Guild Wars 2

in EU, the bottom 2 servers are basically empty as an UW player (probably “just maintenance”) says we are back against vabbi and Ros. Blacktide had them last week and steam rolled up, and although we came second this week down we go in a zombie match up.
People are already saying they won’t bother with WVW this week… and it’s not started!
please can you roll up the bottom tiers I don’t mind if 26+27 go into 25 and 24 to keep it fair, or both into one or god bless you- you use stats(?). As long as the servers are kept whole, can’t see they would argue . We’d love to have em.
stop the rot anet, pls do something its now affecting our server.

It would also balance us against fow/whiteside who are alot larger.
I can’t see why you wouldn’t. If you roll a server give them all a free one off transfer to compensate their ’t’s+c’s’ and we are done.

FoW is not a lot larger… Anyway, if there is going to be any mergers, EU servers could be easily reduced to half and there would still be no queues. I mean last 12 servers together, from 16-27, and you would still barely end up with 1 server about same size as servers in top tier.

The problem with any merger is that half the players left in those empty servers would leave the game at once, effectively reducing WvW population even further.

I have said it before that number of servers should be dynamic, based on number of WvW players. It should be adjusted either every week, or every 2 weeks or once per month. The current static number is just plain bad, long ago when WvW was new there was too many players and they had to wait in queues, so Anet gave us EotM which was again really bad for WvW gamemode. Now when so many players have left, half the servers are empty, and they should remove number of servers and shut down EotM too but they can’t. Or don’t want to. Or something. Anyway, as far the latest replies from Anet went, they plan to work on BL maps for next 3 years and do nothing about poppulation balance.

I don’t think there needs to be half the number of servers , people like differing levels of blob. But no players or say less than ten is an issue at the bottom you could add the regulars of the bottom 2 to any server.
Simply the next bottom would keep the experience as close for them as previous.
add them above us! we’ll take outnumbered to zombie….

Merging servers is the exact opposite of what should be done. If you merge servers then players will still stop playing so you have not solved the problem, you keep merging servers again and again.

Instead servers should be split. That way, the difference between a highly populated and a lower populated server becomes smaller. More servers, more variance, easier to maintain.

our server has been through to much together, wvw is community most old timers are 3 to 4 guilds… split our server it will die

"kitten ed if you do, kitten ed if you don’t."

The static server structure and numbers are a large part of this problem. If they believed for a second they would get away with it, I bet they’d implement EotM style color teams, but they’ve probably seen the negative feedback to that.

There was another thread about this where a lot of options was posted (Forgot what thread, but X T D posted a bunch). But the one I think will be the "most likely" is a modified Alliance system.

Each server is converted into "Faction".
They setup X number of tiers (3,6,9,12,15,18 etc depending on metrics).
decide on a certain "mass" required, and make a program that randomly rolls together various amounts of "Factions" until they match the number criteria
This becomes an "Alliance" for the week/Match-up

"It is a little bit of everything, and a little bit of nothing."

It’s a compromise of a lot of things, but it would allow people to (somewhat) keep the "server pride", just converted to factions instead. It would fill up maps, with less match-up’d. And the alliances would be somewhat randomized each Match-up, so not a single one that would dominate as much in the same way etc.

It is filled with cons/pros, most of them are both, just to different people.

"It isn’t the greatest solution, it’s just less bad than the alternatives."

Most of the recurrent guilds of the past 3 years on my server have evacuated WvW for promising new lands, so a server merge would be totally fine these days.

Server mergers will NOT fix ANYTHING. IF A.Net merged the servers in NA, for example, there would still be no coverage (or very little in SEA) and too much in EU and NA time. So, there would be waiting lines to get in NA and EU and nothing for SEA.

There is no way to really get 24 hour coverage by forcing mergers. Sorry to say.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Server mergers will NOT fix ANYTHING. IF A.Net merged the servers in NA, for example, there would still be no coverage (or very little in SEA) and too much in EU and NA time. So, there would be waiting lines to get in NA and EU and nothing for SEA.

There is no way to really get 24 hour coverage by forcing mergers. Sorry to say.

We’re talking about dozens of servers here. There’s people online doing stuff at pretty much all times. The real problem is they are all over the tiers and servers, other times they are all stacked on one server.

If your talking about guilds that do their rallys in SEA, maybe it would be hard to get man for man coverage in those skirmishes. Guilds are so fickle tho sometimes they’ll raid other times they disappear for weeks.

displayname.8315:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Server mergers will NOT fix ANYTHING. IF A.Net merged the servers in NA, for example, there would still be no coverage (or very little in SEA) and too much in EU and NA time. So, there would be waiting lines to get in NA and EU and nothing for SEA.

There is no way to really get 24 hour coverage by forcing mergers. Sorry to say.

We’re talking about dozens of servers here. There’s people online doing stuff at pretty much all times. The real problem is they are all over the tiers and servers, other times they are all stacked on one server.

If your talking about guilds that do their rallys in SEA, maybe it would be hard to get man for man coverage in those skirmishes. Guilds are so fickle tho sometimes they’ll raid other times they disappear for weeks.

The problem is will already overtax the times that are popular without dealing with the unpopular times (SEA for example on NA servers). You cannot merge the NA and EU servers as they have separate server farms. China is totally separate servers, from the rest of GW2, so those cannot be used also.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Server mergers will NOT fix ANYTHING. IF A.Net merged the servers in NA, for example, there would still be no coverage (or very little in SEA) and too much in EU and NA time. So, there would be waiting lines to get in NA and EU and nothing for SEA.

There is no way to really get 24 hour coverage by forcing mergers. Sorry to say.

So what is the fix? tbh I was always against it as well but lets face it, people from each tier have complained about populations dropping. Who wouldn’t want more people to fight during prime time maybe besides T1? I get what you are saying and yes it would probably not make much of a difference on coverage but at least there would be more people to fight. Who doesn’t want more people to fight??

Also if they did merge some servers EoTM would be used for what it was made for in the first place and that is a waiting room for your war map queue to pop. That was the sole purpose of why that map was created and it isn’t used for that one bit.

FogLeg.9354:

FoW is not a lot larger… Anyway, if there is going to be any mergers, EU servers could be easily reduced to half and there would still be no queues. I mean last 12 servers together, from 16-27, and you would still barely end up with 1 server about same size as servers in top tier.

Rank 17 here and we do have queues.
So, better let anet look at their data instead of guessing that rank 16-27 EU are deserted.

briggah.7910:

Also if they did merge some servers EoTM would be used for what it was made for in the first place and that is a waiting room for your war map queue to pop. That was the sole purpose of why that map was created and it isn’t used for that one bit.

I quit playing EotM for good about a year ago – I have faced a lot of queues since, but never went to EotM nor will I in the future.

Jana.6831:

FogLeg.9354:

FoW is not a lot larger… Anyway, if there is going to be any mergers, EU servers could be easily reduced to half and there would still be no queues. I mean last 12 servers together, from 16-27, and you would still barely end up with 1 server about same size as servers in top tier.

Rank 17 here and we do have queues.
So, better let anet look at their data instead of guessing that rank 16-27 EU are deserted.

briggah.7910:

Also if they did merge some servers EoTM would be used for what it was made for in the first place and that is a waiting room for your war map queue to pop. That was the sole purpose of why that map was created and it isn’t used for that one bit.

I quit playing EotM for good about a year ago – I have faced a lot of queues since, but never went to EotM nor will I in the future.

Before you quit playing EoTM did you use it as a waiting room?? You always seem to miss the point on everything said in a discussions. I’m glad you will never play in EoTM.. I wish it never came into play but I think if there were less servers and more queues more players would have more fun. I would probably transfer out of the T1 politics that I am in now if my old server had maps queued every day during prime time..

No, I never used EotM as a waiting room.
I seem to miss the point.. alright, which point did I miss this time – you said “when servers are merged and have queues people will finally use EotM as it was intended to” didn’t you? So, what did I miss?
Queues are no fun, btw. EotM is no fun either (EotM players and WvW players are different crowds who usually don’t mix).

briggah.7910:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Server mergers will NOT fix ANYTHING. IF A.Net merged the servers in NA, for example, there would still be no coverage (or very little in SEA) and too much in EU and NA time. So, there would be waiting lines to get in NA and EU and nothing for SEA.

There is no way to really get 24 hour coverage by forcing mergers. Sorry to say.

So what is the fix? tbh I was always against it as well but lets face it, people from each tier have complained about populations dropping. Who wouldn’t want more people to fight during prime time maybe besides T1? I get what you are saying and yes it would probably not make much of a difference on coverage but at least there would be more people to fight. Who doesn’t want more people to fight??

Also if they did merge some servers EoTM would be used for what it was made for in the first place and that is a waiting room for your war map queue to pop. That was the sole purpose of why that map was created and it isn’t used for that one bit.

There is no fix that I can see and that is the issue, with merging servers. It will only exacerbate the issue further.

The only fix, I can really foresee, is A.Net forcing (meaning they picking them) Alliances between NA, EU and SEA guilds and then making WvW 3 Alliance battles of the same size but this would only work if glicko was removed and all kittening mechanics were also (arrow carts, shield gens, ALL TACTIVATORS, any PvE on the BLs and EBG and lowering wall and gate HP – at T3 you cannot ‘man-mode’ gates which is stupid). I don’t think A.Net has it in them to do this.

I can’t see voluntary alliances because big guilds will align with big guilds and the multi-server guilds will be able to throw the battles to one side or another easier.

There is NO EASY FIX and no matter what happens 50% of the players (minimum) will be unhappy. This is a lose-lose situation and this is due to A.Net ignoring WvW fixes for PvE- period. After all, A.Net did say that most WvW players are in reality PvE’ers. All you need do is look at this attitude to realize what A.Net thinks, of WvW, and why WvW is in the state it currently is.

yes there is no easy fix but IMO there are too many servers and not enough players.. I’d rather see server merges before some alliance that so many people want to just jump right into.

I guess I’m using the wrong term for merges.. No I don’t want to see low tiers merged with high tiers.. Its more I’d rather see less servers and more matches that have more players in them..

I’d rather see some fix to PPT, DBL, NA glicko, combat-balance and rewards before server merge/alliances (for EU) is even being considered. I’ve seen so many low ranks lately that I do think wvw might recover (if handeled with care).

Jana.6831:

I’d rather see some fix to PPT, DBL, NA glicko, combat-balance and rewards before server merge/alliances (for EU) is even being considered. I’ve seen so many low ranks lately that I do think wvw might recover (if handeled with care).

The DBL’s need minor tweaks if they remove all the HoT/EotM stuff from the BL’s.

Jana.6831:

I’d rather see some fix to PPT, DBL, NA glicko, combat-balance and rewards before server merge/alliances (for EU) is even being considered. I’ve seen so many low ranks lately that I do think wvw might recover (if handeled with care).

This thread was created by someone in EU so its the same problems that so many in NA in the bottom have complained about in the past..

I agree we need all those fixes as well but that still won’t fix the population for the bottom servers.

I don’t know a perfect fix either but I think we have too many servers than we need. I would just like to see some things come first before the alliance talk that has been going on in the forums for some time. An alliance will effect everyone instead of starting where the problem is the most and that is at the bottom..

I think the solution is to have a set 6 hours each day during the week that are scored. On the weekends go back to 24 hour scoring, but during the week, reset the maps at 6pm server time and start scoring until midnight. That way there’s a set schedule for “this is where the action is” AND you take away the incentive for wierd off-hours capping.

briggah.7910:

This thread was created by someone in EU so its the same problems that so many in NA in the bottom have complained about in the past..

The bottom 2 servers (out of 27), yes – so? I do feel for them, but that doesn’t mean that merging the rest would solve anything.

briggah.7910:

I don’t know a perfect fix either but I think we have too many servers than we need.

That’s your perception, not a fact. Also: if you look at the EU ranks – which servers would you merge? Or doesn’t matter as long as everybody has got an hour long queue so they can play EotM?

Btw: What was the point I missed?

Well EU tier 9 definetly need to go. I dont play there but I can honestly not see that being fun for anyone. Just look at it. Give a weeks warning, a default server to transfer to and free transfer of choice (the default is where you go if you dont use your free transfer). Then, shut it down.

I know and I would’ve transferred from that a long time ago – question is why didn’t those who still remain.

Another way to use the MegaServer tech, is to "temp merge" or "temp ally" servers when the numbers is low. So if Server A has 10 people online at X time, the system might lump it together with Server D and G that each has 15 people online.

And when servers start getting more people online again, it could then break up the "temp team" and let each play alone again.

That would be a solution to get people to fight against during most hours of the day. But it would require quite a bit of work on how PPT works with this.

Halvorn.9831:

Merging servers is the exact opposite of what should be done. If you merge servers then players will still stop playing so you have not solved the problem, you keep merging servers again and again.

Instead servers should be split. That way, the difference between a highly populated and a lower populated server becomes smaller. More servers, more variance, easier to maintain.

im…speechless

Jana.6831:

briggah.7910:

This thread was created by someone in EU so its the same problems that so many in NA in the bottom have complained about in the past..

The bottom 2 servers (out of 27), yes – so? I do feel for them, but that doesn’t mean that merging the rest would solve anything.

briggah.7910:

I don’t know a perfect fix either but I think we have too many servers than we need.

That’s your perception, not a fact. Also: if you look at the EU ranks – which servers would you merge? Or doesn’t matter as long as everybody has got an hour long queue so they can play EotM?

Btw: What was the point I missed?

I didn’t say it was a fact but looks like I’m not the only person who thinks this. This problem has been complained about in the lower tiers for a long time now.. It is time to stop ignoring problems because they are not problems for everyone.

You must have missed where I said not to MERGE every server with others but remove a few at the bottom.

I’m not going to get into the other point that you missed because it went way over your head and you just can’t get anything people say because you seem to only CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK and nobody else and just are looking for arguments.

this isn’t the first time you have done this either.. I dropped it because I don’t want to go back and forth with you and get no where so please just drop it as well..

anyway……
lets wait for the overhaul and see what it brings…

regardless, the servers have to be reduced
too many chiefs , not enough indians

of course, the ideal solution is to have dymanic teams, always changing the total number of teams every X months according to situations

this is inevitable process for all old games. if the number of servers are not reduced, chance are that newbies may go to a server that does not have much wvw activities going on. do you think those newbies will be interested in wvw when they see the lack of activities? furthermore, as said, too many chiefs not enough indians, it will slowly bleed out other servers.

of course, there is a issue of “fairness” and “population disparity”. the still ideal solution is to force players to choose new teams or servers every X months. this will make players move around every X months and rebalancing the population as the number of servers is dynamic. of course, this erase the existence of server community but this can give birth to alliance community

briggah.7910:

I didn’t say it was a fact but looks like I’m not the only person who thinks this. This problem has been complained about in the lower tiers for a long time now.. It is time to stop ignoring problems because they are not problems for everyone.

By merging every server , or servers of your liking you will create problems for everybody – there will always be low (er) populated servers, even if you merge them as I predict that the next mass quitting will be when alliances or forced merges are brought into this.

briggah.7910:

You must have missed where I said not to MERGE every server with others but remove a few at the bottom.

I don’t know what I missed because my only point directed to you was that I and others won’t play EotM <— that is my point.

briggah.7910:

I’m not going to get into the other point that you missed because it went way over your head and you just can’t get anything people say because you seem to only CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK and nobody else and just are looking for arguments.

Interestingly that’s the opinion I have of you.

briggah.7910:

this isn’t the first time you have done this either.. I dropped it because I don’t want to go back and forth with you and get no where so please just drop it as well..

You’re just doing it – I commented on one point you made and you accused me of missing a point – makes no sense, sorry. But thanks for the free psychoanalysis.

ETA: I don’t have to read and comment on all stuff you write as I don’t care about it – but with your perception what people in queues are going to do you’re plain wrong – and yes, I’m 100% certain of that. I don’t care about the rest of this discussion – I only commented on stuff two of you wrongly assumed – so it’s you who goes back and forth.
I will do so in the future – I won’t comment on every word you say but if I see false assumptions I will pick them out and call them out – deal with it.

One solution instead of merging or deleting servers would be dynamically change number of maps available in each matchup. The problem arise when you have high population servers and low population servers all fighting over same amount of objectives. In high population servers there is too many players gathering into one spot, creating the zerg. In low population servers few remaining players never even see enemy because everyone is spread out over 4 different maps.

So, for low population servers there is no real need for 4 maps, they can barely manage one maps, and thats all. Once you move up to higher tier where single map starts to get crowded and sometimes even queue may appear (go, rank 17! tho I am sure even Blacktide has queue once per week for 10 minutes, doesn’t make their server full of players) there will be new map added to the matchup.

It would make sense for high population servers fight over more maps. Nothing demands exactly 4 maps. If there is enough players in all 3 servers (not just 1 domanating server ofc) they could get to fight in 6 or 8 or 12 maps.

Dynamic map access also solves a lot of problems about low population times. Less players available means they are all fighting over single map even when at prime time when zergs roam around there are more maps to fight over.

FogLeg.9354:

One solution instead of merging or deleting servers would be dynamically change number of maps available in each matchup. The problem arise when you have high population servers and low population servers all fighting over same amount of objectives. In high population servers there is too many players gathering into one spot, creating the zerg. In low population servers few remaining players never even see enemy because everyone is spread out over 4 different maps.

So, for low population servers there is no real need for 4 maps, they can barely manage one maps, and thats all. Once you move up to higher tier where single map starts to get crowded and sometimes even queue may appear (go, rank 17! tho I am sure even Blacktide has queue once per week for 10 minutes, doesn’t make their server full of players) there will be new map added to the matchup.

It would make sense for high population servers fight over more maps. Nothing demands exactly 4 maps. If there is enough players in all 3 servers (not just 1 domanating server ofc) they could get to fight in 6 or 8 or 12 maps.

Dynamic map access also solves a lot of problems about low population times. Less players available means they are all fighting over single map even when at prime time when zergs roam around there are more maps to fight over.

Sorry, the issue is, on many servers, there is NO SEA or EU population, for NA servers. No SEA or NA for EU servers.

How does closing maps address this short fall? It does not.

Everyone seems to be arguing under the assumption that “primetime” will be too cramped. Right now primetime in the top 2 tiers only queue a single map. Occasionally 2 of the 4 maps will be queued, mostly thats during reset. I don’t think it’s as cramped as you guys think it is.

If you look at all SEA activity across the two dozen servers it is still enough for a matchup or two I’d wager. It’s more about if there is a tag, and what the PPT score is atm.

displayname.8315:

Everyone seems to be arguing under the assumption that “primetime” will be too cramped. Right now primetime in the top 2 tiers only queue a single map. Occasionally 2 of the 4 maps will be queued, mostly thats during reset. I don’t think it’s as cramped as you guys think it is.

If you look at all SEA activity across the two dozen servers it is still enough for a matchup or two I’d wager. It’s more about if there is a tag, and what the PPT score is atm.

That IS the point. If the servers that are merged have only populations in the ‘queued’ timezones than the queuing will get worse and the timezones that are not populated will still be unpopulated. Merging servers will NOT FIX THE TIMEZONE COVERAGE – it will exacerbate queues in the popular timezones.

Example, on T2, only DB has a HUGE SEA population. TC and FA have EU while DB and TC have some NA. I would not merge these server due to the way they play: FA is a fight server; DB does both fight and PPT; TC is a kitten PPT server only (they only fight under siege). The difference in fight styles will cause people to leave even faster than they are.

Server merger IS NOT AN OPTION.

Dusty Moon.4382:

That IS the point. If the servers that are merged have only populations in the ‘queued’ timezones than the queuing will get worse and the timezones that are not populated will still be unpopulated. Merging servers will NOT FIX THE TIMEZONE COVERAGE – it will exacerbate queues in the popular timezones.

Example, on T2, only DB has a HUGE SEA population. TC and FA have EU while DB and TC have some NA. I would not merge these server due to the way they play: FA is a fight server; DB does both fight and PPT; TC is a kitten PPT server only (they only fight under siege). The difference in fight styles will cause people to leave even faster than they are.

Server merger IS NOT AN OPTION.

Well again queues aren’t really a problem even in primetime. There’s always a free map no matter the day or timezone.

In your T2 NA example their are huge SEA populations. Because it’s not dynamic it has become lopsided. The point is the numbers are there.

I agree merges or whatever is probably uneccesary. Simply changing the transfer system/cost would be better IMO.

@ FogLeg.9354

I’m an advocate for the Dynamic Map Adjustment myself, but it will not solve everything relating to Population, it is a temp stop-gap measure while they fix other things in the background (that likely will work well with most anything they do decide to do).

One problem is that most lower tier servers are never going to see more than 1 map, ever. My own server can’t queue a single map even on reset, so unless we’re severely outnumbered by an opponent, we would never see another map than EBG for example.

It does have the advantage of also scaling things like PPT to the number of people by adjusting the number of maps. And the biggest advantage is to focus what player remain into a single map, so there is a chance to meet enemies and fight (hopefully).

@ Dusty Moon.4382

Indeed the DMA (Dynamic Map Adjustment) doesn’t fix coverage or population discrepancies between servers. But it can lessen the impact, by closing down maps when there isn’t enough players to fill one map, those maps can be made to not give points. So if 3 maps are active in "prime time" if there aren’t enough people then only a single map will be active at "off-time".

This obviously depends on how they design it. You could also adjust this easily to give the same amount of PPT with a single map as 4 by scaling it. But I don’t see much point to it.

In regards to Server Merges I agree with you that merging will generally increase the existing problems of coverage vs prime-time.

joneirikb.7506:

@ FogLeg.9354

I’m an advocate for the Dynamic Map Adjustment myself, but it will not solve everything relating to Population, it is a temp stop-gap measure while they fix other things in the background (that likely will work well with most anything they do decide to do).

One problem is that most lower tier servers are never going to see more than 1 map, ever. My own server can’t queue a single map even on reset, so unless we’re severely outnumbered by an opponent, we would never see another map than EBG for example.

It does have the advantage of also scaling things like PPT to the number of people by adjusting the number of maps. And the biggest advantage is to focus what player remain into a single map, so there is a chance to meet enemies and fight (hopefully).

Yes, I agree.

Do you think it is huge problem if lower tier servers are fighting on single map? I mean very few players go to WvW to see the maps, they probably go there to have fights, and with less space for enemies to get lost there is better chance of having a fight.

Even then the maps could be rotating so its EBG one week and desert BL next week or even alpine BL. The fact that BL maps favour one team is not really that much of a problem, the lowest population server could have that benefit to play as “home” server or the points for holding objectives could be adjusted for home and non-home servers.

The main reason last servers are empty is because there are no enemies to fight so WvW is pointless and boring. By reducing number of maps the population of all 3 servers is pushed into tigher area meaning finding an enemy is easier and players have more reason to log into WvW.

Jana.6831:

I know and I would’ve transferred from that a long time ago – question is why didn’t those who still remain.

I am not in T9, but I can tell you why I did not change my T6 server despite either steamrolling or getting steamrolled every week depending if we#re hovering in bottom silver or top bronze:
1) I am a cheapskate
2) By principle, I don´t want to spend any money for a server change because it is not my fault Anet failed to keep players interested in wvw.

At this point, I am very much for the disbanding of Bronze Tier. When we have a strong Zerg here, we are talking about 20 persons lately. Drakkar and Gunnar, our opponents this week, can easily field twice our number at every time of the day.

Torolan.5816:

I am not in T9, but I can tell you why I did not change my T6 server despite either steamrolling or getting steamrolled every week depending if we#re hovering in bottom silver or top bronze:
1) I am a cheapskate
2) By principle, I don´t want to spend any money for a server change because it is not my fault Anet failed to keep players interested in wvw.

At this point, I am very much for the disbanding of Bronze Tier. When we have a strong Zerg here, we are talking about 20 persons lately. Drakkar and Gunnar, our opponents this week, can easily field twice our number at every time of the day.

Oh, so you’re a Millers – hey (Gunnar’s here).
Anet can’t force people to stay and play and free transfers rarely did any good in the past – they just led to more servers dying (as everybody was transferring to the same server making that server extremely powerful and crushing all others).
Another problem: You’re a German server, and I don’t think you would be happy to be on a French or International server and likewise. So the only servers you can be merged with are the German servers. If you were to be merged with Drakkar Lake the resulting server would become extremely powerful and have an advantage over all other servers that tier. I guess you get what I mean. Only possibility would be if people transferred individually to all other German servers and MS were disbanded – and actually – you can already do that and it would be better for the game than forced merges or even alliances.
And to be honest, If I were that stubborn that I wouldn’t want to transfer because “it’s anets duty that I have fun” – I would quit the game altogether.

ETA: Not sure if you get my point: Wvw is a game made by players, we’re not NPCs – anet doesn’t have control over us and therefore “your fun” – it’s up to you to make your server fun for yourself or to transfer. And right now you can still transfer to almost any server as a bigger group: the chances that you can continue to play with your friends are better than if server merges or alliances are brought into the game.

Of course it is Anets duty that I have fun if they want to keep me playing WvW. It is not their duty to pamper me, it is their duty to build an environment where everyone can have fun. In the case of WvW, this probably means that servers should be of approximately the same number so that tactics win the day. And even if that would not be their duty, they still should be very interested in keeping me interested in any form. Would you not be angry if a bus driver came to you and would say:
“Yeah, well, this bus is not running very well and has not many passengers. But if you pay your already bought ticket again, we have a bus with more passengers waiting over there for you.”

I could easily transfer to let´s say, Gunnars or Seafarers rest. My english is quite good. But this is really more a matter of stubborn refusal from my side. Close the server and I will transfer, but probably not one day earlier.^^

I don’t think you paid to be on MS.
I have been on MS and that very stubborness and entitlement was the reason why I left.
And I know that about 75% of you wouldn’t be happy on an international server – you are however free to transfer to any server you like; it’s about ~200 gold to most, I think.

You have one point: Anet should’ve cared for rewards, balance and so on. They failed to do so but that’s about it, the rest is the community for that the players are responsible.

Btw: Gunnars lost about 1/3 to 1/2 of their wvw population about 3 months ago – we’re recovering – it is possible with dedication.

I would also not transfer if I were on Underworld or a similar lower ranked server right now. I am not even talking about server loyality here. If Anet offers me to change the server for free because Miller becomes unsustainable for them as a company and it closes tomorrow, I will readily and without groaning transfer.

To stay with my example, I paid to drive with the bus. You are right when you say that I paid for a ride on any bus Anet offered me. When I entered world selection, I choose Miller because it had places left in contrast to many other servers. So I sat down in the bus offered to me, my ticket was stamped and I expect to be driven around now in whatever bus Anwet offers me.
I don´t care if the next bus is made of gold and bare breasted supermodels serve me my favorite drink all day, I won´t pay again for a bus ticket I already bought.

Besides, how do you know I would not mix well with Gunnars or RoFs? A rather large RoF guild had transfered some months ago to us, and most of the people were very polite even after we fought for months against each other. I expect it to be no different with Gunnars.^^

I know that most of you (server) would have problems with speaking English.
And you failed to get my point and think that humans are in fact busses – maybe one day you’ll get it, but I somehow doubt it.

For the avoidance of doubt I’ve transferred servers and transferred back. It’s not the same without the rest of the UW and the massive blob fights aren’t so fun for me. Close or merge the bottom 3 and offer a free transfer for a limited time so guilds can go together if thy don’t want the default….. the balance update won’t be affected the numbers are to small by those that still play…Lastly I don’t see how the update can work without some sort of dynamic balance. Which is part of the problem UW still has alot of players but no-ones bothering with wvw . That could change (fingers crossed).. but the potential is there which is why I think mergers only work at the bottom, mid and top tiers run the risk of over populated. But that’s always been there as WVW dies on servers and they drop in rankings, PVP +PVE don’t need to transfer. Whats happening for us is WVW is so empty when we fight the zombies, new players are taking a look and not coming again…

Dawdler.8521:

Well EU tier 9 definetly need to go. I dont play there but I can honestly not see that being fun for anyone. Just look at it. Give a weeks warning, a default server to transfer to and free transfer of choice (the default is where you go if you dont use your free transfer). Then, shut it down.

Hey there!

I am from tier 9 EU (Vabbi)… and I can honestly say it has not been as dead as this ever before. That said, I do not think that server merge is the best solution. If you haven’t noticed, all the servers are losing people, not just low tiers, and it’s not like that exodus is being stopped by anything (I blame slow reaction time and being stubborn on arenanets part).

So you merge the current lowest servers into other servers. Will that change that fact that more and more people are quitting WvW? Nope, before you know it the new bottom servers are a target for merging aswell. Rince, repeat.

Merging servers is not a long term solution. It will make WvW slightly more playable for those on bottom tiers, but it doesn’t fix the underlying problems like stability nerf, class balance, guild gimmicks, pve borderlands, pvd, coverage wars etc.

Sirendor.1394:

Dawdler.8521:

Well EU tier 9 definetly need to go. I dont play there but I can honestly not see that being fun for anyone. Just look at it. Give a weeks warning, a default server to transfer to and free transfer of choice (the default is where you go if you dont use your free transfer). Then, shut it down.

Hey there!

I am from tier 9 EU (Vabbi)… and I can honestly say it has not been as dead as this ever before. That said, I do not think that server merge is the best solution. If you haven’t noticed, all the servers are losing people, not just low tiers, and it’s not like that exodus is being stopped by anything (I blame slow reaction time and being stubborn on arenanets part).

So you merge the current lowest servers into other servers. Will that change that fact that more and more people are quitting WvW? Nope, before you know it the new bottom servers are a target for merging aswell. Rince, repeat.

