Guild Wars 2

ANet should post the actual vote count & not a percent.

I’d want to know just how many people voted.

[ 10/10 ] vs [100/100 ] vs [ 10,000/10,000 ] votes

100% vs 100% vs 100%

I wouldn’t want 8/10 people to decide something that got implemented when the rest of the WvW Population wasn’t looking.

Or, 75/100 people to decide on something for that matter.

A few Guilds can easily rally up enough votes to get 75/100 people to vote Yes on anything.

Have to remind ANet on this…Some decisions:

You need to…be the Authority & Guiding Force in leading the WvW Community down the right path concerning its long term health & well-being.

Don’t ask the players to decide on this Poll Question.

It’s like asking an addict how much do they want…then trusting them not to overdose.

Yours truly,
Diku

Poll Vote Results

If ANet does not want to disclose the actual vote count number.

Then…consider doing this:

Poll Results:

Please note…Combined Total Number of Active WvW Players from ALL Worlds were used below.

x% = No Vote / Total Active WvW Players

x% = Yes Vote / Total Active WvW Plaers

x% = Undecided Vote / Total Active WvW Players

100%

Source of Active WvW Player Votes:

y% = World A No – Votes/Total Active WvW Players
y% = World A Yes – Votes/Total Active WvW Players

y% = World B No – Votes/Total Active WvW Players
y% = World B Yes – Votes/Total Active WvW Players

y% = World C No – Votes/Total Active WvW Players
y% = World C Yes – Votes/Total Active WvW Players

y% = All Undecided/Total Active WvW Players

100%

I voted No.

World Linking should be removed from Guild Wars 2.

Here’s why…

I don’t want to paint myself into a corner where…

Current Core Base Map Mechanic systematically encourages players to Server Stack.

Players want to be on the Server that Wins more often.

It’s only natural for players to ask for a system that allows them to game it.

Unless you are prepared to closely monitor & correct Server Match-Ups that create Balanced Match-Ups every week…Don’t implement it long term.

Do Not let the World Linking Poll Cloud your judgement on what is really going on.

ANet needs to be the Authority & Primary Guiding Force in leading the WvW Community down the right path concerning its health & well-being.

This is a lose situation to the health & viability for the WvW Game Mode in the long term.

Building upon a Core Base Map Mechanic that has failed to prevent Server Stacking & Stale Match-Ups…will once again fail for the very same reasons before.

3 Way Fixed Fight (auto or manual arranged)…gets Stale & the only fix by Players is to Server Stack to the Strongest in the 3….while Players actively Game the system.

There is a simple & elegant solution for the long term…that is Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled…imho.

Please consider changing the Core Base Map Mechanic, but not with World Linking.

You’re only forcibly moving players around & not changing anything.

Short Term…players will say World Linking is great, but Long Term you will find that the WvW population will trend to decline.

We’re going to be back at this same issue of Server Stacking again in 1 year & you’ll be frustrated by the persistent & constant Player’s behavior to game the system.

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

See Diku, this is why we need to go with my Living WvWvW™ idea.

It’s going to be absolutely amazing so don’t worry!

You’re welcome!

P.S., I voted yes because this tech will come in handy for Living WvWvW™! Just keep working on it and we will get there together Anet!

Swagger.1459:

See Diku, this is why we need to go with my Living WvWvW™ idea.

It’s going to be absolutely amazing so don’t worry!

You’re welcome!

P.S., I voted yes because this tech will come in handy for Living WvWvW™! Just keep working on it and we will get there together Anet!

I’ll pass on supporting your solution.

You sure you don’t work for ANet?

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

See Diku, this is why we need to go with my Living WvWvW™ idea.

It’s going to be absolutely amazing so don’t worry!

You’re welcome!

P.S., I voted yes because this tech will come in handy for Living WvWvW™! Just keep working on it and we will get there together Anet!

I’ll pass on supporting your solution.

You sure you don’t work for ANet?

Do I have a cool Anet tag under my name that is surrounded by a big red splash?

Swagger.1459:

Do I have a cool Anet tag under my name that is surrounded by a big red splash?

I guess you don’t work for ANet.

You’re probably not an M.I.B agent either…that was my next question.

I don’t see any cool M.I.B tag next to your name.

Ok…glad we cleared that up.

Let’s get back to the discussion at hand.

