Guild Wars 2

Swedemon.4670:

Hypothetically, if 1 month is 34%, 4 month is 33%, and 6 month is 33% then would it make sense to choose 1 month? Two thirds of the population preferred at least 4 months would be the counter.

An accumulated average of all votes is the logical choice.

Hypothetically that’s impossible. 4 months currently have 4.8% (less than undecided votes at 7%) and 6 months have 10.9%.

The match is between monthly at 35.8% and quarterly at 26.5%. And it’s hardly surprising to be honest. Even one month is a long kitten time in WvW when you are matched against the same servers.

I remain more interested in what plans there are to separate the two servers that are being paired because it’s still gonna be kitten if it happens monthly with diffuse sides. Hell I could even imagine it happening weekly if all 6 servers (assuming all pairs) where perfectly defined in a matchup.

Needs a weekly option as a poll choice, which was mentioned multiple times by players in the thread about the order of the polls. Transfers should also be free. (Still limited to weekly) This allows players to play with who they want, which is the primary factor in being able to switch at all. Spies are not an argument against this. You can make a free account on all but two servers right now anyway. Come up with more cosmetic gem store ideas for the WvW player base to make up for lost transfer gem money.

Sol.6213:

Needs a weekly option as a poll choice, which was mentioned multiple times by players in the thread about the order of the polls. Transfers should also be free. (Still limited to weekly) This allows players to play with who they want, which is the primary factor in being able to switch at all. Spies are not an argument against this. You can make a free account on all but two servers right now anyway. Come up with more cosmetic gem store ideas for the WvW player base to make up for lost transfer gem money.

The more time they tie up for relinking every month, the longer the development of the other features will take. I agree free transfers for links but not host servers.

Xenesis.6389:

Sol.6213:

Needs a weekly option as a poll choice, which was mentioned multiple times by players in the thread about the order of the polls. Transfers should also be free. (Still limited to weekly) This allows players to play with who they want, which is the primary factor in being able to switch at all. Spies are not an argument against this. You can make a free account on all but two servers right now anyway. Come up with more cosmetic gem store ideas for the WvW player base to make up for lost transfer gem money.

The more time they tie up for relinking every month, the longer the development of the other features will take. I agree free transfers for links but not host servers.

so BGs new link is stacked in minutes every re-link? Edit: though with no link to full servers – might work.

Liston.9708:

so BGs new link is stacked in minutes every re-link? Edit: though with no link to full servers – might work.

That’s if they get a link, which I think the majority of us feel they shouldn’t.
I forgot to mention with any free transfers there should be longer periods of cooldown between transfers.

Now if BG does get a link, and if people want to put up with queues that’s their problem. I think everyone knows by now how stacked they are, ET is listed at medium still, so guess where most of their players are on.

Dawdler.8521:

Swedemon.4670:

Hypothetically, if 1 month is 34%, 4 month is 33%, and 6 month is 33% then would it make sense to choose 1 month? Two thirds of the population preferred at least 4 months would be the counter.

An accumulated average of all votes is the logical choice.

Hypothetically that’s impossible. 4 months currently have 4.8% (less than undecided votes at 7%) and 6 months have 10.9%.

The match is between monthly at 35.8% and quarterly at 26.5%. And it’s hardly surprising to be honest. Even one month is a long kitten time in WvW when you are matched against the same servers.

I remain more interested in what plans there are to separate the two servers that are being paired because it’s still gonna be kitten if it happens monthly with diffuse sides. Hell I could even imagine it happening weekly if all 6 servers (assuming all pairs) where perfectly defined in a matchup.

if you think its silly to ponder unrealized possibilities then say its silly, because it certainly is not impossible.

I appreciate the option to vote on things, but I don’t appreciate not being able to vote on my main account due to it being blocked on the forums. That’s some bull feces right there.

How about re-linking when one of the following occurs, or a set time, whichever comes first.

