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 or interupt it however they want. 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.
Don’t ask for player votes if you are going to change results.
Tell those players on blow out servers that 1 month is too fast… 15% wanted 2 months. 38% wanted 1 month.
If Anet wanted a poll that would end up being averaged out then clearly state it or don’t have a poll.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
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!
This. Exactly. Why bother having votes if majorities don’t win?
2 months wasn’t even on the poll! This is like people voting for Trump or Clinton in the General, only to be told the President is now Jeb Bush.
I missed that 2 months was expressed as every other month. Still, the highest vote should have won.
That’s a bad-taste decision. 39% of people are not happy with the current pairings and want to see an end to paired-server stacking ASAP. 1 month pairings will either prevent paired-server stacking or dry up the coffers of the guilty parties, both are acceptable outcomes.
If the voters around the country understand as little about percentages as they do here, they deserve whatever president they get.
38% is not a majority.
2 months was, in fact, on the poll.
Most players voted either 1 or 3 months.
And that’s why the final decision was in the middle.
I’ve seen some people ask why all of the poll options were on a monthly basis rather than something like 6 weeks. Tying evaluations to months allows us to say ’We’ll run it on the last Friday of the month, or every other month, etc." which is easier to remember. If you know we are updating links on the last Friday of every even month, you always know exactly when links will potentially change, but if instead it was on a 6 week cadence, you would have to do math and count the number of weeks since the last reset, and if you don’t know when the last reset was, then you have no idea when the next reset will be.
ANET, you kinda messed up here. A lot of people who wanted matchings to happen more than once a month voted for once a month because that was the lowest option.
2 months is definitely better than the original 3 months, but still is the wrong decision. The new matchups are exciting for the first 2 or 3 weeks and then get boring. I’m sure your own play numbers reflect that.
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 these polls are worthless, you’ll do whatever you want anyway. This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month yet you disingenuously set this aside because you clearly don’t want to have do it that frequently and make up an excuse not to. Its quite evident from Tyler’s posts that you don’t want to do it monthly. Be honest you should have made the minimum term in the poll 2 months if you weren’t prepared to do it monthly.
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.
This is not how they’ve presented these polls. I don’t think they should be running these polls for low level details like they are but the fact is they are doing them and developing in accordance with the results up until this one. As I said above if they really didn’t want to do it monthly because of the workload then don’t include that option in the poll and state that monthly isn’t an option because of the workload. This is just verging on dishonest. They would have been better just saying we can’t do it monthly but it is clear that quarterly is too long therefore we will do it every 2 months without running a poll that makes them look bad.
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.
1 month or more than 1 month wasn’t the poll. Majority voted for 1 month therefore it should be implemented according to how they are doing the polls. If they wanted an option to get 50% before implementing it then say so up front so we know they are the terms. This doesn’t bode well for future polls.
Jade Quarry [SoX]
Miranda Zero – Ele / Twitch Zero – Mes / Chargrin Soulboom – Engi
Aliera Zero – Guardian / Reaver Zero – Necro
This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month
Simple majority means >50%, which the 1-month option didn’t reach. That kind of renders the rest of your post meaningless
Simple majority: “a majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any one candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority.”
As I said if the terms were to reach 50% then say so in plain english. But then I don’t think they made the poll initially with those terms in mind. Its an excuse after the fact. Also if these polls are merely meant to be broad guidelines and may not necessarily be implemented exactly as the poll states then again state it plainly.
Jade Quarry [SoX]
Miranda Zero – Ele / Twitch Zero – Mes / Chargrin Soulboom – Engi
Aliera Zero – Guardian / Reaver Zero – Necro
Suppose they did pick 1 month – has it occurred to you that the 62% (which is an actual majority… just in case there’s any confusion about that…) who voted for a longer period might not be particularly happy with that?
Why should they make an obviously bad decision just because you misinterpreted the poll?
