Guild Wars 2

I think it would be a good idea to bring this discussion back to the key points of my original post:

• When one server (any server) is so dominant that other servers actively change their play so they won’t be in the same tier then this means less fun for everyone.
• There has been more than enough time and opportunity for players to voluntarily spread out and avoid a permanent dominance. This has not happened. If we as players won’t fix this then we need help from outside.

This thread was intended to open discussion of solutions that would help promote a more healthy competition in WvW. At present Blackgate has been the most dominant server in NA for a long time. They have nowhere to go, and face no new challenges.

All of the solutions suggested so far require outside intervention by Anet, and that’s really my point. We need help here. If we offer constructive suggestions then perhaps we can be part of that process, however it is worth remembering that server linking showed Anet are prepared to sacrifice a smaller number of players interest for the greater good of the majority, and we would do well to remember this.

I see advantages to both sides. It would be quicker to get to the south of the map, making defending this area easier (due to a faster response time). However players who do so are more likely to miss enemies passing north…

Personally I have no issue with players gliding out of combat. It’s no worse than stealth. It’s up to me to have a counter – either by picking where I fight or preventing them from reaching a glide point. As long as I can still target them in the air, and damage still applies, then I think it’s ok.

Coming back to the original point of this thread, the main problem is that the ruins decay very quickly creating no fly zones. Maintaining active possession of the ruins ties up players who don’t get participation for holding them. At the very least a much longer natural decay would be better, and I would be quite happy enough for possession to toggle on capture as suggested.

I would have thought that gliding from garrison to the south of your home BL was more about getting back into a fight quickly than escaping a poorly fought fight.

It’s good to see some positive suggestions.

Would scaling rewards work? Probably, we’ve seen an influx of players since the legendary armour.
It probably wouldn’t matter so much for the “dedicated hard core” WvW players but it would help spread the rest of us around perhaps, and this would affect the balance of active players (which is the issue). It should also un-scale itself nicely as populations balance out…

Strider: Yes, it would be difficult for Blackgate if their player base has to change to a different server. It would be as unsettling for them as being linked was for the population of twelve servers, but this was still done for the benefit of the majority of players. How is this different now?

I disagree with you – the problem definitely is about which two servers want to fight against Blackgate. The players on all sides want to have an enjoyable game. There is no fun for Blackgate players if they don’t face a decent opposition. There is no fun for the opposition if they can’t compete. In essence, Blackgate’s success is it’s problem.

As for why don’t two servers work together, they do – this is what linking is about. There are even three server links. Yet even the two and three server linkings that Anet have created have not shaken the domination in T1. This says something about the strength and organisation and numbers on Blackgate.

I don’t like the idea of disrupting a server and forcing the population to spread to other servers. I would prefer for the Blackgate players themselves to choose to spread their expertise among the other servers willingly, however we both know there has been plenty of opportunity to do this and it just hasn’t happened.

There are other possibilities. For example I’ve suggested an alternative in a previous post that would decouple servers from tiers so the population of any one server doesn’t lead to imbalanced matches. It wasn’t popular at all. Another idea is delete all the servers and remake them all: this is fairer, but very unpopular.

Although it would be a shame to disrupt a server for being successful, what I suggested in the original post here is, overall, the least harmful solution offered so far.

Strider – if you think this is about “Blackgate is evil” then you’re very wrong! They’re good, and they’ve earned their success.
However, and just out of interest, which pair of NA servers would you say would enjoy facing Blackgate? If the other servers don’t want to play against Blackgate then this potentially affects the enjoyment of ALL the players in that tier (Blackgate included), and at least the tier below.

Norbe: I still don’t understand. All you’ve done is change a word and keep the same misunderstandings. The definition of Constructive is “having a beneficial or useful purpose”; how do your responses fit this concept?

Norbe – you’ve not read the post through and have made a couple of mistakes in your response.

1. The suggestion I made does not reduce the total number of servers.
2. With a reduced max server population, how could the entire player base of Blackgate transfer to stack another server that already has players on? In fact they couldn’t even do this with the existing population limits either.

Read it through again, and if you have a better solution, suggest it.

I can’t see Anet changing linking soon. It has helped fix some of the population issues that existed when it was first introduced, and there are a number of players who actually like the variation of being on a linked server and changing every two months.

You can’t expect to see only single servers matched together. In NA this would be Blackgate, Jade Quarry and Fort Aspenwood matched together – permanently. I’m not convinced the players would like that for ever.

