Guild Wars 2

Puck.9612:

That’s the problem with this, we already are winning the outmanned fight. I had a 1v3 last night where I downed my opponents multiple times but they kept stealth rezzing over and over again preventing me from stomping. I eventually had to bail because more people showed up.

They either need to change it so rezzing is much slower, or if you go back down within 1-2 minutes of being downed you insta die.

Flawed argument in the same line of Anet’s latest poll. Just because you had an expected outcome to win a 1v3 doesnt mean that’s the only correct outcome – which their ability to res their teammates under obvious pressure from just one single peep proved. If you couldnt stomp them you werent winning. Hence, you lost. End of story.

RodOfDeath.5247:

random youtube vids > gw2

Ah, youtube. The only place with more kittens than GW2.

Justine.6351:

ya I would love to have rally removed in wvw in some capacity. but then we would have rampant ganking so much so, that anet would have to reintroduce it.

3min of me trying to fight 1v3, or more accurately the rally system:

https://youtu.be/hoWPHCw3ZMs

It was already removed in some capacity with the 1:1 system rather than rallying half a zerg. And pretty much everyone agreed with the change.

Fact is, outnumbered fights are hard but rallying always goes both ways. I have won many 1v2, 2v3, 3v5 etc fights because rallying exist. Fights I would have lost otherwise, because the enemies werent the zombies that people in this thread seems to assume everyone is because obviously they should win 1v5 and feel like bosses. It was fights that would have been alot more boring and over before they even began because without rallying the fight would have been decided purely by numbers. That’s how battles between decently similar numbers of skilled players work, even a single one can change the battle. Rallying changes this and allows some flex.

Have I lost outnumbered fights because of rallying as well? Sure I have. Lots of them. But I wouldnt give up the ability to come back through adversity for the ability to pwn some noobs that rallybot every second.

Group fighting is what drives GW2 and the rally system is a core part of what makes it great.

TheGrimm.5624:

Now there were other things that caused player decay as well, but the lack of map variety was one of those factors. Changing something from brown to green isn’t going to change the fact where you might try and chokepoint a zerg with your havoc, or where the driver might run the zerg thru at or where the solo hunter might wait to pick on the tail.

Well, except that would be fairly easy to change.

When people say “reskin alpine” I dont think they mean go into the texture folder and change the colors of the textures. For example you could change a chokepoint on “jungle alpine” by making a jumping mushroom below nw tower that bring you up just south of the tower.

Hell it could even have entirely different chokes. A “reskin” uses alpine as a general template. It doesnt necessarily use the exact same heightmap or statics.

If only DBL was narrower with the towers within treb distance of keeps, it would have been a decent reskin of alpine.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Personally, I voted ‘Yes’ to this, as did the rest of my team. So we are also disappointed with the result. But that was an accepted risk when we decided to poll the community about WvW development rather than just following our own vision.

That makes absolutely no sense since you set up a trap in the wording/design of the poll to force rotating borderlands unless a practically impossible goal was reached – and despite that votes in favor of mixed borderlands still reached 93% of the way to that goal.

If the dev team also wanted mixed borders, why didnt you word it so that mixed borderlands would default win unless rotating borders had a 75% vote?

That right there tell me it was intentional. This was no “yes” or “no” vote. It was no poll.

Justine.6351:

Never has the word concise been more appropriate.

They are adding a poll in a few weeks about scrapping desert borderlands all together.

74.9% will vote in favor of scrapping the border thus the Desert will remain for quarterly rotations (due to previous vote where 70% voted in favor of mixed borders).

What, we all know it will happen.

Or they will word it like “Do you want to scrap desert border or alpine?” with the options “yes” and “no”.

sirjarros.4107:

for No to win it should require 75% as well. there shouldn’t be a double standard.

Agreed.

But what was it an Anet dev said once? Oh right. “Speak now or forever hold your breath”.

And we spoke exactly what Anet wanted and the poll is closed now, end of discussion, no backsies. Hence, minority votes win votes based on the question asked.

What’s the next poll gonna be?

“Do you want arrowcart damage lowered or should we keep it as is?”

73% voted to lower it. 10% voted to increase it instead. 17% voted to keep it as is.

Neither the lower damage vote or keep as is vote reached the 75% votes so Anet will now increase the arrowcart damage, just like the community want.

