Guild Wars 2

Rasudido.6734:

Most if not all of our guilds are willing to share builds, resources and even open recruitment for people in ET if they wish to join and play with a BG guild.

So finally someone says what we are all thinking, this is why T1/T2 servers will not speak out against this, they gain with this change exactly what they have been looking for and paying for, for so many years… Why should they have to pay to attract guilds and people… Anet will just do it for them…

When people read forums, what everyone needs to know, those who think there is nothing wrong, things are going good, Why would they ever post? Only the minority, people with issues with how it is going or being done will post. That is why I am here, I am not sure yet if I am in the minority and honestly if I am, so be it. I will get used to it. But, before you go off and start trying to turn this back on me, we have been merged for less then 24 hours and now have 4 forum pages and will be on #5 within a couple hours. Have you ever seen a forum gain 5 pages in one day about how dead WvW is?

Hi Everyone,

I would like to clarify a couple of things. ET is not upset with Blackgate for any reason.
We simply feel that there are better ways to address the issues, then the approach taken by ANET atthis time.

We are upset (as I am sure any server would be if they were merged into ET and found themselves homeless suddenly “homeless.” Unable to even be a part of the system anymore.

Other than a few mocking comments while we were in Obsidian Sanctum last night (probably due to BG folks being upset that the queue was so bad, which isn’t our fault, but totally understandable), we have no idea what most players on Blackgate are like. So, Blackgate, I’m sure you are great folks who it would be a pleasure to get to know if it didn’t mean our identity was totally getting wiped out. Please do not take any of our comments as a personal affront. I feel badly that this has been misunderstood.

What we are upset about is that we are facing, the dissolution of our server, our community,.

We don’t know how long this Beta is going to last but here is our future as we know it right now.

1. We get moved and have to assimilate with a new server every 3 months. So we never get a chance to really belong to a community. We will have to maintain our own teamspeak and website, so that we don’t end up with nothing at some point. This will isolate us further from the servers we are “visiting.”

2. I am sure as we move from server to server we will lose people who are tired of being tossed around like leaves in the wind, until our guilds and our population is non-existent. Some will join the “host” servers but I’m hearing a lot of our folks seriously considering leaving the game. The loss of even MORE players is not going to help balance anything.

3. We will be forced into playing the way the “big” server that is “hosting” us feel we should play, to be polite if nothing else.

4. We will go from being leaders of our destiny (we seriously appreciate EVERY player on the small servers. We HAVE to, because we know how important having them is to our server! So, every member of ET is a big deal.) to small unimportant dots on a map where our presence is not important to anyone.

And I think that is what we are hearing the other smaller servers saying. This isn’t about Friday night queues, we could get used to that. Its not about our current “host” Its about who we are and how we enjoy playing the game. Yes, it may be different that what the developers intended, or how other servers enjoy playing the game, but that is part of what makes GW2 such an incredible game. There is room for all interests and play styles. This population beta for WvW narrows those choices. And that is a real shame.

Mistress Collisto.1546:

Rasudido.6734:

Most if not all of our guilds are willing to share builds, resources and even open recruitment for people in ET if they wish to join and play with a BG guild.

So finally someone says what we are all thinking, this is why T1/T2 servers will not speak out against this, they gain with this change exactly what they have been looking for and paying for, for so many years… Why should they have to pay to attract guilds and people… Anet will just do it for them…

When people read forums, what everyone needs to know, those who think there is nothing wrong, things are going good, Why would they ever post? Only the minority, people with issues with how it is going or being done will post. That is why I am here, I am not sure yet if I am in the minority and honestly if I am, so be it. I will get used to it. But, before you go off and start trying to turn this back on me, we have been merged for less then 24 hours and now have 4 forum pages and will be on #5 within a couple hours. Have you ever seen a forum gain 5 pages in one day about how dead WvW is?

Tier 1 and 2 servers don’t have any trouble attracting guilds. Most of the time the guilds get in contact with their community wvw leaders and ask for assistance with a transfer. The servers have no need to sit on the corner begging people to come to them.

We can still have the ET identity, b/c we will most of the time be running to together and we will get noticed when we start helping with fights taking/defending keeps and towers and etc. And our peers will be like “there goes that ET zerg helping with PPT and blob fights.”

“THIS IS OUR TIME TO RISE ET AND SHOW THAT A T8 SERVER CAN RUN WITH T1 PEEPS”

RISE UP ET AND LETS DOMINATE THE F OUT OF WvW!

Foust

It seems pretty clear that server identity needs to be better retained and possibly that different game styles be more respected ie players on lower level servers have to a certain extent stayed there because they like the more casual small scale combat.

This comes back to the fact that this server linking is a dynamic server merge that does nothing to fix the inflexibility of the server model and arguably introduces more problems in terms of mashing together players with incompatible motivations and the lack of respect being shown to the identity of the smaller servers.

Rasudido.6734:

Dominus.7013:

Had ArenaNet chosen instead to merge servers on the lower tiers, Eredon Terrace would have been on equal footing with our new servermates. We’d have had an equal say in the direction of the server, we’d have welcomed our new friends, and we’d have worked with them as allies. We had hoped to do that with Blackgate as well, and Eredon Terrace met to discuss this a few times this past week. Last night, however, 95% of the comments we saw from Blackgate players mocked us and the number of people we were able to contribute to the WvW effort.

Really do you have any evidence of Blackgate mocking you or anyone from ET?

I ask because the server as a majority has been waiting for the link so we can cooperate with the linked server (we frankly didnt care if who it was). Most if not all of our guilds are willing to share builds, resources and even open recruitment for people in ET if they wish to join and play with a BG guild. We also already discussed how to handle ET when it came to community decisions for WvW and even that was decided that you got as much a say as any BG guild (and before you say something: guild size has never made any difference when it came down to agreeing on something for BG)

I dont even know who in BG would “mock” the amount of people you can contribute because frankly we have multiple more than a couple small guilds of 5-10 players who roam around and do their own thing away form the large guilds. Guess what we love and support them as much we can because what they do is really helpful.

Your post just seems like a convenient story to show the ‘horrors’ of world linking in an attempt to justify your attitude.

Well, I liked your post up until the end, and was prepared to say, “I’m glad you posted this. Hopefully, Mr. Bear is right and the people we saw were in the minority,” and leave it at that (I still feel that way, regardless of your comments). Then you called my comments a “convenient story” as if I’d sat here and decided to make it up. I’m not the only one who has mentioned it in this thread.