Suppose they did pick 1 month – has it occurred to you that the 62% (which is an actual majority… just in case there’s any confusion about that…) who voted for a longer period might not be particularly happy with that?
Why should they make an obviously bad decision just because you misinterpreted the poll?
That’s not how this particular voting process was presented to the community.
Anet made a decision outside of their own polling parameters that went against this majority vote. Since it was not a “super vote” of 75%, any rational minded person understood it to be a majority vote based off of highest number…
If anet was fishing for an average, they should have stated that from the beginning.
Anet will keep dropping the ball and it will be seen clearly as populations drop and players bail to other upcoming rvr games. As is, Anet and players can’t afford population drops, but that’s where this is all heading.
It’s nice to know 15.9% beats out 38.1%… Lol
Edit- y’all can keep your poll outcome changing and “spin doctor” defending of bad decision making, because all that means is unsatified customers will vote with their wallets in the future.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
How it was presented is irrelevant, a bad decision is a bad decision.
The numbers split is pretty easy to interpret. 38.1% voted for less than two months, 54% voted for more.
It’s not the 15.9% that beat out 38.1%, it’s that and the 54% combined.
This wasn’t a poll asking for your favourite flavour. Options are comparable here. If 61.9% of voters have voted for longer than a month, a month is too short.
How it was presented is irrelevant, a bad decision is a bad decision.
The numbers split is pretty easy to interpret. 38.1% voted for less than two months, 54% voted for more.
It’s not the 15.9% that beat out 38.1%, it’s that and the 54% combined.
This wasn’t a poll asking for your favourite flavour. Options are comparable here. If 61.9% of voters have voted for longer than a month, a month is too short.
It’s relevant, but just keep spin doctoring numbers to justify poor decisions…
Don’t host a vote if you are not going to lay out the parameters and how outcomes are determined beforehand.
The numbers were clear, most voted for 1 month rotations to bring balance through linking faster. Anet didn’t want that so they should start making their own decisions in the future and players can get back to voting with their wallet.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
“Most” did not vote for 1 month rotations. Most voted for more than 1 month, they just didn’t agree on how much more.
They made the right decision. 1 month was the wrong decision. End of story.
LMAO This is proof of just how convoluted this poll was! HAD ANet actually given options for less than one month, that would have been voted on, too. But since that wasn’t even given as an option in the poll, then no, 1 month was NOT the wrong decision.
Oh, and in what is seemingly bizzaro-world polling, 15.9% of the vote won this time, instead of the highest score of 38.1%.
Kind of pointless, they killed the smaller servers with the linking – all the home servers were then full and then they wont even give you a free transfer because of the way they just dumped us into matchups we didn’t want to be in. ie we screwed you but you have to pay in order to correct it.
anet should just man up and close the small servers instead of this stupid pretence of linking. 2 month changes wont revitalize them.
I’d like to vote that only the 38.1% be given the option to transfer to BG or TC so we are not stuck on some bunk servers until things are balanced properly.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
Thanks for the feedback. Two months is a reasonable compromise. It isn’t the value I voted for (I chose 1 month), but it allows the bulk of participants feel like they had influence while leaving the largest factions similarly unhappy with the result
Majority is the greatest number of votes with at least 50%. Plurality is the greatest number of votes with less than 50% which is also known as a Simple Majority. As ANet didn’t specify the rules for this “election” nobody except them can interpret the results as it pertains to actual game changes.
To recap, 62% of the players voting in the poll wanted more than 1 month which means the majority of voters wanted more than one month. The majority of voters also wanted less than three months but just barely with 54%. See what I did there… I used math to count votes in an opinion poll. Anet came to the same conclusion which is very obvious.
To further the point, the median is two months and the mean is 9-ish weeks.
My guess is the next poll will have a giant disclaimer on it explaining that this is an opinion poll and any game changes remain at ANet’s descretion.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
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!
Isn’t two months same as “every other month” which is 15.9% of the vote? The 38.1% didn’t vote for that! Why are you forcing 15.9%’s opinion onto 38.1%?
