At least with our guild we transferred to BG when CD was bleeding players and we were fighting outnumbered in NA prime almost all the time.
We were looking for a stable server, and in that time BG was the best choice (10 months ago or more). Then anet locked the server and we are waiting to bring our players here.
Recruit in the server is not easy because we speak spanish, and believe it or not we are loyal to the server and is our home now. So we are waiting the server to open.
My english is not good, but probably someone understand it.
Is not an option for us, our people is tired of moving because server implosions and stuff. And believe it or not we don´t have the gold or gems to move anymore. Blackgate is not stacked in EU to NA, we play in that slot and we are many times outnumbered.
Ask around, some servers would pay handsomely for an EU guild to help with your transfers.
All of our player want to stay at one server, and thats BG. We are here before YB was winning by a huge margin.
It does not matter if the guilds can´t join a full server, but at least to a guild already in a server let the players join (to play with my friends). This system has flaws but i think is a good idea.
Is not an option for us, our people is tired of moving because server implosions and stuff. And believe it or not we don´t have the gold or gems to move anymore. Blackgate is not stacked in EU to NA, we play in that slot and we are many times outnumbered.
Anet please do something about the guilds and the servers that are full, YOU NEED to do something.
I am in a guild that plays wvw and we can´t do it with all of our people because the locked server, we are many months now in BG and the new people and also the veterans that are in other servers can´t join us. Transfer down is not an option because is easy to move 5-10 people than 30-40, and we like the server.
Maybe you can give us an option to lock the guild to a specific server of election, and let the player choose to join the server of that guild.
I usually don´t write here, but i am disappointed.
Chris and I just made several informative posts about World Linking on Reddit. I’m reposting them here.
On Population Caps
Some information behind the current server population cap behavior:
Many may already know this bit, but for anyone else who doesn’t: world population is determined by activity level in WvW (Edge of the Mists and Obsidian Sanctum don’t count). If World A has many-times the number of players on it as World B, but World A does’t play WvW at all and World B plays tons of WvW, A will have the lowest population, and B will have a very high one.
/u/piInverse, to your point on increasing world population levels, and especially some becoming full
This is not caused by the additional players bought about by the server link, but from returning players and a lower population cap on the host servers.
This is only partly true. We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes. Intent being to prevent worlds from artificially lowering their cap with just a couple weeks of intentional inactivity. One flipside of that being that even if global WvW population levels dropped next week, if they were still higher than pre-<aforementioned factors>, population levels would still go up as a new, higher week replaces an older, lower one in the window of time being used.
World linking problem: linking, say, a T8 NA world with a T1 NA world and doing nothing with population caps will make it very easy to pile onto an already-healthy world. So something needs to be done with population caps.
There are two opposing goals we can aim for.
Short-term prevention of bandwagoning. To do this, we’d need to make it more difficult to join a world that’s already low enough in WvW population to merit being linked in the first place.
Long-term health of worlds with less WvW activity. To do this, we’d need to make it easier to join a world that’s already low enough in WvW population to merit being linked in the first place.
As for what modifications we’ve put in place for population levels to not allow world linking to break the meaning and purpose of population entirely, we’re currently trying a compromise between going completely toward either the long-term or short-term health goals for world populations.
Unlinked worlds have the highest population cap.
Linked worlds have significantly lower population caps.
Some things we’re considering to help discourage bandwagoning:
Increasing the cost to transfer to lower-population worlds (since they’re now often going to be linked to high-pop worlds). For example, possibly 800 gems instead of 500.
Having merge hosts always considered Full, and their guest(s) all sharing the population their host would otherwise have.
Locking out transfers for a period of time after world links become active.
On Relinking More Often
We are also considering adjusting links more than once a quarter. There are some pros and cons to this, but assuming World Linking wins the current poll, we could poll on adjusting the re-link rate.
Pros:
More variety in allies and opponents.
Players are less likely to bandwagon.
World populations become more stable.
Cons:
Matchmaking becomes less accurate. There’d be more unfair matches.
The WvW World Rank leaderboard becomes less meaningful.
Additional administrative work for worlds coordinating voice-chat/forum access with their changing allies.
Players may start to avoid socializing and forming bonds with their cross-world allies, since they are likely to change often.
My team(WvW) spends more of our time analyzing population and match data, to determine new links, leaving less time for other types of WvW work.
It becomes harder to remember which worlds are currently linked, and know when the next relink is supposed to happen.
Want an idea to change WvW?
Lock GUILDS to their servers (and the people IN them so they don’t guild or server hop!) for at least six months.
You haven’t looked at the populations or you wouldn’t have locked the servers together – they would be movable to whichever server is larger with a smaller server to augment.
It makes me crazy that we suggested the latter and you took it as a quick out to just lock bottom and top servers (at the time) without any recognition or care of the populations and the server stacking that is STILL going on.
And shall we talk about hacking? It’s getting ridiculous.
Lock guilds to the guild wvw server could be awesome.
My guild mates are transfering to our linked server because our wvw server is full and we don´t know when they can transfer to the host server.
The Desert BL is vastly improved and have been non stop action and fights during prime. They aren’t that bad.
Yes, because most guilds are raiding on DBL, they are forced to because of the 50+ qeue on EB. But as long as EB has no qeue, nobody is playing on DBL.
True. If EB is not queued we go there first ([CL]), the second choice is DBL. Before hot 80%+ of time we were on ABL.
I understand that. You need to consider the rest of your guild or the people that follow you, if you are too tanky they will not be able to follow properly. Well, if you consider them and don´t push too deep when they can´t you are fine.
If you have 3 guards in your party maybe you don´t need that many boon duration. The stats are wanderer? Maybe you can mix with commander and knight stats, or soldier.
My guild is playing in the DBL´s since the reset almost all the time, EB is queued at the time that we play… 99% of the guild want the ABL back. (Not EB fan before HoT)
As roamer or scout since DBL i am not playing solo anymore, before i was a garrison/bay/hills scout fan.
The borders are better than before but they are still crap and don´t have strategic purpose… kitten huge maps and vertical crap. We don´t go to ebg lately because is always queued, we miss so much the ABL.
