Guild Wars 2

Seems there has been a nearly year-long experiment in wvw. How to match up servers. Group them up here, move these server over here, etc. It ain’t working. 3 servers vs 3 servers vs 3 servers… did not work. 2 servers vs 2 servers vs etc., etc., etc. Thanks anet, but “no”. I like my server. Can you please, please… figure out a way to go back to individual servers? I’ve heard a lot of good ideas from a lot of good players. You do listen to players ($$) right? Sometimes the only time I stick around is for WvW – but lately… you can make this work. A wee bit of time and a lot of listening would help. Seriously, if I’m just whining, fine. I’ll find another game. But, I think there is something here that can work. Listen.

I think they are just going to lock or delete your posting to be honest. Sorry bud, these guys took the train for the coast.

I don’t think Anet can go back to individual servers now. The “guest” servers have gained no score since the linking concept started, and Anet have already said they have no idea how to allocate score to them should one become an independent server.

The best we can hope for is that Anet could do a full reset: delete all servers and create new ones with new names and zero score. It would take time to settle down again and over time similar problems might develop if not managed, but it would be a fair solution.

Yuffi.2430:

I don’t think Anet can go back to individual servers now. The “guest” servers have gained no score since the linking concept started, and Anet have already said they have no idea how to allocate score to them should one become an independent server.

The best we can hope for is that Anet could do a full reset: delete all servers and create new ones with new names and zero score. It would take time to settle down again and over time similar problems might develop if not managed, but it would be a fair solution.

This… Not just a few but all of them. Server pride is either extremely low or dead. Start with 3 new servers until they cap then create a new set, rinse and repeat. No transfers after for 30 days and 1800 Gems to any server that is open.

Going back is a bad idea, I agree all the linkings and what not are a complete disaster but the activity per tier is better now. There is not enough people playing to go back to 24 or 27 servers. A merge is a good idea or do what so many other games have done when faced with dwindling population, create 9-12 new servers, close down the existing and force people to move to one of the new servers. People may not like the idea of the latter but it has proven in many games to be an effective fix.

Before linking was a thing ANET said they had a “blow it all up & start over” option on the table but somehow they decided it would have been too controversial and this was just before they started doing polls so we never got to see what the player base actually thought of the idea. Now given how in the first linking poll people seemed to love the links (it was asked much too quickly with too many other changes happening at the same time imo) ANET might have been right about our first knee jerk reaction to the idea of starting over being a negative one but I still would have liked to seen the result. Sadly, MMO’s players & people in general are just really bad at thinking about long term consequences of their choices. /shrug

We should have let scarlet do her amazing work -.-" we failled to see the truth.

I would never have said this a few months ago but at this point, I would really like to see a “blow it all up and start over” option.

Loosmaster.8263:

Yuffi.2430:

I don’t think Anet can go back to individual servers now. The “guest” servers have gained no score since the linking concept started, and Anet have already said they have no idea how to allocate score to them should one become an independent server.

The best we can hope for is that Anet could do a full reset: delete all servers and create new ones with new names and zero score. It would take time to settle down again and over time similar problems might develop if not managed, but it would be a fair solution.

This… Not just a few but all of them. Server pride is either extremely low or dead. Start with 3 new servers until they cap then create a new set, rinse and repeat. No transfers after for 30 days and 1800 Gems to any server that is open.

First, every server has some server pride, especially T1/T2 worlds. Second, you really want to force everyone in the game to figure out their WvW choice all at once? And then lock people out of the most popular options because they were slow off the mark? The first 2000 people (or 4000) would end up being likely to get the kind of WvW they wanted… for a month or three and then the same issues would start to recur. The fourth few thousand people would be very unlikely to get the sort of experience they wanted.

The thing is: any solution has to address the fundamental issues of the game mode (many of which have nothing to do with ANet’s implementation, just the math of infrequent matchups and evolving populations).

Well, I’ve said this before, there is always the option to merge and keep it at 4 tiers, each week all green/blue/red scores will be combined between all tiers. Allow for people to guest between tiers to a server that shares their color. It solves some of the Queue issues, it promotes variety in fights, and all worlds will be busy because if T1 is doing great for green but T4 is getting stomped then people will guest down to T4 to help with the PPT.

