Guild Wars 2

King Amadaeus.8619:

People are sitting around right now furiously clicking on full servers hoping to catch a window of opportunity to xfer….

Discount/Free transfers will not come close in revitalizing lower tiers, I doubt they would do much at all. What I mean is, it is not in any way, tied to gems. People are not avoiding transferring down simply because of gems. I know that is a popular saying: “why would I go to T8 for the same cost of T2”. It just isn’t the reality.

At this point transferring/farming gold for gems, is so ingrained in the WvW player structure it has basically become a part of the game.

I agree with your comment here about discount and/or free transfers doing little, if anything to revive the lower tiers. On its own, reforming how transfer costs are generated will do little to motivate those seeking to move up or affect the recruiting efforts of those in the upper tiers seeking to finance guild transfers to their servers.

It is part of a change that needs to happen in connection with other changes that incentivize de-stacking. Things being discussed elsewhere such as reducing how much zerging and coverage dictates success or failure and giving more rewards to scouting and defending. Right now it’s simply a battle of who has the biggest, longest running zerg that determines weekly victories. Hence we have stacking.

styx.7294:

I would make it so that you can transfer for free to any server that’s basically the bottom half of ranks below you.

Some examples:

Rank 1 gets to transfer to ranks 12-24 for free. Rank 10 gets to transfer to rank 17 and below free. Rank 24 doesn’t get free transfers.

That way people don’t get free transfers up (well, I mean other than having someone pay for you) and if they want a change of scenery to a lower tier they can do that knowing that it isn’t as easy to get back they’ll also be a lil’ more serious about it.

Thanks for contributing Styx.

I could get behind offering free transfers to transfer down if the idea was fleshed out more, but I doubt ArenaNet ever will grant us free transfers outside of the promotional periods they’ve had in the past. It does seem like most people change gold to gems for their transfers rather then buying them with real world money. Even so with gems contributing largely to their profits they don’t seem very keen to make anything that started out costing gems completely free.

What I purposed is broken down by tiers as we know them, sets of three. Your idea could provide a more simplified structure with less price points, which may be more appealing.

X T D.6458:

then you still have the problem of basing it on tiers, its essentially the same as basing it on inaccurate population only in this case it would create an unfair discount for lower tiers that might see an unwanted influx of new guilds, some servers are content with where they are and do not want to move out of their current tier, and the servers in tiers that desperately need blood lose out. And again tiers are not a good measure either of server health or competitiveness, as mentioned t3 currently. Also not everyone in lower tiers wants more people, some people choose lower tiers because of that very reason they want to escape the blobbing and zerging of higher tiers for a more small team environment, have to remember to take that into account as well.

I very much doubt lowering the cost to transfer down will change the minds of players and guilds that are on, or are currently contemplating a move to, the current T1 & T2 servers. From the comments of players elsewhere on this forum I also doubt GvG guilds will think seriously about it, at least in the short term and barring other needed changes to WvW.

I’ve even seen a few people mention that those small team environment scenarios even exist on T1, depending on the time zone. Conversely zerging and blobbing, while more prevalent in the upper tiers is not unique to them.

The servers you speak of that may need to recruit fresh blood in the future may indeed receive less of the player base that is worried more about the cost to them than the current WvW situation at their chosen destination. Players on their own looking for something new that are paying their own way could indeed filter down to the lower tiers. I’ll concede that. I don’t see this as an “unfair discount,” but rather an incentive for those on the fence about what they want from WvW to not contribute to the stacking currently present in T1 and T2.

Furthermore, the servers that are already paying 1800 gems a pop won’t be paying any more for recruits. If you take cost out of the equation, I bet most WvW players looking for transfers are going to still go where the most action is perceived to be if there is no direct cost to them. Especially if recruiters are actively trying to get their attention.

The situation in T3 is a bit unique and no one change is going to solve the problems with it, the causes of which have been a constant source of debate here and elsewhere. As I mentioned above, I hold no illusions that even if this change was implemented it would lead to any meaningful change by itself for T3 in the short term. There are a lot of issues there that need to be and are being discussed in other threads. But I still believe server transfer cost reform, along with changes being discussed and debated on this forum now, is a necessary change. One that should be debated and implemented in some form before the launch of HoT.

X T D.6458:

I agree that megaservers made it really more difficult to accurately assign server population to transfer fees as a benchmark as it basically really only affects wvw now for the most part and obviously we know the very high/full pop is not accurate in terms of wvw population. So definately something has to be done there. Also you have to understand what you consider a very low increase is your own opinion, if your a large guild that funds your own transfer imagine that extra 200gems for every player. An increase is still an increase and is basically punishing successful servers any way you want to cut it.

I can agree with that. If it helps get T1 on board with this, everything could be slid down to make the current maximum of 1800 gems remain the maximum. The range would go from 1800 to 400 with T8 and T9 sharing the same cost point in the EU division.

X T D.6458:

Heres the problem with this proposal, you are effectively punishing successful servers to boost struggling ones, basically a bring down one side to boost the other approach. Why should someone who wants a more competitive wvw environment and wants to transfer to t1 ot t2 have to pay more simply because of preference.