Isn’t two months same as “every other month” which is 15.9% of the vote? The 38.1% didn’t vote for that! Why are you forcing 15.9%’s opinion onto 38.1%?
If they went with one month, 62% of voters in this opinion poll would “lose”. By going with two months, 54% of players “win”.
They basically compromised the re-link interval to make the most players as happy as they can. Like most compromises though some just get kittened they didn’t get their exact way even though they basically “won”.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
Majority is the greatest number of votes with at least 50%. Plurality is the greatest number of votes with less than 50% which is also known as a Simple Majority. As ANet didn’t specify the rules for this “election” nobody except them can interpret the results as it pertains to actual game changes.
To recap, 62% of the players voting in the poll wanted more than 1 month which means the majority of voters wanted more than one month. The majority of voters also wanted less than three months but just barely with 54%. See what I did there… I used math to count votes in an opinion poll. Anet came to the same conclusion which is very obvious.
To further the point, the median is two months and the mean is 9-ish weeks.
My guess is the next poll will have a giant disclaimer on it explaining that this is an opinion poll and any game changes remain at ANet’s descretion.
The goal of linking was to achieve better population balance. The more frequently linking occurs the faster we get to those balanced populations. That was even stated in the benefits to linking more often… Unbalanced populations between servers is the #1 issue with wvw, so this bimonthly linking rate only servers to prolong that core problem.
The smart thing to do is link more frequently now to get to a better place sooner than later. Less frequent likings can be made when numbers are looking better.
Faster population balance > pandering to the “median”.
Very poor judgment call on anets part to double the time it takes to even things out better.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
The goal of linking was to achieve better population balance. The more frequently linking occurs the faster we get to those balanced populations.
I believe they should have tried 1 month, 2 month and 3 month over the last few months to see what the players liked better.
I think it is too early to ask players what they think because we don’t really know all the effects such as breaking up communities that have grown together or guilds that have formed over multiple servers. Is that more important to the player base than balance… we still don’t know.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
The goal of linking was to achieve better population balance. The more frequently linking occurs the faster we get to those balanced populations.
I believe they should have tried 1 month, 2 month and 3 month over the last few months to see what the players liked better.
I think it is too early to ask players what they think because we don’t really know all the effects such as breaking up communities that have grown together or guilds that have formed over multiple servers. Is that more important to the player base than balance… we still don’t know.
While I have enjoyed GoM’s linking with SoS, our tier is getting stale, as are the others for the most part. We’re facing SBI and Mag in T3, again, for like the 4th time since linking, so I can tell you what the end result will be…the same as the prior 3 times. In T4, I don’t think they’ve faced a new server in at least 3 or 4 weeks straight. Sounds like a month is about all that’s needed for each tier to settle, since we only have 4 tiers now instead of 8. It’s hard, choosing between breaking up with a server that we have become acquainted with versus tiers and matches getting stale all over again.
Oh, that works too. Now 84.1% lost! Whats the point of voting! Is this what you called democracy?!
If they didn’t get creative and figure out an average, then the vote would have failed just like the last one and would have been a waste of time. This time, they took our votes as advice, and no, Anet is a business, not a democracy.
The goal of linking was to achieve better population balance. The more frequently linking occurs the faster we get to those balanced populations.
I believe they should have tried 1 month, 2 month and 3 month over the last few months to see what the players liked better.
I think it is too early to ask players what they think because we don’t really know all the effects such as breaking up communities that have grown together or guilds that have formed over multiple servers. Is that more important to the player base than balance… we still don’t know.
Guild members can’t play together unless they are on the same or linked server. These linkings were never set in stone either, so the “anet is breaking up our loving relationship” excuse is not valid.
Server friends can play together regardless, so players need to be less dramatic about linking.
No, I don’t feel bad for players unwilling to transfer to open servers and join their guild or friends.