Permanent linking would also be a problem. Anet currently moves linked servers around to try to make populations more balanced based on data they don’t share. Permanent linking would prevent this and could lead to more unbalanced matches than we see now. It would also in effect be merging the linked servers into the host servers: you are therefore suggesting deleting 12 servers and there are a fair number of players on those linked servers who would be very unhappy about this.

Blackgate has been a very successful WvW server for a number of years now, and dominates NA T1. Unfortunately this domination is leading other servers to artificially adjust their play in order to drop out of T1 or to avoid going up into T1. Players are choosing to do this in order to have a better gaming experience – they are not happy with the current situation. This “race to the bottom” is not good for the game or the majority players, and it is time to do something about it.

Breaking the domination by a single, popular, well populated and coordinated server requires intervention by Anet, and will result in a big change for that server. However painful this may be, it needs to be done for the benefit of the majority of players on the other servers.

I can’t imagine that Blackgate players will be happy with this idea, and I completely understand any desire to see their successful server continue as it is. However all good things must come to an end, and there is precedent for Anet to intervene for the good of the game: linking was introduced to solve a WvW population problem, it was done for the benefit of the majority of players despite the protests of many people who were to be linked. When all the dust has settled, and despite the issues linking still has, the population spread is better than it was and WvW is better for it.

It’s time for Anet to step up to the plate again.

The one thing that is certain is that what is happening is not good for WvW and we can’t rely on players themselves to sort this out. We need Anet’s help; the question is what should they do?

Here’s a possible solution:

• Announce that Blackgate will be closed in 2 months, and give players time to transfer to any open server of their own choice.
• After the 2 months, close Blackgate. Promote the strongest linked server to host. Create a new linked server with a new name. Reduce the FULL status cap on all WvW servers to a fair level (perhaps 1/24th the total active WvW population) to stop any single server having dominant numbers.
• Require any players who have not transferred from Blackgate to join an open server. The new link server will help with providing places.

This process would redistribute the Blackgate players across a number of other servers, and the lower full server population should ensure no single server achieves the same domination through numbers, because a host + link could have more players, and with Anet controlling the linking of servers any domination by a combination would only last until the next relink.

I’m sure Anet would be interested to read other constructive solutions too.

Like this idea ^
But would only be considered “fair” if you posted a youtube clip before the raid so they can work out the combat mechanics you will use.

Norbe:
I understand that linking means you get to meet some new people every two months – but this is a mixed blessing. You talk about developing relationships with other players to for a server community – a list of players you know you can call on to help out, or to run with. the problem is that every two months these new friends disappear when my server is moved, and the process of building new relationships must start again. The only consistent players that can form a community are those on my own server.

So really the question is how do you keep server communities and remove linking while keeping the benefit of improved player numbers (perhaps the one good thing about linking).

SkyShroud has offered a solution that forms new servers and effectively new communities. I have offered a solution that keeps every server we currently have but reduces the impact of their uneven populations. Both are worth discussing.

I do not understand your response to be honest.
Re-linking every week would be utter chaos and in my opinion would do more harm than good. You should know this as a linked server player yourself.
PvE is not 1 linking – it is one common pool of players.
EotM is not 3 links – it is players from all servers split into 3 serverless factions.

I propose a model for WvW that retains current servers and gives the players and guilds the choice of playing in any tier, at any time (subject to map pop caps). Since servers would not be assigned to specific tiers, we would use a server leader board to track scores and provide competition. This leader board could easily be divided into leagues, like many sports do.

But since staff occupies a weapon slot as a support only tool now this is almost the same as Engi or Ele – one “effective” weapon slot. Do Guardian other skills make up for this in the same way that Ele attunement or Engi kits do?

I expect it will be updated, although it’s interesting that the new Elites are being introduced in a PvP/WvW beta and not PvE. Does this mean Anet are looking to balance these for PvP and WvW instead of giving us whatever fits in PvE?

Arantheal: So you would keep existing server names and tiers… what happens with linking?
I like the idea of guilds being able to recruit from the server-less population, but it would still be dependent on your server being open for transfers, and according to Anet the WvW active population is what decides when a server is full so we may well see the same limitations we see now.

Thanks for the reply Norbe, even if it is completely wrong. You’ve made assumptions about what I want that are just not true.
I’ve never changed server, and have no desire to do so.
I don’t lead a guild, and the five guilds I am in are happy where we are doing what we do.

