Guild Wars 2

@Ariel

WvW ecosystem is collapsing again.

The lower tier servers that feed the upper tiers are being swallowed up in this Beta event of forced transfer…that destroys community for the sake of brining all players into a frenzy tank feeding.

This is similar to dumping the small fry into the big tank with no protection…

Everything is eaten…and then there is no ecosystem to feed the bigger tank because the smaller populations that naturally evolved upwards…is eaten in one whole shot.

Vicious cycle…that needs to be broken.

There is a simple & elegant solution imho.

Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled

Possible Solution – Short version 3.8

Change Core Base Map Mechanic

ANet Core Base Map Controls

Time Zone/Language Label & Off-Peak Capping

Automatic & Manual Upgrades

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

Anet,

While I applaud the effort to solve the drastic population imbalance between servers/tiers, I have to say you missed the mark here. The server linking has done nothing to solve the drastic population imbalances between servers in NA. I can’t speak for EU servers, but having read some of the posts here it seems to be a similar issue. While I love the people on the server that we are linked with and welcome the ability to make some new friends, we are still facing server that outnumber us (even linked) most times of the day. The population imbalance may be condensed, but it still very much exists. This is in part due to some servers having been stacked with a lot more inactive accounts of players now returning to the game as well as people transferring to the linked servers when they can’t join the host. Tiers/servers are still stacking and the population is still shifting to the top servers for the most part. Meanwhile other servers (my own included) are seeing a slower return of players as well as still losing players to disinterest or being driven away by the blob mentality that seems to run WvW these days. I myself have been suffering extreme lag and game crashes due to the blobs that run the maps of late. This system needs to be reworked and approached differently, because linking hasn’t solved the issue.

Since HOT came out, Anet has been bending the “unwritten rule” of not forcing gamers to do things they don’t want or enjoy because it makes them go to things they do enjoy. You can call this debacle a “linking” but it’s not. It’s a “forced transfer”. I’m totally disusted with WvW. A lot of my Guildmates and Server Mates feel the same. Been playing a long time and it’s become a trial now. The spring update was great, it brought a lot of ppl back to WvW and added a lot of fun back into WvW. I don’t have faith in Anet making the right choice for the players here. I question their common sense sometimes. The perm contested WPs in the desert keeps is a prime example. Anet did not think that this would not cause problems? They did not see the uproar a “forced transfer” would cause? Blobbing/Zerging is not wanted 100% of the time by MOST ppl. Our server had rules like “no dueling” on the Battlefield. I got “linked” with a server that berates you and your parents if you interfere or even get close to their “dueling area close to a contested Tower”. They make sure that you know you were not invited. I know a lot of ppl cry “I’m gonna quit…I don’t like this”. Those ppl will prolly stay and be force fed. It’s the Hard Core players who won’t say anything and just stop playing. Anet won’t know because their communication skills with ALL the players has always been lacking. Server populations do not make WvW pop numbers. The actual ppl on all the maps in WvW give the correct numbers and we all know that it fluctuates constantly. I think the best way to handle this would be by using map limits so it is fair for all (3) servers. if the maps were controlled by map limits it would be in place all the time and the Server pop would never make a diff to the WvW numbers. Have the enemy server map limits tune themselves to the Home BL actual map pop. There has to be another way. This “linking/transfer” is NOT the answer but for some it could be a deciding factor whether or not they continue playing GW2.

I really hope this beta linking ends soon. I think enough time has passed now to know how people feel about it. For me it feels like our wvw community is dying or maybe already dead. Some tried working with our host server, it seems to be a struggle. We have tried to group up with players from our server but face so many enemies we are lucky to be able to take a camp. I used to play in wvw every day all day long. lately I have been playing a lot more pve than wvw. WvW just seems pointless. Please end this linking now. It feels like a slow painful death. I am glad some are enjoying the linking but for some it is awful.

At the very least, switch who is paired with who more often? I’m already bored of the current matchups.

be done with the linking already. it needed to wait on the pop shifts that had already occurred to make any sense. even then 1+ 24 / 2 + 23 was/is far too simplistic to accomplish anything real….

The people on the lower tiers had 3 years to migrate up if they had really wanted to…..

I would suggest leaving gold tier alone, tiers 1-2. Everyone is forced to become a tier 1 server whether they like it or not. I don’t like this simply for the fact that roaming isn’t really viable anymore. Its all about the zergs. the population balance was only a problem for tiers 7 and 8. They are the ones whom I think should have had the only merges.