The most facepalm vote ever. This is just kittened. First Anet set’s a ridiculously high 75% requirement and then they have four options essentially making it impossible get that. But when we do get 70% in favor… then it’s like no lol you still get what the minority want.

This was a kittening trap orchestrated by Anet, plain and simple.

I hope everyone that voted no are happy with kittening up the community and still get 3 months of a map they dislike.

In short: power/hammer/above tree in the frontline, power/hammer or condi/pp when roaming.

I still use a rabid + celestial hybrid p/p build with inventions/firearms/scrapper and 4 gyros + elixir gun (have been pretty much forced into elixir gun rather than 5 gyros due to the proliferation of perplexity builds). While it may not be the absolute best 1v1, it’s a top tier small group roamer due to it’s ability to off stomp.

Exactly, if you want to level in WvW – dont. Use one of your 80’s and play without gimping an entire zerg. You get a ton of tomes, which can be used to bring your low levels up to 80 in seconds.

DeWolfe.2174:

How is having dissimilar maps a “good” thing for balance? All it’ll do is drive players to the Alpine maps and EB. Thus giving free PPT to the Red World.

Which would be bad how exactly?

People not wanting to play on DBL goes three ways, literally. If we give it to the lowest ranked server and they get “free PPT” because no one truly assault the map then thats fine. It forces people to go to DBL and fight even harder over claims on alpine. Everybody win. If there isnt enough population to do both, well then a third alpine would be just as empty and feed PPT to defenders so I fail to see the point.

lil devils x.6071:

The DBL destroyed guilds and ran off many.

I think you are confusing DBL with guild halls.

Straegen.2938:

My general complaint is that in skirmish where 4 of us are fighting 10, we will frequently down players but their numbers give them ample time to bring their downed up. We often drop the same players four or five times in those fights only to see a wall of CC and AoE drop on that area preventing us from finishing.

Well, that’s called advantage in numbers. I see no issues.

What if it had been 4v8? 4v7? 5v9? If you could frequently down players at 4v10, that probably mean you would have won at those counts and just a slightly better advantage (or at least have a great chance at it). Which would be bad how exactly?

Bringing the proper tools and skills is critical. A single necro fear can give you space to spike a downed. Multiple engineers is almost assured spikes, especially if you can keep enemies busy at the same time – I cant even tell how many times larger groups “forget” their downed collegues because well, no one is there hitting them and surely they can ress them in short other in a couple of seconds. Except a gyro just stomped them. Win.

Justine.6351:

I like Alpine BL alot, and dislike the Desert BL alot.
There is little that is going to break the stigma of dbl being bad regardless of how much dev time is thrown at it. It’s been repeated so many times, it’s engrained like waking up 1min before your alarm clock every mourning.

I feel for the devs who put the time into Desert BL :-(

They actually needed very little, which was shown in the update (just removing the barricades made it 10x more enjoyable to run around on). It’s not perfect and could use plenty of tweaks (I still consider tower placement to be fundamentally flawed), but still.

Vyrulisse.1246:

Seabreeze.8437:

“Name this team of legendary heroes! They will go down in history as—what? Oh… you were there too, I guess. But let’s be honest, this is their spotlight, not yours. Now step aside while they take the credit for all your hard work.” :p

“Trahearne’s Legacy”

Nailed it!

Since he is a plant, you could use “Trahearne’s Seed” instead.

… or maybe not.

I am quite shocked that the count for rotating borders is 28%. People do realize that means three freaking months of only DBL? Even if you absolutely love DBL, it would still be torture for the majority of the community. Is that really worth it over having either 1 or 2 DBL that you could still play on every single day if you wanted (because I doubt it would be crowded)? Honestly?! And after three months of DBL, we’ll be back to the map those people hate. For three freaking months. People actually want that rather than having the choice to play what they prefer?

Under the assumption that mix count both versions and pick the one with the most votes, that’s 65% in favor with 2 alpine/1 dbl being the clear majority. Close enough to 75% if the numbers remain at the end of the poll I think :/

While they set the level low, all explorable dungeons are meant for level 80 in at least exotic gear. Ironically AC while being the lowest level it has also been one of the hardest at that level.

So dont worry about, lol. Level in the open world instead. Your stat priority is fine – gear sub level 80 exotic is irrelevant, you can wear a cobweb on your head and two clamshells as shoes and you’d still perform.