I would like to see my server identity returned. We still have some, but as a linked server it’s not easy.

I don’t like ideas that force players to do something such as move server or pick only one guild. I’ve tried to envisage a solution that allows players to choose their future.

On some levels I agree with you, I think there would be a an unsettled period if we deleted all the servers and remade them. I know it would annoy some players, and would suggest from the posts here that it would not be a popular option. However it would be fair because it would be the same for everyone. I don’t like it myself but I’m willing to discuss the idea and to acknowledge the thought SkyShroud has put in.
Because I don’t think it’s the best option, I’ve offered an alternative.

I can see that numbers make a difference, but it seems like what constitutes a “large” group can vary.

I’ve never seen a group of 30 plus players. They just don’t happen when I’m on because it’s usually off peak. Likewise the only time I’ve seen queues in WvW in the past 4 years was just after the reward tracks changed.

Whilst WvW may have been envisaged as epic large scale battles, a lot of the time* it is epic battles between small groups. This isn’t a problem until Anet come to try to balance classes…

(*This is a literal statement referring to time overall, not personal experience.)

What has been interesting is how players see, and utilise, the difference between zerg, havoc, scout and roamer.

Norbe: I think I understand now why you keep saying my idea is EotM when I’ve clearly stated I don’t see it that way. You’ve not read/understood the original post and you are still hung up on the idea that servers are assigned tiers. You said: “the similarity i mention was players will be put to other servers/tiers temporarily”.

This is NOT what I propose.

There is no temporary guesting in what I suggest. You would stay on your own server and gain score for your own server; unless you choose to transfer to a different non-full server of course.

I have suggested that servers are not assigned tiers at all. The old system has servers fixed in matches that can be very uneven. It can be demotivating to be stuck in the bottom tier. Tier 1 play can become boring. My idea offers players the chance to be free of this by offering the choice of what tier to play in, each time they play (subject to map population limits), , and without transfers or guesting.

SkyShroud understands this, but is concerned that server identity may be lost if players don’t associate a server with a specific tier. I believe that just as guilds survive happily within servers and maintain an identity as an independent group of players, so server communities can flourish independently of the tier the server is in.

Essentially it comes down to a choice:

• Either continue as we are with all the issues this has (and I’ll be honest and say I don’t think it’s as bad now as it has been in the past)
• Remove linking; and the only fair way to do this is what SkyShroud suggested – making new servers.
• Try something different – such as I suggest.

Of the three choices, the first one is easiest to do, SkyShrouds’ is a brave new start, my suggestion is an evolution of what we have already.

Ah – so this is the forum bug that tops each page… sorry – first time for me

I don’t see it as that similar, sorry. Your idea is guild centred, which is fine if you are in a dedicated WvW guild, but we have players who are in multiple guilds, or no guild at all, but who still make a valuable contribution to their server. I’ve tried to come up with something that would work for everyone.

I’m interested to know exactly what makes my idea so like EotM in your mind.
As I see things:

• in EotM you play for Red, or Green or Blue team. I propose you play for your server, your guild and yourself. The reason I suggest grouping the sides into “colour teams” is purely so you would know where you will spawn (and has the benefit that Anet can group the servers to give a more evenly spread time considered population).
• in EotM when a map fills a new instance is generated (which can split a party). I propose permanent maps just as we have now, although I would suggest that DBL is not always used for the red team.
• in EotM there is one map and fairly often one play style – blob. Neither offers much choice for players. I propose each tier is “labelled” as being mostly a particular play style (which is what we tend see anyway) and that players get the choice of which tier they want to spawn into, and therefore which play style they can expect.

Map wise, we would keep the existing maps; although it might make sense to have one “tier” as all DBL maps (this would be ok because you can choose which tier to play in). Another tier could be all Alpine, and if Anet get the time and resources other maps could be brought in so eventually each tier has a different set of maps designed to promote different play styles.

I don’t see these ideas as EotM at all, so what am I missing?

It’s true this could happen.

But would you really have no players in one particular tier, given that side/colour would have the total population of 8 servers in NA for example?
If a blob appeared you’d have four tiers worth of players available to respond to fight back… and they would be gaining score for their server, and guild, if they did so.

Also, and forgive me for suggesting this but it needs to be said, Edge of the Mists is only a karma train because players let it be so. I’ve been there a time or two and encountered both karma trains and fighting groups. The salt about “go back to WvW if you want to fight” was as real as it was amusing.

