Guild Wars 2

The system should also take into consideration which server you are transing from.
Like it should be cheaper to trans from a kitten a T2 server than from T3 to T2 and so on.

Good news, I hope this produces the expected results. Any population balance help is a win

This makes me happy as I am from Devonas Rest and all of my friends play on different servers, I’d hope that transferring to SoS would help me.

Great news and thanks!

Server transfers should be a cash service only. Too often people, and entire guilds, completely negate the entire point of participating in wvw and just transfer out to a higher ranked server.

rapthorne.7345:

Server transfers should be a cash service only. Too often people, and entire guilds, completely negate the entire point of participating in wvw and just transfer out to a higher ranked server.

You seem to think that as long as xy and z are on your server you’ll be winning – that’s not true. You can force people to stay on your server but not to play.
There are a lot of reasons why people transfer – they don’t like the community, they feel a bit lost when it comes to the “skill” of the people on their server, they are tired of the always same matchups, they want more than karma train, they only want karma train, they only want zerg fights.

I think a new system to determine the wvw population of a server is a good start but only a start, wvw needs some attention. Not new stuff but balancing of everything. Maybe it’s too late for that – it’s seriously a wonder that the lot of us keep playing.

Buy Some Apples.6390:

I am surprised by how many people support this. If PvE players do not have to pay to transfer to an active PvE server, then we should not have to pay anything to transfer either!

This is just us WvW players still being ripped off!

You are quite right to say this. They made a solution for Pve, so perhaps they will also for wvw. I dont see how right now though.

Reikou.7068:

The goal is server balance. Who cares about “implosions” or whatever. Those will only be temporary.

Anet’s goal is cash and for players to congregate in as few servers as possible which support the game mode, thus they probably don’t necessarily want players transferring to lower servers but if you do they get cash for it or at least it acts as a gold sink.

So will they measure population by player data, 24 hours of the day and take into account highest ‘tick’ aswell? Let’s say BB, Deso and Viz, tick highest during the night, but would usually against higher ranked servers. (or SFR..) I guess BB would be medium, Deso Very high and Viz High.

Only taken Anet 2 years to do this but better late than never I guess, Can’t wait to see SFR drop in rankings when they go up against server with the same population/coverage but with better players and commanders.

The initial population shift is gonna be awesome if extremely upsetting to the current population, god i hope this creates a more evenly spread community, we all know SFR has 2/3 times more than everyone and that population has to queue for hours to get onto any border on or around primetime.

I also hope they give people the option to not represent a server if they are solely PvE as choosing a server to PvE in is utterly redundant with the mega servers, this would free up spots to those who want to WvW only or WvW mostly, this would give each server a much better idea of the number of “Active” wvw players they have.

See you in silver SFR

EDIT: I would also love to see a mass server rep reset when this system becomes active, on activation day when you login you are given a choice to stay with your current server or transfer to any other server for half price in the tier below yours. PvE players who log in will be able to for example rep a server as a PvE’r, maybe keep PvE rep population seperate from WvW population but you can’t rep piken in pve and deso in wvw for example, only the same server in both.

Samuel Loretan.8601:

We’ll continue to monitor the situation, and we’ll make all adjustments we deem necessary to improve the WvW experience. As always, your feedback is very welcome.

I fear that if there are problems with this new population algorithm, that the above quote will not apply. Look at the event we just had and how there were zero adjustments and feedback was totally ignored.

The difference is that issues with this new algorithm has potential to be even more disastrous to the game mode.

KStudios.2850:

Xenesis.6389:

Whaaaaat? YB matches FA population, FA has been losing guilds for a little while now because they got so fat the queues went to hell, it’s back to manageable levels. If anything this is in response to SoS, DB, DH all being on full status while not even being in T1. SoS has been on full for months with gaps here and there when it opens, but it’s population is probably less than half of FA and YB, that’s how many pve players they have.