I’m from Kaineng, like Teon, and I’m seeing a different thing.

My roaming guild no longer wants to roam. While they liked the occasional fight and trying to evade the zergs, they are primarily PvE players. I’m the only one with a WvW rank over 300. But they did like WvW for that balance between PvE and PvP, and the feeling of ‘guerrilla warfare’ that was had by being able to scout out and pick the fights. Now, we try and scout, and pick a target, and get run over by one of 4 zergs in our own borderland.

This week against Blackgate has completely turned them off the mode. They have no desire to ever go back in with the current populations. Add in the hate that BG has for TC (for some stupid political reasons we in TACO know nothing about nor care, all of us work, and have real lives to deal with, we don’t live in WvW like some of these folks), and the essential 2v1 we’ve had all week, it’s not fun.

If they are going to continue with these server links, then T1 and T2 don’t really need to be linked, and the rest of us smaller servers could be, so we can have our style of WvW back, but still see a decent population.

I’m also from Kaineng, and I’ll echo Kylden above – we’re seeing some of our core WvWers drift out of the mode during the beta, which unfortunately is to be expected when change is this radical. We’re hopeful we’ll get an opportunity to test out a revised linking system, and there have been great suggestions on many threads.

To the players who might be feeling discouraged or dismissed: your opinions DO matter; it’s a beta and Anet is looking for constructive feedback from the WvWers, so be heard.

There will be an upcoming poll on the linking, per Tyler:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

In the coming weeks we plan to hold more polls. Just like we are currently polling about the Reward Tracks and Participation beta, we’ll poll about the World Linking beta as well.

Desolation + Vabbi, is going through a bit of bandwagoning, as things stand.
Why not transfer for just a measly 500 gems, to one of the top PPT servers in the EU and also strongest fighting servers, still in many ways, overstacked and avoidable.

Deso and Vabbi are already bandwagoned.

This was my question actually….. Do 2 linked servers have potentially x 2 the population as a single server? So you have Deso which is already a big server (with loads of sleeper accounts of people taking a break from GW2) teamed up with Vabbi who I guess was basically empty pre patch. But then transferring to Vabbi is cheap so all the bandwagon people go there… so they have more than 2 x the potential population of my server (Piken)…. doesn’t seem fair? Why not just set a population cap that is equal for all ‘sides’. Sure they can unlink… but if this only happens every 3 months then the badwagoners will just move to the next cozy linked place for a relatively low fee.

At the moment this system is actually worse than the old one!

me and other thousands of people havent played since this stupid merge happened and forced transfer 12 servers to help the other 12 servers on their own battles……

Hello. I am curious if this beta will end up being permanent. After 3 months they will make the links permanent or they will go back to what it was with 24 servers? After 3 months the lower server will change with another server or it will stick with what server is now and beta will continue?

Blade Of Gandara.6738:

me and other thousands of people havent played since this stupid merge happened and forced transfer 12 servers to help the other 12 servers on their own battles……

You have proof to substantiate that number?

TOP ISSUE (as heard from players actually playing the game): The 24 hour coverage continues to place low population or unevenly matched teams (e.g. Darkhaven (WVW/PVP server) and Ferguson’s Crossing (PVE server)) at a serious disadvantage.
RECOMMENDATION: Establish EOTM-esque que times where map is limited in duration and scales to the population present (e.g. Team 1 has 40, Team 2 and 35, team 3 has 22 – the map will not start until all teams have met the minimum cap of 80% queued and will close if one team falls below 40% population)… it works in pvp, why not just up the scale of map population?

ISSUE: UPLEVELS are unidentifiable and create rally bots for opposing teams with little to no consequence to gankers and troll players.
RECOMMENDATION: Create UI or color code marker (such as amber for non aggressive (Uplevel) and red for aggressive (80), similar to pve mobs). If killing amber, player loses honor badges. This allows neewbie players and/or uplevels to learn and gain some level of enjoyment in the game instead of being
the victim" of some random ganker who preys on the tail and foolishness of new players.