I keep seeing references in threads to WvW being a game mode based around epic, large scale battles. I understand that this was probably the vision when Anet created WvW, but let’s be realistic; is this what really happens?

To be clear from the start: I’m not complaining about anything, nor am I suggesting players should play in one particular way. I simply wish to find out whether things are more complex than some posts seem to claim.

Here’s a couple of thoughts to spur the discussion.

• We already talk about peak time and off peak time. By definition off peak has fewer players, so at best the “large scale combat” involves smaller groups.
• Personally, I think the scout who called out the attack on Hills is as important as the zerg that ported in to defend it.
• Are several havoc groups more effective for your server score than one large blob?

I’m interested to read your thoughts.

Perhaps the best way to summarise my idea is like this:

What if you could play as you are now, and gained the ability to play in any of the tiers by joining the side with the same colour as your server?
Your server keeps it’s own score. Your guild stays intact. You can roam or zerg or havoc. And all this while being able to play in T1 or T3 or wherever you want.

SkyShroud: Sorry for the slow reply.
You questioned how my idea could support server identity. I need to ask, and it’s a genuine question: within WvW, what is a server and why do they matter?

At the moment I think a server is a collection of individuals and guilds that works towards a common aim. Currently that aim is winning the match the players are in. Server identity comes from this community working together.

In my alternative to deleting these communities, I am suggesting that servers would remain as a collection of individuals and guilds working together with the common aim of improving their servers position on the leader board. This is very much how things were before linking.

The big difference would be moving from having to win a specific match to a “we must score more points” attitude. Winning a match is still ideal but the server total score would come from all the action the members took part in.

Would this be enough to keep server communities together? I don’t know, but I think so. There is still a common purpose – to climb the leader board. There is still the opportunity for rivalries between servers – even those on the same side. The crucial difference is that any player could select for themselves what style of play they want to take part in each time they enter WvW. This choice, and the fact that no one would ever get stuck in an unevenly matched tier, and the fact that Anet would be able to broadly balance population across time zones, could lead to more players enjoying their game experience.

I’m sure the idea is to encourage players to use catas from further away, without nerfing cata too much and upsetting people.

I need more time to evaluate the changes from my point of view, but I notice the discussion so far centres around zergs and multiple catas. While it’s true that this is valid for some of the time in game, it’s also true that off peak there tends to be fewer players around, and often smaller groups.

Two players can carry enough supply to build one guild cata. If I place it further from the wall I’m more likely to be seen and a defender will simply build a bali and take the cata out (bali shot is faster CD than cata shield). So the obvious thing is to “hide” the cata as best as possible, and this tends to be right up against the wall so the defenders actually have to look over the top. In a big group several catas can be used to provide shield cover, or a shield gen or two.

If the short range damage for catapults is reduced too much it would become harder to take towers and keeps with small groups – especially now defenders have the mobility of gliding.

It’s interesting, and I think a good thing, that Anet have tried to adjust catapults in a way that takes both small and large group play into account.

Lol – I think you’ll find the traits quite useful when you get kicked from gliding while at height, or cc’d and knocked off a cliff.

Personally, I don’t use them, but I can see why they are included and I have the choice to use them or not so it’s not a problem.

Mounts have been part of GW2 ever since Taimi entered the living story, and we’ve had mounts in WvW since the game began…

… but it would be nice to have a Scruffy mk2 mount in PvE. Just adapt the WvW golem and allow us to dye it.

So if HoT and PoF are totally separate (see above) then presumably anyone who buys PoF without also owning HoT can’t play Revenant in any form and doesn’t get gliding.
They should still get auto loot however as this is Tyrian mastery.

Strider: the alternative I suggested allows servers and guilds to stay together whilst greatly reducing the impact a stacked server would have on actual fights. Isn’t this what you want?

I’m also intrigued – who is the OP’s server mate trying to force change because they made a choice to go to the server they are on which did not work out as intended? I don’t see this in the posts, but maybe I’m not reading them right.

As far as I can tell from the posts here, SkyShroud has suggested a way of resetting all the servers. This puts everyone in the same position of starting afresh. I have offered an alternative concept that retains existing servers and guilds. You seem to disagree with both ideas. Are you happy with WvW as it is then? Do you have any better ideas to put forward?

A big part of the problem is that linking split WvW servers into two different classes.

Host servers get all the credit: they gain score and their name is used when discussing matches.

In contrast linked servers have no stability, gain no score and are rarely mentioned.