Merging servers is not a long term solution. It will make WvW slightly more playable for those on bottom tiers, but it doesn’t fix the underlying problems like stability nerf, class balance, guild gimmicks, pve borderlands, pvd, coverage wars etc.

This guy gets it.
Population balance needs to be looked at but the first step is getting rid of the bull kitten that caused the mass exodus (and that is still driving people away.)

Sirendor.1394:

Dawdler.8521:

Well EU tier 9 definetly need to go. I dont play there but I can honestly not see that being fun for anyone. Just look at it. Give a weeks warning, a default server to transfer to and free transfer of choice (the default is where you go if you dont use your free transfer). Then, shut it down.

Hey there!

I am from tier 9 EU (Vabbi)… and I can honestly say it has not been as dead as this ever before. That said, I do not think that server merge is the best solution. If you haven’t noticed, all the servers are losing people, not just low tiers, and it’s not like that exodus is being stopped by anything (I blame slow reaction time and being stubborn on arenanets part).

So you merge the current lowest servers into other servers. Will that change that fact that more and more people are quitting WvW? Nope, before you know it the new bottom servers are a target for merging aswell. Rince, repeat.

Merging servers is not a long term solution. It will make WvW slightly more playable for those on bottom tiers, but it doesn’t fix the underlying problems like stability nerf, class balance, guild gimmicks, pve borderlands, pvd, coverage wars etc.

Well, we know this player gets it. ^^

Merging servers would be a cheap band-aid at best. Though fixing coverage wars would seem to be the hardest(to get right). Reverting stab, and at the least put Alpine BL into the rotation or bring it back all together till the Desert BL can made into something that people will fight to keep things on the map for. We really didn’t need an EOTM 2.0 PvD-fest map. And with populations like they are now, that’s what it turns into. Ktain(usually). And replacing that silly Skyhammer Jr event would really help. Again, make it something that players have to actually fight for. King of the hill or something like that.

@Puck.9612
@JDjitsu.7895

/bow

;)

Sirendor.1394:

Merging servers is not a long term solution. It will make WvW slightly more playable for those on bottom tiers, but it doesn’t fix the underlying problems like stability nerf, class balance, guild gimmicks, pve borderlands, pvd, coverage wars etc.

Of course its not. How could it be? Point is that T9 doesnt need to exist. Probably not T8 and T7 either. But you got to start somewhere I suppose.

Even if all those things you mention are fixed… T9 still doesnt need to exist.

@ FogLeg.9354

Lower tiers have a strong roaming culture, so rotating between EBG or Alpine would probably annoy either the pug’s or the roamers. Though the acceptance for Desert is increasing (from what I’ve seen) I still fear what would happen if we got stuck on that for a week.

Other than that, I agree. And that is something that would have to be fixed with the population fixes (separate).

---

@ About T7-8-9 and it’s need to exist. As it stand right now, probably not. But as other mentioned, all you really do is reduce the problem "for now". In half a year, more servers might have to go etc.

And depending on *how* ANet decides to handle the population problem, they might not need to remove servers/tiers at all. Some solutions could actively encourage making more.

One example is the basic "Battle Group Alliance" they have talked about, where they group togethere multiple "factions" (servers) into one Alliance for a match-up. With such a system, the more servers we got the better. As they’re mashed together into one Alliance, so the bigger number of servers with varied numbers we got, the easier to make aprox same size Alliances.

Another example would be to time slice each server, so each server gets active in a specific time slices of say 6 hours. And each person is a member of up to 4 servers (1 for each time slice). With such a system, we might need more servers than we currently got to make it work properly.

So I can understand why they’re holding off about server merges. Doesn’t make it any more fun for the ones in T7-8-9 though. (I’m soon back in T7!)

If Anet gave a kitten about WvW then they wouldn’t be a need to merge servers (I’m not saying this is the answer). People are leaving WvW because there aren’t regular updates to keep it new, fresh and interesting.

Perhaps you should also consider what might happen in the future. Suppose Anet creates and releases really great content, for example LS3, and many-many people who have left the game, plus all the new players, all come and start to play it again. And, Anet also fixes some of the problems with WvW, so many-many players now want to play WvW again. If the number of servers have been reduced to fit current small population, more WvW players means there will be endless queues and people can not even log into WvW anymore. Even if this sounds impossible atm, the good system should be able to adapt to all kind of situations.