ISSUE: Complete lack of map management or support staff (e.g. No devs present on maps) resulting in a continued presence of hack-players.
Recommendation: ID some players and give them special reporting tools to ID hackers. The report a player feature is unbelievably poor. Example: I see an enemy player jump 30 feet into the air, land on keep wall, portal in his zerg, and boom, keep flip. My only option is to select player, report for verbal abuse? Botting? Inappropriate name? Seriously?

CONCLUSION: The beta and wvw is fun and rewarding BUT for 3 years players have said, in game, the above items over and over and they go undressed. The coverage issue, the lack of support in game, and frequency of hackers and exploits have made players up and quit wvw or the game entirely. Your fix is available to you if you enjoin players to help players, make your presence felt in wvw, and balance the maps being chief among them. 100 eight year old children, swinging bats randomly while running at and over 7 Mixed Martial Arts World Champions, should not be winning; in the same way, zergs of larger pop servers should not have their way versus lower pop servers at every battle, flip, and point of interest. Balance WVW…

IMO server linking needs to be ended and replaced with a permanent merge of the bottom 3-4 tiers into a single tier – shifting bodies around and denying growth to guilds on “full” host servers doesn’t really help anyone.

Too much emphasis is being placed on balancing “population” and making it the primary measure of whether one server is competitive with another server, especially after scoring based on timezone is balanced out. When populations between two servers are even vaguely equal, the percentage of players that run in organized builds + play on teamspeak becomes a HUGE determining factor in who wins. Groups on teamspeak following an experienced commander are going to win vs similar numbers of PUGs 90% of the time. Throwing a bunch of newbies into a lower tier server doesn’t make them competitive vs organized t1/t2 servers.

Arenanet can balance scoring to fix timezone stacking problems, and merge low tier servers to balance population but they don’t have control over most of the factors that make a server “competitive” rank wise. The vast majority of these factors like teamspeak usage, commander experience and group builds are factors that individual guilds and server communities need to deal with. Tier 1 and 2 servers get there and stay there by a concerted effort over time to organize and improve their play, not just by “stacking population”.

I got one question: Why did you made servers such as gunnar “Full”? Even if it’s linked it’s still empty as kitten. In front you have jade sea with queu on week end daytime that is not full.
Ok I have been abble to move on FoW wich is link to gunnar so I can play with friends but when You’ll “redistribute worlds” as you say in you first post.. I’ll simply be kittened. It wouldn’t be such a problem if switching servers wasn’t that expensive.
I’m not playing much and not pve much so getting money is really anoying … and gem’s price is so High …
Have you think about this kind of problems and like .. will do something about it? Like when you’ll change propose people to choose wich server they wanna stay on? (stupid cause for deo/vabbi everyone will say Deso)
Tbh I paid aournd 150 for 500 to go on FoW to play with friends on Gunnar cause It’s full and that I was sick of Non-playing on Jade sea. When you’ll “redistribute” I’ll be kittened up again cause I’ll be separated from friends again. So If gunnar is full I’ll be screwed and if not I’ll just have to pay … 500gems to get there … wich means to me … a month or more of non playing cause I don’t wanna pve all day long. (yes I’m pretty bad at doing money).

Sorry if something similar have been post .. didn’t read all 7 pages

Due to server stacking on the lower ranked servers and the low transfer price, its become absolutely apparent that server linkages need to be reviewed and changed far more often than 3 months. Its should be 4 weeks at most.

Slow Lightning.4592:

Deso and Vabbi are already bandwagoned.

This was my question actually….. Do 2 linked servers have potentially x 2 the population as a single server? So you have Deso which is already a big server (with loads of sleeper accounts of people taking a break from GW2) teamed up with Vabbi who I guess was basically empty pre patch. But then transferring to Vabbi is cheap so all the bandwagon people go there… so they have more than 2 x the potential population of my server (Piken)….

^^ This is my question also. For Piken right now, it feels like a bit of an unbalanced mess. Will linking changes be made and experimented with during the Beta? If not, the Beta probably needs to be re-evaluated asap. 3 months of this present state will kill the game.

morrolan.9608:

Due to server stacking on the lower ranked servers and the low transfer price, its become absolutely apparent that server linkages need to be reviewed and changed far more often than 3 months. Its should be 4 weeks at most.

see JQ and YB (well 2 of us anyway) can agree on something ! If this isn’t addressed fairly soon, don’t even bother with the scoring changes….

anet: WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE WVW UNBALANCED? For three weeks in a row, since you started this beta, you have maintained that imbalanced servers is fun.