It was literally a mass exodus off the server into lower tiers. We got so tired of being red every week, facing blobs that were fielding sometimes 60+ or more. While we often had as few as single digit numbers on our home BL during the non-NA prime hours. There was little we could do to deal with that. What was worse, after some glicko calculations, we discovered that we were still gaining points and even IF SoS completely left WvW alone and as a server didn’t even bother to show up it would still be weeks or even months before SoS had any hopes of dropping into more stable tiers. And yet, even if we did drop we were too strong for tier 3 and would inevitably end up right back up there. That’s how huge the differences are in just two tier sets.

The basic gist of the problem is overall server population needs to have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with balance calculations for WvW. It would also be really nice if said calculations took into consideration the waxing and waning WvW populations per server during red vs green match-ups. As many fairweather players only show up to WvW on green weeks.

“Oh I know. Our guild was one of the major WvW guilds for SoS that bailed about a month or so ago.”

o.O

Interdasting…interdasting indeed.

Buy Some Apples.6390:

I am surprised by how many people support this. If PvE players do not have to pay to transfer to an active PvE server, then we should not have to pay anything to transfer either!

This is just us WvW players still being ripped off!

Come up with a good solution that dont do so Guilds jump between servers without having a cost for it? and come up with a other solution for Anet to make Money?

GROMIT.7829:

Only taken Anet 2 years to do this but better late than never I guess, Can’t wait to see SFR drop in rankings when they go up against server with the same population/coverage but with better players and commanders.

The initial population shift is gonna be awesome if extremely upsetting to the current population, god i hope this creates a more evenly spread community, we all know SFR has 2/3 times more than everyone and that population has to queue for hours to get onto any border on or around primetime.

I also hope they give people the option to not represent a server if they are solely PvE as choosing a server to PvE in is utterly redundant with the mega servers, this would free up spots to those who want to WvW only or WvW mostly, this would give each server a much better idea of the number of “Active” wvw players they have.

See you in silver SFR

EDIT: I would also love to see a mass server rep reset when this system becomes active, on activation day when you login you are given a choice to stay with your current server or transfer to any other server for half price in the tier below yours. PvE players who log in will be able to for example rep a server as a PvE’r, maybe keep PvE rep population seperate from WvW population but you can’t rep piken in pve and deso in wvw for example, only the same server in both.

You need to relog that alt you keep logged in on SFR taking up a space more often. It’s been a long time since all 4 maps were q’d on SFR even on primetime, except on reset night.

There has been a huge exodus from SFR already, but we’ve also gained new players bandwaggoning from other servers.

I’ve checked several times over the last couple of months and Deso tends to have more and larger q’s through primetime than SFR does (this account resides on Deso, although has never actually entered WvW). SFR seems to have 2/3 times as many sitting around doing nothing on no name or no guild toons though…one time we had a 30 q for EB and when I got in there were 15 people following the comm fighting a 60 zerg from both sides whilst 20 people from various guilds/no guilds dotted around the map weren’t moving at all.

I wonder if Anet keeps server q stats and could publish EU averages per hour so we all know what’s what. Of course they won’t, because this might show 0 q too often for their marketing people to like it.

This should also come with server selection for new accounts on entering wvw first time, not when they get the account.

Sort of like the pvp tutorial, you log into wvw first time, go some small funky place where npcs takes you through usual wvw things like getting supplies, building siege etc (skippable). At the end the npc would offer a list of NA/EU servers the new player would chose from with short attached lore and server population. There should be explanation of what the server pop means, ie, full/very high – huge battles are common but so are queues during prime time, high – best of all, low – smaller scale battles, more roamers and almost no queues.

So new players wouldn’t get into that sort of situation, “oh hey, I can choose a server! Underworld sounds so cooooool, loved it in GW1” logs into wvw and stops smilling.

Kolisch.4691:

What if world bonuses are reduced the more stacked a server is? Players stacking like world war z zombies in T1 would probably go, omg our magic find is nerfed because everybody’s bandwagoning here, lets try balance tiers out.

Thoughts? (i know server stackers/badwagoners will flame me, but bring it on).

I doubt a lot people transfer to another server for the magic find buff.