It is this discrimination that we need to change somehow, whether by deleting all servers and starting equal again, or through some other approach.

Is it not significant that whenever deleting servers is suggested players emphatically say no? This is server pride, and for better or worse it still exists and needs to be considered in any suggested solution for WvW.

SkyShroud. I completely agree about the importance of server identity, but more on that later.
In response to your points:
1. Four tiers is correct, or five for EU. The idea was to maintain a similar structure to the current WvW because people know it and don’t like change. Each tier would promote a different approach to combat, with T1 being about large scale fights and T4/5 about small groups (party of five) and roamers. Other tiers in between. This could be done with different map population limits, but ultimately it would be nice to see specific custom maps. I’m sure the community could provide plenty of ideas if Anet asked us to get the ball rolling.
2. This bit I need to explain more. Each player (individually) can choose which tier they want to play in each time they enter WvW. You can play in T1 (large fights) get fed up with it and go roam in T4 (or stay to roam in T1 if you dare). The idea is that players on a server (or guild) could spread themselves out across the tiers if they wish, or they could also all play on the same tier if they wish. This really would be an ongoing choice.
3. Correct – the tiers themselves are not ranked, so it doesn’t matter which one you play in – you can choose how you want to play and still have your score count towards your guild and server rank.
4. Yes. There has to be a way to split the players into three sides and keeping the colours is the easiest way to do this. If Anet can then use this to balance the total population per colour it means that there will be a similar number of players available on each side (across the tiers). Being able to mix servers together in this way is more flexible for balancing, and since colour does not affect score in anyway it doesn’t matter which colour a server is. I know how disruptive moving servers around is, so I would hope Anet makes as few moves as possible and then only rarely.
5. Yes.
6. I’ll explain below: (I apologise in advance if I over explain things)

• Server league table – a list of all the servers ranked in order of score. The ultimate aim is to become top of the league, or simply beat the score of a rival server. The league table could be divided into three divisions (say gold, silver, bronze – I’d want about 6 servers per division I think) so servers can aim for the top of their division against similar scoring opponents. It would even be possible to put EU and NA servers together on the same list…
• Guild league table – a list of all the guilds in order of score. As players gain score for their server so the same score gained could be added to a total for the guild they are representing. In this way individual guilds can compete for rank. This would work even for guilds within the same server, or guilds who have members across several servers.
• Player league table – a list of players in order of score. This could be interesting as the top scoring players might not be on the top scoring servers…

The idea is to re-energise server identity for the linked servers, and to allow host servers to retain their identity too. The league table means that we can separate servers from tiers so no server gets swamped due to population. If many players bandwagon to one server it will probably be top of the league, but crucially this wouldn’t affect the actual fights in the tiers. If a server loses players until it only has ten members (an extreme example I admit) it can still have a server identity (if the players talk to each other) and can still participate in any fight in any tier. There is no need to close small servers, although they might need to do a bit of recruiting to be able to climb the league table. Also a guild or player in a bottom of the league server could easily be much higher in the other rank tables…

Communications would be the biggest problem. Language differences in EU in particular. Team channel would be colour based so would reach all players on a wider number of servers. From a server point of view we would keep server TS/Discord. Regular commanders would work out a way of communicating between servers; probably a Commanders Guild so they can use the guild chat.

Just previewed this and it’s a “kitten of a wall” of text – sorry.
I’ll stop and let you all think.

SkyShroud – yes that’s the one, however from your response, I suspect you don’t quite get the key principles of my idea.

• Server identity would continue to exist because of the Server league table. Servers battling for rank is no different to what we have now since the tiers/glicko scores are the current rank position. I also introduce the idea of competition between guilds and between individual players…
• Players don’t select “up to 4 tiers”. Each tier would have a different population level (this could ultimately be different maps too but that depends on development) and players would be free to select the (singular) tier they wanted to play in at that time. You can only play in one map/tier at a time (not 4) but you are free to choose each time you log into WvW – this allows players freedom to play as they like, when they like.
• Don’t get hung up on the colours system – that’s only there so there can be three sides to each tier. The other thing the colours do is let Anet shuffle servers between these colours so the total population of each colour is roughly the same – if they want to balance things out.
• My idea is definitely not megaserver – there are a limited number of permanent instances just as now. If you are on, for example, the red side and you join the T3 maps your guild mates can also join the same map with no fear of being put in a different instance or being unable to play together (subject to map queues).
• My idea allows small servers to have an identity regardless of their population. Your idea deletes them due to their size. I’m not in favour of deleting any servers if we can avoid it.
• Guild and Server recruitment can still continue, since the biggest Guilds and Servers probably have the best chance of topping the league tables. However, this doesn’t affect the matches so much because several smaller servers can compete directly with one big server simply by playing in the same map. In fact I would suggest that having a greater number of players available on the Team channel makes for better recruitment potential (since Team channel should work across all maps for that colour).
  I’m sorry that I didn’t explained it well enough in the first instance for you to fully understand just how flexible and different-yet-similar WVW could be. Hopefully I’ve been able to make the idea clearer.