1. When the top server becomes overstacked.

2. When any tier reaches glicko hell for a set amount of weeks.

These polls need more visibility to the general population. Asking for input from only the people who frequent the forums is a grave disservice to the large majority who just enjoy playing the game, and do not enjoy wading through the often argumentative posts and occasional hysterical whining. There are good posts, and some well reasoned responses, but also a fair bit of unpleasantness and textbook human behavior. Not everyone’s interest.

Throughout this polling process, I continually encounter people who either do not know a poll is up, realized they have missed it, wonder how it find it, or know others who have no idea about it.

If these polls are to have any real meaning or representation, a wider selection of players needs to be reached. Perhaps a global email when a poll drops?
Better yet, town criers in Lion’s Arch. Have NPC’s announce a the polls —even advertises WvW to the general population. We have those little messages telling us about PvP seasons on loading screens… WvW deserves the same consideration.

WvW is a great game mode, and it deserves support. Not all of us agree all the time about what form it should take, or how much our total game time it should be. We should all have the chance to help shape that mode, if ArenaNet wishes some input.
I also believe ArenaNet should leaven their response and actions with their own input, and not let the whole thing be decided but a potential voting coup.

-another concerned player

darwinslittlehelper.7182:

These polls need more visibility to the general population. Asking for input from only the people who frequent the forums is a grave disservice to the large majority who just enjoy playing the game, and do not enjoy wading through the often argumentative posts and occasional hysterical whining. There are good posts, and some well reasoned responses, but also a fair bit of unpleasantness and textbook human behavior. Not everyone’s interest.

Throughout this polling process, I continually encounter people who either do not know a poll is up, realized they have missed it, wonder how it find it, or know others who have no idea about it.

If these polls are to have any real meaning or representation, a wider selection of players needs to be reached. Perhaps a global email when a poll drops?
Better yet, town criers in Lion’s Arch. Have NPC’s announce a the polls —even advertises WvW to the general population. We have those little messages telling us about PvP seasons on loading screens… WvW deserves the same consideration.

WvW is a great game mode, and it deserves support. Not all of us agree all the time about what form it should take, or how much our total game time it should be. We should all have the chance to help shape that mode, if ArenaNet wishes some input.
I also believe ArenaNet should leaven their response and actions with their own input, and not let the whole thing be decided but a potential voting coup.

-another concerned player

Are they no longer providing messages upon leveling in WvW? I thought that was implemented already.

Seems a little soon to poll on this since linking has only been on for 2 months .Really not sure how to vote on this.

darwinslittlehelper.7182:

These polls need more visibility to the general population. Asking for input from only the people who frequent the forums is a grave disservice to the large majority who just enjoy playing the game, and do not enjoy wading through the often argumentative posts and occasional hysterical whining. There are good posts, and some well reasoned responses, but also a fair bit of unpleasantness and textbook human behavior. Not everyone’s interest.

Throughout this polling process, I continually encounter people who either do not know a poll is up, realized they have missed it, wonder how it find it, or know others who have no idea about it.

If these polls are to have any real meaning or representation, a wider selection of players needs to be reached. Perhaps a global email when a poll drops?
Better yet, town criers in Lion’s Arch. Have NPC’s announce a the polls —even advertises WvW to the general population. We have those little messages telling us about PvP seasons on loading screens… WvW deserves the same consideration.

WvW is a great game mode, and it deserves support. Not all of us agree all the time about what form it should take, or how much our total game time it should be. We should all have the chance to help shape that mode, if ArenaNet wishes some input.
I also believe ArenaNet should leaven their response and actions with their own input, and not let the whole thing be decided but a potential voting coup.

-another concerned player

Been said multiple times already, a message is sent out to wvw players who have over 10 wvw ranks and also gained a rank during the poll. This is done to target active wvw players, not pve players nor wvw daily achievers. Those players shouldn’t be asked about major wvw changes if they can’t even gain 1 rank a week, it’ll be like asking wvw players about raids because they step into the raid lobby.