Keep in mind that low level gear often only carry two stats. At higher level, you can start using rabid (condi/prec/tough) which is pretty tanky. Generally you use neither vitality or toughness in PvE though, its glass cannons everywhere.

And if you disable it, what are you going to do about people in the same guilds on opposing servers? Disable their ability to join WvW?

lil devils x.6071:

With 2 alpine 1 DBL, you still have the issue of:
Server with most players willing to go to DBL = WIN
Everyone else don’t bother.

Makes absolutely no sense.

No matter which server gets it, its still only 1 out of 3 borders. If one server put lots of resources into it then thats less players on 2 alpines – which mean the other 2 servers will outnumber them and gain ground there instead.

Your comment is about as logical as saying whoever has the most people willing to go to EB wins, dont bother with the borders.

Jayne.9251:

SkyShroud.2865:

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

Jayne.9251:

If one pairing gets too top-heavy, they can simply unlink and relink to a lower population. It’s preventative because it was the No.1 complaint on the forums and nobody was willing to do anything to fix it ourselves.

But how do you define “top heavy” when it’s time to split apart guilds and commanders? Because WvW isnt as simple as numbers.

In particular, how would you deal with a scenario where a guild is spread 50/50 across both servers?

One does not simply “unlink” from friends.

Why on earth would a guild be 50/50 on two servers?

… because of paired servers in WvW?

Imagine if Anet split up PvE today. No more megaservers. Everyone back to the server they are on with no option to guest. That wouldnt mess up any PvE guilds at all?

No. Because guesting.

Still don’t understand why a wvw guild would be 50/50.

You cant guest in wvw.

Exactly.

And to reiterate exactly what I said:
Imagine if Anet split up PvE today. No more megaservers. Everyone back to the server they are on with no option to guest. That wouldnt mess up any PvE guilds at all?

I posed a hypothetical scenario eqvivalent of a WvW split, modified for WvW rules, ie you cant guest.

Most definetly yes option. 2 Alpine and 1 desert is a perfectly fine compromise for everyone and if everyone love to play alpine so much, that mean more pressure on the two upper server (under the assumption that lowest ranked get desert) and focus the population toward 3 maps rather than 4. More population, more fights. Simple as that. If it spills over to desert it’s really not the end of the world, some variety wont kill us.

XTR.9604:

Liston.9708:

@xtr – interesting take preferring guest over host. Some of what you say makes pretty darn good sense. Ill be interested on how you and others that made similar moves feel after re-linking as well.

I’ve transferred so many times because of servers dying down, turning in to bandwagons or the fights just getting boring. Something like 16+ times I’ve transferred to a bunch of servers between my 2 accounts, some servers I’ve been on more than once or twice even haha. I’ve honestly lost count, but I know it was at least 16 times lol..

For me, being on a “guest server” means I may experience different communities and that ANet will automatically balance my server with another server (or maybe the same one) every quarter, which essentially SAVES me money from having to transfer again to be in a more balanced place once more.

For server nomads that’s perfectly fine. Just like roamers there are plenty of floaters out there that arent attached to a server and plays like mercenaries.

The problem becomes when you actually found something you like and want to hold on to… only to have it torn away from you.

Jayne.9251:

Dawdler.8521:

Jayne.9251:

If one pairing gets too top-heavy, they can simply unlink and relink to a lower population. It’s preventative because it was the No.1 complaint on the forums and nobody was willing to do anything to fix it ourselves.

But how do you define “top heavy” when it’s time to split apart guilds and commanders? Because WvW isnt as simple as numbers.

In particular, how would you deal with a scenario where a guild is spread 50/50 across both servers?

One does not simply “unlink” from friends.

Why on earth would a guild be 50/50 on two servers?

… because of paired servers in WvW?

Imagine if Anet split up PvE today. No more megaservers. Everyone back to the server they are on with no option to guest. That wouldnt mess up any PvE guilds at all?

Aeolus.3615:

Lord Kuru.3685:

GvG probably could have been esports for GW2 — certainly much better than the PvP it has now — if it had been supported 2-3 years ago. Lost opportunity by Anet, who never liked GvG.

Anet really needs to test that out, 8/10 man gvg + plus another pvp model + ladder, similiar maps and mechnics to gw1 gvg.