It allows people to keep their home server (after merges) but you may have to tier jump from time to time to help them pick up the slack. Colors rotate all the time so it wouldn’t always be the same servers in one color.

Some people will be against this for one reason or another but there are going to be people for and against every solution we try and come up with. This one seems to cover most of people concerns from Variety to Server Pride to balancing match ups.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

I would never have said this a few months ago but at this point, I would really like to see a “blow it all up and start over” option.

Agreed. I stuck with my home server for awhile but was forced to transfer just to have a little fun. At this point I don’t even care anymore. Blow it all up.

Red Owl.5649:

Take the current servers, link under 3 new alliances and roll the Megaserver system in to WvW. Put in measures to cap PPT and PPK on heavy outnumbered BL’s maps and re-link every now and then to refresh.

That’s basically EotM 2.0, the way I suggested doesn’t require measures, match up them selves will still be separate just weekly scores are combine, so if one of the matches becomes seriously unbalanced the other tiers sharing their color can guest down or up to balance said match up out and they will want to do so if it puts them at risk of losing due to scores being combined.

Delete all servers, add 3 hour match system, keep score and add statistics, reward best players and winners. WvW fixed.

There is, and was, likely an agenda early on to appear to appease the crowds with surveys and input. Most people answered the surveys under the impression that linkings/other options would be handled with care and accuracy (e.g. how often pairing changes occurred). Then, once things were skewed (especially evident in 2nd pairing) they let it sit and rot. This would give the indicator that player input was not beneficial to the overall health of the system (which ofc would be untrue mostly).

Now, they have a crowd willing to do anything for change and a scapegoat in that they did things based off the surveys. Thus, they can reduce cost (servers) and increase income (gems) until enough negative feedback starts to hurt reviews.

When i see that server have no queue and the other serves have queue on 2 or more borders….and you say this matchup is ok…… and after the server lose evry foght score is doubled and second matchup is the same….the thread on forum you delete …——-i say you dont really care. otherwise this discussion will not be evry day.

I hear you OP I actually liked the new system for the 1st few weeks until the matches got stale. To be fair I think alot of the blame for WvWs issues has to also be put on the players shoulders the ones who seam to have nothing else to do but sit in mommy’s basement and figure out how to cheat and exploit and still play the system. You cant even rome anymore with out being picked off by power house boon sharing immortal rev/mes combos just another exploit by people who “have to win” Or when server players can run while fully dead..I think Anet def needs to lock down the transfer system maybe 1 or 2 transfers per year on all accounts might sound extreme but it would get the job done and stop stacking. I dont know hopefully they will start doing something to revive WvW its become predictable and kinda boring at the moment..

Red Owl.5649:

Take the current servers, link under 3 new alliances and roll the Megaserver system in to WvW. Put in measures to cap PPT and PPK on heavy outnumbered BL’s maps and re-link every now and then to refresh.

…said the zergling

Please – no EotM-like solutions, thank you. We already have EotM and if I want to play there I’ll go there. WvW borderlands (and EB) are a different playground, let’s keep it so.

@Illconceived Was Na: You say that “every server has some server pride, especially in T1 and T2 worlds.” The whole point of the OP was that this server pride has been stripped from the “guest” servers because our identity was squashed when we were bound into slavery for our “hosts”.

For those of us who fight for server pride and loyalty, being on a “guest” server is not motivating at all.

The problem with linking isn’t the actual idea, it’s the way it was done. Removing the “guest” server identities has alienated a third of the player base (I’m guessing here that 2/3 of players were in the top half that became hosts?). If Anet had implemented a way to maintain score for “guests” we could still compete and still be listed in the rankings. This is part of our identity and pride. Take this away and what are we competing for? Someone else’s benefit: altruism is all very well but it isn’t the primary psychological basis for a competitive game mode like WvW !

Do I really want to force everyone in the game to make a new WvW choice? Well, yes actually, as long as it really is everyone. The players on the “guest” servers have seen their identity stripped to appease the players on the “top” servers. Now I’m simply suggesting everyone is treated in an identical manner… this is fair to all players.