In fact, there were several of us on TeamSpeak (40+) playing last night, and we all saw the comments in EotM (we were in there because we couldn’t get into the other maps). Having said that, I mentioned it simply to make the point that those players seemed to agree that our numbers were a drop in the bucket compared to yours (and I was making the point throughout my entire post that merging smaller servers would have been the better decision, because our numbers would have meant we were contributing equally to the new merged server).

Further, I don’t think I needed to justify my position by commenting on what I hope are a few bad apples. I spent quite a bit of time in my post justifying it in ways that I think are more compelling to developers than “some people were mean to us” (e.g., server community preservation, different modes of gameplay, other options that we thought were better, etc). I certainly don’t think ArenaNet will change course based on a report of negative comments from one player directed at another, either. It was simply an observation many of us made last night, and we hoped it was just a minority (and I said that as well in my post, I believe).

I didn’t take screenshots. That’s on me. I should have, but we were running around in EotM at the time, talking on TeamSpeak, etc. It really didn’t occur to me that I’d need any screenshots, because it wasn’t like I was going to track down the guild leaders of these people and report them.

Having said this, if we are going to be linked, I certainly hope we can work together. I still hope ArenaNet changes course here, but no one on ET (and we met two or three times this past week) wants anything other than to work with BG if this is the way things are going to be. We discussed adding some of your people to our TeamSpeak server, and even created a new group tag for them on the server, and we were hoping you’d do the same for better coordination in WvW.

I think our guild is running tonight, and I hear we can get into the maps, so we’ll see how things go.

UPDATE:

Nice to hear from my guild members and others on ET that everyone from Blackgate has been very nice to members of Eredon Terrace today/tonight, so thank you all for that (they said Moses the Bear has been especially welcoming to them as they logged on to play today).

As Ariel said in a previous comment (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-Beta/page/5#post6116309), this was never about Blackgate, really, it was about our disagreement with ArenaNet. So, I hope we can all have a good time with one another, even if my previous comments about this decision to link T8 with T1 still stand and I hope they eventually merge us with the smaller servers. I think you’ll find that that the people on ET are very friendly as well.

Hey, I was talking with some friends and my suggestion to avoid having the lower ranked served simply fade out or a wonky merged name would be the following:
- Players are no longer seen as “[Rank]+[Server] Invader/Defender”, but “[Rank]+[Color] Invader/Defender”
- Add a “[Server Name]” or “[Server Name]+WvW rank title” or maybe even “[Server Name] Loyalist” title for those that want to keep repping their home server.

I think that WvW was the last shard of Server Identity, ever since the introduction of Megaservers. The people I talk to on Lion’s Arch are no longer those that I will be fighting side to side on WvW. Maybe, down the line, the merge will be permanent and one of two servers will bite the dust, or both will be amalgamated into a third identity. I, for one, do not want that; but if it has to happen, all I ask is a way to proudly say where I originally hailed from.

Stoney II.7385:

Hey everyone,

first of all thx for rebirthing WvW with a lot of changes!
I just wanted to share some concerns towards the world-linking as I dont see the value nor the sense of this world linking beta due to a couple of reasons:
- TS communication
- Raiding Guilds
- Server Communitys
etc.

I wondered if ist not better for everyone to just Close down Servers, before you scream ahhh my Server, mind the following Situation:
- paired up with new Server on reset
1. Need to check ts
2. Need to check who tags
3. …
Next week:
- paired up with another Server on reset
1. Need to check ts
2. Need to check who tags
3. …
etc. etc…
wouldnt it therefore be much more easier to just have to go through the pain once? Instead of getting shot in the breast and letting you bleed out slowly, id rather take one straight and go on with it :-)

As also posted above there will be lots of Drama to be caused by this System.
- Who tags up
- What strategy
- What builds
- What so ever :-)

However I guess most can agree that we are thankful that there is now something Happening and is tested, it might turn out i’m wrong, but currently I simply cant see the benefit in it.

Nevertheless good reset for everyone!

I’m with this one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

meerfunkuhtron.9725:

Stoney II.7385:

Hey everyone,

first of all thx for rebirthing WvW with a lot of changes!
I just wanted to share some concerns towards the world-linking as I dont see the value nor the sense of this world linking beta due to a couple of reasons:
- TS communication
- Raiding Guilds
- Server Communitys
etc.

I wondered if ist not better for everyone to just Close down Servers, before you scream ahhh my Server, mind the following Situation:
- paired up with new Server on reset
1. Need to check ts
2. Need to check who tags
3. …
Next week:
- paired up with another Server on reset
1. Need to check ts
2. Need to check who tags
3. …
etc. etc…
wouldnt it therefore be much more easier to just have to go through the pain once? Instead of getting shot in the breast and letting you bleed out slowly, id rather take one straight and go on with it :-)

As also posted above there will be lots of Drama to be caused by this System.
- Who tags up
- What strategy
- What builds
- What so ever :-)

However I guess most can agree that we are thankful that there is now something Happening and is tested, it might turn out i’m wrong, but currently I simply cant see the benefit in it.

Nevertheless good reset for everyone!

I’m with this one ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nope. Would just eventually lead to the stale old server stacking, with the same old stale complaints. With arbitrary ability to change pairings, this allows Anet the freedom to prevent Hegelian mistakes.

The Base Map Mechanic still remains un-changed.

I agree with Jayne…after a period…the same stale server stacking & match-ups.

After having a place to call Home in WvW for over 3 years…basically since GW2 launched…I’m now a refugee.

Anybody else feel the same?

I can’t bring myself to fight in another Home BL not my own, but I can at least joy ride in EBG.

EBG will probably turn into the next EoTM in my opinion.

RIP my Old Home World.

To my old brothers & sisters in arms…we now must bear being a refugee in somebody else’s Home BL until we’re decide to make it our new Home.

Oh wait…we’ll always be a refugee with the weekly reset and new pairings…unless our world becomes a Top Tier World.

Much Sadness,
Diku

Jayne.9251:

Nope. Would just eventually lead to the stale old server stacking, with the same old stale complaints. With arbitrary ability to change pairings, this allows Anet the freedom to prevent Hegelian mistakes.

Jayne you are utterly wrong on the subject. Tiers had play styles and not everyone wants to play WvW the same. Especially not the same as you see it. Players were in the lower tiers by choice. Players were in the upper tiers by choice. This change by Anet is removing the choice and forcing everyone to play one way. Which is not only boring, it’s annoying.