What do you mean test that out? GW2 had 8v8 sPvP once and it was lots of fun. They decided to change it to 5v5. End of story.

Silberfederling.9302:

Dawdler.8521:

Silberfederling.9302:

I really can not tell you how terrible this idea is.
You know, one thing that takes the spice out of fight may be Siege, granted. But this really would just further one particular development: k trains. Do you know how to stop a k Train? T3+ deff and it will just leave. Make objectives easy to capture, sure you’ll have queues on every map, but that will be because there will be 3 zergs running arround in circles flipping stuff.
Thanks, but that Kind of gameplay has a map allready.
That would be an awfull change.

Wait, isnt that what every guild wants? Those walking lootbag trains.

Really, this is a self-balancing system. Your karma trains running in circles assume there are zero guilds to oppose them. In that case WvW is already dead and I say let the train cho cho as it please.

The guilds will be there.
Standing in the spawn area dropping boxes of fun and waiting for the rest of the guild to get out of the queue.
Sounds familliar? Well now imagine this drama on every map.

Yeah it does sound familiar. That’s exactly how the glory days of WvW was years ago. You know, before the extra T3 stuff and guild upgrades making caps harder, lol.

Silberfederling.9302:

I really can not tell you how terrible this idea is.
You know, one thing that takes the spice out of fight may be Siege, granted. But this really would just further one particular development: k trains. Do you know how to stop a k Train? T3+ deff and it will just leave. Make objectives easy to capture, sure you’ll have queues on every map, but that will be because there will be 3 zergs running arround in circles flipping stuff.
Thanks, but that Kind of gameplay has a map allready.
That would be an awfull change.

Wait, isnt that what every guild wants? Those walking lootbag trains.

Really, this is a self-balancing system. Your karma trains running in circles assume there are zero guilds to oppose them. In that case WvW is already dead and I say let the train cho cho as it please.

This is a exponential defense mechanics issue, not a tier issue.

Anet could fix it easily by removing the wall/door damage reduction. T2 and T3 would still be stronger, but it would be on a linear scale with extra wall/door HP only.

Alternativly, high tier siege (trebs, golems) should scale alot better and maintain damage vs T2/T3 walls/doors.

Jayne.9251:

If one pairing gets too top-heavy, they can simply unlink and relink to a lower population. It’s preventative because it was the No.1 complaint on the forums and nobody was willing to do anything to fix it ourselves.

But how do you define “top heavy” when it’s time to split apart guilds and commanders? Because WvW isnt as simple as numbers.

In particular, how would you deal with a scenario where a guild is spread 50/50 across both servers?

One does not simply “unlink” from friends.

McWolfy.5924:

Body block! I soo much want body block!
Or change ppt to point per event and add kittentons of pvp events to the map to divide players

As I have said many times before: player collision and friendly fire.

It will be glorious.

leasm.1279:

Puck.9612:

Yeah you need to get siege blue prints. Superior siege cost more supply but does more damage. Catapults are better than rams when running solo

Thanks. But trying this seems the most basic ram costs 40 supply, and I can carry only 10. This means I need to go back and forth several times to build anything solo?

Yep, that’s what you always need. At max WvW skill rank and with a +5 camp you can carry 20 supps so 2 trips for simple seige. Alternativly, you can build a trebuchet near a held camp/tower/keep and range it (takes a looooong time) or build a siege golem and walk there (expensive).

michaloxs.6132:

Add “join to squad” button somewhere on a UI. This is too much hide now.

They fixed clicking on the map tag to join squad some weeks ago. It was only broken for 6 months or so.

DeWolfe.2174:

Just a thought, for that repair hammer idea, what if it couldn’t be used while in combat?

That’s silly. Of course it should be used in combat.

Its a noobtrap, just like repairing a wall 1100→0 supps when its being trebbed by a tower. With repairable siege we could drain an entire brainless zerg of all its supply in a jiffy while killing them by AoE at the same time. It would be glorious.

If you think the pairings caused complaints, just wait and see what happens when it ends.
Guilds break apart, “accidental” spies everywhere, TS/community chaos for anyone that hasnt been smart and blocked it via API, viable pairs in their tier suddenly become unviable, friends lost, populations will be just as unbalanced as before after a couple of weeks…

But on the flipside, Anet get an income boost from tons of transfers. That always count for something I guess :/

Reh.5986:

I get that it’s not an easy thing to fix. Might even be impossible without a full rework. Just really hoping anet will come up with something brilliant.