Example: one team in EOTM, for past 3 weeks, has been near permanently undermanned. Bad Lands this week on NA servers with last two weeks, frost reach.
You won;t listen? WHY? you would realize this is an ongoing issue with any servers matched with Yak’s Bend since they don’t EOTM, ever.

This is not just limited to EOTM… you have placed, for 3 weeks, a level 16 server, with a level 11 versus 2 level 9 and 2 level 10? I am trying to not be profane so I can only ask, what are you thinking? Its like you reward 4 servers and punish 2 with zero attempt to balance. You ignore every forum post.

Your only answer is “its difficult”. What is difficult… you make pvp player-fill que and close, but have no such mechanic to balance a wvw map where one server has 60, on every map, one has 40, on every map, and you think one having 12 players on every map is fun?

Who exactly told your developers that a zerg blob sweeping over a single player or objective is fun? Its what wvw has been and continues to be and its insanely boring… no wonder only tier 1 and 2 are the only servers with ppl playing the maps while every tier 3 and below are complaining on your forums.

Is anyone even providing feedback? What exactly is your problem with not making wvw a que-able event like pvp? You are rewarding 15% of all players and punishing the rest.

Terrier.8732:

Slow Lightning.4592:

Deso and Vabbi are already bandwagoned.

This was my question actually….. Do 2 linked servers have potentially x 2 the population as a single server? So you have Deso which is already a big server (with loads of sleeper accounts of people taking a break from GW2) teamed up with Vabbi who I guess was basically empty pre patch. But then transferring to Vabbi is cheap so all the bandwagon people go there… so they have more than 2 x the potential population of my server (Piken)….

^^ This is my question also. For Piken right now, it feels like a bit of an unbalanced mess. Will linking changes be made and experimented with during the Beta? If not, the Beta probably needs to be re-evaluated asap. 3 months of this present state will kill the game.

Honestly, I don’t think most of who moved to Vabbi, actually care about PPT that much, the problem is at night. Perhaps there’s a couple more players, especially in the past weekend, which decided this week’s MU,.

Until they bring the the Scoring change into testing, nothing will change about how you win a MU. They should re-evaluate Server links, every 3-4 weeks, but so far it hasn’t been that much a problem, besides allowing cheap transfers to the lower population servers linked to more populated, same old problem, just like when Piken was stacked too.

And come on, people just complain when it’s too hard and stop playing because they’re ‘losing’, which is boring as kitten for everyone else. I think Anet should unlink Vabbi and increase it’s population to high/very high tommorow night.

I have guild members that are trying to change to Darkhaven server and we are highly outnumbered by other servers. Is there some kind of server FULL cap that’s inaccurate? This is hurting our server and my guild. I’d like to know more on this as to why we’re constantly outnumbered in wvw if we have a FULL server.

All the host servers were manually set full, in my opinion to force people to transfer to the linked server. But yes, it has hindered and hurt the host servers that do actually need to recruit. Recruiting right now is darn near impossible with no promise of the linkings being permanent and with people being allowed to stack to the t1 linked servers. It seems they are really the only servers getting the transfers at the moment. So nothing’s really changed, it’s just there are fewer tiers to lose population to T1 now.

BOA smid.1783:

All the host servers were manually set full, in my opinion to force people to transfer to the linked server. But yes, it has hindered and hurt the host servers that do actually need to recruit. Recruiting right now is darn near impossible with no promise of the linkings being permanent and with people being allowed to stack to the t1 linked servers. It seems they are really the only servers getting the transfers at the moment. So nothing’s really changed, it’s just there are fewer tiers to lose population to T1 now.

They lowered the caps which set the worlds to full (not all host servers were full when the changes was made either, hod was not, and another wasn’t. they went full within 3 weeks though, possibly sooner wasn’t paying attention)… There is also a question if the linked world is counting against the host worlds server cap…
It was intended to prevent people moving to those servers, that isn’t in question really when it is what Anet said/implied

How will you reduce the amount of gaming system after link of the server?

Worlds that are paired will have lower population caps.

Of course large parts of this thread, and apparently the new merged thread express the concerns about the linked worlds that in large part did not want to be forced into higher tier gameplay. I left t3 a year ago to get away from this. Now, my (current) server has ended up in t3 yet again. and former t7/8 worlds… thrown into t1-2.

