Guild Wars 2

I don’t think adjusting transfer costs are going to do the trick. Instead, I think you need to come up with ongoing rewards based on server population. For example, a reward for the “most improved server” or “most balanced matchup” or “underdog of the week”

lordkrall.7241:

mjharrison.3209:

tier 1: 2000 gems
1 tier or more up: 750 gems
1 tier or more down: free

People talking about mass guild transfers are missing the point IMO. Any kind of population normalisation is good where WVW is concerned.

And why would this lead to population normalization?
Would people suddenly start transferring just because they changed the prices?

One of the very few times I wholeheartedly agree with you, Changing server transfer fees will fix absolutely nothing.

Relax, no one is suggesting locking transfers or servers. Well some might be suggesting it but it will never happen.

ONE PIECE of the puzzle is how to fix the transfer system.

We can all agree it should be based on WvW pop instead of the current PvE population, since PvE has guesting and transfers are mostly for WvW reasons.

People/guilds often leave their server due to drama/attitude within their community. When they look for a new home they often check into several other servers before making a decision. Those decisions can be heavily influenced by the cost/reward system in place. It is not a short-term fix but it is very important long-term necessity to fix this system.

It is also probably the easiest place to start as it does not involve changing gameplay or game rules in any way.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Not going to read most of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been covered. Anet, have you found a way to fix the zoom hacks? It makes defense near impossible when you have somebody right outside of the inner wall of your keep, able to shoot arrows from an arrowcart directly into the lord’s room, hitting him, his NPC helpers, and any player that’s in it. And that’s without the gate or wall being taken down. It’s not fun, and is more frustrating than anything that you can’t get rid of the person there because of the zerg near them aiming at your position.

Here’s someone else who can’t read the thread topic or the first post from the dev.

A lot of people has already mentioned this. You cannot use server population to gauge wvw population. GOM is a very high populated server, but it’s wvw populous is very low. So if someone wants to transfer to GOM, how are you going to base the price of the transfer? And how do you know what game mode that person wants to do?

The issue here is you cannot differentiate pve and wvw population. You can say based on the number of people playing in wvw, you can tell. But you can’t. You can tell for that moment in time, but not overall. At any moment the wvw can be empty or queued depending on whether players want to play pve or wvw.

If you separated pve and wvw population you’d be in a better position in making balance changes, server transfer rate, population spreading, etc.

What if every player has two servers? One for pve and one for wvw. When a server has very high population, now you’ll know for what purpose.

I believe the benefit of separating pve and wvw will provide you much better flexibilities for change, and balancing. Think about the pros and cons of this schema.

Yeah guild transfer are hurting the WvW playerbase in long runs. You have stacked servers and others that are basically crippled now.

CD lost a couple of their WvW guilds, so now we don’t stand a chance in league anymore, we’ll probably end up in 7th.

In the end you need to just make it not server vs. server but a combination of servers based on rolls and split maps to main and an overflow

so you end up with something like 6 servers in queue for 8 maps

Kraggy.4169:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Sorry, but have I got this right?

In order to deal with a WvW problem you’re considering restricting non-PVPers’ freedom to play where they want?

Really? Yet more negative experience to PVEers to pander to PVP problems?

^ see, you will get a lot of this from your PvE community while i can promise you that on the other hand, you will not have achieved anything to solve the WvW populations, there is no incentive for us to move.

Reducing map caps will most likely create an exodus to the games to come more than to the lower tiers. Or just longer queues…

Again, I know its a major change (but they need it – there is no simple hotfix that will fix this mess) on page 16-17, I put a block of text explaining how alliances could be viable showing the numbers and even how ANET can continue making money the same way they would’ve with transfers…

So I had a little idea for commander tags that I thought is a pretty cool and useful idea.

When I go into WvW I’ll open up the map and see what tags are up and hover over their tag to see who it is. I thought it’d be pretty cool if by doing so, it not only shows the name, but the guild they are representing too so people can see and start to recognise what guilds certain commanders are from. Just a small, quick and simple idea that I thought would be cool.

Solstice.1097:

Relax, no one is suggesting locking transfers or servers. Well some might be suggesting it but it will never happen.

ONE PIECE of the puzzle is how to fix the transfer system.

We can all agree it should be based on WvW pop instead of the current PvE population, since PvE has guesting and transfers are mostly for WvW reasons.

