn’t this what you want?

I’m also intrigued – who is the OP’s server mate trying to force change because they made a choice to go to the server they are on which did not work out as intended? I don’t see this in the posts, but maybe I’m not reading them right.

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?

Yuffi.2430:

Strider: the alternative I suggested allows servers and guilds to stay together whilst greatly reducing the impact a stacked server would have on actual fights. Isn’t this what you want?

I’m also intrigued – who is the OP’s server mate trying to force change because they made a choice to go to the server they are on which did not work out as intended? I don’t see this in the posts, but maybe I’m not reading them right.

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?

Thanks for the reasoned reply Yuffi. Sky Shroud and Pensadora are both on HoD. At least by their sigs which neither have denied.

In several threads, both have pushed for ‘blowing/nuking/deleting’ all servers and starting from a clean slate. 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.

My point is simply he and his guild made a choice, and the suggestions that they have put forward in this and the other three threads would force that decision on all of the population, without a guarantee that people could play with the people they have in their guilds. It would rip apart communities without allowing them a choice.

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, when the servers are deleted/nuked/blown up.

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

Thanks Yuffi. Hope to see you out there.

Maybe the players that moved their guild from an overstacked full server to one that has recently become full see the difference in the number of players they group with and realize that a newly full server will never have the number of players that an overstacked server has.

And that in order to balance the populations between servers some players on overstacked full servers will not be able to play with their friends.

I’d take a balanced game over the current unbalanced one even if it meant that some players were no longer able to play with their friends.

Swamurabi.7890:

Maybe the players that moved their guild from an overstacked full server to one that has recently become full see the difference in the number of players they group with and realize that a newly full server will never have the number of players that an overstacked server has.

And that in order to balance the populations between servers some players on overstacked full servers will not be able to play with their friends.

I’d take a balanced game over the current unbalanced one even if it meant that some players were no longer able to play with their friends.

So, not trying to be adversarial here, but you would be willing to leave your guild and play with a completely new group of people?

If so, I applaud you for that. But there are many, and I do not claim to speak for them, that play this game and have continued to play this game because of that community they are a part of, and being forcibly removed from it would cause me to leave the game mode.

If your guild can field more than a map queue, then yes.

If your guild likes to play alongside another guild and create a map queue, then the two guilds might have to be separated.

A balanced game mode is more important to some of us that have suffered through years of imbalanced matchups, even though Anet has allowed the imbalance by design.

fishoa.9648:

I had to login to back up your idea. I played a long time in a dead server (T3) so I know the struggle. Unfortunately, people in this forum are very against server changes because either they are in T1 servers and don’t want things to shake up or they’re bandwagoners themselves.

Only issue I can find in your plan is that ANET maybe doesn’t have the tech and might have to develop it. Building a system like this seems like a monumental amount of work and, in their eyes, wouldn’t change much: this is an abandoned mode that seldom sees any updates and it the new server system wouldn’t add to their bottom line.

Anyway, great thread. I’m afraid your ideas are a tad too late to salvage this game mode.

Most of the suggestions are backend changes. The only frontend and biggest change will be the non-mandatory server. I don’t think the development time will be extensive but the resistance to change will be strong.

Thanks for the support.

Neftex.7594:

dude can you make 1 page max summary of this? who do you expect to read all this…

didnt read it all but servers should stay, server community is important, especially now when theres less wvw guilds

It is important, if you don’t read, you will not understand and likewise, you are not gonna support something you don’t understand.

Sarrs.4831:

No thankyou. Permalocked core servers means they’ll get starved out and people will slowly but surely migrate into the link servers, which can be effectively managed.

Please read, it took some efforts to put all the posts out.

There isn’t enough to go around so many servers to cover a 24 hours coverage. Linking will only end up in imbalance linking in the end.

Strider Pj.2193:

Sarrs.4831:

No thankyou. Permalocked core servers means they’ll get starved out and people will slowly but surely migrate into the link servers, which can be effectively managed.

Agreed. The OP and their server mate would like to force a change on us because they made a choice to go to the server they are on, (or in the case of this OP stay on the server they are on) which did not work out as they intended. Now that they are locked, they want to nuke the servers.

They made a choice, and had that opportunity, but because that choice did not work out the way the wished, they want to take away our choice.

It’s classic really. But that is what this comes down to.

Please read.

I made similar post 2 years ago, do you think my server was full then? Nope. Looking at your post histories, you have carrying out ad hominem attacks and we all know is not a good thing.

Swamurabi.7890:

Maybe the players that moved their guild from an overstacked full server to one that has recently become full see the difference in the number of players they group with and realize that a newly full server will never have the number of players that an overstacked server has.

Couldn’t have said it better. And… a newly full server is also no longer able to bring in new players.

T1 , and possibly the ONE T1 server left, is like a gated community when it comes to population issues – isolated from the challenges that other servers are facing.

Swamurabi.7890:

I’d take a balanced game over the current unbalanced one even if it meant that some players were no longer able to play with their friends.

Yep.

@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.