I’ve tried to access this poll from multiple machines. Clicking the link takes me to the account log-in page (regardless of whether I am already logged in or not).
I log in and it takes me back to the account log in page again.
I have always had this problem trying to access these polls from my desktop, but this is the first time that I have had this problem trying to access a poll from my laptop or tablet.

Any suggestions?

Dawdler.8521:

Hypothetically that’s impossible. 4 months currently have 4.8% (less than undecided votes at 7%) and 6 months have 10.9%.

That’s why it is hypothetical. If you want real numbers at this point in time (35.8%=1, 26.9%=3, 14.9%=2, 10.6%=6, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=4).

Does 1 month win or do you take the weighted average which is about 2.5 months?

We take the weighted average of all voters which is 2.5 months or 10 weeks.

Swedemon.4670:

Dawdler.8521:

Hypothetically that’s impossible. 4 months currently have 4.8% (less than undecided votes at 7%) and 6 months have 10.9%.

That’s why it is hypothetical. If you want real numbers at this point in time (35.8%=1, 26.9%=3, 14.9%=2, 10.6%=6, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=4).

Does 1 month win or do you take the weighted average which is about 2.5 months?

We take the weighted average of all voters which is 2.5 months or 10 weeks.

Nah, lets weight it by number of link changes in a year (i.e. 12/link duration)

(35.8%=12, 26.9%=4, 14.9%=6, 10.6%=2, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=3)

That averages to a preference for 7.1 link changes per year or a change every 1.7
months, or approximately every 7 weeks.

Heimlich.3065:

Swedemon.4670:

Dawdler.8521:

Hypothetically that’s impossible. 4 months currently have 4.8% (less than undecided votes at 7%) and 6 months have 10.9%.

That’s why it is hypothetical. If you want real numbers at this point in time (35.8%=1, 26.9%=3, 14.9%=2, 10.6%=6, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=4).

Does 1 month win or do you take the weighted average which is about 2.5 months?

We take the weighted average of all voters which is 2.5 months or 10 weeks.

Nah, lets weight it by number of link changes in a year (i.e. 12/link duration)

(35.8%=12, 26.9%=4, 14.9%=6, 10.6%=2, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=3)

That averages to a preference for 7.1 link changes per year or a change every 1.7
months, or approximately every 7 weeks.

I would accept this. Two weeks to stabalise positions and five to play.
Then wipe your TS permissions if link changes and no more than seven times a year, or something less maybe.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

I’d estimate that each relinking consumes ~5% of the WvW team’s development time for that month. So it’s a low (but not insignificant) perpetual cost, at least until we can build a system for automating it.

Thanks for your answer. It means that the whole team would roughly speaking spend one day per month working on relinking… That’s a lot. There are other projects I would prefer you to work on during that time (did I say server chat ?!)

I just wanted to mention that on the french forum, I don’t see a lot of support for relinking (4 out of 5 french servers are linked). People would be more interested by merging. As there is no such choice, they tend to vote for 6 months. They point out that relinking means a lot of organisational work for the server, and that is would be harmful for guilds, as they now have members on both of the linked servers.

Heimlich.3065:

Nah, lets weight it by number of link changes in a year (i.e. 12/link duration)

(35.8%=12, 26.9%=4, 14.9%=6, 10.6%=2, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=3)

That averages to a preference for 7.1 link changes per year or a change every 1.7
months, or approximately every 7 weeks.

Not sure they’d look it that way, but you may be close… I’m thinking they’ll take the weighted average which is ~2.46 and based on the poll options choose 2 months (the closest match).

Swedemon.4670:

Heimlich.3065:

Nah, lets weight it by number of link changes in a year (i.e. 12/link duration)

(35.8%=12, 26.9%=4, 14.9%=6, 10.6%=2, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=3)

That averages to a preference for 7.1 link changes per year or a change every 1.7
months, or approximately every 7 weeks.

Not sure they’d look it that way, but you may be close… I’m thinking they’ll take the weighted average which is ~2.46 and based on the poll options choose 2 months (the closest match).