People/guilds often leave their server due to drama/attitude within their community. When they look for a new home they often check into several other servers before making a decision. Those decisions can be heavily influenced by the cost/reward system in place. It is not a short-term fix but it is very important long-term necessity to fix this system.

It is also probably the easiest place to start as it does not involve changing gameplay or game rules in any way.

It’s also like the surgeon trimming your fingernails because it’s easier than working on your badly broken leg … and just as useful. ANet needs to >force< WvW match populations to be comparable just like every other properly designed game has done, but I no longer have any faith that they will do so.

Is it just me, or is the most exciting time in WvW reset night? Large fights on all maps and structures haven’t been fortified up. This is what coverage imbalance destroys more than anything for me – I log in when I can and find that a relatively even matchup at 11 PM EST is now a sea of my opponent’s colors (or mine, depending on who’s got the off-hours coverage). Waypoints are up, walls and doors fortified, lots of random siege everywhere. Trying to get a foothold back in becomes a ridic painful experience. The biggest issue I have with population “imbalance” is really coverage imbalance leading to the massive accumulation of supply upgrades, including structural hit points, ease of defending waypoints, and defensive siege. This is brutal to live with over a week.

So, two crazy either/or suggestions:
1 – Remove the ability to waypoint keeps beyond a set for each side. For example, the three keeps in the Borderlands and each home’s Garrison.

2 – Reset the structures every day during a match. Let the match-ups fight from scratch daily, several times during a week.

Kraggy.4169:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Sorry, but have I got this right?

In order to deal with a WvW problem you’re considering restricting non-PVPers’ freedom to play where they want?

Really? Yet more negative experience to PVEers to pander to PVP problems?

This is another reason having pve and wvw servers will help.

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

Yes I suggested already what I think would fix this:

after 24 hours holding a structure it starts decaying upgrades and needs to be continuously re-researched to keep it from going paper

then waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the attack event (so they will not uncontest for a split second like they do now) ends but can still be used by 1 person every 12 seconds when contested.

and 2-3 matches per week instead of 1, or EVEN maybe the same match is broken into 3 parts and its like a week-long “best of 3” – 56 hour long matches each with a different reset time would make things extremely interesting.

Solstice.1097:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Price is not alone the issue. There should be an added incentive for destacking and a risk for bandwagoning on top of price.

I propose a model such as

1-3 – 2400 gems w/probation period
4-6 – 2100 gems
7-9 – 1800 gems
10-12 – 1500 gems
13-15 – 1200 gems w/300 gem rebate
16-18 – 900 gems w/600 gem rebate
19-21 – 600 gems w/900 gem rebate
22-24 – 300 gems w/1200 gem rebate

Rebates – to qualify for rebate you must:
—be transferring “down” at least 1 tier
—account must be at least 90 days old
—have not received any rebates in the past 90 days
If you meet these conditions, upon successful transfer you will receive your gem rebate to spend in the gem store or convert to gold, as you wish.

Probation – tier 1 only
—new transfers for tier 1 will receive a probation status for 30 days, which adds a 1 hour per-map playtime limit at which point you must re-enter the queue.
—duration probation period commander squad functionality is disabled.
—during probation period a player may “undo” the transfer if they are not happy with tier 1, in which case they will receive a 50% refund on their gems and be placed on their previous server.
—probation period does not apply if you are transferring from a tier 1 server to a different tier 1 server, only to those transferring ‘into’ tier 1.

I had signed in to post something very similar to this, with transfers broken down to Leaague-only prices, but I like the way you broke them down even further. I believe that a system such as that will discourage bandwagons, an also forces players to give very hard consideration to what server they want to transfer to, and why. Too many players just jump ship on impulse to get to a winning server. The do not consider the important things such as server personality and compatibility, wvw structure and organization, and also pve helpfulness. The probation period looks good also, though I do disagree with the 1 hour timer. Players who move to gold league will be spending long hours in queues, that will work better than a 1 hour restriction.

@Devon….Please put some serious consideration into this format. This idea is something that players in wvw have been talking about for many months: I hear it all the time. This or something similar will do well to help with the population imbalance, and can be either a permanent emplacement, or temporary between seasons. And thank you for reaching out to the community for such suggestions. We greatly appreciate your attention and efforts toward this matter.