That is beyond the fact that we cannot “pair” two worlds easily. Getting everyone in voice comm’s is a disaster. The capacity to communicate between the Worlds is not even present in game, nor these forums. It’s a mess to say the least. Which doesn’t equal exciting or fun.

editing to add, Diku, would you please learn to use “map mechanics” and “match mechanics”?

I think world linking is working well at the moment in regard to balancing population, but it’s also unfair to players on the guest servers. There should be some form of compensation for losing their identity and having to deal with the queue time. I think that at the very least these players should have a higher priority in the queue than players from their host server. If it’s possible, maybe something like the first 10 queue slots could be reserved for the guest server.

I think this patch was great and am glad Anet did it. I can see how losing ones server identity could be hard, but let’s be real server identity died years ago, now you just need to enjoy playing with your friends and either getting fights, or ppting, both of which are made more available with this patch. You guys still have your community, if it is really as important as your making it to be then it should not be hard to keep it and you won’t lose players. If you do lose players it just shows that they are more attracted to the higher tier game play styles. You guys are still with all of your friends and guilds, just losing your server name. I do think they should lock the world linking and not switch it around every 3 months, this way the lower servers would not have to lose any friendships/communities that were made with the previous host server.

@DeWolfe

Anet didn’t change anything except pair worlds.

It’s the same system that will pigeon hole us again.

Except we’re paired now. That’s what I meant by the Base Map Mechanic being the same.

3 Worlds fighting each other in an automated weekly matchup. Just less Tiers now.

I’ll say it again…Pigeon Hole. Map & Match Mechanics are closely tied to each other…that’s why I’m broadly saying Base.

ANet need to change both to make WvW successful imho…

Tiny Doom.4380:

You have no concept of loyalty, do you?

Of course I do. That doesn’t mean that I need to speak or think of WvW servers in terms that are more appropriate for guilds and friend lists.

Besides, you weren’t separated from your friends and ally guilds.

Tiny Doom.4380:

Carpekitten is not a solution, it’s the problem. Server moves were a mistake from the get-go.

No it isn’t, and no it wasn’t.

Tiny Doom.4380:

If you want to play on another server, buy another account and start over.

That’s far more uncompromising and destructive than what you’re accusing me of. Even CU isn’t going to do that to you in their RvR, and that game will be far more strict than WvW is with cross-realming and team-swaps. They’ll make you restart a character, but not an account.

Tiny Doom.4380:

Without meaningful server loyalty what exactly is the point of “world versus world versus world”?

Server (or more accurately, Home World) loyalty clearly plays a part in short to medium term gameplay, but to extend that to this extreme of patriotism—basically just flag waving and grandstanding like you’re some sort of disenfranchised labor union—this is patently silly.

Again: In GW2 WvW, the sort of feelings and behavior shown in these threads is more appropriately attached to guilds, not worlds. Even in WvW. Especially in WvW. The facts are in the design, and those facts existed before this week’s patch.

DeWolfe.2174:

Jayne.9251:

Nope. Would just eventually lead to the stale old server stacking, with the same old stale complaints. With arbitrary ability to change pairings, this allows Anet the freedom to prevent Hegelian mistakes.

Jayne you are utterly wrong on the subject. Tiers had play styles and not everyone wants to play WvW the same. Especially not the same as you see it. Players were in the lower tiers by choice. Players were in the upper tiers by choice. This change by Anet is removing the choice and forcing everyone to play one way. Which is not only boring, it’s annoying.

That is beyond the fact that we cannot “pair” two worlds easily. Getting everyone in voice comm’s is a disaster. The capacity to communicate between the Worlds is not even present in game, nor these forums. It’s a mess to say the least. Which doesn’t equal exciting or fun.

editing to add, Diku, would you please learn to use “map mechanics” and “match mechanics”?

I’m not disagreeing with you about playstyles etc … Not sure you understood my post.

I was quoting the guy above who said just merge it once and be done.

I was explaining that the same complaints would arise with a static change and lead back to the same issues that prompted this change in the first place.

Virtute.8251:

Again: In GW2 WvW, the sort of feelings and behavior shown in these threads is more appropriately attached to guilds, not worlds. Even in WvW. Especially in WvW. The facts are in the design, and those facts existed before this week’s patch.

Going to disagree with you Pants.

You can have a cohesive group of people who are entrenched in a server because it’s been built as a community. That community weathers and withstands assaults from bandwagoners, trolls, etc. It’s a neighbourhood where everyone knows your name and you can log in, no matter what time, and you know each other.

You can also reasonably rely on each other to do X duties each day, because you know these people from time playing together. You come from different guilds and different countries, yet you all work together towards that team goal.

There’s value in that, and it’s the key reason why WvW kept chugging along for so many years.

It wasn’t because of the guilds.

If you ask these people if they’re attached to guild or server, they’re repeatedly saying server. Perhaps you just don’t want to hear that, or maybe you’ve not experienced it yourself?

To add to the context of this thread: Anet consider leaving server tag names on each person. I think that would do a lot to alleviate the feeling of loss. It won’t be that confusing, considering red = enemy still exists no matter naming conventions.

Jayne.9251:

Virtute.8251:

Again: In GW2 WvW, the sort of feelings and behavior shown in these threads is more appropriately attached to guilds, not worlds. Even in WvW. Especially in WvW. The facts are in the design, and those facts existed before this week’s patch.

Going to disagree with you Pants.

You can have a cohesive group of people who are entrenched in a server because it’s been built as a community. That community weathers and withstands assaults from bandwagoners, trolls, etc. It’s a neighbourhood where everyone knows your name and you can log in, no matter what time, and you know each other.

You can also reasonably rely on each other to do X duties each day, because you know these people from time playing together. You come from different guilds and different countries, yet you all work together towards that team goal.

There’s value in that, and it’s the key reason why WvW kept chugging along for so many years.

It wasn’t because of the guilds.

If you ask these people if they’re attached to guild or server, they’re repeatedly saying server. Perhaps you just don’t want to hear that, or maybe you’ve not experienced it yourself?

To add to the context of this thread: Anet consider leaving server tag names on each person. I think that would do a lot to alleviate the feeling of loss. It won’t be that confusing, considering red = enemy still exists no matter naming conventions.

I don’t see the problem with merging communities and meeting new people and having MORE people who know your name when you log in.

Just dumbfounded by these complaints. Still in the same guild I’ve always been in, still around all the pugs I know I can count on or not, still hear back from the same people as always in /map. Only NOW I have MORE people to meet and befriend.