Jayden Ennok.3687:

This should also come with server selection for new accounts on entering wvw first time, not when they get the account.

Sort of like the pvp tutorial, you log into wvw first time, go some small funky place where npcs takes you through usual wvw things like getting supplies, building siege etc (skippable). At the end the npc would offer a list of NA/EU servers the new player would chose from with short attached lore and server population. There should be explanation of what the server pop means, ie, full/very high – huge battles are common but so are queues during prime time, high – best of all, low – smaller scale battles, more roamers and almost no queues.

So new players wouldn’t get into that sort of situation, “oh hey, I can choose a server! Underworld sounds so cooooool, loved it in GW1” logs into wvw and stops smilling.

That’s a good idea, actually.
Although my best wvw memory was when we got my first server from 17 to 9 (within 3 months). I probably wouldn’t have chosen that server with a tutorial how lost they are ;)
Edit: And come to think of it: it might make things worse as no one would sign up for the lower tier servers.

Shadow.3475:

Buy Some Apples.6390:

I am surprised by how many people support this. If PvE players do not have to pay to transfer to an active PvE server, then we should not have to pay anything to transfer either!

This is just us WvW players still being ripped off!

Come up with a good solution that dont do so Guilds jump between servers without having a cost for it? and come up with a other solution for Anet to make Money?

1) Players already have
2) Why should we do their job for them
3) They dont have the resources to check the lag for over 2 years, you think they will spend it on a new gamemode?!

Jana.6831:

Jayden Ennok.3687:

This should also come with server selection for new accounts on entering wvw first time, not when they get the account.

Sort of like the pvp tutorial, you log into wvw first time, go some small funky place where npcs takes you through usual wvw things like getting supplies, building siege etc (skippable). At the end the npc would offer a list of NA/EU servers the new player would chose from with short attached lore and server population. There should be explanation of what the server pop means, ie, full/very high – huge battles are common but so are queues during prime time, high – best of all, low – smaller scale battles, more roamers and almost no queues.

So new players wouldn’t get into that sort of situation, “oh hey, I can choose a server! Underworld sounds so cooooool, loved it in GW1” logs into wvw and stops smilling.

That’s a good idea, actually.
Although my best wvw memory was when we got my first server from 17 to 9 (within 3 months). I probably wouldn’t have chosen that server with a tutorial how lost they are
Edit: And come to think of it: it might make things worse as no one would sign up for the lower tier servers.

Yes most people would go for the full/high pop servers anyway. The point was, if the server pop explanation would be presented with both positive and negative aspects, some of those that’d go for full/high servers, would choose medium/low instead and vice versa. New players could make a somewhat informed decision. My first server was Blackgate and I wasn’t very impressed by the huge queues or the fps drops when zergs collided.

Though I don’t know how far you’re willing to go (e.g. potentially untie WvW from servers or make it work another way?), but I believe this to be a step in the right direction.

Transfer prices are definitely out of line, and population indication is horrible.

While this certainly is great to hear it is not going to affect overall server population like some posters seem to be thinking. And it won’t help most servers I don’t think.

What it will do is help those servers that have been marked as Full even though their WvW populations are not very high. Servers like DB, DH, SoS if they drop from Full will now be able to recruit.

It also may negatively affect some servers. What if YB goes Full and then gets into T1 and realizes it doesn’t have enough Ocx, Sea, EU timezone coverage? Then they’re screwed in T1 because they can’t recruit for those timezones.

One thing I’d implore Anet and Samuel to do: Make sure SoS is not marked as Full still. They cannot compete in their tier now and if they’re still marked as Full this is all for naught. There will have to be an artificial cutoff created when this first goes live so just make sure you design the algorithm or whatever is going to determine status so that SoS is not Full.

Glad that the new patch is rolling out tomorrow.

I guess it doesn’t take a genius to figure out whether your new algorithm is working. The accumulated points earned by each world is a pretty good indication of their WvW population.

For example, current NA Tier 2 is a very imbalanced matchup. If those three servers roll out to show similar population level. Then something is definitely wrong with your algorithm.