The #1 problem in wvw is unbalanced populations, so nothing else with wvw will be resolved until this is fixed as much as possible…
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
i didn’t want server linking, but majority won that poll so i compromised. There was no option for weekly reevaluating matchups so I compromised with 1 month which was still borderline bearable. 2 months is too long, I guess i’ll just have to take a break from WvW. Feel like im compromising too much at this point.
Since World Linking became a Permanent WvW Feature & Now The Schedule is being decided upon…
It’s a Pandora’s Box & Genie in a Bottle…Rolled into One…and the majority of players are convinced that the water well will never run dry
The Lower Tiered WvW Ecosystem that’s being forced to fill your plentiful well…is being forced to survive under extreme pressures that work directly against their Long Term Veteran Community
This Veteran Community is the source behind your large base of noob players that eventually leave their humble beginnings to fly to the bright lights of the Upper Tiers…imho
The Fixed 3 Way Fight Model will continue to Server Stack Players as a naturally as a flame attracts moths, or water flowing downhill…imho
This very basic player motivation is generally well known & observered from my viewpoint.
ANet just has to work harder & faster to manipulate the illusion that Population & Match-Ups are Fair & Balanced…imho
Yours truly,
Diku
Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes
Since World Linking became a Permanent WvW Feature & Now The Schedule is being decided upon…
It’s a Pandora’s Box & Genie in a Bottle…Rolled into One…and the majority of players are convinced that the water well will never run dry
The Lower Tiered WvW Ecosystem that’s being forced to fill your plentiful well…is being forced to survive under extreme pressures that work directly against their Long Term Veteran Community
This Veteran Community is the source behind your large base of noob players that eventually leave their humble beginnings to fly to the bright lights of the Upper Tiers…imho
The Fixed 3 Way Fight Model will continue to Server Stack Players as a naturally as a flame attracts moths, or water flowing downhill…imho
This very basic player motivation is generally well known & observered from my viewpoint.
ANet just has to work harder & faster to manipulate the illusion that Population & Match-Ups are Fair & Balanced…imho
Yours truly,
Diku
Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes
“The Lower Tiered WvW Ecosystem that’s being forced to fill your plentiful well…is being forced to survive under extreme pressures that work directly against their Long Term Veteran Community”
That “lower tiered ecosystem” was due to a terrible wvw experience that cause players to quit wvw entirely or transfer out to find players to fight.. You act as if lower tiers were deigned for super ultra veterans that carry the wvw game mode… Lower tiers are just less populated servers, not some elite group of players deserving their own maps to duel on.
You obvioisly don’t understand that all wvw maps across all servers were designed to be a mass pvp experience, not a personal guild playground for 20v20v20.
If wvw was good, and servers were full as anticipated, then we wouldn’t need to link right?
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:
38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 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!
The borderlands voted required a 75% majority yes vote to make the change, players knew that before voting and yet 5% decided they wanted the 3 month rotation that screwed it up rather than the compromise. For this a majority vote wasn’t required, but in this case most of the votes fell to 1 or 3 months, so 2 months is a good compromise.
Another derailing post. ^^ North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed.
“Game over man, Game Over!” – RIP Bill
1 month was the majority vote out of 5 choices, but y’all can enjoy your empty maps again 6 months from now…
1 month was the plurality vote out of 5 choices, but we’ll go with it: If you were running ANet, and you know you didn’t etch this poll’s rules in stone, would you want to move on 1 month links and alienate +60% of your WvW player-base? I wouldn’t; been kittening them off and losing some here and there for almost 4 years now. I’d interpret and massage those numbers as best I could to keep more of them playing (regardless of how you, or I, actually voted).
If this is election, do you think that will be allowed?!
If this were an election, there would be a run-off between 1 month and 3 months. I could be wrong, but I believe 3 months would win that fight, because math: If 7.95% of 2-month voters move to 3 months and 7.95% move to 1 month, 3 months would have almost 54% in that run-off. Anyone with half a brain can guess that those voting for more than 3 months wouldn’t go less than that.