Solstice.1097:

Yes I suggested already what I think would fix this:

after 24 hours holding a structure it starts decaying upgrades and needs to be continuously re-researched to keep it from going paper

then waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the attack event (so they will not uncontest for a split second like they do now) ends but can still be used by 1 person every 12 seconds when contested.

and 2-3 matches per week instead of 1, or EVEN maybe the same match is broken into 3 parts and its like a week-long “best of 3” – 56 hour long matches each with a different reset time would make things extremely interesting.

Ok, this is less drastic than mine but addresses the same issue – the right issue in my little world.

Alternative to re-research is to just make upgraded structures have a supply maintenance cost. If the supply goes to 0, upgrades start disappearing.

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

IMAGE.1509:

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

WvW rank is a clear indication of WvW population. If you think anything more than coverage and numbers decides the matches 99% of the time you’re fooling yourself.

The high transfer price on high servers is not necessarily because the server needs, but more likely for $$$$$$ reasons.

If you are reading the forum Devon last night asked us if we based price on WvW populations how do we think it would make sense, and that’s what we’re discussing.

IMAGE.1509:

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

They have already said that they can do it, it is just a matter of how they should do it.

Most of us are assuming they will base it on WvW server rank. They could also easily log the manhours per week in WvW or use other methods. They have all the data, they just don’t share it with us.

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

How will it help?

The only thing it will do is potentially stop people from transferring, as seen by your example above. This means that hopefully, it would slow down any further population gaps.

Since it is just penalyzing moving, the stacked servers will still be stacked. The low end servers will still be facing horrible odds but have to added knowledge of knowing that they will have to pay more to get out of the situation. The end result will be that some portion of population on low end servers leave so they don’t have that increased cost in the future while being penalized for their population. Then the cost change will go through and the population gap will hopefully grow slower.

That’s the only “help” that you’ll get. A surge in population gaps and then a diminished rate. In no way will it actually improve the situation. The population gap will not ever decrease as a result.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

Transfer does not take effect until their first login after the next WvW reset.

What exactly is stopping all of us from just moving to Blackgate to win tier 1 1st place rewards and crippling every other server, (other then money) in Season 2?

Solstice.1097:

IMAGE.1509:

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

WvW rank is a clear indication of WvW population. If you think anything more than coverage and numbers decides the matches 99% of the time you’re fooling yourself.

The high transfer price on high servers is not necessarily because the server needs, but more likely for $$$$$$ reasons.

If you are reading the forum Devon last night asked us if we based price on WvW populations how do we think it would make sense, and that’s what we’re discussing.

Yes, wvw rank does indicate the wvw population. But does not indicate server population. If I wanted to transfer to black gate for pve, why should I be paying more to transfer because it has high WVW population? Basically, the opposite effect of the transfer pricing right now. Just looking at it from a pve’er point of view.

I think the issue isn’t the price of transferring, but the issue is transferring to a server with x population. To me, pricing of transfer is a band aid solution, and not fixing the foundation of the problem.

IMAGE.1509:

Solstice.1097:

IMAGE.1509:

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

You know those guilds wanted to transfer for wvw. And you know wvw population on GOM is low. But how does ANET know? They want high transfer price on high populated servers because they need to load balance their servers. So they increase the price to discourage people from going to those servers, like GOM. So how can they create transfer pricing for low wvw population?

WvW rank is a clear indication of WvW population. If you think anything more than coverage and numbers decides the matches 99% of the time you’re fooling yourself.

The high transfer price on high servers is not necessarily because the server needs, but more likely for $$$$$$ reasons.

If you are reading the forum Devon last night asked us if we based price on WvW populations how do we think it would make sense, and that’s what we’re discussing.

Yes, wvw rank does indicate the wvw population. But does not indicate server population. If I wanted to transfer to black gate for pve, why should I be paying more to transfer because it has high WVW population? Basically, the opposite effect of the transfer pricing right now. Just looking at it from a pve’er point of view.

I think the issue isn’t the price of transferring, but the issue is transferring to a server with x population. To me, pricing of transfer is a band aid solution, and not fixing the foundation of the problem.

Answer: because you can already guest on Blackgate for PvE for free.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

I think that if there are any restrictions, they should change based on if you are stacking or unstacking. There should be a penalty for stacking a server. There should be no penalty for unstacking. Basically the penalty should promote balance.

One easy way to do this would be to use queues:

• For one week after a transfer, you always have the lowest priority in queues.