Exciton.8942:

Glad that the new patch is rolling out tomorrow.

I guess it doesn’t take a genius to figure out whether your new algorithm is working. The accumulated points earned by each world is a pretty good indication of their WvW population.

For example, current NA Tier 2 is a very imbalanced matchup. If those three servers roll out to show similar population level. Then something is definitely wrong with your algorithm.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. There’s only 4 or 5 population tiers, it’s still possible in the short run for worlds in an unbalanced matchup to be in the same one, just because they may all each still have more population than the worlds in the matchup below them. This algorithm change should help balance populations between worlds a bit over the long term by encouraging players who wish to transfer to go to lower tiers, but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if all the NA Tier 2 servers turn out to be “very high” population".

In other words, just try and be patient tomorrow everyone.

Samuel Loretan.8601:

• The price to move to a server of a given population level isn’t changing. What’s changing is the way population levels are attributed to the servers.
  — Samuel

Can you remind us what is the cost for each population level?
Full – no transfer possible
Very HIgh – 1800Gems
High – 1000Gems
and we havent seen other levels very long so reminding those gems would help too.

Hule.8794:

Can you remind us what is the cost for each population level?
Full – no transfer possible
Very HIgh – 1800Gems
High – 1000Gems
and we havent seen other levels very long so reminding those gems would help too.

I think everything below that was free.

Jana.6831:

Hule.8794:

Can you remind us what is the cost for each population level?
Full – no transfer possible
Very HIgh – 1800Gems
High – 1000Gems
and we havent seen other levels very long so reminding those gems would help too.

I think everything below that was free.

No i thought the lowest they show is medium and something like 500 gems.
Wish there is also a low for some those pretty empty servers.

Well if medium is 500, tehn low should be free. And medium should be servers that at least once a week can queue up one map.
Low should be servers that dont have a queue whole week.

Hule.8794:

Well if medium is 500, tehn low should be free. And medium should be servers that at least once a week can queue up one map.
Low should be servers that dont have a queue whole week.

that would be so irrelevanet.

IF u decide population on servers just by if they have queue during week or no u doing it wrong.

If u spread 30 ppl on 4 maps 6 hours a day it will be more then if some has 40 man jumping around the map whole week and then on reset having queue on ebg

it’s not only about queues, it’s jsut data that u can seewithout beeing in anet cabine.

Exciton.8942:

No i thought the lowest they show is medium and something like 500 gems.
Wish there is also a low for some those pretty empty servers.

You’re right, medium was/is 500.

You are correct Hvaran, sadly I dont think Anet will have any solid algoritm. They just wont exclude pve players of it.
But i hope they will surprise me and servers like Blacktide, Underworld, FoW will be marked as low.

Hule.8794:

You are correct Hvaran, sadly I dont think Anet will have any solid algoritm. They just wont exclude pve players of it.
But i hope they will surprise me and servers like Blacktide, Underworld, FoW will be marked as low.

they can have data, ahd they can just use it as – how many players logged in wvw during week, any other data will be hardly viable, because u can’t say that 1 server got more people then other playing wvw just becuse they have army of unemployed tryhards playing 14 hours a day and other server has different people logging in and out.

WvW Population is that ppl that log in and out and not tryhards, so if the wvw wil lbecome interesting then people from server that had people playing less hours but had more people will play more hours and if before it took in account only how maps are filled it wouldn’t show the excact population.

But taking in account smth like avrg hours/week and delete out of wvw population those who spend less then 2-3 hours it would mby fix some issues with people slightly iterested in wvw but just bangwagoning here and there to make “daily”.

I wouldnt say less than 2-3 hours per day. You can have servers where people spend usually about 1 hour in WvW but because there is plenty of people like that they have all the time full maps.
Well it will be interesting to see the algoritm once its deployed.

I am just worried that they might count EOTM players as WvW population which could ruin lower population server’s hope. Cuz technically EOTM is indeed part of WvW.