It’s like, Anet never bothered to ask those on the lower servers if they would have wanted to be put into the top tiers… (yes I know they didn’t ask, a bit of a facetious statement)

JUST TWO SIMPLE SUGGESTIONS ON HOW ANET CAN FIX WVW:

1) Make WvW leagues.
2) Scale maps

Details: Merge tier 6, 7 and 8 into 3 teams (call them battle groups, globes, whatever, the name is not that important). This rabbit league now has the option to play on the big maps (80×80×80) but everyone knows that they will never fill the maps so now anet makes (OMG here comes work) new maps that are scaled to fit the population. Example: A que option to enter the 1) 80×80×80 maps (traditional Borderlands), 2) a new 40×40×40 map (1 keep only (remove the middle such as hills and bay on Alpine), and a new 20×20×20 map (capture the flag like you tried in Desert maps).

Who wants to bet me that tier 6, 7, and 8 ppl would be superbly enabled top enjoy wvw, and the higher leagues would have a ram packed queu in the 20×20×20 map to have them gvgvg fights people have to make happen in eotm or some obscure area in a borderland map. ANET…. seriously, listen to your players, they love you game, its not hard to make a new map, takes a week with 3 programmers, 1 director, and a month to beta test it. You can do it and make your players happy and not bitter.

PS: You lost 50% of player on Wildstar because the rumor went around during release that the WVW was just like GW2… lurn from your failings and be awesome again.

Or, instead of trying to create new maps, that half the people will hate anyway, just limit number of maps on low tier matches.

I will use EU with 6 tiers for this example:

Tier 1-3 will remain same, they still have 4 maps.

Tier 4 gets 3 maps – these are all BL maps, they have no EB map.

Tier 5 would get 2 maps. They get no BL maps at all but they will have 2 similar EB maps instead. So, half the maps.

And tier 6 only gets 1 EB.

Just go away anet… you failed another game. 4 weeks in a row of horrendously unbalanced wvw and you have the audacity to put up a forum like you would even respond. Seriously, just refund ppl their money… you will never see a faster exodus in gaming history than the day another MMO comes out that isn’t sponsored by N Korea.

GH has been facing much larger enemies constantly in this beta (not this week as we dropped to last tier). This means usually people log into WvW once a week, see that there is nobody but enemy spawncamping and then they log off again, not bothering with it for the rest of the week. And yet, for reasons unknown, GH is still marked as FULL server, meaning it should have more players then the servers constantly outnumbering us. Either population marking has been broken or there are hunderds of GH players hidden around the maps invisible to everyone, just sitting there for 24 hours.

This problem with unbalanced and unfun matches is partly caused by reduction of servers. When before you had 1 tier with equal servers, 1 tier up with slightly more populated server and 1 tier down with a bit smaller servers, now in EU you have only 6 matches (just 4 in NA! 4). That means in every match you will be mixed up with MUCH larger server and/or also much smaller server. Every server just has to end up in some matchup and there are no better matches.

And honestly, it is not fun. It is not fun to fight servers who constantly throw 4 times the players at you. The fights are not fun because enemy will run around with more players and the simple damage spike will kill half your group at first contact. The scoring and points capturing is not fun when against each of your group there is 4 enemy groups taking back every objective you manage to capture.

I think some of the changes in this beta have been good. But for example time and effort wasted on removing much better Desert maps and restoring these broken and boring Alpine maps should of been spent fixing actual problems. Population balance is ruining the game, not map with some cliffs and sand.

So, I will list the things that need to be addressed to actually improve WvW:

1 – locked size and number of maps. As long EVERY match is taking place at exact same size of battlefield half the matches will be overcrowded (queues) and half the matches will be empty where you simply can not find an enemy cause they can swap maps faster. Lose this idea already, it does not work. Give more maps for larger servers and less maps for smaller ones. I found the mention of “balance” in the map rotation pretty insulting when main source of unbalance is not how far your entry WP is from the center but number of enemy players.

2 – unlimited transfers. Nothing will help to fix WvW unless this gets removed first. EVERY battle is easily won by bringing more players. EVERY match is, again, won by bringing more players. As number of toal WvW players is same, the winning formulae is to transfer from smaller server into bigger server. Meaning smaller servers will ALWAYS lose players and bigger servers will always keep growing. Making some servers full is not real solution, specially when Anet has failed to fix problem with linked server NOT being marked same. And while queues are annoying, they will never solve anything either. As long anyone can transfer to any server at any time, no balance can be achieved, drop it already and spread the WvW players equally between every server so the fights and matches become meaningful again. It really should not be about how many players you got but how good they are.