My point is that I used a weighted average as well, based on the exact same data, but with a slightly different interpretation and came up with a different value. Choice in how to calculate a weighted average matters a lot (iow, a weighted average tends to give disproportionate weight to larger numerical values). Consider if they had an option to re-link once per 10 years and 1% of people chose that

Doubt it is averaged at all – you see the choices 1,2,3,4, and 6 months…..

Swedemon.4670:

Heimlich.3065:

Nah, lets weight it by number of link changes in a year (i.e. 12/link duration)

(35.8%=12, 26.9%=4, 14.9%=6, 10.6%=2, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=3)

That averages to a preference for 7.1 link changes per year or a change every 1.7
months, or approximately every 7 weeks.

Not sure they’d look it that way, but you may be close… I’m thinking they’ll take the weighted average which is ~2.46 and based on the poll options choose 2 months (the closest match).

It does look like a tidy compromise between the two most popular options. But the other possibility is they weigh developer preference into the results and go 3.

Swedemon.4670:

That’s why it is hypothetical. If you want real numbers at this point in time (35.8%=1, 26.9%=3, 14.9%=2, 10.6%=6, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=4).

Does 1 month win or do you take the weighted average which is about 2.5 months?

We take the weighted average of all voters which is 2.5 months or 10 weeks.

Another option would be a median, which is currently 2 month. This way 53.3% voted for no more than 2 month and 60.3% voted for at least 2 month.

Heimlich.3065:

My point is that I used a weighted average as well, based on the exact same data, but with a slightly different interpretation and came up with a different value. Choice in how to calculate a weighted average matters a lot (iow, a weighted average tends to give disproportionate weight to larger numerical values). Consider if they had an option to re-link once per 10 years and 1% of people chose that

If the poll options were worded to say twice per year, 3 times per year, 4 times per year, etc. then I could see your point.

Macilien.3078:

Another option would be a median, which is currently 2 month. This way 53.3% voted for no more than 2 month and 60.3% voted for at least 2 month.

There ya go!

Macilien.3078:

Swedemon.4670:

That’s why it is hypothetical. If you want real numbers at this point in time (35.8%=1, 26.9%=3, 14.9%=2, 10.6%=6, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=4).

Does 1 month win or do you take the weighted average which is about 2.5 months?

We take the weighted average of all voters which is 2.5 months or 10 weeks.

Another option would be a median, which is currently 2 month. This way 53.3% voted for no more than 2 month and 60.3% voted for at least 2 month.

Isn’t “no more than 2 months” the same thing “as at least 2 months”?

It needs to be addressed monthly so we can get to a point where population balance is closer to even and matches are not blow outs.

Blow outs cause player demotivation and loss, even matches generate interest and hope. WvW won’t survive long term with this unbalanced mess, and bandaids on open wounds won’t fix the core problems.

I appreciate the efforts, as many do, but these are all minor adjustments and reinvestments to wvw comparatively. Are they good steps? Yes, sure, but nothing indicates a better rvr experience for the long run. I forsee more condensing and combining servers as times goes on until the devs are forced into panic mode when it’s too late and players are jumping ship.

Bandini.6185:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

I’d estimate that each relinking consumes ~5% of the WvW team’s development time for that month. So it’s a low (but not insignificant) perpetual cost, at least until we can build a system for automating it.

Snip 8<

I just wanted to mention that on the french forum, I don’t see a lot of support for relinking (4 out of 5 french servers are linked). People would be more interested by merging.