I see what you’re trying to achieve SkyShroud and it’s good to see some serious thought on alternatives other than restart everything. But, how does your idea work better than the one I posted here (sixth post or so down) ?

Oh and responding to your title: I vote to keep servers and server identity.
Despite the trauma of linking I still feel a loyalty to, and camaraderie with, my server through my guilds and my friends. I doubt I am alone in this.

WHAT?! No – don’t even think of Nuke It Every Three Months. If you want this sort of experience join a linked server because unfortunately that’s pretty much what we face now.

The whole point of the Nuke it option is to remove the existing preconceptions about each server so everything starts fair and with zero score. This is probably the most acceptable option amongst the players who want some form of change.

The only alternative is a complete change in the way we see and use the server system such as I proposed earlier; which is a step too far for some players even though it would allow them to retain their server and guild identity and crucially doesn’t change the game mechanics (that’s a separate issue to be resolved).

For those who need to ask “Who?”:

Siege Razor was necessary as a tutor for the first players in WvW when the game started, demonstrating how siege would work for taking a tower. His role progressed from “tutor” to “distraction” as he was often started in order to cause swords on one objective while players went elsewhere. Finally he was retired (along with his surprisingly aggressive Yak).

I too would enjoy seeing a return in some form for Siege Razor. Perhaps he, and his Yak, should be allowed to freely roam the borderlands along a random path, acting as a mobile sentry. Alternatively he could sit at the spawn in a home borderlands and run a short cinematic intro for players new to WvW…

I’ve not yet taken my Charr through the story but had exactly the same thoughts.

The character I did take through is a Sylvari. I’m happy to help the Humans, and will continue to do so, but to be forced to join the Shining Blade with no option is a reflection of a poorly thought out story. The Mordremoth story took account of race with Sylvari hearing and denying the whispered voice of the dragon – why doesn’t LS3?

I would have helped anyway without the oath: so why make me take an oath of secrecy for a secret organisation I didn’t want to join? And for what gain did this occur – to set up the final scene of a genocide? This is not something my character would have chosen.

At least the Vigil, Priory and Order of Whispers are multi-species groups with an open agenda. How does being part of the Shining Blade sit with the priorities of my chosen faction?

It’s these changes that mean it may be time for something different. As a WvW player on a linked server I’m very conscious of how little credit my server gets for anything we do. I acknowledge that linking has been a help with populations but we’re seeing more new players with the rewards system and perhaps it’s time to make room for them.

The nuke everything and make Brave New Worlds is a good option because it would be fair to everyone. Please note that by “fair” I mean exactly that – it puts everyone in the same position, unlike linking. This makes it worth considering. It would take time to settle but so did WvW in the first couple of months, and a full server reset is preferable to the two class system that we currently have.

The alternative I suggested is just that – an alternative fair idea. It’s a way of keeping our server identities, staying together as guilds, and a way of gaining recognition as individual players.
It’s not “factions like EotM” because you are not the Red team or the Blue team or the Green team – you score for your server, your guild and yourself. Nor is it megaserver like EotM because there are fixed maps.
I propose the idea because it keeps what I see as the best bits of WvW and gives more flexibility to both players and Anet. To my mind this makes it an idea that is also worth looking into.

(edit for spelling)

There is another alternative.

The basic idea would allow servers to be separate identities, allow players to choose the sort of game play they want and would make the impact of unbalanced server numbers much less significant.

Providing competition:

• Collect score per server – publish the league table
• Collect score per guild – publish the league table
• Collect score per player – publish the league table

Notice the highest scoring guild does not need to be on the highest scoring server, and the highest scoring players might well be from different guilds and servers. In theory the league tables could even cover both NA and EU at the same time.

Providing choice:

• Each server is assigned one of the three colours at the start of each week. Anet could start by assigning green, blue, red, green blue, red as they go down the list. Since servers will change place in the league table when their scores change they could be a different colour each week.
• Servers are NOT assigned a tier to play in. This is important.
• Each tier is set to a different map population – T1 – massive fights, down to T4 or T5 smallest population fights. This covers different play styles.
• Every time you log in, you – the player – choose which tier to play in at that time. If there’s a queue on your chosen tier you can wait or go to another – your choice.

Note: since the population of all the servers of one colour can be spread over all the maps of one colour there should be less impact from server population differences.

There are no big changes to WvW this way, but it would make a big change to how we experience it.
Advantages

• Anet can balance the matches by total population of Red, Green and Blue teams in a way that cannot be done with the current linking system.
• Maps are limited by map population not server population; an over stacked server would simply end up spread across different tiers. Stacking is no longer an issue.
• Players can vary their experience by their own choice, and whenever they want.
• Server identity regains meaning since any server can attempt to climb the league table. And remember, player position and guild position is not dependant on server position, so even if you are in the server at the bottom of the Server League, you have the chance to climb the Guild League or Player League.
• Guilds gain the chance to compete for league table position – the first true GvG opportunity perhaps.

and best of all, no one is forced to do anything and guilds and servers stay together.

EOTM has its place.

Don’t forget that WvW levels earned in EOTM carry over into WvW skirmishes to earn you more pips when you play there.

Whilst this is probably a bug, there is a dev post in another thread (this one ) that states the Outnumbered bonus is now applied at the start of the tick rather than the end. The explanation seems to be that if you’re outnumbered at the start, and stay on the map, you should get the pips on the tick.

I don’t know about other players but when I opposed the deletion of the lower tier servers it was because I felt my server and my contribution to the game was as valuable as any other player in any other tier. I would have supported the deletion of all servers and the creation of new ones but that’s not what the majority of posts requested.

As far as I can tell the creation of linked “guest” servers was a deliberate sacrifice of the minority of players (smaller servers) to appease the majority (larger servers). At the time the Developers were aware of the threat linking posed to server identity and spoke of the challenge of retaining identity on linked servers. I can’t see anything they have done in this regard, and linked servers have struggled to retain any form of identity, despite the difference they make to the actual matches. Even on the forums it’s always the host server name that is used for each team.

I still don’t support the deletion of servers, because of the chaos it could cause in the communities, but IF it has to be done it should be ALL servers out of fairness.

Linking has had some positive sides, I’ve met new people and maps definitely seem to have more players as a result.

Linking also has a lot of negatives too.

• I watched ET in NA start to climb out of the bottom tier only to be swallowed up when linking started – I hope their community still survives today. While host servers can still try to do this sort of thing, linked servers can’t. In theory a linked server could become a host (this has happened in EU) but there are no figures for population so no way players can work towards this goal and know how much progress they are making.
• Two months is just long enough to earn a bit of respect and get to know people, only to be moved on, and have to change voice comms, friends list etc… again.
• Linking has jumped me from tiers I like to play in into tiers I do not enjoy, and my only choice is whether to put up with it or abandon my server.

Personally I find that some links I don’t enjoy so I play a lot less. Others I enjoy more and play more. I find the randomness of relinking to be irritating because I have no say in it at all. There is no target I can work towards to escape this if I wish to remain with my server and friends – everything I do to help is credited to another server. Perhaps if there was a league table of the guest servers we’d have something to fight for, but that would mean acknowledging that guest servers have an identity of their own.

Overall I would prefer to be in a more predictable situation but I fear the worst damage is already done, and I see no evidence that Anet care about server communities so I’m not going to hold my breath while I wait to see what happens next.

This is not a good idea for a number of reasons.

1. CD is not a good example to use because the current up-down pair for T1 is YB and Mag. CD is currently in T4 and would take a couple of weeks to reach T1 if they wanted to challenge BG.

2. The OP is grossly unfair to CD – I’ve been linked with them and played many hours with them and they are not so lightly dismissed. They’re a good server.

3. Glicko is an awful system once it develops gaps. The OP has probably not been playing long enough to remember the T3 glicko hell from a couple of years ago, so I’ll explain it. Once upon a time there were four servers with the glicko score to be in T2 and none of them wanted to go down. So whichever server ended up in T3 stomped the other two T3 servers – glicko gave them less score for winning because they were higher scoring in the first place so they needed the biggest score possible to go back up. For the real T3 servers at the time it meant we got stomped. And stomped. And stomped.
For NINE months …
…before the glicko scores changed enough to get some changes. This had a huge impact on the T3 servers – it can be disheartening when you log in and everything on every map is owned by one server.