I don’t feel that the pricing I’m purposing punishes successful servers. If you take a look at the server transfer screen as of now there are four servers (Blackgate, Tarnished Coast, Jade Quarry, and Dragonbrand) listed as “full” and the remaining servers are all marked as “very high.” I’ve occasionally seen a server or two dip down into the “medium” ranking, but not often. That means that it currently costs 1800 gems to transfer to any server (if it is even possible to do so). This cost has failed to deter both those with a will to transfer or the server communities with a big enough war chest to finance prospective transfers to their server. What I am purposing will not change that.

What I’ve purposed above maintains or very slightly increases that cost for the upper tier (only T1), while drastically lowering it for the tiers that actually could use the members. T1 and T2 are saturated with players. It should continue to cost what it does for players to transfer into what have been widely hailed as successful communities. After all, those folks that are transferring are essentially buying into something they had no hand in creating. For those currently on those servers, either their skill will make up for the difference, or their wallets will. If coverage is desirable enough for a community to bankroll transfers, it should cost more to remain at the top.

Conversely, the servers where WvW communities have been shattered due to transfers or never really had one to begin with should cost less to transfer to. Players willing to transfer down will have to deal with reviving a server’s WvW community or building a brand new one from the ground up. If those that transfer down decide they want to entice others to follow them by providing financial assistance, it should cost them less.

X T D.6458:

This would simply hurt those tiers that might need to fill a gap that occasionally happens when a guild transfers off or disbands and this leaves coverage issues because it creates too high a cost for people to transfer and incentivizes stacking on lower tiers, which will eventually boost those servers up the ranks, make their transfer costs higher and will make recruiting or fixing coverage gaps difficult.

As stated above this change would not change, or barely change, the costs that T1 and T2 have to currently pay. Transfers have shown no sign of slowing down, despite the 1800 gem cost they’ve had to pay for some time. This change alone will probably not drive stacking on lower tiers.

I actually look at this as more of a benefit then a problem. If the servers currently in T3 – T8 are able to raise their Glicko score enough to reach a point where they are paying higher transfer costs then that means they’ve become competitive enough to challenge the other servers that have to pay those same costs. One of the key points of what I’m purposing is that the transfer rates update, if not on a real time basis, right after weekly match-ups end.

X T D.6458:

Going by tiers is also a vague and inefficient factor, look at t3 currently and the mess going on in there right now is that a real measure of performance? Heck if this were in place anyone who wanted to transfer to a t2 server could just wait till they rotate to t3 for the week before going back to t2 in that merry go round to get a 200gem discount.

Being from IoJ, I know only too well how this change may seem to little to late and very unlikely to help in the short term. We’ve recently fallen to T4 and probably will continue to fall due to the third exodus / people losing faith in WvW after over two months of being stuck in T3. This change alone will not fix what is continuing to go on in T3.

However, I believe we can agree that overall server population is an even more vague and ineffective indication of a servers overall WvW health. Especially with a lack of clarity on how a servers population level is determined. Again it would be great if a red tag would give us some clarity on that.

Cantur Soulfyre.5409:

On the topic of unbalanced matchups:

One of the main complaints I hear is about how PvE population can make a server show as “Full” when they can hardly queue maps yet other servers who have a larger WvW population show less population. I think if this were focused on then the trickle down affect will at least make some headway into WvW population imbalance.

Has Anet (or anyone else) thought of something to not have players automatically count against a worlds WvW population? Since Megaservers started, it doesn’t matter what world you are on for PvE, you just get on a map and then join your party on theirs if you end up on different overflows. But it most certainly affects WvW.

I posted an idea recently that has been mentioned before regarding basing the transfer costs off a servers WvW performance rather than their population. The current full / very high / high / medium designations are very uninformative (we don’t know exactly how total population is calculated) and irrelevant to all other modes of the game with the advent of mega servers. I haven’t even seen “medium” in awhile.

My original post can be found here – Link Transfer Costs to WvW Performance

As I mention there, I believe any attempt to solve the balance issues must be accompanied with a change to the gem transfer system. Similarly changing the transfer system by itself without creating incentives to transfer or address the core reasons people want to stack in the first place won’t solve the problem either.

Chaba.5410:

Easy, just search this site in Google:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Gem-transfer-fee-based-on-WvW
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Server-Transfer-Cost-NEED-TO-CHANGE
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Base-transfer-costs-on-WvW-situation

Thanks for tracking those posts down Chaba.

While each of them highlights the problem at hand, none of them actually fleshed out an alternative to the current structure. They do however prove that this has been an issue with WvWers for some time now.

Again, I’d like to ask the community for more input and feedback regarding an alternative to the current situation of connecting transfer costs to overall server population. I’d really like them to implement some kind of change before HoT launches. But even a red response clarifying how they determine the population numbers under the current system would be welcome.

Quells.2498:

You can’t just make it harder for players to move to a server. You have to give them a reason to want to go somewhere else. The point I like in the OP’s suggestion is that due to the megaserver, transferring servers really does only affect WvW.

Thank you for posting Contre. As you say, just making it harder to move without creating an incentive to move will accomplish nothing. My only goal here is to reform how transfer rates are determined.

This change alone will do little to dissuade players from transferring up or servers flush with gold from recruiting. The rates in those cases remain the same or only increase slightly. Changing the transfer rate system to reflect server importance in WvW is only one change of many that probably needs to happen to lead to players unstacking from servers.

Xiohunter.2561:

I really like this idea, but it should have be implemented a long time ago. It seems more of a preventive measure. It’s already too late for this to have any substantial change on populations. Anet just needs to spend the time and resources to properly fix their match-up system be it mandatory redistribution, merging, or alliances.

I agree. This change seems long overdue and perhaps comes to late. I cannot speak for NSP, but the third exodus Janthir has undergone because of the situation in T3 has hit us hard. I hold no illusions that even if this change was implemented it would lead to any meaningful change for us in the short term. But I still believe it is a necessary change. Currently it costs nearly the same amount of gems to buy your way into the top tier servers as the ghost town servers. That is not right.

In an ideal world, it would be made in tandem with ideas you mentioned that have also been discussed here before, such as alliances or merging of servers. As Chaba mentioned, even this idea has been presented before and I guess the thread has fallen out of sight and mind as most good ideas do. If anyone can find it, I’d greatly appreciate it if you linked it here for reference.

I posted this idea in a thread started by Grim entitled “Server Population Status: 2015.”

My proposal is to change how transfer costs are currently determined to a system that more accurately reflects the health of a servers WvW community. I apologize for the length in advance.

Currently what we have been told is that transfer costs are based off a servers overall population. It remains unclear exactly how this population count is determined. But, regardless of how it is determined, servers no longer play a major role in a player’s PvE experience. With the advent of megaservers they only seem to impact to some degree which megaserver or shard you end up on, but little else. I think everyone here would agree that which server you are on really only matters in WvW at this point.

With that assumption in mind, I purpose that transfer costs be linked to a servers Glicko rating. We already know that this number can be tracked in real time. Below I’ve included an example of how the fees under such a system might look.

NA WvW:
Tier 1 – 2000 gems
Tier 2 – 1800 gems
Tier 3 – 1600 gems
Tier 4 – 1400 gems
Tier 5 – 1200 gems
Tier 6 – 1000 gems
Tier 7 – 800 gems
Tier 8 – Free Transfers (400 gems)

EU WvW:
Tier 1 – 2000 gems
Tier 2 – 1800 gems
Tier 3 – 1600 gems
Tier 4 – 1400 gems
Tier 5 – 1200 gems
Tier 6 – 1000 gems
Tier 7 – 800 gems
Tier 8 – 600 gems
Tier 9 – Free Transfers (400 gems)

You’ll notice that I have increased the maximum cost of transferring by 200 gems to 2000 gems and lowered the minimum to 600 gems. I believe that those wishing to transfer into the top tier should indeed be paying more to do so. Server stacking is a blight on the overall WvW experience and should not be encouraged in any way by ArenaNet.

I’ve also set the lowest tier servers as free transfers. These free transfers would be subsidized in part by the increased cost on transferring up. The lowest ranked servers benefit from free transfers for those looking for a change in their WvW experience that doesn’t cost them anything. If the idea of free transfers is difficult for ArenaNet to swallow, this could be changed to 400 gems.

I’ve stuck with the tiers that group servers in groups of three for an easy explanation, but ArenaNet could take it a different direction and apply a certain range of Glicko score to a certain price point if they so choose. What is important is that the system updates itself, if not on a real time basis, then at least on a weekly basis after WvW resets.

I welcome any feedback and criticism regarding my proposal and hope we can have a constructive discussion about server transfer costs that more accurately reflect the WvW landscape.

(Edited to add the optional gem fee next to the free transfers option for clarity.)

Rimmy.9217:

Doing it like this means that Blackgate doesn’t show up for a week and the following week is rated “Low Population”?

Doing it like this is too easy to game, sorry.

It might be better to just remove population as the deciding factor and base transfer fees on WvW rankings. They’ve proven they have access to this data already. This would address the concerns of the OP as well, because obviously the servers with more robust, active WvW populations should have the higher ranking scores.

The tiers could be either be similar to the gold, silver, and bronze tiers they’ve used for tournaments or even further broken down in to groups of 3 as we commonly refer to here (T1, T2, T3, etc.). I’d also like to see the server(s) with the lowest Glicko score to have free transfers. Though I realize ArenaNet may not be too keen on that idea.

As I am currently in T3 I know initially this may not help NSP or IoJ after we’ve been beaten down by over two months of T2 server matches. I’m not sure about NSPs internal situation, but IoJ is undergoing it’s third major exodus. It’ll take awhile for our ranking score to match our servers WvW population. But it would perhaps put an immediate dent in the behavior that has created this situation, be difficult to manipulate and abuse, and create an enduring incentive for people to transfer to servers that need more folks.