“Might”… It is impossible to fix. Even if you pit three servers with the exact same population against each other, this scenario will still happen at some point or another. Anet cant control how much each individual player plays. Anet cant control their skill.

If you want proof that it doesnt work on a “controlled” micro level either, just look at sPvP. 5 vs 5 in short matches and you are still either going to be “blobbed” down 1 vs 2/3 on every point, someone drop out so its 4 vs 5 and assured loss or you got that guy next to you in default armor that plays cleric Warrior with double rifles. How many rounds are perfectly balanced nailbiters eh?

WvW is the same thing. It’s just more players and week long.

Ascended armor and weaponry is completely irrelevant. It’s incredibly expensive fluff. You will be better off carrying 2-3 more sets depending on the current situation and types of foes you meet.

It’s all about skill and what class/build meet which other class/build. No amount of ascended will make you better equipped to meet a perplexity mesmer putting 15 confusion stacks on you and no amount of ascended will make a zerg build challenge a roaming build in a 1v1.

Even if we assumed the exact same classes fighting with the exact same build and gear stats, a single dodge or stun at the right time more than make up for any exotic/ascended difference.

Ascended trinkets on the other hand is so easy and cheap to get there’s no point not carrying them (I have a banktab full of stuff, as well as 9 characters all carrying ascended trinkets… several sets of them).

Bandini.6185:

For instance, with the upcoming poll regarding Mixed Borderlands, you need to be clear with what will happen if both cases, Yes or No. Or even better, give the following choices :

• Yes I want a mix of the 2 maps every week
• No, I prefer a rotation of the 2 maps (probably every quarter)
• No, I don’t want to see the Desert Borderland again

Even that is too diffuse.

Unless you specify the exact combination, you will set up people for disappointment.

Let’s say you vote yes and assumes by far the most pleasurable and obvious choice that probably 90%+ of us would choose – 2 Alpine and 1 Desert – yet when we get it… Anet gives us 2 Desert and 1 Alpine.

Riots in the streets and 50 man queues to one border.

As soon as you introduce different too many “modes” or “rules”, you start to split up the entire community. It’s often been the reasons games fall. The simplest ones are the best and the ones that last. We already seen this happen twice in GW2. First time with EoTM which was – and still is – in direct competition with WvW over players. Second time with HoT which divided players with elite specs vs peas… I mean vanilla. The world linking could be counted as a third major event if you dont like that.

I dont want to see yet another event that split apart WvW. We’re already looking at the prospect of the new scoring mechanics being either great or a complete disaster. We dont need what the OP is suggesting.

What? Why, lol.

If you want to “donate” to Anet, buy gems. It’s not the only way they get funding – that’s why they sold a full price expansion. And it’s probably why they will sell another in the future.

TorquedSoul.8097:

It seems that Anet has decided that blob wars is WvW. That is their choice.

I thought we overwhelmingly decided that with the majority approval of more populated worlds via the link.

Either way, the idea that blobs win wars is false. They may win a few fights but coverage wins wars. A 70 man blob will keep chasing 30+20+20 all around a border, never holding anything for long. If the other enemy decide to field 30+20+20 too, GG having your 70 man blob try to control 6 decently large forces.

The “problem” is that we the players have decided 3 things:
1) More than one commander is taboo, unless its a guild.
2) Guilds fight their own battles, even if they are 20 vs 50.
3) Pugs fight pugs, even if they are 20 vs 50, except in the cases where guilds grudgingly accept to step off their high piediestal for a moment and assist the peasants.

This behaviour lead to pretty much everyone seeking security in numbers.

So yeah. Actually, we decided that WvW is blob wars.

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

The bunkering inside the keeps with tone of siege, is by far worse on the alpines, but by night you can ktrain it in less than an hour, if you outnumber the others greatly.

But the difference is that you can threaten the keeps with long range siege much easier on alpine. True, you can siege up lets say bay like crazy, but the SW tower can safely treb outer, forcing the people bunkering to come out and cap it or be left exposed on that flank. On desert, every siege spot will be unprotected. The towers serve zero purpose. There is no reason to keep the cap-countercap flow going, because if you get a keep you can just stay there with the occasional suicide rush on open siege.