Exciton.8942:

I am just worried that they might count EOTM players as WvW population which could ruin lower population server’s hope. Cuz technically EOTM is indeed part of WvW.

Oh, well, dude, they’re definitely going to count EOTM. ANet does not draw a distinction between EOTM and the borderlands maps when talking about WvW.

Samuel Loretan.8601:

This should be rolled out tomorrow.

Fantastic!

What I found weird is that while some say that this is biggest change to affect WvW we hear about this 4 days before the change is live. Still it’s kind of better than promises still not fulfilled after 2 years: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-you-promised-us/first

I hope that unannounced things about new map and War Room will address many of these things. Just saying that if you are working on something else it would be nice to hear about it…

We have outnumbered often so maybe we are low WvW pop server.

Buy Some Apples.6390:

I am surprised by how many people support this. If PvE players do not have to pay to transfer to an active PvE server, then we should not have to pay anything to transfer either!

This is just us WvW players still being ripped off!

If it was free to xfer then several guilds and players would just hop around different servers. I think it’d ruin the WvW communities within each server.

I support this, but it feels like this is a change that is needed to be done for the longest time, since it didn’t make sense to me how it costs the same to xfer to a server from a low population tier as to a high population tier. While this change may help, I don’t think we’ll see immediate results from lower tiers unless guilds and players have a huge incentive to move to the lower tiers.

I do hope this isn’t just a " lock down all the servers that have great Gameplay and cater to the last resident in Kantubek refusing to leave" so when new players come in the game they are forced to go to an empty wvw map and think the game is already dead because that is all they are allowed to have access to. The people who want to play on empty maps should not determine the gameplay for those who actually want massively multiplayer gameplay in a massively multiplayer game. It honestly would be better to remove the bottom 6 severs and have everyone play on populated maps. We have pvp for small scale pvp, wvw is for massively multiplayer pvp and should be treated as such. Catering to the people who want to play on empty maps only ensures all maps become empty in the end. That kills games. RIP.

If I just joined the game today, and was forced to stay in a low pop server, I would not play the game more than a week before I moved on to a non dead game, capping populated servers would be a great way to ensure the game dies faster. People should be able to choose to go to top servers or to ghost towns, but should not be forced to play in a ghost town.

Some people like to play in massive battles every time they come on, others like small fights. Players should not be denied the ability to have massive battles by being locked out of the only servers that have them 24/7.

lil devils x.6071:

I do hope this isn’t just a " lock down all the servers that have great Gameplay and cater to the last resident in Kantubek refusing to leave" so when new players come in the game they are forced to go to an empty wvw map and think the game is already dead because that is all they are allowed to have access to. The people who want to play on empty maps should not determine the gameplay for those who actually want massively multiplayer gameplay in a massively multiplayer game. It honestly would be better to remove the bottom 6 severs and have everyone play on populated maps. We have pvp for small scale pvp, wvw is for massively multiplayer pvp and should be treated as such. Catering to the people who want to play on empty maps only ensures all maps become empty in the end. That kills games. RIP.

If I just joined the game today, and was forced to stay in a low pop server, I would not play the game more than a week before I moved on to a non dead game, capping populated servers would be a great way to ensure the game dies faster. People should be able to choose to go to top servers or to ghost towns, but should not be forced to play in a ghost town.

Some people like to play in massive battles every time they come on, others like small fights. Players should not be denied the ability to have massive battles by being locked out of the only servers that have them 24/7.

Not being able to join top 3 servers does not equal being forced to join the bottom 6 servers.

The question is how do you treat a player who has the time to play 12hrs or more per day, and how do you treat 3-4 roamers on opposing server who play 2-3hr per day.

Long time coverage split over many hours vs. peak coverage at evenings.

Atoss.1056:

The question is how do you treat a player who has the time to play 12hrs or more per day, and how do you treat 3-4 roamers on opposing server who play 2-3hr per day.

Long time coverage split over many hours vs. peak coverage at evenings.

I think both factors should be taken into account:
1. No. of players in WvW per hours
2. No. of active accounts on the server over a week(or maybe several weeks).

Exciton.8942:

lil devils x.6071:

I do hope this isn’t just a " lock down all the servers that have great Gameplay and cater to the last resident in Kantubek refusing to leave" so when new players come in the game they are forced to go to an empty wvw map and think the game is already dead because that is all they are allowed to have access to. The people who want to play on empty maps should not determine the gameplay for those who actually want massively multiplayer gameplay in a massively multiplayer game. It honestly would be better to remove the bottom 6 severs and have everyone play on populated maps. We have pvp for small scale pvp, wvw is for massively multiplayer pvp and should be treated as such. Catering to the people who want to play on empty maps only ensures all maps become empty in the end. That kills games. RIP.

If I just joined the game today, and was forced to stay in a low pop server, I would not play the game more than a week before I moved on to a non dead game, capping populated servers would be a great way to ensure the game dies faster. People should be able to choose to go to top servers or to ghost towns, but should not be forced to play in a ghost town.

Some people like to play in massive battles every time they come on, others like small fights. Players should not be denied the ability to have massive battles by being locked out of the only servers that have them 24/7.

Not being able to join top 3 servers does not equal being forced to join the bottom 6 servers.

LOL There are T2 servers with higher wvw populations than T1. No one should be forced to be locked out of T2 or T1.

What about the players who can only log in during off hours due to their jobs and are forced to play with no one due to caps? PST, OCX, SEA, EU players should be forced to run around alone if their servers do not have enough populations during the hours they play? Not much going on below T2 in the other timezones, everyone deserves to be able to have people to play with.

Yea Works great like this ..
Coworker: " I am bored of the game I have been playing, know of anything better we could play?"
JQ wvw player:" I would tell you to come play GW2 with me, but you will never be able to get on my server, If you want to play with me we will have to play another game."
QQ

The only reason my lil sis and her S.O. haven’t been playing as it is they tried to get on JQ for months and gave up since we could not play together. These caps just make it so people cannot play together, servers will stay stacked regardless until people get bored or frustrated with it and leave all together. People want to play with their guild, their family and their friends.. If they are unable to do so they will eventually just play a game they can do so. Best way to get new players is through word of mouth, yet limiting the most populated servers makes it so the vast majority of wvw players will not be able to invite their friends to play with them.

In addition: EoTM count as wvw population? That is like counting the cheerleaders as players on the field. Oh no.. this team gets to have 40 players on their side and fight against 5 on the other because they have guilds that only run EoTM on their server. Brilliant. Whose idea was this? Seriously?

Samuel Loretan.8601:

• I agree that asking new players to chose a World before doing anything in the game is odd, now that Worlds are a WvW concept. This isn’t something we can change easily, however, but I’ll keep it in mind if an occasion arises.
  l

SERIOUSLY – THIS

I am Australian and joined GW2 two years ago, and my stupid, uneducated self chose EU servers instead of NA because I truly didn’t even know the difference.

I played for the first year and a half without regretting this decision, and I now have 6 level 80 characters, a legendary weapon and a large amount of achievements I am very proud of.

I have since discovered PVP in the last half a year, and have been playing furiously. I love it! Such a great fighting dynamic – however. I AM PLAYING WITH ~400 PING.

This is a MASSIVE advantage to the enemies, and it is becoming increasingly difficult as I get better and realise it isn’t my lack of skill as to why I’m losing, but the fact that I’m trying to fight an enemy that is 1-3 seconds ahead of me.

I asked another Australian friend of mine how his ping is to an NA server and he plays on ~120 ping. WHAT! 300 PING DIFFERENCE!

I NEVER can hit my thief backstab, even though on my screen I am clearly within range. It’s ruining it for me.

Now, $27 AUD to transfer to a NA server? You’ve got to be kidding. How much money do you think you can drain from me?

This truly isn’t fair, because I did NOT know who much a severe disadvantage I would be at.

My suggestions to fix the problem:

Suggestion 1: Make world transferring free to the population

Suggestion 2: Make world transferring free to every account ONLY ONCE.