Snip 8<

Bandini

Thanks for pointing out 2 crucial things that ANet Devs need to be aware of…imho

1) People still like community
2) People have different languages & time zones

Below discussion is not aimed at you…btw

World Linking & its Scheduling…is too scary to watch…as it plays out

I’d feel Sorry for the Dev that has to figure out the New Pairings on a Fixed Schedule that gets decided in this Poll

Then again…it might be as simple as throwing darts with a blind fold on

Here’s what might happen as ANet moves forward with their Current WvW Vision…which hasn’t been published & can change…because it’s unknown

Keep in mind…

The Fixed 3 Way Fight Model is the root of all evil in WvW…imho

1) This Temporary Pairings that uses a Fixed Fight Model will need constant adjustments

• Manual Dart Throwing
• Automated Dart Throwing

2) Players by innate behavior…Want to be PART OF the team that wins more

3) Players will consistently & persistently stack to the strongest of the 3

4) Goto Step #1

I’m guessing that some of the reasons behind this Game Mode could be attributed to the below:

New Game Mode – WvG – World vs Globes-v5.0
15-Game-Dynamics-n-Revenue-Streams

Complex system of World Linking generates a consistent revenue stream as players pay to move between Re-Linked Servers.

Simple system of Globes generates a consistent revenue stream through (blank).

IF Players Demand Server Merges

Do we Merge everything down until there’s only 3 Surviving Servers?

With only 3 Surviving Servers…What do we do to fix things when Match-Ups get Stale again?

This Current Vision to Allow World Linking on a Fixed “Monthly” Schedule will have a Long Term Negative Impact to WvW Ecosystem…imho

Temporary Pairings that change often with no clear distinction between friend or foe will lead to a Community that does not value commitment

What does that mean to the Game Mode Culture?

Long Term Negative Impact to the “Mental” health & viability of any WvW Community…imho

Should ask what’s more important:

Community or Good Fights

Fixed 3 Way Fight Model – You can’t have both…or it’s very difficult to balance
Globe based Fight Model – You can have both…and it’s player driven…yet Anet controlled…imho

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Thanks for the update. McKenna. Still slow if the only metric being used is population or rank with basic glicko. Really, more metrics need to be analyzed such as player participation scheduling, and the use of lots of heuristic analysis might only then support well-structured matchups. I fear just adding/reducing time between matchups won’t really change too much unless other factors are considered.

Two months is still a very long time and enables people to stack at their leisure. This is worrysome and something to also keep an eye on.

This seems like the best compromise in my opinion. One month is way to short and would cause more issues then it would resolve, and 3 or more months might cause staleness for some.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

I’m afraid that you do not understand the system of a plurality vote. In the last poll, 70% wanted 1 Desert and 2 Alpine borderlands. But you said, it wasn’t enough, so the vote were meaningless.
Now, the majority wants monthly change, but again you say it’s not enough. So you choose a system, no one voted for. Are you kidding me? If this goes on, you can keep your polls for yourself and don’t annoy us with these anymore!

2 months is better than 3, some good progress here. hoping for more! (i voted for 1, for the record).

Moved off of the low tier server.. couldn’t care less about linking schedules now… I get to stay right where I am, yay.

AllNightPlayer.1286:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

I’m afraid that you do not understand the system of a plurality vote. In the last poll, 70% wanted 1 Desert and 2 Alpine borderlands. But you said, it wasn’t enough, so the vote were meaningless.
Now, the majority wants monthly change, but again you say it’s not enough. So you choose a system, no one voted for. Are you kidding me? If this goes on, you can keep your polls for yourself and don’t annoy us with these anymore!

From what i can tell however ultimately this isn’t a democracy. They use this to gauge what the players want in general and rework their plans to fit that. But we can’t be surprised if they use them as “guidelines” for their actions. Also the last poll was specifically designated as needing a super majority due to how massive a change it would made to the gameplay.

No matter what people picked here the matchup reworks were still going to happen. This was to tell anet how often the population wanted. And they are telling the truth when they say two months IS the compromise between the different player factions and it best fits what hte actual majority of voters have requested (Most players wanted them more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly) judging not by the individual votes but by the over all of all available categories.

I think they made the right call here.