3 – 24 hour coverage. I know, some of this is being hopefully addressed already with scoring changes but I do not think the changes are going far enough. It is just one of the ideas that sounds really great on paper or design doc or whatever developers write, but in real game it has proven to be horrible. Players will always find a way to win a match by NOT actually fighting an enemy but gaining points when and where no enemy is around. As long it remains possible, as long there are times when same amount of points can be earned by playing pure PvE instead of fighting real players, this will constantly ruin every match. Speically, when combined with previous points where fixed number of maps allows to leave the map to avoid enemy and when quickest path to victory is just bringing more players. We have seen how bad this is, just bin it already.

WORLD LINKING POLL

Dear Anet, In the poll just posted to ‘approve’ world linknig, you indicate you have seen a big increase in WvW participation. As Alpine and other WvW changes (reward track etc) were released at same time, how do you know the participation has increased from world linking?

Long term I can world linking destroying the game mode – communities are struggling to hold together. withot a World to fight for anymore, its not really World vs World?

Just perma merge the servers and allow them to recreate their communities…… don’t shift and swap every 3 months its just silly and promotes all kind of system gaming and loss of community identity.

In reference of the world linking poll:

I voted yes, but there are still many problems.

To start, the population bubble is just repeating. The same server stacking is happening just on two servers instead of one. Right now there is people simply moving onto Eredon Terrace to get on to black gate. Making an already over covered server have even more population.
This only creates:
a) longer frustrating ques for the people native to both servers.
b) frustrating match ups for for the other servers.
Either the linkings need to rotate, higher populated servers be completely unlinked, or we need a forceful population rebalanced. I also think that a seasonal transfer lock to prevent stacking would be more beneficial to the community as well.

Second, a large problem of the linking is that it forced smaller roaming focused communities into blob focused servers. The two don’t really mix and basically every time this happens the roaming community quits. I think that linking up three smaller servers together would have been better in the long run for the community, as it destroyed a lot of those kinds guilds and groups.

Lastly, in regards to population, something needs to be done about omniblobing. I know you guys tried to do this with desert borderlands by making objectives far apart, and harder to take, but it didn’t work. It just made it harder for smaller groups to defend, react and scout.

Id suggest a bonus, for not having more than 20 people near you, but that would cause players to be resentful towards each other and would create a barrier for players trying to get into wvw. Maybe something along the lines of traps that do delayed damage based on the # of targets that walked over it. either way there needs to be something to give players reason to split up.

Slow Lightning.4592:

WORLD LINKING POLL

Dear Anet, In the poll just posted to ‘approve’ world linknig, you indicate you have seen a big increase in WvW participation. As Alpine and other WvW changes (reward track etc) were released at same time, how do you know the participation has increased from world linking?

Very good point that has to be emphasised. I doubt the linking had very much to do with the increase at all.

Also my feedback on the poll is that a yes/no poll is insufficient. I like the general thrust of the technology but I think it was implemented badly with the issues that the above poster has articulated to do with easier server stacking. The poll has to provide more options.

I voted No on the world linking because we haven’t even seen the first swap guest servers to see if the linking is going to balance the populations long term.

Its a bit premature to say this should be a permanent feature. It should under go a couple swap cycles before deciding one way or the other.

Not on guildwars2.com no Anet link here – no poll in my mind.

WHY has this poll not been announced? I think you should remove the results and start it OVER with full knowledge of the whole player base. Plus was this separated between NA and EU?

I feel VERY strongly like this is a setup.

This is exactly what someone does when they are trying to control the outcome and still be able to say “hey we had a poll”

I will say right now, THIS IS NOT A POLL and the results are already invalidated by the approach. I am INCREDIBLY disappointed in the backhand approach to this.

Also, please word the poll more straightforwardly. I read this incorrectly and voted incorrectly.

It should read simply

Do you want to keep world linking?
Yes
No

Simple and straightforward.

Plus your majority is messed up. What if you don’t get 75 percent either way?

Ariel.6291:

Also, please word the poll more straightforwardly. I read this incorrectly and voted incorrectly.