I still don’t support your solution…btw.

wow such limited choices…….. I may have said yes, if it was followed up with better algorithms for linking and/or more frequent re-linking. not given those options, No seemed the better option for me….

to really think linking increased pop and not considering it was the patch or even ABL – just wow…….

I would also like to know how each server voted. My husband commented “the more players who pay irl money to jump servers the more money anet makes” I hope this is not a considering factor. Anet is a business at the end of the day. If the linking goes through I will stop by wvw every once in a while but it won’t be my main focus. I just don’t find entertainment in the huge blobs.

The problem with the world linking is that a smaller server is joining in the fight, but not really getting the credit. So in essence, they are fighting for another server.
I think the concept is good, and it is bringing more people into WvW, but it could be implemented better.
Perhaps you could do permanent links, with a joined name instead of the matchmaking style system that constantly swaps servers out. That way there will always be more people fighting, and they feel like they are doing it for something worthwhile.

Don’t quite know what to answer to this. I think the base idea is good, but needs to be tweaked and altered a good bit before it is worth keeping. As-is right now, I can’t support it. But the technology has uses that could make for more interesting links in the future.

I’m completely against a "full merging" as I see people suggest, for 2 reasons:

1) Destroying existing communities.

2) Recreate the same problem with stacking we have had for 3 years. The "linking" system with tweaks and changes allows for possibilities of putting multiple servers up against stacked servers to give more fair match-ups.

Server vs server vs server was a mess.

Linked servers vs linked servers vs linked servers is a mess.

When do we do the right thing and expand wvw and make it 3 faction with less linking and scoring work required?

Build a good RvRvR space and finally fix these headaches. Seriously, take the team and start devoting some person power and resources to pvp.

Those complaining about server pride need to get out of that mentality especially when most of you all see and complain about server stacking. There are tons of players who don’t give a kitten about whatever server they are on, they want to fight and have fun and win. The fact that populations migrate shows most don’t care. If you are bothered by factions then coordinate with your buddies and guild to be on the same server/side when transfers are open. Most of our guild friends are all over anyway, so plan it out and play together, and let the devs get back to focusing on the right fixes for RvR.

Camelot Unchained will come out and most of the pvp population WILL bail, so we need to get on the ball here…

I like the idea behind it, but I dislike how it destroys the other servers identity.
I have 0 clue how much people from Kaineng contribute beyond seeing a few of their guilds here and there.

Its been a decent short term resolution but long term is very frustrating looking. As I posted over on reddit, this system needs a bit of tweaking.

Servers like BG, JQ, TC, and YB are marked as full yet two of those are clearly dominating. Its not fair that you get locked in a server that doesn’t have anyone to fight with and your only option is to move to another server which could be linked later with a different one. Its just forcing you to either grit and bare it, play another game, or switch servers constantly just to get good WvW. Its doing nothing more than limiting what the players were doing on their own. However, this is a great solution for lower tier servers that had little to no activity. Its letting them finally experience WvW at its real glory without having to spend money to move around.

Just my 2 cents. The old kitten servers on NA shouldn’t be linked. Its causing for lopsided matches and high frustration.

Server Pride is not the issue. You can easily call a Server a Faction.

You can have as many Factions as you want…IF…the Core Base Map Mechanic is changed…imho.

The real source behind WvW Game Mode’s problems is the following:

Players want to be PART OF the Faction that Wins the Most.

3 Way Fixed Fight between Factions (auto or manual arranged)…gets Stale & Players take it upon themselves to Fix it…by Faction Stacking to the Strongest of the 3.

Change this one Core Base Map Mechanic.

Break this Fixed 3 Way Fighting that systematically encourages Faction Stacking.

This is why I’ve voted No…to support the position that:

World Linking should be removed from Guild Wars 2.

The Core Base Map Mechanic hasn’t changed & we’ll be having this same discussion 1 year from now…if not sooner.

Server Linking provides a Short Term benefit by pooling players together to create epic battles, but sacrifices the Long Term goals of creating a WvW Universe that creates stable Communities.

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

Couldn’t you make server factions/teams and have each server vote on which team they want to be on? Or just an even split, top 3 servers don’t wanna play together, they wanna beat eachother up. This way you’d get the same servers teaming up – more involved population – play better together.

The wording is disingenuous in implying players came back due to world linking. Players came back mainly due to alpine and the other qol changes.

And as I said on the world linking thread 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 such as easier server stacking and the disreagrd shown to low ranked servers. The poll has to provide more options.

This poll lack depths, any plans on depth polling?

The poll questions were sufficient. It didn’t need to be complex.

The Current Core Base Map Mechanic FAILS TO:

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

As a WvW Player I’m hoping these Chronic problems get addressed in the Long Term…for the sake of the WvW Game Mode.

Using the same Core Base Map Mechanic has built-in limitations that won’t change no matter what other mechanics are built to fix it. The fixes themselves may end up being highly complex & difficult to manage.

Anything that is built using this (Fixed 3 Way Fight Model) fails because Players want to be PART OF the team that Wins the Most.

ANet will be tasked with constantly micro-managing Match-Ups to prevent this Basic Motivation of All Players.

World Linking is a negative in regards to the Long Term health & viability of the WvW Game Mode…given the Core Base Map Mechanic hasn’t changed…imho.

Please re-consider & direct resources to changing the Core Base Map Mechanic before attempting to build more complex structures for the WvW Game Mode.

ANet should be leading the WvW Community down the right path concerning its health & well-being.

Long Term Solution needs to be – Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are very few (if any) features in the game that couldn’t be improved with additional resources invested in them. However, that then becomes a question of priorities. Do we improve Feature A, Feature B or Feature C first? Or perhaps we should prioritize building an entirely new feature instead?

So the first thing we need to ask is: “Is World Linking a positive improvement to the game and worth keeping around?”

If it is, then the next time we ask players to determine which feature work we prioritize, additional World Linking improvements can be one of the options. But it’s important to ask that question in a poll where it’s clear what the tradeoffs to that choice are. For instance: Players may want improvements to World Linking, but perhaps not at the expense of delaying improvements to Scoring.

I can’t tell whether or not I like world linking enough to vote unless I can first find out a few things: If we do away with world linking, what will be done instead? If I approve of the changes, how am I to indicate that I want improvements to scoring before I want improvements to world linking?

Voted “don’t count my vote”.
I’m on a T1 server and I haven’t seen any significant difference as a result of world linking.

If this poll ends on a ‘yes’, would the population issues be considered fixed? If so, I’d swap my vote to a ‘no’. Coverage imbalance is still the biggest problem for me and linking does nothing to fix that.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are very few (if any) features in the game that couldn’t be improved with additional resources invested in them. However, that then becomes a question of priorities. Do we improve Feature A, Feature B or Feature C first? Or perhaps we should prioritize building an entirely new feature instead?

So the first thing we need to ask is: “Is World Linking a positive improvement to the game and worth keeping around?”

If it is, then the next time we ask players to determine which feature work we prioritize, additional World Linking improvements can be one of the options. But it’s important to ask that question in a poll where it’s clear what the tradeoffs to that choice are. For instance: Players may want improvements to World Linking, but perhaps not at the expense of delaying improvements to Scoring.

In the event world link fall below that 75% mark and you decided to remove the world link, what is gonna happen to those who transfer to the guest server join up their guilds or friends? Will they able to get a refund?

Melanion.4892:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are very few (if any) features in the game that couldn’t be improved with additional resources invested in them. However, that then becomes a question of priorities. Do we improve Feature A, Feature B or Feature C first? Or perhaps we should prioritize building an entirely new feature instead?

So the first thing we need to ask is: “Is World Linking a positive improvement to the game and worth keeping around?”

If it is, then the next time we ask players to determine which feature work we prioritize, additional World Linking improvements can be one of the options. But it’s important to ask that question in a poll where it’s clear what the tradeoffs to that choice are. For instance: Players may want improvements to World Linking, but perhaps not at the expense of delaying improvements to Scoring.

I can’t tell whether or not I like world linking enough to vote unless I can first find out a few things: If we do away with world linking, what will be done instead? If I approve of the changes, how am I to indicate that I want improvements to scoring before I want improvements to world linking?

Spot on, I voted yes but this reply make some want to change my vote and maybe I won’t vote yes for an initiative in future polls due to this sort of ambiguity.

Since they didn’t sticky or merge the first Poll Announcement thread, I guess I will put this here as well:

They should have chosen worlds by timezone coverage helping to balance them out instead they merged OCX heavy NA servers with with OCX NA servers and NA prime servers with NA prime heavy servers and that is just bad. It created queues and frustration rather than increased enjoyment at that point while others were still lacking coverage.
Some servers should be merged 3 ways to provide more balanced coverage and some should not be merged at all due to how much population they already have 24 hours a day.
The way they chose which servers to merge is a problem, as well as making the host servers show as full, when they were not prior, nor should they be considered such as when the server they are linked to gets split off they will have to transfer again and it is not right to make them pay more for something that should not have been marked as full in the first place. When servers get unhooked it is going to cause some chaos due to the full status issues and poorly chosen mergers.
If done properly, this could actually resolve the lack of off hours coverage issue to where they can still treat players equally.

If it isn’t already, please can we have this on the launcher for prominence

Tyler Bearce.3427:

the next time we ask players to determine which feature work we prioritize, additional World Linking improvements can be one of the options. Players may want improvements to World Linking, but perhaps not at the expense of delaying improvements to Scoring.

Server linking did resolve the issue of lower tiers getting left out, however it worsened blobbing zergs. Agree with above players that these polls are ambiguous since they still does not focus on the “core mechanics” of WvW. I still remember the good old days of GW1 alliance battles where the game mechanics and scoring actually encouraged strategy, team work while discouraging zergs, the score system back then actually “punished” the side with huge blobs since they can only be in 1 place at 1 time scoring, teams that were split up into small groups captured 3 places at once, tripling scoring, please look at the core WvW mechanics, you can merge this server or that server, but at the end of the day WvW is still “Blob Wars”.

P.S. server spies have increased dramatically since “blobbing zergs” are easy to counter once the opposite side knows their position & commander name. I wonder why spies never worked in Alliance battles in GW1?

~Woop S

world linking is very great feature, it just need improvements. make players doesnt feel like they transfered. MAKE THEM FEEL AT HOME.

how to do it?, fix server identity problem.

1) when you see enemies put the 2 servers name not just 1 server name.

2) fix borderlands name put 2 server names instead not just 1

doing this makes the other players feel MORE LIKE AS A TEAM AND MERGED ALLY TOGETHER BALANCED WAY

Melanion.4892:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

There are very few (if any) features in the game that couldn’t be improved with additional resources invested in them. However, that then becomes a question of priorities. Do we improve Feature A, Feature B or Feature C first? Or perhaps we should prioritize building an entirely new feature instead?

So the first thing we need to ask is: “Is World Linking a positive improvement to the game and worth keeping around?”

If it is, then the next time we ask players to determine which feature work we prioritize, additional World Linking improvements can be one of the options. But it’s important to ask that question in a poll where it’s clear what the tradeoffs to that choice are. For instance: Players may want improvements to World Linking, but perhaps not at the expense of delaying improvements to Scoring.

I can’t tell whether or not I like world linking enough to vote unless I can first find out a few things: If we do away with world linking, what will be done instead? If I approve of the changes, how am I to indicate that I want improvements to scoring before I want improvements to world linking?

This is a great point, Melanion. What is our alternative to world linking? Would it get priority over scoring changes? If we do implement linking, are we stuck with what we have now until other issues like scoring are addressed?

Linking just has a lot of pros and cons and I feel it might not be the best solution for everyone but is a good one overall. It just needs some tweaking, but again, when would that happen?

I’d like to see more information about plans for the future. What happens with a link change? how is it determined? Will it just turn into “farming time, bois, gotta move back to the guest attached to the host we want to play on”?

If so, it’s not a population balance solution, and really isn’t solving one of the major underlying issues.

Linking is definitely worth keeping in the game. The difference though, is that links need to be readjusted more often, with periods of downtime between server links to allow for the low tier servers to readjust to their new populations after a link.

Perhaps 1 month server links with 1 month off would work better than the current quarterly setup.

Reverence.6915:

Linking is definitely worth keeping in the game. The difference though, is that links need to be readjusted more often, with periods of downtime between server links to allow for the low tier servers to readjust to their new populations after a link.

Perhaps 1 month server links with 1 month off would work better than the current quarterly setup.

Properly implemented it could be worth keeping. But right now it feels like a coverage lottery.

Firstly – thanks for more frequent posts, and for starting the polls so players can have some input. In order to make this more useful there are several things that you (Anet) need to address so we (players) can help you properly – especially in this poll.

1. The first WvW poll was advertised in game. I stumbled across this one because I read the forums. I know of many other players who participate in WvW who don’t read the forums very often and could easily miss this poll even though it has a direct impact on them.
Please make all polls noticeable to all affected players – the best way would be a clear on screen message on logging into WvW, although on the start up GW2 screen would do.

2. The current linking has seen the smallest population servers swallowed by the largest population servers. There are different degrees of linking, T4+T5 is a more even partnership than T1+T8. Which are we voting on? I know you’ll say all of them but the situations are so different from a players point of view.

3. What are the alternatives to Server Linking? Different match-ups or Megaserver or back to how it was before? Each has it’s own advantages and problems, and without knowing what you’re thinking of how am I to decide whether what I have now is better?

• If you’re asking is there more action than before – yes.
• If you’re asking do I want to go back to how it was before – well that’s a different question.
• If you’re asking do I want to be linked to a different server – heck NO! I’m still trying to get used to this one.

4. You haven’t told those of us on the “guest” servers how you will decide our new positions. You’ve not let us see our names for weeks and we’ve been getting no score however hard we work.
You can’t just put us back where we used to be and expect everything to be ok. ET for example was easily climbing out of T8 and would have been out long before the linking beta started if there hadn’t been such a glicko cliff. Now they’re even bigger and better so will you just put them back as top of T8? Who is that fair to – not them and not the other two servers there.

5. What was/is the Server Linking beta designed to test? There are so many possible scenarios but I don’t know which you (Anet) actually intended. Here are some suggestions I’ve seen of what is being trialled with this server linking:

• Server Linking technology – a trial of your ability to link servers?
• Player population balancing – does linking balance WvW populations?
• Player participation – does linking servers increase player participation?
• Time zone balancing – does linking servers reduce the impact of time zone imbalance?
• Server deletion – how will players respond to having their server deleted (tested on a minority of players because the smaller servers are currently memories more than reality)?
  I could list more, but you get the point…

What you were testing and what we as players have experienced may well be different, and to be open and honest, there seems to have been times in the past when we (the players) have assumed that you mean one thing when actually you (Anet) were testing or implementing something quite different, so please forgive me if I feel we need to ask:
What is the question you are asking me to answer?
How can I give a meaningful answer without knowing what was being tested here!

Think the issue here is people think the links should fix population coverage problems, and they won’t. Simple reason is most NA server have a decent NA population, for ocx and sea it’s all over the place. They’ll have to play a game of tetris to try and match the servers perfectly with their their coverage numbers.

Even if they do manage a miracle to do that, players would still be able to screw up the system by moving wherever they want. Players screwed up the game from day one coming out of beta when they decided to stack certain servers for reasons, HoD Titan alliance, SoS unofficial ocx/sea, etc. Sure free transfers didn’t help either, but it was still up to the players and their guilds to help balance this out and they didn’t, they didn’t care for balance, they only cared to stack servers for the win.

The only way for them to put a stop to that would be to completely close transfers, and I’m sure players would complain about that as well.

World linking is the FIRST step into trying to fix population problems in general. Do you want them to continue down this path and make improvements to the system? Or do you want them to abandon it?

P.S Tyler you guys should probably open up transfers to NSP/HoD/DH again, that tier is now stuck with themselves, and I doubt anyone wants to move down to their linked servers, there’s already player movement going up in tiers once again.

There seems to be an assumption by a lot of people that those on lower population servers would all prefer to be in a high population environment. On the contrary, the vast majority of those who want to be on high population servers transfer up. Many of those on low population servers are still on those servers because they want to be.

In our case, Kaineng has found a lot of nice people on TC, people that we enjoy playing with. However, linking has, overall, wrecked our preferred wvw playstyle completely. We pride ourselves on being outnumbered. We pride ourselves on pitting our skill against our opponents. We like knowing that the contribution of each of us matters, and that we’re not just Player43-BlobB/Classbuild1.

We need a New Core Base Map Mechanic that CAN:

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

Don’t forget…WvW is a fragile & complex Ecosystem…

Propose – Better Long Term Solution…Replace the (Fixed 3 Way Fight Model)

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

Diku man, no offense, but I find your post hard to read with the over use of line breaks and bolding and capitalization. You gotta clean up the format to present your ideas, use the bullet list or something.

I posted this on another thread about the poll, but I felt it was best to put it here, as well, because this is the actual thread…

I mean…I don’t mean to harp here, but OF COURSE the majority of people are in favor of the linking. The majority of the game’s players are on the host servers who aren’t going to experience any of the community destroying / playstyle wrecking pain that comes with it.

The people stuck on the GUEST servers are eternally doomed to be switched and swapped at ANet’s whim with zero right or influence over when or how this happens even if they had chosen as a player to relocate at a COST prior.

Does NOBODY see a problem with this? Simply because I’m on ET I get to be a second class citizen / unwitting mercenary who has no say in where I go and who I am paired with? Every few months I have to adjust to a whole new culture, a whole new teamspeak, a whole new group of server leaders, and always never be fully trusted.

Even with BG being very friendly folks. After all the time this linking has been in effect ET still has zero representatives on BG teamspeak to verify our own people. Wonder how nice it will be a year or so from now when I am keeping track of 4-5 different Teamspeak addresses. Why bother getting invested in the community if it will only change in a few months, right? What keeps people playing MMORPGS? Loot? Or PEOPLE?

Not to mention what if I’m a newbie on ET with no WvW guild? Well….better go find an ET guild, right? Since ET’s community will be completely wrecked by then after being absorbed so many times there may not even be any ET WvW guilds left, so you’ll be stuck switching guilds over…and over…and over as each switch happens. You want to talk about new player experiences, just imagine THIS mess.

The obvious answer would be for me to transfer to a HOST server, right? Guess what…they are all FULL because that is where all the player base already is, therefore, they are oblivious to the problem. I am actually 100% UNABLE to correct this issue myself because it has been made literally impossible for me to do so. No wait…I take that back. I can fix it as long as I’m willing to pay my transfer TAX every few months….

How would YOU feel if you spent 200 gold or $20 or more on a server transfer and then suddenly the next week your were linked with the server you just left? You would be LIVID. That is exactly what can and WILL happen to you if you vote yes to linking. It’s only a matter of time and I am pretty sure when it DOES happen ANet won’t be offering you any compensation in return.

As a player I should be able to choose the scale and playstyle that best suits what I want from the game. It’s what keeps me playing. When you remove that freedom from me then you lose me as a player. I can win every single week and still be completely miserable.

There is such a thing as “the tyranny of the majority,” and this is one time where it is 100% appropriate.

Xenesis.6389:

Diku man, no offense, but I find your post hard to read with the over use of line breaks and bolding and capitalization. You gotta clean up the format to present your ideas, use the bullet list or something.

Thanks for the feedback…cleaned up.

Tyler – thanks for the information.

So basically the choice is:

• Yes – continue with Server Linking (with some changes to come later)

• No – go back to eight tiers with the current (unknown) populations from the “Host” and “Guest” servers. This may be changed later, some time after other higher priority work.

Diku.2546:

Xenesis.6389:

Diku man, no offense, but I find your post hard to read with the over use of line breaks and bolding and capitalization. You gotta clean up the format to present your ideas, use the bullet list or something.

Thanks for the feedback…cleaned up.

I’m sorry Diku, your globe idea makes the issues being faced with wvw now 10x worse. This was discussed thoroughly across the 5-10 similar threads (that interconnected by links) you started on the subject.

We want less mess so the devs can focus on the real issues and develop wvw properly. In the long run it’s easier to consolidate pvp players as much as possible. EotM design should have been your first indicator to the benefits of things like megaserver, or even 1 world spaces, because it pools players into one space.

The player population here cannot sustain a working individual server model in ANY part of the game.

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

Xenesis.6389:

Diku man, no offense, but I find your post hard to read with the over use of line breaks and bolding and capitalization. You gotta clean up the format to present your ideas, use the bullet list or something.

Thanks for the feedback…cleaned up.

I’m sorry Diku, your globe idea makes the issues being faced with wvw now 10x worse.

You still seem to misunderstand the concepts presented & how it works in WvW.

Respect your opinion, but I disagree.

You should post your solution here in 1 post.

I’ve posted my solution in 1 post…it’s simple & elegant imho.

Now let others continue this discussion without it being side tracked.

Yours truly,
Diku

Roadbull.3457:

I mean…I don’t mean to harp here, but OF COURSE the majority of people are in favor of the linking. The majority of the game’s players are on the host servers who aren’t going to experience any of the community destroying / playstyle wrecking pain that comes with it.

The people stuck on the GUEST servers are eternally doomed to be switched and swapped at ANet’s whim with zero right or influence over when or how this happens even if they had chosen as a player to relocate at a COST prior.

The vote is currently sitting at:
Yes – 74.6%
No – 18.2%
Checking vote – 7.2%

It needs 75% to pass.

If you’re sitting on a lower population server and unhappy about this make sure you and others on your server who feel this way votes. The vote is so close that every vote matters.

If it does not go through then read Tyler’s post above, everything will go back to normal.

Xenesis.6389:

Roadbull.3457:

I mean…I don’t mean to harp here, but OF COURSE the majority of people are in favor of the linking. The majority of the game’s players are on the host servers who aren’t going to experience any of the community destroying / playstyle wrecking pain that comes with it.

The people stuck on the GUEST servers are eternally doomed to be switched and swapped at ANet’s whim with zero right or influence over when or how this happens even if they had chosen as a player to relocate at a COST prior.

The vote is currently sitting at:
Yes – 74.6%
No – 18.2%
Checking vote – 7.2%

It needs 75% to pass.

If you’re sitting on a lower population server and unhappy about this make sure you and others on your server who feel this way votes. The vote is so close that every vote matters.

If it does not go through then read Tyler’s post above, everything will go back to normal.

Yes, I agree.

This is exactly why I posted what I did. With luck some will read it and consider something he or she may not have realized had I not put it there. The game’s fate is in the hands of the players. While the linking is not the way I feel it should be done (due to the guest problem). I do feel that the reduction of the number of tiers is not necessarily a bad idea.

I wouldn’t care about instability if transfers were free, but the fact I need to spend time (getting gold) or spend real money to move servers makes the idea of being forcibly relocated after that money is spent absolutely unacceptable.

It’s like paying for room at a hotel and then being told “Oh, sorry, you can’t stay at THIS hotel, you need to go to the one down the street, instead.” I don’t think anybody would accept such a notion very openly.

Yuffi.2430:

Tyler – thanks for the information.

So basically the choice is:

• Yes – continue with Server Linking (with some changes to come later)

• No – go back to eight tiers with the current (unknown) populations from the “Host” and “Guest” servers. This may be changed later, some time after other higher priority work.

OK, I’m usually REALLY positive and I love this game and appreciate the time the devs are spending on WvW. However, this poll is set up to produce a skewed results, for many reasons mentioned above, and honestly I’m starting to read this situation as:

• *Yes – continue with Server Linking (with some undefined changes to maybe come later if at all.)

• No – go back to eight tiers with the current (unknown) populations from the “Host” and “Guest” servers. Maybe we’ll work in it after other higher priority work, many moons in the future. Maybe we’ll Merge the servers, which is sorta permanent! And you won’t get the community to agree on it anyway. So just vote Yes.

I’d appreciate a look at what changes could be considered if we vote Yes for server linking, the same way the No outcome was explained. Right now this feels like we’re being pressured into a Yes, from many angles. I’m giving this a hard side-eye right now.

For this poll there were not other options to present to us…

It’s either “do you like it or not”. It’s pretty self explanatory for this phase.

Go back to old sever match ups and old problems or keep trying to work on linking to resolve the old problems.

Linking could mean a number of different things too, but those are not needing to be defined yet.

Step by step people. Let’s do this logically.

Swagger.1459:

For this poll there were not other options to present to us…

It’s either “do you like it or not”. It’s pretty self explanatory for this phase.

Go back to old sever match ups and old problems or keep trying to work on linking to resolve the old problems.

Linking could mean a number of different things too, but those are not needing to be defined yet.

Step by step people. Let’s do this logically.

What I’m requesting is a few more details on what might happen next with a Yes majority, same way we have a post on some possible outcomes for the No scenario. This data is important in order to cast an informed vote.

Edited to add: My feelings on the current state of Linking are probably affecting my feelings on this poll, FWIW. I really appreciate that Anet wants our feedback, and the Yes majority probably means that the problems with Linking will get lots of attention, and I’m hopeful.

Overall I think many of us are feeling that our communities are threatened, and the beta has not been an easy ride for us so far, which makes it hard to respond “Yes, Linking is Positive.”