Didn’t sound like they really wanted to do what received the most votes of any choice, but massaged the facts to justify a compromise. Since my thoughts were 4-6 weeks, not too bad…

I just wonder what happens when there is a close vote on DBL. Will there be the same fact massaging / compromising – that one could get UGLY from either side…

AllNightPlayer.1286:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

I’m afraid that you do not understand the system of a plurality vote. In the last poll, 70% wanted 1 Desert and 2 Alpine borderlands. But you said, it wasn’t enough, so the vote were meaningless.
Now, the majority wants monthly change, but again you say it’s not enough. So you choose a system, no one voted for. Are you kidding me? If this goes on, you can keep your polls for yourself and don’t annoy us with these anymore!

There was no percentage threshold established for this poll, they were probably more interested in seeing what option people would vote for, but since it was so mixed with no real winner, top choice only receiving 38% hardly a majority. They made a compromise between the top two choices to meet in the middle.

Goldilocks knows best!

Shadelang.3012:

AllNightPlayer.1286:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

I’m afraid that you do not understand the system of a plurality vote. In the last poll, 70% wanted 1 Desert and 2 Alpine borderlands. But you said, it wasn’t enough, so the vote were meaningless.
Now, the majority wants monthly change, but again you say it’s not enough. So you choose a system, no one voted for. Are you kidding me? If this goes on, you can keep your polls for yourself and don’t annoy us with these anymore!

…
They use this to gauge what the players want in general and rework their plans to fit that. But we can’t be surprised if they use them as “guidelines” for their actions.
…
I think they made the right call here.

I agree they made the right call here.

To be honest, I think I’d much rather they make their own decisions based on polling results than be tied to a direction that was “decided” by polling. They ultimately are more informed than the voting population and are better able to make decisions that benefit the majority of play styles rather than decisions that simply benefit the play style of the majority.

X T D.6458:

AllNightPlayer.1286:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

I’m afraid that you do not understand the system of a plurality vote. In the last poll, 70% wanted 1 Desert and 2 Alpine borderlands. But you said, it wasn’t enough, so the vote were meaningless.
Now, the majority wants monthly change, but again you say it’s not enough. So you choose a system, no one voted for. Are you kidding me? If this goes on, you can keep your polls for yourself and don’t annoy us with these anymore!

There was no percentage threshold established for this poll, they were probably more interested in seeing what option people would vote for, but since it was so mixed with no real winner, top choice only receiving 38% hardly a majority. They made a compromise between the top two choices to meet in the middle.

I have to agree. Anet never said there was any sort of ‘minimum percentage’ needed for this vote, so I figured it was just for giving them a general direction.

I think 2 months is a good compromise.

Teon.5168:

I think 2 months is a good compromise.

The poll seems to reflect this. The median would be every two months. The mean average is roughly around 9 weeks. The math gets a bit sketchy since there is no option for less than one month and no option for more than 6 months.

AllNightPlayer.1286:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

I’m afraid that you do not understand the system of a plurality vote. In the last poll, 70% wanted 1 Desert and 2 Alpine borderlands. But you said, it wasn’t enough, so the vote were meaningless.
Now, the majority wants monthly change, but again you say it’s not enough. So you choose a system, no one voted for. Are you kidding me? If this goes on, you can keep your polls for yourself and don’t annoy us with these anymore!

Pretty sad state of affairs…

I’m not trying to be negative, but this is all indicative of anets past decision making that has lead us to these types of places throughout the game.

This was supposed to be a majority vote and the majority spoke to get populations balanced sooner than later.

This is not an rvr mode, it’s a glorified spvp mode. Anet asks for feedback and votes, but doesn’t care.

Swagger.1459:

This was supposed to be a majority vote and the majority spoke to get populations balanced sooner than later.

If 38% of the people want 1 month and 46% of the people want three or more months… be glad the compromise was at 2 months. Two months or less only got 54% which is hardly a decisive “majority” vote.

Based on the numbers the average comes out to around every 9 weeks (actually closer 10 based on the question format).

Straegen.2938:

Swagger.1459:

This was supposed to be a majority vote and the majority spoke to get populations balanced sooner than later.