Suggestion 3: Give a huge discount on world transferring prices. I would pay 400-600 gems.

Anet pls. How was I to know? This isn’t fair.

rhoiyds.4289:

Samuel Loretan.8601:

• I agree that asking new players to chose a World before doing anything in the game is odd, now that Worlds are a WvW concept. This isn’t something we can change easily, however, but I’ll keep it in mind if an occasion arises.
  l

SERIOUSLY – THIS

I am Australian and joined GW2 two years ago, and my stupid, uneducated self chose EU servers instead of NA because I truly didn’t even know the difference.

I played for the first year and a half without regretting this decision, and I now have 6 level 80 characters, a legendary weapon and a large amount of achievements I am very proud of.

I have since discovered PVP in the last half a year, and have been playing furiously. I love it! Such a great fighting dynamic – however. I AM PLAYING WITH ~400 PING.

This is a MASSIVE advantage to the enemies, and it is becoming increasingly difficult as I get better and realise it isn’t my lack of skill as to why I’m losing, but the fact that I’m trying to fight an enemy that is 1-3 seconds ahead of me.

I asked another Australian friend of mine how his ping is to an NA server and he plays on ~120 ping. WHAT! 300 PING DIFFERENCE!

I NEVER can hit my thief backstab, even though on my screen I am clearly within range. It’s ruining it for me.

Now, $27 AUD to transfer to a NA server? You’ve got to be kidding. How much money do you think you can drain from me?

This truly isn’t fair, because I did NOT know who much a severe disadvantage I would be at.

My suggestions to fix the problem:

Suggestion 1: Make world transferring free to the population

Suggestion 2: Make world transferring free to every account ONLY ONCE.

Suggestion 3: Give a huge discount on world transferring prices. I would pay 400-600 gems.

Anet pls. How was I to know? This isn’t fair.

Worse than that, if you transfer to NA servers, if you are outside of T1/ T2 here often you will be playing in ghost town during OCX hours. So if they lock people out of T1/ T2 servers, often people playing during PST, OCX, SEA, and EU Time zones not only do not have anyone to play with on their server, there is no one to fight on the servers they are matched up with as well. So you get a server all to your self. Seriously, on lower tiers you can be the only person on the map at times. Sounds great eh?

Yet, on my server we have many people to play with and enemies to fight no matter when you log in. I do not think that is an experience that should be reserved to the few that " got there first" and leave everyone else with a reduced level of gameplay.

rhoiyds.4289 if you played for 2 years you should have some gold in game.

Shadow.3475:

rhoiyds.4289 if you played for 2 years you should have some gold in game.

Don’t you know wvw players don’t farm gold, they buy gold. They have been playing since launch and they are broke spending all their money on siege, stones, food, upgrades, weapons and armor and do not even have lvl 1-15 map areas open in the rest of the world… Or is that just me? XD

If wvw wasn’t Pay to win and self sustaining wvw players could afford to transfer without buying gems.

I have 6character and lvl 80-90% of them in WvW or books and only thing i do is when i login i run 1 lap in Cursed Shore and then if its like you find 4-5 orc and ancient Wood Close i log rest to take that and that give you some gold and you get from the drop on lord and rest so i make Money. That’s why i cant understand why some have character in Lions A there you can’t make coin.

I wonder how the metrics count the alts and afk ‘players’ on our maps? Guess they count towards our total wvw players so I guess we’ll be ‘full’.

On the other hand, that should stop any more alt accounts parking their toons and reducing our actives…unless you can still select a ‘full’ server when starting a new account?

I don’t like the idea of charging for transfers but see the necessity to stop even more bandwaggoning to the few remaining busy servers. Maybe once they iron out the kinks in the news system they can refine it a bit better, and pay people gems to transfer OFF the full servers and down to lower tier servers, with the scale meeting somewhere in the middle.

Only trouble with that is that pve’rs would take advantage of it just to collect the gems, so maybe throw in a wvw hours played restriction on it too.