This penalty will hurt a lot on a stacked server, and not at all on a unstacked one. It doesn’t have to be a week, just adjust it so it hurts without being draconian.

titanlectro.5029:

People keep saying, “changing prices won’t change anything.”

It will change it some. I know of guilds that did not transfer to GoM (when we were in T8) because it was still 1800 gems.

It is a step in the right direction.

So many of these responses are “Don’t do that, instead do something DRASTIC AND COMPLICATED.” Please don’t ruin this for the rest of us because you want something you can’t have. This is something that we CAN have, and it WILL help some.

Because it wont. People have no incentives to transfer. Guilds will not transfer unless their intention is to PvGate. Changes to these rates will negatively affect their PvE community (which is MUCH MUCH larger than our WvW one, like it or not).

How will a change in gem transfer rates give them any kind of metrics to manage the population & know what the current situation is? They need to be able to put accurate numbers on the population in order to be able to talk about balancing it. It requires something complicated, because it is an extremely complicated issue.

And again, this will not stop transfers to T1 instead of GoM. (You know, ppl can lie to you so that you stop bothering them about transferring too) Most of the transfers to T1 are not even paid with real money, just gold that a community of players put together to help those ppl transfer (something you could’ve done too to get those ppl to GoM), but again, if they are hardcore players, where will they go, T1-2 or T8-9? Stomping over a zerg of casuals with no real organization is just as boring as zerging NPCs to the organized hardcore groups.

Low rank servers occasionally receive guilds transferring down.

But not the ones rated “very high” population.

This is broken.

Please stop arguing against a fix.

i don’t think anyone is arguing against a fix as opposed to wasting time on things that don’t work.

“My Arm is broken” – “Drink water” – no…just no.

If they transfer mid-season, restrict them till the season ends. Some minor suggestions for 2 week restriction and/or till end of season:

Unable to carry supply, place siege or purchase upgrades on Gold, normal supply on Silver, double supps on Bronze.

Triple repair costs for Gold league, Double for Silver, and Free for Bronze.

Unable to log into wvw on Gold for 2 weeks, 1 week for silver, no restrictions on Bronze.

No drops from Lords/Guild Supervisors on Gold, normal for Silver, Double for Bronze.

remember, these are merely suggestions into a line of thought, and there are many other things that could be implemented to restrict and reward depending on the level of transfer.

Solstice.1097:

Yes I suggested already what I think would fix this:

after 24 hours holding a structure it starts decaying upgrades and needs to be continuously re-researched to keep it from going paper

then waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the attack event (so they will not uncontest for a split second like they do now) ends but can still be used by 1 person every 12 seconds when contested.

and 2-3 matches per week instead of 1, or EVEN maybe the same match is broken into 3 parts and its like a week-long “best of 3” – 56 hour long matches each with a different reset time would make things extremely interesting.

More matches per week would be good. And I like the 56 hour timeframe. Gives other timezones a chance to experience reset.

But decaying upgrades or having to have a maintenance cost would’t be good – unless it only applied to the server that was dominating. The problem with across the board changes to supply or whatever is that whatever you do to try to limit the power of the stronger side, also limits the power of the weaker side – and usually to a greater degree.

Anet just needs to accept the fact that unless they can balance actual WvW population, which I doubt, there needs to be handicapping mechanisms put in place.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

When transferring to higher ranked server, I think restrictions have to be multifold and palpably punitive. At minimum, blocked from WvWing for at least one week. I would also add some kind of PVE ramifications – something along the lines of temporarily (and significantly) reducing magic find on a sliding scale based on how high ranked the server you are transferring to is.

Likewise, I would look at rewarding people who choose to transfer to lower population/ranked servers – no cost at minimum (possibly even giving people gems who transfer to low population/losing servers) and a temporary increase in magic find in PVE and WvW.

titanlectro.5029:

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

I think that if there are any restrictions, they should change based on if you are stacking or unstacking. There should be a penalty for stacking a server. There should be no penalty for unstacking. Basically the penalty should promote balance.

One easy way to do this would be to use queues:

• For one week after a transfer, you always have the lowest priority in queues.

This penalty will hurt a lot on a stacked server, and not at all on a unstacked one. It doesn’t have to be a week, just adjust it so it hurts without being draconian.