This makes for a massive difference in how WvW is played. It breaks WvW. And people said nope in general. “Learning the map” or karmatraining has always been irrelevant.

While I understand the idea of more links (3+) to maintain better matchups and shift people around I do not think it’s a good idea unless the entire visibility of your server change.

Right now the links are a bandaid to a simple fact – we needed less tiers for more balance. I’m OK with that. But the entire system alienate the parasite server. If we are to get a third parasite server we absolutely need to see it active in WvW. The only way that happen is if keep/tower claims are actually server based, not side based. We cant just have them swallowed up under a single name.

So in short, if we get a Server1+Server2+Server3+… system we need to see the following:
“Server1 has captured enemy garrison!”
“Server2 got blue border, np.”
“Server3 got open raid on red border, taking hills.”
“GuildX from Server1 is handholding with GuildY from Server2, unfair!”
“GuildZ from Server3 claimed bay.”

Etc and so on. We need distinction, visible in WvW, what faction is doing what. We need to remain unique… Whether that be a large server, smaller server or “Anet megaguild” that contain player guilds is irrelevant. Without this WvW become random chaotic EoTM and most of us dont like that. We like belonging to a team.

IronHand.2786:

4. If it is possible the EU server can merge with NA server so that anytime you jump in GvG (WvW) you will always find something going on.

I really wish people would stop bring up this absolutely ridiculous and kittened idea, as if its something simple you can do with no consequences. It makes everyone lag. If the servers are in the US, EU players will have huge response times. If its in the EU, US players will have it instead. There is no way to make it good for both sides at the same time on the same server in a competetive PvP game. Game devs arent magicians that can bypass the laws of physics.

Dlarnkk.1068:

The best alternative is to do this;
Link ALL the worlds together.
There is a total of 24 servers. There are 3vs3vs3.

Divide 24 by 3, 8 worlds. 8 worlds per each server.

Then let the chaos ensues.
Chaos for day, man. Chaos for day.

If you decides to link all the worlds together, you can probably get the biggest WvW conflict in history of GW2. Too bad you’ll truly never have 8 worlds vs 8 worlds vs 8 worlds [in EU case, 9 worlds vs 9 worlds vs 9 worlds]

The unfortunate downside is this will never actually happen. You have to accountt eh size of the map, and the amount of buildings there is. You’ll need to re-design the entire map.

But we’ve had EoTM for years now :/

With the new dailies your 160-200g leap is just 20 extra days of doing practicly nothing other than play like normal.

That said, I do think that Anet is keeping it inflated.

Is this a thread about a class that can build to be nearly unkillable and escape from anything complaining about a class that can build to be nearly unkillable and escape from anything?

Just dont mix a trapper thief into this, we will reach critical mass and minds explode.

So in short, an entirerly new map. That’ll be two years or so, start holding your breath now.

lil devils x.6071:

MANY roamers and havoc are extremely effective and work with the boobs quite well.

I… suppose… if you say so.

coso.9173:

I don’t recognize that chest armor, are you sure it is not asura exclusive? I have a human and I can’t use that.
Medium armor for human males has the least non trenchoaty options

It’s the triumphant brigandine, humans can use that too. I think its koda feet, swindler pants, the Asuran t3 eye piece and some random small shoulder pads/gloves, cant be bothered to login and check.

coso.9173:

I want tight leather straps harness for medium armor, open leather jackets, sleveless shirts, barbarian leather straps. MORE OPTIONS I hate the long trenchcoats, and even though the glorious armor is at least tight fitting, it doesn’t look like leather at all. it has a huge plate on the middle of it. :S

There are a few options without trenchcoats. My Asuran thief looks leathery enough.

Diku.2546:

- undecided = no

Well undecided is not no. Undecided is undecided. You can argue it’s yes just as much as no with that logic.

Given the forced choice, I’d have to vote yes. Why? Because even now – at least in the EU middle tiers – I cant exactly say it’s crowded. There where simply too many tiers to support the GW2 population. Linking worlds work “in theory”, the problem now is that players of course start to exploit it by stacking the lower populated linked server in higher tiers due to cheap transfer costs. I would rather have seen a complete server merger or redesign of the entire server system sure, but I do think this was better than doing nothing.