If 38% of the people want 1 month and 46% of the people want three or more months… be glad the compromise was at 2 months. Two months or less only got 54% which is hardly a decisive “majority” vote.

Based on the numbers the average comes out to around every 9 weeks (actually closer 10 based on the question format).

this was supposed to be a majority vote, not a vote on averages…

don’t offer 1 month if you are not going to implement 1 month. simple.

the 39% have every right to be bothered by this, and I hope those that voted in the 39% make their voices heard.

the 39% do not want to sit in blown out matches for 2 months that we can’t compete with.

they better unlock tc and bg so the 39% can get off their carpy servers until things get figured out.

Swagger.1459:

this was supposed to be a majority vote, not a vote on averages…

First, where did you get the idea this was an election and not just a poll? Second, as I pointed out the majority (more than half) voted for 2 months or less not one month. The plurality voted for one month. Big difference. All of this assumes this was an election with rules posted somewhere and not just a poll to help ANet decide when they should reset links.

Learn to compromise… especially when the other 62% didn’t want one month.

Voted for 2 months – I won!

Swagger.1459:

Straegen.2938:

Swagger.1459:

This was supposed to be a majority vote and the majority spoke to get populations balanced sooner than later.

If 38% of the people want 1 month and 46% of the people want three or more months… be glad the compromise was at 2 months. Two months or less only got 54% which is hardly a decisive “majority” vote.

Based on the numbers the average comes out to around every 9 weeks (actually closer 10 based on the question format).

this was supposed to be a majority vote, not a vote on averages…

don’t offer 1 month if you are not going to implement 1 month. simple.

the 39% have every right to be bothered by this, and I hope those that voted in the 39% make their voices heard.

the 39% do not want to sit in blown out matches for 2 months that we can’t compete with.

they better unlock tc and bg so the 39% can get off their carpy servers until things get figured out.

Where did you read that this poll was based on a majority vote? There was no percentage threshold established. Not all polls are designed to be used the same way. Why would you think 38% is reflective of a majority?

Was it established before the vote that they were going to take the average of votes? No they did not.

Listen, nobody is stupid here. Either clearly establish the rules to the vote or don’t host a vote. You can’t be ambiguous and you can’t change the outcome unless it’s clearly stated that will happen.

Last vote was 70%, 5% shy of goal, but you didn’t see Anet change the rules on that one considering it was so close…

Waste of time voting process.

This type of stuff makes Anet look bad in the eyes of players. Anet can’t afford to burn the majority of voters on these polls.

Next time they should clearly state how they want to treat the result. It has a bad taste if you “analyse” the poll afterwards without mentioning it.

I voted for 1 month but I can live with 2. Just sucks we are stuck with these match ups for another few weeks…

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

So basically the 15.9% won, yeah seems legit, kappa, why do you even bother with these polls if you are just going to go with what you think is best rather than what we think is best, its a joke, except it isn’t funny.

Swagger.1459:

Was it established before the vote that they were going to take the average of votes? No they did not.

Listen, nobody is stupid here. Either clearly establish the rules to the vote or don’t host a vote. You can’t be ambiguous and you can’t change the outcome unless it’s clearly stated that will happen.

Last vote was 70%, 5% shy of goal, but you didn’t see Anet change the rules on that one considering it was so close…

Waste of time voting process.

This type of stuff makes Anet look bad in the eyes of players. Anet can’t afford to burn the majority of voters on these polls.

It’s not an election it’s a poll. At the end of the day the poll is just feedback that anet can do whatever they want with; it’s not a mandate. To them it read, a lot of people find 1 month 2 soon, while large group find it fine. They compromised and found something in the middle.

Anyways I voted for 1 month, but figured this would happen. In all honesty 4week rotation is a bit quick, and I wished 6 weeks would have been an option over 2months. I think we would have had less vote split. Regardless I am happy with every 2 months. It’s a step in the right direction.