Enlighten me how that massive Russian guild Blackgate got in a timezone which none of the 3 T1 servers have any coverage (almost or no players in wvw) thus no queues. Make them wait 1 week? No problem, the next matchups will be the unbalanced ones. There are 3 categories of suggestions I have seen by players…

1- Very small changes on ANET’s side (like the Transfers solution)
– (good) very easy for ANET to try out & can improve things on some ends a little
– (bad) High probability of not generating good enough results
– (bad) Does not give ANET more tool to accurately measure population

2- Changes to the game mode
– (bad) no sense of accomplishment even if you win (while getting overrun)
– (bad) does not change the problem of population

3- Dissociation of PvE & WvW (generally implying a large change)
– (bad) it will take a lot of time to implement
– (good) ANET will finally have ways to measure with accuracy WvW population
– (good) ANET will have a much easier time addressing population imbalances with tweaks to the system they chose to implement based on the trends they can observe in correlation with player dissatisfaction of their match-ups.

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

I see a lot of others disagree with the payment idea, but I do think it is the right first step. Here is an idea for an overall solution.

First, transfer costs: These needs to be cost prohibitive in order to be effective. It should be something like this:

T1: 3000 gems
T2-T3: 2000 gems
T4-T6: 1000 gems
T7-end: Free

Second, the rewards. Wxp, karma, xp, magic find, gold, etc should be buffed the lower the tier. This is how I’d do it:

T1: 75% of rewards of today
T2-T3: 100% of rewards of today
T4-T6: 125% of rewards of today
T-7-end: 150% of rewards of today

Transfering because of PVE reasons is understansable. But transfering from a low pop server for WVW doesnt necessarily mean better.

It could mean creating worse Q times. Penalizing people that transfer upwards is understandable.

However, transfers from a high wvw server to a low pop server shouldnt be restricted to be honest.

Transfering itself shouldnt be the solution.

Because population balance in wvw will always be a struggle.

Face it, transfering downwards is less likely, laterially does and transfering upwards does.

So really the question evolves of how to get a overpolluted wvw crowd to transfer downward. Sadly, its like asking boston fans to support new york sports team.

Not likely, because it would mean an incentive so great it would spark a conflict with all clients.

I believe it would be simpler to assign all servers based on wvw population to 1 of 3 realms. And points are added to that teams overall.

So yes the stronger servers score would carry others. But at least the averages would bring it closer in terms of balancing the playing field.

Also, it might cause servers that are stronger to try to transfer to a lesser server to have better coverage on all servers that share their number in order to better their scores.

Why does everyone think that Anet cannot measure WvW population?

They can build an MMO from scratch, but they can’t run a few SQL scripts?

I promise you that Devon is looking at all of these metrics and measurements you are theorizing RIGHT NOW, he just doesn’t share them with you.

Everyone: please keep it civil in here and stop posting complaints. Either give constructive feedback and ideas for Devon, or don’t post at all. Complaining will not help Devon solve the issue of server imbalance, and it fills up the thread with nonsensical garbage that he has to scroll through to find the ideas posted in earnest. In other words, stop wasting everyone’s time. Just sayin’.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

Punishment for transferring is not a solution.

Limit the server transferring is solution.

Server status: WvW – FULL. (which means go play on less populated worlds like Vabbi and stop invading communities where people worked hard to build since more than 1 year.)

End of story.

With out a way to move guild unlocks I don’t see how this is going to solve anything. Even wvw guilds have pve players and do pve events and guilds that have a long time presence on a server are not going to give up everything they have already earned to move.

also, I don’t know how much this has changed but when did play on allow rank server (bout a year ago) the population in wvw was so low that you could never find small scale combat. I know this sounds weird but what happened was the 30 people the other server could field where always together in a zerg. There was never enough people to split up. This has been a major reason that my guild has not considered moving at all and would rather sit in a que.

could you not just link the outmaned buff to the tower/keep lords invulerability buff.would make a 80 man zerg v empty bl pointless .would make ppl go to servers to balance the servers maybe

Johje Holan.4607:

Solstice.1097:

Yes I suggested already what I think would fix this:

after 24 hours holding a structure it starts decaying upgrades and needs to be continuously re-researched to keep it from going paper

then waypoints stay contested for 10 seconds after the attack event (so they will not uncontest for a split second like they do now) ends but can still be used by 1 person every 12 seconds when contested.

and 2-3 matches per week instead of 1, or EVEN maybe the same match is broken into 3 parts and its like a week-long “best of 3” – 56 hour long matches each with a different reset time would make things extremely interesting.