In full disclosure, I voted for 2 months. I do realize that it only got 15.9% for itself, so I’m not going to “spin” any numbers. I will just say that I’m reading a lot of:
At the end of the day, this is ANet’s game – we just play it. They can (and should) listen to the players, vis-à-vis polling, but the developers should be making the decisions – all of them. Be happy that they even polled this at all – we could have been seeing a new link at the end of July.
That “lower tiered ecosystem” was due to a terrible wvw experience that cause players to quit wvw entirely or transfer out to find players to fight.. You act as if lower tiers were deigned for super ultra veterans that carry the wvw game mode…
I do say the following: Veteran Community
Umm…but you’re making up stuff on your own again & trying to make others believe you…imho
That’s not very nice.
I’m not surprised…it’s within your nature to do so.
My opinion & understanding differs from yours.
I hope you realize that by Lower Tiered Ecosystem…I literally mean.
The bottom of a complex Ecosystem…and not the idea that the lower tier’s community was without any life.
The bottom tier was full of life…just on a different scale & time frame than the upper tiers.
Much like an ocean…the upper part is filled with fast moving life, but that changes when you go into very deep water.
The life is there, but is often completely different.
Personally…I’m not an expert on all the WvW maps & mechanics, but I’m very comfortable with my opinion on what I think works.
You believe what you will…that’s your right to. So please go ahead and enjoy being an expert on all matters you survey…just stop blowing smoke up my…chimney.
Yours truly,
Diku
Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes
That “lower tiered ecosystem” was due to a terrible wvw experience that cause players to quit wvw entirely or transfer out to find players to fight.. You act as if lower tiers were deigned for super ultra veterans that carry the wvw game mode… Lower tiers are just less populated servers, not some elite group of players deserving their own maps to duel on.
I do say the following: Veteran Community
Umm…but you’re making up stuff on your own again & trying to make others believe you…imho
That’s not very nice.
I’m not surprised…it’s within your nature to do so.
My opinion & understanding differs from yours.
I hope you realize that by Lower Tiered Ecosystem…I literally mean.
The bottom of a complex Ecosystem…and not the idea that the lower tier’s community was without any life.
The bottom tier was full of life…just on a different scale & time frame than the upper tiers.
Much like an ocean…the upper part is filled with fast moving life, but that changes when you go into very deep water.
The life is there, but is often completely different.
Personally…I’m not an expert on all the WvW maps & mechanics, but I’m very comfortable with my opinion on what I think works.
You believe what you will…that’s your right to. So please go ahead and enjoy being an expert on all matters you survey…just stop blowing smoke up my…chimney.
Yours truly,
Diku
Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes
You’re the one portraying that the lower servers are some superior “ecosystems” of veterans that are basically suffering and being destroyed due to linking… No, those players are on emptier servers because wvw was dying and Anet finally made the right decision to start alliances. Linking was a necessity, and it improved overall population numbers temporarily.
Maybe you and a few others want emptier servers, but the majority don’t and that’s pretty clear by the numbers. No individual server or guild or player… is more important that wvw as a whole.
The fact that you keep pushing to quintuple maps on dying populations shows me you don’t really understand what makes up the core of a good rvr experience… That “core” is maps with lots of players on them.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
You’re the one portraying that the lower servers are some superior “ecosystems” of veterans that are basically suffering and being destroyed due to linking… No, those players are on emptier servers because wvw was dying and Anet finally made the right decision to start alliances. Linking was a necessity, and it improved overall population numbers temporarily.
Snip 8<
The fact that you keep pushing to quintuple maps on dying populations shows me you don’t really understand what makes up the core of a good rvr experience… That “core” is maps with lots of players on them.
WvW is an Ecosystem…not sure about it being in anyway superior…but it’s an Ecosystem that has different communities interacting with each other in a complex interconnected system…imho
Yes, Veteran Community…I did post it earlier in this thread.