I’m not a fan of glicko anymore. Any scoring system that allows this situation to develop is not appropriate.

The decay timer isn’t anything to do with outnumbered. Do you seriously think that players can hang around on a map letting their participation decay while it’s outnumbered? The more players there are doing this the less chance of outnumbered existing in the first place!

There are two separate things here. The change to outnumbered is a step in the right direction, although it’s not clear what happens if the buff doesn’t last for the full five minutes. Presumably the outnumbered credit will be more rare now.

The decay inactivity change is presumably about trying to stop players hanging around in citadel (or another “safe” place) and occupying a queue slot that an active player is waiting for.

For the record, I’m in favour of the outnumbered change. Haven’t logged in yet to see the effect of the decay timer, but as someone who often scouts and roams, I think this change will be a lot less welcome.

For the alternative, I was thinking on a per bubble basis – so you could “overload” a bubble and destroy it by hitting it for enough damage – literally bursting the bubble when the HP reach zero. This means shield generators still give some protection but heavy fire from a defending force could take down the bubble early, giving a chance to hit what’s underneath.

I had not considered using supply to maintain the shield bubble against damage. This would be unhelpful in a structure because it would be essentially the same as just repairing a wall or gate unless the HP gained per supply was more favourable. For an attacking group it would force a choice between supply for the shield and supply for siege. Not sure how people would view this balance.

My original idea where the bubble blocks all siege would be a fair change that would require more thought when using shield generators. Unfortunately it might cause issues for catapults if it’s the same code used for a cata bubble…

Overall I’d say the burst-able shield bubble might be the better idea.

It also depends what time you are on. I’m an EU player who has been on an NA server since launch, and so I’m on before NA prime time. Linking has taken me into all of the tiers, and while it’s true that T1 is busier than T4 at the times I play, it is not true that you can’t roam in T1 or zerg in T4.

It’s hard to give you advice since I don’t know what you are looking for or what your preferred play style is. If you have patience I’d recommend a linked server and let it hop you around a bit until you find a home.

Simply make it so the shield bubble stops any siege shot regardless of who fired it.
If this counts as friendly fire and can’t be implemented, then an alternative is to give the bubble a limited number of HP so it can only protect against a set amount of damage, and shatters if overloaded.

I’m fed up with making friends, getting to know people, forming great teams and then… BAM – relink. Have to start all over again.

Scrap all existing servers and make new ones, then combine NA and EU tiers so we can all play together.

Award outnumbered pips based on the map each player has spent the most time on between ticks.

Awarding pips based on the map you have spent the majority of your time on that tick would make last minute hopping pointless.

I think I do miss many the old rivalries, they were often times of grudging respect

Server pride was very real for some players, and whilst it hasn’t totally died it is much diminished. I understand however that some players don’t understand the concept.

For me, server pride is about:

• working to keep my home BL the right colour, whatever the odds.
• responding to calls for help from other guilds, and being welcomed by them simply because we’re on the same team.
• running yaks and refreshing siege to have the BL ready for the next team when they come online.

It was also about the reputation we had as a server that just would not lie down and quit.

Winning was part of the fun, but the bigger reason for playing, for some of us at least, was to be there to support our server. It’s that warm fuzzy feeling when the next commander comes on and says “Hey! We’ve got waypoints!” and you know they stand a better chance because of your work.

Linking changed this because my server became a guest server and a lot of our identity has been lost; not least because matches are always referred to using the host server name however much support the guest servers provide.

BTW, I like the idea of an incentive for staying on the same server. I suggest a full set of Server specific Legendary armour for anyone who, like me, has more than 4 years on the same server

While EotM is supposed to be an overflow area for queued players it is however definitely not a lobby. A lobby should be an area where players can prepare, practice, stock up and search for groups. A lobby should not contribute towards participation because players in the lobby are not actually being active on a WvW map.

Following the PvP model, a WvW lobby should have areas to access banks, merchants, WvW vendors and crafting stations.
It should also have practice areas; PvP uses NPCs which would be ok but I’d prefer to see the DBL tower bosses in arenas that are a copy of their actual map setting. This would allow experienced players to practice and new players to learn.

So… following a complete lack of responses am I right in guessing this feature isn’t used at the moment?