More matches per week would be good. And I like the 56 hour timeframe. Gives other timezones a chance to experience reset.

But decaying upgrades or having to have a maintenance cost would’t be good – unless it only applied to the server that was dominating. The problem with across the board changes to supply or whatever is that whatever you do to try to limit the power of the stronger side, also limits the power of the weaker side – and usually to a greater degree.

Anet just needs to accept the fact that unless they can balance actual WvW population, which I doubt, there needs to be handicapping mechanisms put in place.

the decaying wouldn’t happen until you owned something for 24 hours so it WOULD apply to the server who is dominating. If you keep getting your stuff flipped it would never apply to you.

LostBalloon.6423:

titanlectro.5029:

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

I think that if there are any restrictions, they should change based on if you are stacking or unstacking. There should be a penalty for stacking a server. There should be no penalty for unstacking. Basically the penalty should promote balance.

One easy way to do this would be to use queues:

• For one week after a transfer, you always have the lowest priority in queues.

This penalty will hurt a lot on a stacked server, and not at all on a unstacked one. It doesn’t have to be a week, just adjust it so it hurts without being draconian.

Enlighten me how that massive Russian guild Blackgate got in a timezone which none of the 3 T1 servers have any coverage (almost or no players in wvw) thus no queues. Make them wait 1 week? No problem, the next matchups will be the unbalanced ones. There are 3 categories of suggestions I have seen by players…

1- Very small changes on ANET’s side (like the Transfers solution)
– (good) very easy for ANET to try out & can improve things on some ends a little
– (bad) High probability of not generating good enough results
– (bad) Does not give ANET more tool to accurately measure population

2- Changes to the game mode
– (bad) no sense of accomplishment even if you win (while getting overrun)
– (bad) does not change the problem of population

3- Dissociation of PvE & WvW (generally implying a large change)
– (bad) it will take a lot of time to implement
– (good) ANET will finally have ways to measure with accuracy WvW population
– (good) ANET will have a much easier time addressing population imbalances with tweaks to the system they chose to implement based on the trends they can observe in correlation with player dissatisfaction of their match-ups.

25k+ gold and transfer fees covered

LostBalloon.6423:

Kraggy.4169:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Sorry, but have I got this right?

In order to deal with a WvW problem you’re considering restricting non-PVPers’ freedom to play where they want?

Really? Yet more negative experience to PVEers to pander to PVP problems?

^ see, you will get a lot of this from your PvE community while i can promise you that on the other hand, you will not have achieved anything to solve the WvW populations, there is no incentive for us to move.

Reducing map caps will most likely create an exodus to the games to come more than to the lower tiers. Or just longer queues…

Again, I know its a major change (but they need it – there is no simple hotfix that will fix this mess) on page 16-17, I put a block of text explaining how alliances could be viable showing the numbers and even how ANET can continue making money the same way they would’ve with transfers…

Its sounds crappy to say but, the PvE folks can suck it up, servers have being dying a slow death in WvW for a year now because our costs were based mostly on PvE more than WvW. The person you quoted can’t really be taken seriously by any WvW players either when they say things like “Yet more negative experience to PVEers to pander to PVP problems ?” I’m not even sure if this statement is a troll tbh, if we listed the amount of PvE fixes/new content vs. WvW, well it would be a laughable statement at best.

But back on topic, I really don’t believe transfers will fix anything either but at the very least its a step in the right direction.

SUPPLY RESERVES – A NEW CORE WVW FACTOR Idk where I got this idea but it would really punish the expansionists and karma-trains for not defending their dolyaks, and would greatly limit how much of a point gap can be created.

In addition to your PPT your server also has a new statistic – your Supply Reserves.

Your server on each map has a Supply Reserve (SR) and will display at the top under your PPT.

SR is needed to successfully hold structures and earn PPT from them. Let’s use Eternal Battlegrounds as an example:

To maintain objectives, they cost their PPT value in SR. Meaning a camp costs 5 SR per turn to maintain. If you do not have 5 SR, then you don’t get the PPT for the camp that turn.

In EB your SR increases by a base of 75 per turn, which is exactly enough to maintain your natural keep, 4 towers, and 2 camps.

Now, if you capture 2 enemy towers you have a 95 SR upkeep cost, but you only earn a base of 75 SR, so you are now losing 20 reserves each turn.

The only way to gain more SR besides the 75 per turn is when you have a dolyak that reaches a structure that it cannot put supply into, either because it is full already or because you do not own it. (I’m not sure how I feel about this part of the idea yet – trying to think of a way that might be better).

If your SR reaches 0 (because you are owning most of the map for awhile), then structures begin turning neutral and upgrades begin disappearing, as well as you are not gaining any PPT from that map until you get some SR back.

You can still take as many structures as you want and DENY points to the enemy, but holding too many things would create huge liabilities unless you are protecting enough dolyaks into full-supply structures to keep the SR up.

Dolyaks would now be extremely important both offensively and defensively.

If your SR reaches 1,000+ you can withdraw the supply from your spawn point supply depot.

another thing is tier pricing will make lower pop servers even more undesirable –
I’m going to the bargain basement for a quality wvw server ?

even pricing.

you need to address the issue that causes people to stack to begin with – score.

The score is the heart of the issue – score the guilds, and the individual hardcore wvw guilds will balance themselves out to get better guild ratings.

you need to break up those massive huge guild alliances – and make it to their own individual best interest to spread out for a higher guild rating.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

This would make the problem worse, the reason people are transfering is to WvW. I wouldn’t be a very happy customer if I transfered down to a low rank to help balance the population and couldn’t participate. Putting any form of restriction on participation defeats the whole purpose of the transfer imo.

Nuzt.7894:

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

This would make the problem worse, the reason people are transfering is to WvW. I wouldn’t be a very happy customer if I transfered down to a low rank to help balance the population and couldn’t participate. Putting any form of restriction on participation defeats the whole purpose of the transfer imo.

just have transfers take effect the start of the following match. you can still participate in your current match the rest of the week, you just cant switch mid-match. it does make sense to reduce queue priority at top tiers or put a limit on amount of consecutive time in a map, to make stacking more risky and put less punishment on increasing queue times for players that were already there.

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Paid transfers in any form will only cause server population to be more imbalanced. The top tier servers have hoards of gold and gladly pay guilds to transfer to their servers to make them even more stacked. This causes guilds that are thinking of transferring to choose between transferring to a stacked server which will win most every week for free, or transferring to an empty server that gets smashed every week and on top of that have to pay a hefty gem price. The choice is pretty obvious.

heck, you could have fun with it if you wanted to – make each server either aligned by religion, politics or sexual preference. rofl it would never happen but it will sure be a game changer!! – republicans vs democrats vs liberals – now that would be newsworthy!! haha!!

Waffler.1257:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Paid transfers in any form will only cause server population to be more imbalanced. The top tier servers have hoards of gold and gladly pay guilds to transfer to their servers to make them even more stacked. This causes guilds that are thinking of transferring to choose between transferring to a stacked server which will win most every week for free, or transferring to an empty server that gets smashed every week and on top of that have to pay a hefty gem price. The choice is pretty obvious.

look up at my solution and does this apply? if you transferred down to T8 you would pay 300 gems and then after transferring you would get a 1200 gem rebate to spend on whatever you wanted.

T1 would cost 2400 gems (approx 100+ gold per player) and you get nothing in return except to convince yourself that queues are worth a gold dolyak finisher.

Ricky.4706:

another thing is tier pricing will make lower pop servers even more undesirable –
I’m going to the bargain basement for a quality wvw server ?

even pricing.

you need to address the issue that causes people to stack to begin with – score.

The score is the heart of the issue – score the guilds, and the individual hardcore wvw guilds will balance themselves out to get better guild ratings.

you need to break up those massive huge guild alliances – and make it to their own individual best interest to spread out for a higher guild rating.

The WvW population will and can vary from Server Population to 0, as long as PvE population is associated to the WvW population, anyone can jump in anytime. The massive huge alliances that need to be broken is the one between the WvW hardcore guilds and the rest of their server.
And if an alliance of guilds is too “massive”, well it would not be a problem in an environment where WvW population would be managed in terms of alliances where ANET could control population for that game mode while not affecting PvE in any way. That and letting alliances form naturally between guilds also reducing a lot of other things such as a spy griefing (fixed by a simple G-kick, and goodbye to that alliance for the spy) && being able to manage the # of possible alliances for a healthy competition and variety of opponents without having to think in terms of PvE servers disappearing or needed to be created to cater to the needs of WvW.