But Once Again…you’re making up stuff on your own again & trying to blow smoke up my chimney again.
Why do you like doing this?
Not to take jabs, but you brought this up yourself.
Your “Alliances”…if they’re ever built using the Current Fixed 3 Way Fight Model…imho
Will fail or perform very poorly for the very same reasons WvW Current Ecosystem has consistently failed to thrive since GW2 itself launched.
The Fixed 3 Way Fight Model will continue to Server Stack Players as a naturally as a flame attracts moths, or water flowing downhill.
Do you Agree or Disagree to the following & Very Simple Statement:
Players Like to be PART OF the side that Wins more.
If you Agree…then…Given A Fixed 3 Way Fight…
Which Side do you think a Majority of Players will go to?
A) Side with Top Score
B) Side with Middle Score
C) Side with Bottom Score
I’ll be honest…I’d predict Option A
Ok…about your quintuple maps on dying populations comment.
Again…you have an inherent tendency to be an expert on all matters that you survey…regardless…if you have your facts straight.
It’s incredible, but for the sake of explaining things for folks that haven’t seen what you’re talking about…and to provide the correct information…I’ll need to explain this…to keep you from spreading the wrong information again.
It’s important to put this in the correct context…the below is for a Proposal for a New Game Mode & Does Not use the Current Fixed 3 Way Fight Model.
New WvG Proposal allows Mixing, swapping, or REDUCING the number of Borderland maps
Each Globe can be configured to use 1-4 Maps if that’s what ANet decides.
Current Base Map Mechanic uses 4 Maps
New WvG Game Mode – Players will first appear in the corners of Eternal Battle Map
New WvG Proposal allows Mixing, swapping, or REDUCING the number of Borderland maps, but I’m not sure if it’s feasible from a programming standpoint
New WvG Proposal can be configured to use 1-4 Maps for each Globe
Portals & Spawn Points
Players entering WvG from PvE or PvP start in the Red Corner of Eternal Battle for Home Globe. WvG map Portals grant access to 4 Destinations
1) Lions Arch
2) Red corner of Eternal Battle for Home Globe
3) Green corner of Eternal Battle Map of Any World Globe
4) Blue corner of Eternal Battle Map of Any World Globe
Choosing the Green or Blue Portal will now prompt players to pick from a list of All World Globes on Weekly Reset
Choosing the Green or Blue Portal will give players a customized list based on their Weekly choices & ANet’s enforced Guesting limit after Weekly Reset
Map travel using the (M)ap shortcut key allows simple travel to spawn points within a chosen World Globe
Would you please stop blowing smoke up my chimney?
Yours truly,
Diku
Possible Better Long Term Solution – Google Search – wvg world vs globes
This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month
Simple majority means >50%, which the 1-month option didn’t reach. That kind of renders the rest of your post meaningless
No it does not, nor was it stated to be a 50% needed vote… Seriously, y’all keep grasping at straws and defending poor decisions.
You’re the one grasping at straws to insult anet.
You purpose of the poll was to get the opinions of the playerbase in a form of data that could easily be interpreted. It was not an election or referendum.
You are suggesting that anet act without nuance or flexibility which is a terrible idea.
I’m just amazed how some people consider their local election rules universal. Just because you are satisfied by the single option which has the most votes doesn’t mean everybody else has to.
On top of that the options are comparable, so if you voted for 6 month, but that’s off the table it’s reasonable to assume that you pick the highest remaining option this way you ultimately end up with 2 month.
There may be 84.1% who didn’t vote for 2 month, but they split up in a special way, 38.1% wanted less than that and 46% wanted more, so neither is more than 50%.
The issue I find far more interesting is how the results look for EU and NA separately. I see people complaining about stale matchups, which looks like an NA thing to me. Our server (EU) faced 8 different servers since linking started, so I wouldn’t mind something like 1 month for NA and 3 month for EU happening.
Im satisfied with the result of 2 months. And at everyone who is complaining here, 38% voted for 1 month does mean that 62% voted for a time longer than one month. So, the majority of the voters prefered periods of longer than one month. Anet delivered to that majority and made a good compromise i think.
This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month
Simple majority means >50%, which the 1-month option didn’t reach. That kind of renders the rest of your post meaningless
No it does not, nor was it stated to be a 50% needed vote… Seriously, y’all keep grasping at straws and defending poor decisions.
You’re the one grasping at straws to insult anet.
You purpose of the poll was to get the opinions of the playerbase in a form of data that could easily be interpreted. It was not an election or referendum.
You are suggesting that anet act without nuance or flexibility which is a terrible idea.
It was not stated to be an “opinion poll”, that’s you assuming more stuff. Anet changed their mind after they saw the poll results for their own reason, which was contrary to the actual winning vote.
Previous polls were determined by a needed “super vote” of 75%. It was clearly stated by Tyler that this poll did not require a super vote, nor did they say they were going to average votes to determine winner…
Since you like to ignore facts… On the voting page it clearly stated that the benefit of linking more frequently would produce more balanced matches… The page is now gone, but a dev can swoop on here to verify the precise wording.
WvW is still very unbalanced, and all this 2 month time frame does is keep those unbalanced matches longer. If you haven’t noticed, most matches are already determined in the first day or two… Now you tell those players to enjoy their blow out and unbalanced match up, they have zero chance of winning, for 2 months instead of 1…
All this is doing is prolonging more even pairings unnecessarily. The rational minded thing to do would be to reach a state of balance faster, then reevaluate frequency once things are more even and settled.
Linking was voted in as a feature to bring balance, slowing down that achievement of balance is bad considering the poor state wvw is in right now…
You can defend and spin doctor this decision all you want, but players will vote by other means and you will find yourself begging for Anet to save wvw when players are bailing out of wvw in the near future…
Hope the devs make some flawless pairing on the 24th or they are going to have some very annoyed players on their hands again.
New Main- 80 Thief – P/P- Vault Spam Pro
221 hours over 1,581 days of bank space/hot pve/lion’s arch afk and some wvw.
I think the 2 months seem like a good compromise looking at the poll’s results.
Also it’s quite funny to see people without even a basic understanding of statistics bashing around because their opinion isn’t in the majority.
Of course 2 months was the logical compromise. All of these failures at understanding percentages and “re-interpretations” of math are the reason sad USA will end up with wack-a-doodle Drumpf for president.
What I can’t comprehend is how people think more frequent linking is going to result is fresh match-ups in NA? The top 3 tiers are pretty locked no matter who they are linked with and some movement off the bottom lost homeless guest worlds wont be enough to change that unless they all migrate to the same place which I haven’t seen any hints is the plan.
I still wish we had gotten one of these polls for that original decision about the least damaging way to handle population disparity and the bottom tiers. It would have been interesting to see how people now feel about mergers or “blow it all up” after experiencing linked worlds. Maybe sometime in July after the 1st re-linking we will have a better idea what all this actually means for the bottom forced guest communities.
~Xylla~ [oG] on Ehmry Bay [PiXi]
Xyleia Luxuria / Sweet Little Agony / Morning Glory Wine / Precious Illusionz /
Near Fanstastica /Ocean at the End / Blue Eyed Hexe / Andro Queen / Indie Cindee . . .
I feel like the people who voted for one month are mad they did not win even tho they are not the majority, polls are NOT elections and one month was way to fast for alot of people. This is a nice video from ccp grey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo about why the voting system that one month people wanted to work with this poll is unfair. This other video with a much better solution that works somewhat like what anet did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Servers: Crystal Desert, Underworld, Eredon Terrace
Guilds: [TDS] The Desert Squad-Retired, [bM] Badmash, [BoRP] Bunch Of Random Players
Always looking for fights gvg’s etc just hit me up!