As to being more attached to server then guild, that is just ridiculous. Most guilds move from server to server together.

ANet Developers,

Please reconsider this opportunity to change WvW into a NFL SuperBowl like based franchise eSport.

For this to happen…you really need a good solid Team Identity & Feeling of Ownership by the players/fans.

Create a WvW where there can be 3 – 1,000 Worlds at War.

The potential for you to own this franchise infrastructure is huge.

You’d own ALL training facilities, sports equipment manufacturing, playing fields, concession stands, even all the teams, and everything related to the eSport.

The way current Match-ups are done will limit your company’s ability to create a product that can easily scale beyond a 3 or 8 story building…imho.

Please re-engineer the Base Structure to allow your product to scale properly into becoming a skyscrapper…that allows different sized tenants (player game styles) to occupy the same building.

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Solution – Short version 3.7

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

@Dank

Again, you’re speaking about guilds. Not everyone plays or wants to play in a guild. The vast majority of your server’s defense team fall into that category.

And those players are not only the backbone of you team’s WVW, but are the ones most invested in community.

Lose your defensive team and you’ll just get a giant pve champ train map.

Lose your guilds and people will get bored with nothing to fight.

Guilds may have loyalty within. But it’s important to recognize that there are other ways to play, and boths sides of that same coin are necessary in order to have a healthy, competitive game.

I don’t personally have a problem with the pairings. I think it would be nice if all players retained their server name, regardless of pairings. It would help alleviate a lot of things.

Hey, I want to ask what’s the deal with making servers that are linked automatically full, even if the actual population status does not reflect it? Looking at EU all of the more populated servers in a linked pairing have had their population statuses changed to full; however the actual active WvW population is nowhere near enough to warrant this change, and other servers which have more population (all 4 maps queued at prime time) remain on very high. To give an example Desolation EU was medium (even after the massive influx of players after last Tuesday’s patch) and suddenly it became full after linking with Vabbi (which does not have enough native players to make Deso go from medium to full). Another example is Far Shiverpeaks linking with Underworld, again FSP is full.

I’m not from a low or a high tier server, and the pairing hasn’t bothered me that much. In our pairing I’m on the higher tier server. There have been crazy queues compared to what we were used to, but with the patch just launching Friday and it being weekend that doesn’t surprise me much. I think it will get better for us. I also don’t have any complaints about the server we got linked with. I do feel kind of bad for the smaller servers that their identity indeed seems to be wiped out a bit. It wasn’t supposed to be a server merge, but it kind of feels like that anyway. I saw a post in this topic a couple of pages back about how the smaller servers are pretty much just slaves for the bigger servers now and it seems about right. They hardly get any credit. You pretty much only see their name when you hover over the name of the bigger server in the WvW screen. xD I feel like there should be a more fair way to solve this if Anet wants to go through with the linking. Because I actually can understand where all these people who say they’ve lost their server identity are coming from.

Besides that I also agree with people who said that the linking will definitely not be a welcome change for everyone. I myself have always been fine on my mid tier server, but I know people who chose to be on high tier servers (and are used to queues and blobs and don’t mind them that much). I also know people who deliberately moved to lower tier servers because they just wanted to play in a less intense environment, without queues and sixty man blobs. I can imagine that these players are now lost. They enjoyed that form of WvW and they could choose to be on a server that allowed for it. The ones that didn’t enjoy it, could choose to be on higher tier servers. I don’t feel like one playstyle is less than the other, they were just different and you could choose what suit you best. Now that choice is gone because everything will be the same. Queues and big blobs, there is no room for those people who wanted the less intense environment anymore. I hope Anet will come up with a solution for them as well, even though I’m not one of them.

As a player who has always been with IoJ my concern is this: since our glicko remains unchanged, our rank will stay the same no matter who we are paired with.

This means that we will always be paired as the unnamed partner and we will never be able to rise in the ranks and regain naming privileges. About the only advantage of transferring to IoJ is the cheap entry fee to T1.

Edit: maybe Anet can set it up so the world names swap over on alternating weeks? Let AR, IoJ and ET fight it out for T1 (with a little help from YB, JQ and BG)

Kylden Ar.3724:

Ariel.6291:

I have been playing this game since pre-release on Eredon Terrace. In effect, by the changes you made tonight, you have taken our server away.

We had a great community and loved playing on our server. Now we don’t even have a borderland. In addition, you put us in a server that has so many people that we have been told there is no chance of getting in on reset night. You didn’t even make adjustments in how many people could be on a map. You did this without any input from us, without any warning and I feel your lack of allowing people who have been paying your salaries ANY input into something this important is a really incredibly bad business model.

I invite any developer who cares about this game, your customers, and who could consider the different modes of play to come that has grown out of the different server population sizes come and join us for a discussion of Eredon Terrace’s opinion of the changes. We would welcome you on our team speak to initiate a conversation.

There are better solutions to your population issues And since the server sizes are forcibly keeping your players from playing due to server OVER population, perhaps you should have considered going smaller NOT larger.

Please feel free to contact me should you care to discuss this further.

Thank you,
Ariel.6291

Seems the same for Kaineng. I’m not hearing of any of our guilds being able to get in past the queue.

Did want to come back and update.

Once we got past the queues (45 minutes for ‘Kaineng’ Borderlands) what I discovered is that, on reset night, roaming is dead. Just too many in the map. You will get steamrolled, and squashed.

So, running with a zerg. It’s not like the old zergs we were used to, it was chaos. I got credit for kills, but no idea who or what I killed.

Ok, meh, not my cup of tea.

Saturday morning, however, was much more like Kaineng back in the last 2 WvW tournaments. Enough people to go find fights if you wanted one, but still a chance to roam and do guerrilla warfare.

TC was accepting of the few remaining Kaineng guilds, and was surprisingly willing to hear my scouting reports and advice. I did not expect that, as I am barely known outside of Kaineng.

I think it’s a good start, but there might be a bit too much condensing of worlds. Maybe instead of 12 worlds, redistribute to 15. The top 3 probably did not need the help.

I am cautiously optimistic.

I absolutely hate it, I spent money to transfer to a low tier server becaus ei enjoy the smalls cale warfare. I like the small fights where what you do actually matters. Im sending in a support ticket and expect a full refund.

From anvil rock, got paired with yaks bend. -

I’m on Gunnars Hold and we got linked with Fissue of Woe and I haven’t noticed much in terms of population balancing. In our current matchup against FSP they still outnumber us 10 to 1 so it still shows there are big population imbalance issues happening.

Perhaps split larger servers like FSP in two so that it becomes more easy to distribute the excess players over other servers for true balance.

More feedback: it is claimed that population time slices were taken into account in pairing worlds. Its pretty clear that minimal consideration was given to this when it should have had an importance close to equal with glicko and overall population. I urge you weight this more heavily.

Ashamir.9574:

I’m Elona Reach (DE) and paired against Desolation +Vabbi. Yes, the Vabbi players aren’t as good as the Deso people. The problem I have atm is that it doesn’t matter how good they are if it’s 3 vs 1 in their favor.

I was trying to capture a camp today and two Vabbis came along. As a moderately skilled Wvw and PvP players I could hold my own against them … until a Deso popped up and I was dead.

(Qute shortened) As a Vabbi player, I can tell some similar stories about ER roamers. My explanation so far is that the WvW overhaul is attracting a lot of new WvW players who still have a lot to learn. I wouldn’t read too much into which server they are on but more e.g. if they run an elite spec or not.

In particular, I wouldn’t consider lower tier players to be worse – if you are 3 players defending the whole map, you just need different tactics and builds (e.g. much more mobility, if you encounter enemy players you’re at least 1:5 outnumbered and die anyway). People from the lower tiers need to get used to the situation (oh there is someone to call for help? and they come? how awesome is that!) whereas players from the upper tiers don’t need to adapt that much.

Therefore, happy learning and let’s keep up the good spirit for all of us :-)

Anet I appreciate you trying to fix server population. As you can see so far though, linking of certain servers is not needed. Population wise the top 6 servers are doing fine them selves and do not need linking (however is the future that may change and either need new linking or other ways to fix that when it occurs) . I would look at starting at the #7 server and link down from there. Here is what I purpose:

Now: 15 Worlds – 5 Tiers
Previously: 24 Worlds – 8 Tiers

•Yak’s Bend
•Blackgate
•Jade Quarry
•Tarnished Coast
•Dragonbrand
•Fort Aspenwood
•Sea of Sorrows & Anvil Rock
•Maguuma & Eredon Terrace
•Stormluff Isle & Isle of Janthir
•Darkhaven & Kaineng
•Henge of Denravi & Sanctum of Rall
•Northern Shiverpeaks & Borlis Pass
•Ehmry Bay & Gate of Madness
•Ferguson’s Crossing & Devona’s Rest
•Crystal Desert & Sorrow’s Furnace

First off, this should reduce the queues, I still expect to see them but with much less numbers. Also, with bringing the Alpine map back I expect to see more players returning to WvW once again so there will be more people for queues.

Thanks Anet for taking the time to listen to us players and I hope you take a look at this, because I think most of us enjoy having more people to play with but at the same time we want to actually be able to play the game mode we enjoy instead of sitting and waiting forever in queues.

Thanks.

Fridgemomo.3750:

Population wise the top 6 servers are doing fine them selves and do not need linking

I believe they linked all the worlds in NA for one purpose: getting population to transfer to lower tier servers. Host worlds got marked full while the lowest populated servers suddenly become the only way for someone to transfer to play in a higher tier match. EU doesn’t have the problems with tier rating cliffs that NA does so it was not necessary to link all worlds there.

People have been complaining about server population for litterally years and now something is done and ppl are complaining about how they liked their small communities. We cant have it both ways. You cant enjoy small communities and wish wvw wasnt dead.

Basically extinction of small server communities was inevitable. The writing has been on the wall for years. Why keep servers going if their communities dont care enough to populate wvw?

My only advice to small population servers is learn to command large groups, go stake your claim in a bl, carve out your corner of the world and call for help if needed. There are small scale fights, tasks, and wven roaming will re emerge. I would just ask we give this sometime to get better but as far as small server identities we just have to accept their demise…or I mean down sizing…

PabbyGaul.9682:

People have been complaining about server population for litterally years and now something is done and ppl are complaining about how they liked their small communities. We cant have it both ways. You cant enjoy small communities and wish wvw wasnt dead.

Basically extinction of small server communities was inevitable. The writing has been on the wall for years. Why keep servers going if their communities dont care enough to populate wvw?

My only advice to small population servers is learn to command large groups, go stake your claim in a bl, carve out your corner of the world and call for help if needed. There are small scale fights, tasks, and wven roaming will re emerge. I would just ask we give this sometime to get better but as far as small server identities we just have to accept their demise…or I mean down sizing…

The biggest complaints, which are not just limited to here, are that those on the smaller servers did not ask to be put into the generally different playstyle of the top tiers. If they had wanted that, they would have moved to them before. What counted as ‘dead’ for some was quite action packed for others.

Difference is, there is really nowhere to go to get away from it now. In effect, except for the servers that were smack in the middle of rankings, this has been the merging of generally opposite playstyles. Those that prefer small scale fighting now directly compete with zergs on both sides. Yes, there will likely still be times where those that prefer small scale can still get the fights they enjoy without being steamrolled by a zerg a bit too often, but will those times be when they can actually play? Perhaps they are allergic to zergs.

It boils down to choice. In all honesty, I think it would have been better overall, although there would have been more outcry due to more people being affected, to just do away with servers as we have known them. Instead, it was opted to not severely affect the most populated servers, and turn all the lower servers on their head. Some will enjoy it, but those that wanted nothing to do with the upper tier wvw, just had their entire wvw experience changed.

The effects of this are still just beginning. What happens when the honeymoon is over? Or the divorce happens of link changes or doing away with the idea altogether after the players that still go in wvw players get used to it? It is being called a beta afterall… but I think it’s here to stay regardless of what has been said. It is clear that the preference of many players were not taken into account, that primarily only the upper tiers had real attention. And it appears that is how Anet wants WvW played.

You cannot deny that some will stop going in as a result of this, and others may choose not to come back to the game. I know of some, and it isn’t just talk. I also know a few that seem to love the idea of this despite prior talk of preferring small scale. One for sure will complain later though after the honeymoon phase, but I digress.

Dear ANet Devs,

World Linking makes population re-balance easy for you, but do you realize you’re disrupting many WvW Communities everytime you do this?

You’re encouraging a WvW culture of non-identity & constant change for the sake of having “lively” match-ups.

World Linking will force people to play in larger groups to accomplish this. Server Pride is meaningless to some people, but not all people.

However, World Linking is not a long term solution that will allow WvW to really Flourish & Thrive…you need to establish stable WvW Communities & encourage them to grow…imho.

You will foster a WvW culture that has “Shallow Roots” between all players.

Instead of doing this band-aid fix at population re-balance…that will consistently destroy community…do it right…change the current flawed Base Map Mechanic at its core.

There really is an alternative that is simple & elegant in design…imho.

Even if you decide not to review the proposed solution below…please consider designing a product that at the very least…helps to nurture WvW Communities to grow & thrive.

It’s the in-game relationships that make for touching & fun play time…imho.

Yours truly,
Diku

p.s.
I’m not sure if you realize it, but to some…WvW is a window to players being able to share their lives. It helps to make life touching & meaningful.

Proposed Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

PabbyGaul.9682:

People have been complaining about server population for litterally years and now something is done and ppl are complaining about how they liked their small communities. We cant have it both ways. You cant enjoy small communities and wish wvw wasnt dead.

Basically extinction of small server communities was inevitable. The writing has been on the wall for years. Why keep servers going if their communities dont care enough to populate wvw?

My only advice to small population servers is learn to command large groups, go stake your claim in a bl, carve out your corner of the world and call for help if needed. There are small scale fights, tasks, and wven roaming will re emerge. I would just ask we give this sometime to get better but as far as small server identities we just have to accept their demise…or I mean down sizing…

I’d be good with losing our server name if Anet would poop or get off the pot about killing it off rather than leaving us in a purgatory of server locations. DR is dead (no way around it…our Glicko is dead and they won’t go back to 24 servers). So let us choose where we want to move so we can settle into a community without wondering where we will be next week (see Anets foster system NA).

Hi guys! I’m Sylva, co-leader of Phoenix Rises [Phnx] an active PvX/WvW guild on CD (or Desert Storm, as SBI-CD has taken to calling it).

Report: The queues… Well, they were just as bad as expected. CD queued two maps all by ourselves for the two hours before reset on Friday. When paired with SBI, we had huuuuuge map queues. It wouldn’t have been a problem so much, except for the game crashing hard after half an hour in EB… Forcing me to re-queue and wait. (Just hopped in a short(er) queue for a BL and waited it out. Pretty sure we had EB queued around the clock from Reset Friday until Sunday night.

Sadly, we were only able to get a scant handful of guildies into a map at a time, which was not as fun as it could have been. None of our casuals were interested in waiting on the queues (we are a hard-core casual crowd).

Other than that, we actually had a lot of fun, and Desert-Storm relations were/are excellent.

Suggestion 1:
When the alpine borderlands are available, ADD them as the hosted server’s BL, instead of replacing the desert BLs. This would allow more people into the maps to play, and take some of the stress off of the other map queues.

Suggestion 2:
Make sure people’s originating server is still identified (when being viewed by an enemy). Everyone shows up as the host server, and it makes some people salty. This would help address the Server Pride issue.

Suggestion 3:
Announce the pairings 1 hour in advance of reset (when you do the quarterly change) so that we can contact our paired server for reset strategy. Not being able to do so in advance is ridiculous. You don’t have to say whom we are up against, but PLEEEEEEEEASE allow us to strategize.

Thank you in advance,

Hi, When will servers that went to FULL go back to their previous states? We had been wanting to transfer for a bit and waited when Tyler said to wait, now we can’t transfer at all. We really want to get this done ASAP.

I prefer the lower numbers. I know many other players do as well. A good 15 on 15 or 25 on 25 is a good fight where I can spam something other than 1 due to lag and we can have havoc that doesn’t run into blobs. To me this is better team building than PVP which is very solo and short sighted. Maybe WvW isn’t designed for players like me who are happy with something in between pvp and all out war. If they added more maps and reduced the population cap there might be a home for me on a larger server. My PVX guild has discontinued WvW guild missions. They are too difficult to accomplish on weekends when we can get together. Casuals players won’t work.

For next week, make the matchups random. That’s the best way to test your server matching system. It would be good to see other servers.

I personally like the server linking but I am from a host server. The problems I see so far are
1. Guest servers lose their identity.
2. It’s a hassle switch teamspeaks
3. Queues are to big

The only 1 easy to fix is the queues – add one more tier.

I’d say the biggest solution to this is to have 5 tiers, make all new worlds and give everyone free transfers. That way we all start fresh, get to reunite with everyone who has transferred up since hot, & everyone gets screwed equally :-)

Random matchups o.O
According to our luck, Abaddon greets Kodash and Pinken Square as our next enemies, if that would happen ^^

My only real question is how long the pairings will last, since this change made so many servers shoot to Full status.

HoD and Eb didnt have any problems I know of. Eb commanders were leading HoDdies just like Ebs. They made us an icon in their ts and permissions for wvw channels and the same was done on HoD ts for Ebays.

However…It would be nice to know your linking partner before reset if its going to change because atleast you could do alot of the coordination beforehand rather than on reset.

Also so me good points as far as small scale…maybe just let AR, ET, and DR hang in their own tier 5. So t1 has no linkings, and t5 have no linkings. Everyone in the t2-t4 gets paired. This will make t1 a more constant struggle I think and keep glicko more volitile at the top and allow servers that pop up to kitten face off on even single server terms. Also if ppl want to have small scale wvw in t5 they can do that.

So they said it was easy lunk and unlink worlds so this might be a good solution…simply dont link top 3 and bottom 3, let them have their own tiers.

For clarity.

Do not link top 3 and bottom 3. Creates volitile t1 amd smallscale t5

NA/Tier8/Eredon Terrace/Guest(sub)server currently linked with: Blackgate

Hello Everyone,

Last night I had the pleasure of speaking with an ArenaNet employee (on a boarderland wearing the ArenaNet tag), regarding concerns that ET has expressed on this and other forums about the beta population linking. We had a good conversation and I thank Hamm for taking the time to talk to us.

After we were done and as I was thinking about the conversation, I had some thoughts that I wanted to pass along to to the folks who are posting and reading this forum.

1. ArenaNet is paying attention. I strongly urge you continue to post on this forum. I also ask that you keep it positive and focused on addressing making things better.

2. One thing that might help is if you identify your situation (as I have at the start of this post) with if you are NA or EU, The tier you were in. Whether you are on a guest(sub) server and who you are linked with. This will give ArenaNet a better idea of who this has impacted the most and why we see things differently. The NA solution may end up looking different than the EU solution, for example, and it would be helpful is ArenaNet could see where you are.

3. I have spoken to a lot of folks and read so many posts that have great ideas and for the life of me, I could not think of them all last night. I think it would be VERY helpful to ArenaNet if you would have your best, brightest and most articulate folks post their thoughts on what a more productive approach to population balancing in WvW might look like. Maybe with the data, ideas and help from all of us, ArenaNet might be able to find something that is we could all live with happily. Which I do believe is their desire.

Two questions I think ArenaNet and all of us need to consider is does population balancing mean we need to all have exactly the same number of players, or is there there a way would could achieve a better population balance that still allows for some smaller (but more robust and not empty) servers to accommodate both sides of what is an obvious schism in how folks enjoy playing WvW? No one wants empty servers, they are not much fun. But not everyone wants servers that are so big everyone simply is a part of a huge collective rolling over other huge collectives on a map. And I believe there is truly a place for both.

The second is whether temporary server linking or permanent server mergers (with the hope that we will work out the population balancing issues first) would be the preferred method of putting the solutions into action?

Finally, ArenaNet, if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. I love this silly game and my friends that I play it with. I understand that this is a tricky balancing act. Lets see what we can do when we work cooperatively.

Thank you all.

PabbyGaul.9682:

HoD and Eb didnt have any problems I know of. Eb commanders were leading HoDdies just like Ebs. They made us an icon in their ts and permissions for wvw channels and the same was done on HoD ts for Ebays.

However…It would be nice to know your linking partner before reset if its going to change because atleast you could do alot of the coordination beforehand rather than on reset.

Also so me good points as far as small scale…maybe just let AR, ET, and DR hang in their own tier 5. So t1 has no linkings, and t5 have no linkings. Everyone in the t2-t4 gets paired. This will make t1 a more constant struggle I think and keep glicko more volitile at the top and allow servers that pop up to kitten face off on even single server terms. Also if ppl want to have small scale wvw in t5 they can do that.

So they said it was easy lunk and unlink worlds so this might be a good solution…simply dont link top 3 and bottom 3, let them have their own tiers.

1st DR had just pushed out of T8, I believe they belong on the higher tier for their hard work. Grats to them for making it happen prior to linking.
2nd Tier 8 isn’t completely against linking, just not so high up. A tier 8 and Tier 7 linking would be the better choice. It would give us the larger but not overwhelming community we are looking for (In my opinion along with some others I converse about this with)
Now I say linking because it would definitely be something we’d want to test for a few months as they are doing now. If after 2 or 3 linkings, shifting around to find the balance that suits best, then merging wouldn’t be a horrible idea. Personally I don’t mind the loss of a server name as long as my community stays intact and not engulfed into non-existence.
Linkings make it tough to recruit, mergers give you actual bodies on YOUR server.

Drawback: Making friends through each Linking. May cause mass exodus to your new friends servers if the mergers didn’t go your way once again unbalancing the populations.

Ariel.6291:

2. One thing that might help is if you identify your situation (as I have at the start of this post) with if you are NA or EU, The tier you were in. Whether you are on a guest(sub) server and who you are linked with. This will give ArenaNet a better idea of who this has impacted the most and why we see things differently. The NA solution may end up looking different than the EU solution, for example, and it would be helpful is ArenaNet could see where you are.

NA/Tier7/Sactum of Rall/Guest(sub)server currently linked with: DragonBrand

So we are on Day 4 of Beta with linked servers.

I would have to say with exception to a small minority within my guild, this has been a headache so far. Within my guild of 160 PvX’rs we usually run anywhere between the one solo roamer taking a few camps, sparring off with other roamers, up to about a 25 person squad on our event nights. We have never been all that great, but have won our share of fights. Problem in these higher tiers is unless you are part of a blob, or very well organized and built group, you don’t stand much of a chance. Sure you want to train people, you want to make them better, but lets face it, there are a lot of players you will never make better. They have had this part of the game taken from them, they will not touch WvW again if this is how the game will be set up. This means, given enough time, you will not have the new incoming population in WvW to offset any losses of population, at least within my guild and I am guessing many other lower tiers guilds.

I know many in the lower servers have complained about the lack of people… Its not the lower tiers asking to be part of this mess, they where just asking for a little balance. Make the lower tiers have an incentive for people to move to, Spread out the population. I would argue for my guild, to reinstate the 8 server system or even 6 servers, install Alpine maps just for the lower half of tiers, and maybe a slightly better loot scale or reward tract points. Give an incentive to move down and not just up. Make guilds want to grow and carry servers, not for them to just get enough practice and move to a higher server. As long as my guild is constantly being run down by a 60/70 person blob, we have no reason to go into WvW… Give us a reason, and I am not talking about a K-Train or another EotM. I have also recommended in an above post somewhere, disconnect the mega server from all major cities except LA(LA was the neutral common ground for all people in the lore) Let us rebuild server identities, even if it means a fairly unpopulated Black Citadel. Leave the Mega server on all other maps.

Im not opposed to other ideas, maybe some that havent been mentioned anywhere on the forums yet. I am opposed to just being thrown right back into the mix. I am one of just a handful left on SoR that was active in WvW for our T1 days and witnessed all the drama, all the infighting, and elitism there was. There was a reason I never left SoR when we collapsed, and it wasn’t just that the server was welcoming to me. I want to see a better solution.

BTW, Dragonbrand has some really great people in it, people I could grow to really enjoy playing with, so this has nothing to do with them, this is about how I and my guild mates enjoy playing the game.

I think your “merge” or “linking” or whatever you’re calling it or going to call it is just another way of adding nails to the WvW coffin. I say that because it’s NOT a permanent sustainable FIX to the core issue of the “population balance” or “server stacking” issues at hand!

People are going to come and go from WVW no matter what. You need to develop and implement something truly dynamic that will “adapt on the fly” to how many people are playing this game mode. Otherwise, what are you going to do next time you have a huge wave of people quit this game/game mode? Go from 8 > 4 > 2 tiers? Keep “merging” or “linking” until we’re down to 3 servers or 1 tier?

Now maybe you can see why I say we NEED a permanent sustainable FIX to the “population” issue. I cannot proclaim to know the answer for sure – but I did start a thread trying to seek out possible answers; sadly I think I’m still the only one that put even a “thought” of an “answer”…

Here’s what I have posted previously on this very subject matter:

sparc.3649:

Okay, so I guess I’ll be the first to start >.>

Angel Heart.6739:

Maybe there should be different map-instances for GVG apart WVW (from the ppl that like playing all aspects of the WvW game)? That way they do not interfere with eachother and do not diss on eachother. Is that an option?

I think this is actually may be not an entirely bad idea! And in direct relation to my post about “problems” I think there’s a perfect possible “resolution” that COULD work for all of this!

I would have normally likely been against such thing, but I have a vision that would permit ANet to always change stuff like this up if they/we wanted to!

ANet would have to get pretty creative, BUT, they would first need to create three factions. Lore or none, doesn’t bother me. For sake of conversation we’ll call them FACTION1, FACTION2, FACTION3. Players would then have to chose to be in ONE of these three factions. This would be 100% PERMANENT! If you wanted to change your ‘alignment’ or ‘alliance’ you’d have to delete the toon and rebuild it (or just make a new one w/o deleting if you have enough slots) to chose a new faction for said toon!

Then the “servers” themselves could become “campaigns”. Or, if you rather think of it this way – eliminate “servers” and make “campaigns” in THEIR place. Or you could of course call them whatever you want, but they’d still serve the same purpose, the “mission/campaign/server” would be the “battle/war” and each one could and would be different. Or, for example, be different maps even (as in different campaigns can carry different maps). Which would be PERFECT for all the people “fighting” about ABL vs. DBL. Some of the “mission/campaign/server” could be ABL, some could be DBL, or as this other guy asked for – more specifically – GvG type maps, or even more! They could keep all 24 “servers/campaigns/missions”. They should keep these so that they can be added/removed/changed “on the fly” however. They could add or remove as they see fit, or maybe even dynamically. They could do whatever they wanted w/ this part (think, ‘the sky is the limit’). They could have all 24 campaigns/mission/server be the same maps and whatnot like it already is right now. Or they could make 1/3 of them be WvW w/ ABL maps for BLs, 1/3 of them WvW w/ DBL maps for BLs, and 1/3 of them be more GvG oriented/focused. etc.etc.etc… Maybe even better to develop a dynamic system that would start out with just 3 server/mission/campaigns and dynamically create/remove more as needed.

So, the new system would work as follows. PLAYERA would pick a faction say, FACTION2. This would be a decision this player could NEVER “go back on”, the ONLY way to participate on a different faction would be to roll an additional toon or re-roll. This would/should make WvW recruiting MUCH more effective since people will be from one of three factions, rather than one of twenty four servers! Then, you could pick your “mission/campaign/server” based on whatever criteria you see fit, whether it be population, certain maps that it’s running, etc… Right now our “war” lasts a week, they could keep it that, or up it IMHO to 30 days. Every week (or 30days), at the end of a “match” you can chose a new “mission/campaign/server” (NO CHARGE) if your hearts desires have changed (say, you want a new map, or higher or lower pop play style). Switching before a match is over, NOT ALLOWED – PERIOD. So for a few possible examples of my system as visioned:

PLAYERA joins FACTION2. This week PLAYERA decides they want maps so they join the campaign “Darkhaven” for the maps it’s running. The enjoy the week, but figure they want population (higher/lower), so at the end of the match they chose the campaign “Jade Quarry” for the higher/lower population. The next week they join " Borlis Pass" for the maps and population! And so on and so forth. So no matter what, PLAYERA can NEVER chose anything OTHER than FACTION2, if he/she wants to that badly they can roll another toon, or re-roll. Otherwise, they’ll ALWAYS be FACTION2; and able to chose new campaigns every time one (match) ends.

Now as far as GW2/WVW and how we have RED, GREEN, and BLUE (At least in terms of how Eternal Battlegrounds is not synchronous) – the faction itself would NOT represent a color, because then you would ALWAYS “be one color”. Rather, keep the current type system or implement a random system to chose “color” for a “faction” for the “battle/war” (whether it remain a week, or be increased).

Additionally, FACTION and / or CAMPAIGN would need HARD caps (unlike the current server system). They need to find a way to keep things in balance so they don’t just stay like they are right now with people stacking to one side of the bus! Any “HARD CAP” for FACTION (difference) numbers would have to be planned and implemented VERY carefully to accommodate for people inactive, or that leave permanently. So I could live without any such FACTION “caps”. However, even “campaign/mission/servers” need HARD caps! And I strictly insist, based on how many people chose it, not how many happen to be on at that exact moment. Especially with them lasting only ONE WEEK, even an “abandonment” wouldn’t mean much as you’ll just be picking a new “campaign/mission/server” the next week again anyways! So have HARD caps that CANNOT be worked around, based on how many people chose that campaign for that week, even if they’ve been offline SIX POINT FIVE days, “sorry for ya”, once that hard cap is reached – wait until the match is over, then everyone re-chooses anyway! This would also be the perfect place to have a dynamic system designed and implemented. Once a “cap” is reached, GW2 can create additional campaigns as an option to join…

I don’t know, but it sounds like a very plausible solution to me! Better than what we have right now where everyone is sitting on one side of the bus, so it’s leaning like all crazy about to tip over. Not to mention the side it’s leaning over is about to experience a blowout because that’s the side that has the tire that has already gotten several nails in it, but all anet keeps doing is “patching” it, and not actually taking the time to pull over to change the tire out for a NEW one! So pretty soon we’ll get a blow out and fall right over the edge of the cliff when that happens! UNLESS ANet; STOPS, takes a minute, and CHANGES THE kitten TIRE!

But seriously ANET, I implore you to pursue an actual FIX to this problem, not another bandaid that is only going to wind up another nail in the WvW coffin in the long run!

And to be personally subjective and brutally honest:

I HATE this change because again, it’s a BANDAID; NOT stitches.

I did NOT ask to be merged with T1, I actually liked playing on lil old AR (low population). It is because of your “BANDAID” that I’m STUCK on T1 now? I don’t WANT to play that/there (therefore now I’m not playing). If you guys had came up with a REAL FIX, I would be able to, and would have, chosen a LOW POPULATION “campaign/mission/server”. I don’t want to be on server/tier #1, I also don’t want my server to be “dead” (I don’t want to be the only one in WvW). YOU (anet) need to figure out how to balance this out!

So again, please stop with these “bandaids”; and start looking into something that will be a long term permanently sustainable fix! Something that will dynamically work around people coming and going (from WVW)!

During the linking Beta, only the Host name shows, not the guest name. This is either an issue or it is not.

For those who feel it is an issue, I suggest;

each second week the borderlands and names shown over the head rotate ie one week it shows host next week guest.

For those who feel losing a name is not an issue I suggest;

each second week the borderlands and names shown over the head rotate ie one week it shows host next week guest.

I just hope this IS only a TEMPORARY “fix” to revitalize WvW – and that they’re actually working on a LONG TERM fix in the background!