If there are completely new servers, with new names and zero score, it is possible that the current server populations might recreate themselves, but it is unlikely. Anet are aware of the total number of players and can create a sufficient number of servers for us. If they set the population cap for each server a bit lower the current populations would have to be more evenly spread out and there would be less lag. The cap could be raised again if the total WvW population increases to require this.

Anet would also have the chance to influence or manage server populations, with the advantage of past experience to guide them. WvW has a more active team supporting it now, and the years of neglect that lead to where we are now may well be avoided.

Yuffi.2430:

For those of us who fight for server pride and loyalty, being on a “guest” server is not motivating at all.

The problem with linking isn’t the actual idea, it’s the way it was done. Removing the “guest” server identities has alienated a third of the player base

Do I really want to force everyone in the game to make a new WvW choice? Well, yes actually, as long as it really is everyone. The players on the “guest” servers have seen their identity stripped to appease the players on the “top” servers. Now I’m simply suggesting everyone is treated in an identical manner… this is fair to all players.

Anet are aware of the total number of players and can create a sufficient number of servers for us.

I get that being a guest server must be annoying. I don’t think it’s a third of all players and a lot of people have demanded a solution – it was your turn to speak up against that ~8-5 months ago.
Our current guestserver forms a guild on their server – they’re trying to become independent again which might not happen, but being in a guild might help to build up a server community. I kind of guess that players might actually solve this very problem themselves.
But of course, there’s far more problems to this current systems.
Quite a lot of people, also from bigger servers didn’t wnat the merge. If you’re reading this forum you might have noticed a thread “how to stop bandwagoning” – that was from someone who’s on a server that never has guest servers – so it looks as if people are transferring to get the identity thingy back or to avoid being grouped up with people they consider inferior.
Now we’ve got the next problem: People complain about being outnumbered at the one or other time – if combat were more balanced this shouldn’t really be a problem. And we’ve got another problem: People aren’t npcs – the wvw population constantly fluctuates, there is no “we set the numbers, people chose and everything will work out”.

@Jana: Eight months ago when linking was first suggested there was no indication that guest servers would not have their name displayed or that they would not gain any score. Given the alternative was to lose our server identity by being merged into other servers many of us preferred to retain our server community – just as players on the “host” servers would have done. It was only as Anet announced the linking details that it became clear we’d lose the very identity we had tried to retain.

Just out of interest – if it was not a third of players who were on the “guest” servers – what proportion would you estimate?

I can see the logic of your comment about guilds. I assume you are referring to a WvW guild on your linked server: I wish them luck.

I saw the thread about bandwagoning. It happens because players are competitive and many want to be in the top tiers. These players will transfer if they can because they perceive the top tier as being better. It’s not something that can be stopped unless you block transfers. However not all players have this mentality, and many of those who don’t were on the servers that got linked. Removing server identity and scoring actually has more impact on these players than those who would transfer around anyway.

Combat doesn’t have to be balanced all the time. In fact being outnumbered can bring a server together as they fight to overcome the odds. The problem with being outnumbered is when it happens for months (literally).This is what happened a year or so ago when there were four T2 quality servers in NA. I was there. We fought back for three months before players started to leave, and even after nine months there were players like me who still fought on. These players stayed on for their server and community, and that’s what has been taken from us.

A fresh start gives all players (and guilds) a chance to influence the success of their new server. Players will transfer, servers will rise and fall just like we’ve seen since launch, but there would be plenty of fights, and positions to fight for, as the new servers jockey for places in reset tiers. It would in effect restore the element of competition across the wider range of servers.

The bottom line is something needs to be done, it’s been years and we have watched WvW dwindle because of poor design decisions, server stacking, lack of variety, and lack of communication.

I still think Merges followed by 4 tiers with combined scores that promotes guesting to other tiers when needed is a better solution mainly because it addresses most of the above issues. It’s not perfect but I have yet to see anything else suggested that would cater to most of our requests without over complicating it.

Yuffi.2430:

@Jana: Eight months ago when linking was first suggested there was no indication that guest servers would not have their name displayed or that they would not gain any score.

It never was, yes, but wasn’t it kind of obvious that at least the latter would happen?
Same to the identity thing. If you merge servers there will be a mix up and a loss – it’s very hard to design it otherwise.

Yuffi.2430:

Just out of interest – if it was not a third of players who were on the “guest” servers – what proportion would you estimate?

I’m on EU, things are bit differently over here. We still have blobs in even lower tiers and had that before the “merge”. I’d say maybe a fourth or even less.

Yuffi.2430:

I saw the thread about bandwagoning. It happens because players are competitive and many want to be in the top tiers. These players will transfer if they can because they perceive the top tier as being better.

Again, that is EU – things are differntly on EU – look at how the standings switch every other week.

Yuffi.2430:

Combat doesn’t have to be balanced all the time. In fact being outnumbered can bring a server together as they fight to overcome the odds. The problem with being outnumbered is when it happens for months (literally).

It is a problem if bigger = better. Again, I have told this story at least 20 times: I have been on IoJ, we were outnumbered 24/7 and managed to rank up 9 ranks within 2 or 3 months. It didn’t matter that much that we were outnumbered. People then left because of different reasons.

Yuffi.2430:

A fresh start gives all players (and guilds) a chance to influence the success of their new server. Players will transfer, servers will rise and fall just like we’ve seen since launch, but there would be plenty of fights, and positions to fight for, as the new servers jockey for places in reset tiers. It would in effect restore the element of competition across the wider range of servers.

I don’t think so. You have to take into account that all of these changes make a lot of people quit, so you sacrifice a good portion of the playerbase for your new idea how to save wvw and in the end combat is still frustrating, there’s still “bigger = better” and people will still quit.

Thanks for explaining Jana. It could be that EU and NA need different solutions, but that gets complex. On the other hand, why not – we can’t mix (yet?).

I completely agree that we really need to try to keep the players we have, and would add that we should ideally be recruiting more people to WvW. To do this the game mode needs to be seen as fun and exciting. It should be easy to get into and hard to master.

I think Nutz summed it up quite well: “something needs to be done”. Anet knows this, and presumably they have devs working on the solutions right now. Perhaps even for release soon™ ?!

This is an old game so sweeping changes to the game mode are unlikely. They (nor anyone else) has cracked the “fair and balanced” population issue. Linked servers is about as close as they are going to get without a complete redesign but as noted their player base is aging out. Even if they created a WvW utopia it wouldn’t unwind the clock.

I think they should pick up the rumored 3-guild alliance system they were going to implement. And switch the WvW scoring/matching to work a little like Edge of the Mists. The end result would be more of a loose faction system of Red vs Green vs Blue. Alliances guarantee being matched to the same faction/color, as well as the old server grouping if a player isnt in a guild alliance (i.e. all of Blackgate would still be matched to a color faction). Every reset populations would be rebalanced along faction lines, and there would be an overflow system instead of a static amount of borderland grouping.

Straegen.2938:

This is an old game so sweeping changes to the game mode are unlikely. They (nor anyone else) has cracked the “fair and balanced” population issue. Linked servers is about as close as they are going to get without a complete redesign but as noted their player base is aging out. Even if they created a WvW utopia it wouldn’t unwind the clock.

I’m less interested in fairness/balance than maybe the game mode being fun.

It isn’t fun to either lose or win in a blowout. I play (most) games for fun and entertainment. The current system doesn’t create fun matches.

Yuffi.2430:

I don’t think Anet can go back to individual servers now. The “guest” servers have gained no score since the linking concept started, and Anet have already said they have no idea how to allocate score to them should one become an independent server.

The best we can hope for is that Anet could do a full reset: delete all servers and create new ones with new names and zero score. It would take time to settle down again and over time similar problems might develop if not managed, but it would be a fair solution.

Another option is to have WvW teams that are not based on your server at all. For example have each player choose a human God to represent (just a random idea) and then have them face off for the glory of that God.

For example Grenth vs Lyssa vs Kormir

Start with something new that players can bond with instead of just trying the server idea again which probably has a level of stigma associated to it for some of the player base.