It should read simply

Do you want to keep world linking?
Yes
No

Simple and straightforward.

Plus your majority is messed up. What if you don’t get 75 percent either way?

Then the beta continues and we have the option to get rid of it later.

How is this poll exactly working? If less then 75% choose yes it goes back to 24 servers? Please explain this out a little. If that is the case, I personally think it would have been weighted a little more to NO, so requiring 80-85% to say this should stay. Majority of WvW population is on what would have been the top 3 tiers, it was pretty much established that none of them will dislike this change except for queues. Of course when you are running a blob 24×7 it is easy to encourage your server to vote yes. When you are from the lower tiers at the moment all you have to go off of is your old friends list to encourage people to vote no matter what they choose. Its not like a low tier server has much of a say in todays WvW. I will hope you have decided that the only way it stays is if 75% or more say yes and not 74.9. If 75% have to say no…. Count me done with WvW.

Maybe the linking is something that can be considered when you want to do tournaments and return it the way it was?

lol, here’s an interesting wrinkle to this merger stuff. I am on BP.. ANY player who is on one of the opposing HOST sites is available to me to whisper to and friend ( from within WvW ) since they are not actually my opposition. I have a friend on one of the other host sites and I can see which borderland his zerg/blob is on just by looking at my friends list. Also, since I have NO home borderland anymore even the Citadel waypoint was NOT open to my new character until I used the B option to bring up the screen and go to the FA Borderlands.

The bottom line is that since I am not friends or enemies with any of the high tier host servers I can easily see which bl any of them are on at any time I want just by friending someone… Now how’s THAT for a nice little spy tactic.. bwahaaaa… gotta love this ridiculous merger stuff.

Do it right, or don’t do it at all!

well… seems I can’t whisper as easy as I could before now, but I can still see where my ‘friends’ are.. lol

Balthazzarr.1349:

well… seems I can’t whisper as easy as I could before now, but I can still see where my ‘friends’ are.. lol

friends list has been all sorts of messed up since just before the link started. It was telling me that someone in a different tier was on a borderland of the matchup I was in.

yes that’s true… but when you’re actually in WvW and the friend is one of your enemy host sites then you can see where they are. At least the last time I checked I could.. and it was correct.

The whole linking system is flawed and cant reasonably work when in EU there are national servers that cannot be paired with non national or other nations servers so they have to be linked with servers from their own nation so in placing those national servers together you make them way stronger than they should be compared with other’s that get paired with ghost/dead server’s and causes huge imbalance just get rid of it and try something else anet you screwed up again.

WvW works for a substantial part because of something you belong to and something similar that opposes you.
Server solidarity and caring for your server and server mates is very important.

The current linked servers work in my opinion, but to unlink them en start over time and time again will mess with this feeling a lot.

I hope it is only the plan to add servers to existing link-ups and not unlinking existing ones.

How long beta will last?
Will worlds be unlinked?

that is what the poll is for. look for the anet posts in this or the other thread that explains what happens if vote goes yes or no.

WORLD LINKING =/= FAIR PLAY

Remove, or make better balance, like give link for every world or something.
Feeling like a boat in the eye of storm. Good ideas, worst ideas about WvW

Don’t worry since you guys are all salty it will show on the poll…. OH WAIT.

The linking helped repopulate low tiers and prevent T1/2 arrangements (so they stay in top tiers).

Ofc people are gonna vote yes.
I’m sorry you’re angry you have to wait 5 more minutes to get into wvw or that you can’t muster the skills to better your roaming to avoid bigger groups.

#FirstTierProblems

the beta is working well so far and it’s most likely gonna stay that way.

ANet,

World Linking has been approved by the general population of WvW.

Would you perhaps consider planning for GW3?

WvG – World vs Globes

A New Game Mode where you replace the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model that is flawed & go with something simple that already covers the 3 Chronic Problems of the WvW Game Mode.

In case you don’t know what the 3 Chronic problems are:

1) Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2) Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3) Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

Possible Solution – Short version 3.9 – Updated

Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled

ANet Core Base Map Controls

Time Zone/Language Label & Off-Peak Capping

Automatic & Manual Upgrades

How do you propose to stop a single super stacked and strong Globe from buying up guilds & dominating all Globes?

How much coding does ANet need to do?

Less is more?

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic