Guild Wars 2

it seems reasonable to expect that a FULL server should no longer be linked, much less have two links, as in the current case with one of the NA servers (whose name will not be mentioned as this is NOT a matchup thread).

Has ANET any intention of – on a current basis – reassigning links when a server has enough population to be locked down as FULL?

Or is it the plan to leave this out-of-balance situation to continue for the two month linking period?

I ask because one of the stated purposes behind the linking system was to create a ‘competitive’ matchup, and clearly a FULL server with two links is not in keeping with this design purpose, as can be seen by recent history (by the NA server that will not be mentioned because this is NOT a matchup thread.)

Pensadora.9478:

it seems reasonable to expect that a FULL server should no longer be linked, much less have two links, as in the current case with one of the NA servers (whose name will not be mentioned as this is NOT a matchup thread).

Has ANET any intention of – on a current basis – reassigning links when a server has enough population to be locked down as FULL?

Or is it the plan to leave this out-of-balance situation to continue for the two month linking period?

I ask because one of the stated purposes behind the linking system was to create a ‘competitive’ matchup, and clearly a FULL server with two links is not in keeping with this design purpose, as can be seen by recent history (by the NA server that will not be mentioned because this is NOT a matchup thread.)

I can’t see Anet making changes to single servers just because they go Full since the server linking process has to consider population totals on all servers.

If you recall, the original design of server linking was that the host server was to remain marked artificially Full to prevent exactly this sort of situation. Players complained about it.

Did you ever consider that the server in question only has the population now because of those links? I will bet you did not but trust me that this is the case.

zhonnika.1784:

Did you ever consider that the server in question only has the population now because of those links? I will bet you did not but trust me that this is the case.

why would someone consider this? that’s not even how the system works. guest server population has no affect on the population of a host server. the only thing linking does is reduce the population cap for the host server.

Pensadora.9478:

Or is it the plan to leave this out-of-balance situation to continue for the two month linking period?

Not only the imbalance is kept, but becomes worse as time goes on: there is constant transfer happening, usually into the “winning” side.

It isn’t really balancing, more like a semblance that something it is done, though creating this “illusion” likely takes some effort from Anet’s part. They are at least trying to balance, but just moving around numbers like this can’t work: the quality, willingness, time spent actively in WvW by those numbers, it isn’t accounted for.

If the attempt at balance is being undermined by people wanting to stack, then could be its time for a longer cool down on transfers. 7 days makes it to easy to unbalance match ups. It needs to be longer than the 2 month linkings, if people thought that after the linkings they would be stuck on that server for a further 4 weeks, how many would chose wisely the first time.

The player base is creating the unbalanced match ups, not Anet, next relinks 2 linked servers come to mind will be down the population that anet’s data said it has, so will be linked with a Host that might have needed more people but get a empty link instead as the players transfer out for the next flavor, giving the host server bad matches until another glicko adjustment is made which again happens to slow. In the process more people give up.

Linkings are not working for balance, they just make it easier to get on to a stacked server for less gems.

Do you really think that many people transfer once a week? People tend to spend a few months on a server before moving again anyways.

Also they can’t just willy nilly relink servers whenever it’s needed. Size of servers have to be determined over a period of weeks, and then they try to match them with appropriate servers. It all needs to be done manually because it is not an automated system.

Ok so a server goes full and you want to detach 2 of it’s links, where are you going to put them? That itself will be seen as a disruption and players will complain about that too. What happens if the server drops back down from full two days later? Gonna stick the 2 servers back on them?

If you want a more competitive matchup HoD doesn’t need to be in t2, the glicko adjustments were a mistake last week, and maybe the variance needs to be brought down.

Unless you are implying that WvW is getting a kittenton of new players – which would be great – then they have to come from somewhere, ie another server go low and the linkable servers swap.

No, but they are changing every 2 months, so even if the cool down was 2 – 3 -4 weeks it would not change anything, as come relinking all data becomes worthless as they start the merry-go-round again. Only other way is to maybe make it cost more for every transfer made, no transfers for a year it resets back to normal cost.

Or make one more linking and that becomes permanent, aka merge, something has to stop the bleed of players every time the unbalanced matches occur. When linkings started there was a new lease of life into wvw, but once the players learnt how to get the best value for least amount of effort the bleed started once more.

Cause and effect, we know the cause, the players racing to stack on relinking, we know the effect, players on the matched server stop playing, now there needs to be a solution to stop it.

The linking is base on the then status of the servers during relink but at the same time the algorithm to calculate the population changed only after thus it is correct to argue that the status of the servers were not done the same way we perceive population now. Anet has absolutely zero plan to relink outside of the scheduled relink. It is important to continue to remind anet to focus on population than scoring as for the past months, many things done thus far were mostly on scoring and naturally the changes to make scoring more equal between 1st, 2nd and 3rd is a bad decision which is why we had TC stuck in T1. Afterall, there is no point having a system if anet has to manually intervene.

Merges will not solve anything as long as transfers are available no matter how restricted, period. Transfers, bandwagons, mass migrations up and down the ranks happened often before links were even around. If you make transfers too heavily restricted like say 1 transfer per 6 months, you might even force players to just leave the game if they get bored.

Links basically already act like 2 month transfers to servers, but players still move to get out of tiers entirely. That’s one of the problems with the tiers, as you go up the tiers the more zergs and blobs you find, as you go down the more roaming small groups you will find. If the server you’re on doesn’t provide the setting you want you will have to move tiers.

The only servers crashing lately have been falling from t1, yb, db, jq, tc, because of players leaving them. The only thing that kept guilds on servers was server loyalty, and that went out the window years ago as the game mode became more stale with ppting. There is nothing in the game to keep players loyal to a server, other than the community and winning, but for a lot of players their guild is their community.

I don’t know what else you can expect from anet, they collect the data to try and make appropriate links, links happen, then within that first week guilds move off in mass. What is anet suppose to do then? redo the links constantly until players figure out what is balanced?(which players won’t). The players create that problem, they have to live with it. Now we see anet messing with glicko to try and react to the changes and have managed to fudge some of the matchups (hod shouldn’t be in t2, mag should be in t1 still, tc does deserve to drop).

A lot of players are moving down from t1 these days because they want smaller fights, they move but then they have followers that also move with them, next thing you know the server gets enough ppt to move back up the ranks and everything repeats itself.

We all know eventually the only solution to this problem is the eotm way with player pools, and heavy restrictions on transfers. But players probably aren’t ready for that solution yet, that’s one of the reasons why the alliance solution was held back in favor of links which was a simpler solution.

Xenesis.6389:

There is nothing in the game to keep players loyal to a server, other than the community and winning, but for a lot of players their guild is their community.

In seventeen years of playing MMOs I have never considered loyalty to a guild to stand ahead of loyalty to a server. Guilds come and go. Your server stays with you until the game closes down. Sometimes you get merged and merged again but you always know where you live. I can tell you the name of every server I played on in all the main MMOs I’ve played but I can barely remember the names of any guild I was in.

In GW2 I see guild membership as a much weaker bond even than usual because we can all be in five guilds at once. How does that even work for WvW anyway? Can you be in a guild on all three teams in the same match?

You realize there are guilds out there that have lasted longer than just one game?
Why do you think you often see entire guilds moving in wvw?

I don’t know what mmos you played, but some of them certainly required you to be in a guild to progress or get any enjoyment out of the game. How many of them even offered transfers? How many were even rvr type games? Pve games you don’t typically need to move, unless you were moving to play with a friend, or moving to join a specific guild like for raiding.

The friends I have met in game and the guild I’m in have my loyalty over the servers we’re on, so /shrug.

Tiny Doom

Can you be in a guild on all three teams in the same match?

Yes you can.

Xenesis.6389:

If you make transfers too heavily restricted like say 1 transfer per 6 months, you might even force players to just leave the game if they get bored.

This already started during first days/weeks, when the winning Titan Alliance was forced out from playing the game, into staying in queues for hours, by the lovely bandwagon we cherish and are so proud of… The winning teams were always cursed by these kind of players. ArenaNet should have stopped these from the start, let them leave the game — instead of making the competitive minded leave, those who want challenging fights and a deserved win.

The game mode is cursed by this mentality, and we are afraid not to lose them?!! These <insert worse insults here and will be still too nice> kind of “players”? These are who killed the game mode, and those who allowed them to do it, and the rest followed them! Because what can you do once there is nothing to fight on your server, other than move and try to find another tier that will be soon broken, and this goes on and on and on and on…

Whose game is this? Stop them. Act. Make rules. Choose: who you want to keep, who you want to let go. Because that “we want everyone” was clearly the worst choice.

Pensadora.9478:

it seems reasonable to expect that a FULL server should no longer be linked, much less have two links, as in the current case with one of the NA servers (whose name will not be mentioned as this is NOT a matchup thread).

Has ANET any intention of – on a current basis – reassigning links when a server has enough population to be locked down as FULL?

Or is it the plan to leave this out-of-balance situation to continue for the two month linking period?

I ask because one of the stated purposes behind the linking system was to create a ‘competitive’ matchup, and clearly a FULL server with two links is not in keeping with this design purpose, as can be seen by recent history (by the NA server that will not be mentioned because this is NOT a matchup thread.)

What needs to change is the transfer system, so that they are prevented from massive bandwagon and going full in the 1st place.

Links can not be decoupled mid time line of other links as you would end up with a single server or a 2 instead of 3 server tier. You would have to decouple all the links at the same time, and while I understand where you are coming from, I had the same thought, there is no way to do this without messing up the entire match ups for everyone, including the servers where links are good.

@ Anet WvW Team

Can you explanate why an Na full Server withTwo link and the other not but Server still full ?

ex: Anvil Rock, Jade Quarry, Sanctum of Rall / Blackgate

so confused o.O

Blackgate is still winning that match, so what’s the problem?

Besides, there’s no limit above the set threshold for population. They may be both full but BG could be hundreds of players higher than JQ, we don’t know how many transferred in the last time they were open. SoR and AR are pretty dead servers at this point I believe.

the repeated hibernating to cram more people in and the reduction of the cap multiple times has left BG in a perpetual state of full (until you hibernate again). I don’t think JQ was full when the links were made (I could be wrong though)

Actually, AR and SoR aren’t totally dead, they added a shedload of pugs and a few guilds. JQ wasn’t full when we were linked, and I can’t imagine we’ll be full once relinks happen again and we (potentially) lose the linked servers. That’s something only anet can determine as they calculate population. We still can’t compete vs BG’s numbers, since they are winning the match quite handily, while 2nd and 3rd place are even.