Guild Wars 2

I posted this in another thread, but it relates.

Why merge or link servers?

Why not just re-design WvW to use a Modified World Guesting & let players pick which server they want to fight on?

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#Guesting

There’s an Alternative Solution that uses a Modified World Guesting tailored for WvW & is a better Long Term solution over Merging or Linking for both EU & NA players…imho

Why merge or link servers?

Why not just re-design WvW to use a Modified World Guesting & let players pick which server they want to fight on?

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#Guesting

There’s an Alternative Solution that uses a Modified World Guesting tailored for WvW & is a better Long Term solution over Merging or Linking for both EU & NA players…imho

Halvorn.9831:

Personally I think you should look for a different game. Short notice: my server had queues on all maps yesterday and the opponent servers had them as well. Didn’t happen to me for a whole lot of months. Stop making yourself believe this game mode is dying. It isn’t. It’s just you being salty because it is not what YOU wanted. That’s ok, but accept that there are way enough players out here who do make your opinion look not so important in the big picture. The same happened to me with raids. Hated them, still hate them, hate the idea that items are hidden behind what I consider a crappy instanced group content, had to accept that I won’t change it. Moved on.

Upper Tier Communities are perfectly fine & benefit from World Linking that infuses them with fresh bodies from the Lower Tiers.

This thread is about the Lost Lower Tier Communities that are under constant & consistent pressure to eek out an exisitence without an identity & the Lost Play Styles that was nurtured there.

Prior to World Linking…Communities that found a way to survive without any zerg type fighting evolved in these Lower Tiers…other Play Styles were allowed & enjoyed.

Prior to World Linking…players that wanted to find any Zerg type fight action had to Literally Move their account to an Upper Tier Host Server.

World Linking now forces Lower Tier Servers & their Communities into a Play Style that simply goes against what they evolved into…just to give Free Transfers to players that want to Zerg.

I’m guessing you’re on a Top Tier Host Server, or you’re from a Lower Guest Server that enjoys these Free Transfers.

Guild Officers from Lower Tier Guest Servers will know what I’m talking about when I say Community is Dead & World Linking is the major reason behind it.

The game mode is flawed. It functions but many built-in mechanics will forever keep it from evolving into something epic.

This game mode has the potential to become the next eSport SuperBowl Franchise, but won’t if ANet continues to use World Linking…imho

Appreciate your advice about accepting things & moving on, but “a few” here will continue to encourage ANet to fix WvW…because there’s still hope that the potential can become a reality.

ANet needs a better Vision & Long Term Solution…imho

DeWolfe.2174:

Beyond that fact that there’s simply zero competition as the Dev’s are making up rules as they go, making up teams, having biased populations, it’s not a fun competitive environment any longer.

World Linking was a Pandora’s Genie Crack Bottle….that should never have been opened…imho

Some decisions should never be entrusted to players.

All the Zerg addicts want WvW to be 24/7 blobbing, but you need bodies for that…which recruits from the bottom tiers while destroying their communities.

WvW will turn into an exhausted & dead Zerg addict stuck in a Tier based system that denies healthy competition & simply re-inforces the addiction for Zerg stimulation.

ANet lost alot of WvW communities which used to bring in gems sales that were not tied to Server Transfers due to World Linking.

ANet really needs to break the World Linking & get WvW off this horrible cycle that is destroying the surface areas that allows communities to exist.

Some decisions should never be entrusted to players.

There’s a better Long Term solution that ANet should consider…one that doesn’t use World Linking & removes the Tiers to let players choose their Match-Ups…imho

It does sound crazy…for ANet…given the below perspective:

After the 1 Free Transfer…players will use gems.

If you remove or restrict players being able to Transfer using gems…ANet will suffer gem sales.

Gem sales indirectly drive ANet’s ability to make a profit…and survive as a business.

There’s a better Long Term solution…that lets Players decide who they want to play with that’s from any server…and to deal with Population In-Balance…use a game design that allows & takes advantage of these things…imho

Xenesis.6389:

There isn’t even anything major to look forward to for wvw, nothing, nada.

Wish ANet would realize that the “End Game” product that was driving their GW2 gems sales in the Long Term was Player Communities.

Players return to play daily because they want to see their friends & family.

Providing lots of “surface areas” for Communities to be born, grow, die…and then be re-born again…is what will allow ANet to keep the embers burning & gems sales going strong in the future based on a Long Term strategy…imho

Don’t forget about the coding aspect & abuse/bug ripple effects if complex logical triggers are required to contest a WP. Simple is best…imho

Offair.2563:

Would like to see this reverted back by tapping a gate. It is indeed silly you only have to aggro a guard and job is done..

Given the following scenarios:

1. Single Roamer running around your BL tapping your gates to keep you busy.
2. Zerg of 15-50+ players running around your BL & 1 silly pug zergling decides to run a little too close to a Guard.

Which scenario happens more often nowadays?

Contested was adjusted to be an easier “Automated Early Warning” system against zergs…imho

Personally I’d prefer that gates need to be tapped to trigger Contested. At least it shows that a player has to make the choice to “strategically” do it.

Brutal Augus.5917:

Balthazzarr.1349:

That’s an average of 5 hours per day. GW2 addiction or what?

If they could but take what they have learned from AB in gw1 and WvW in gw2 and try to polish a game mode…that would be great.

I’d probably have to say that my daily average of 5 hours for WvW was similar, and the drop in play time is also similar to the OP.

I’ve “studied” AB from GW1 & WvW from GW2…because I’m a hardcore fan of the game. My articles come from this experience & love of this unique game.

ANet completely changed the dynamics of why players continue to play WvW & I don’t think they realize how fundamentally wrong it is to players & their bottom line.

Players return to GW2 because ANet created an End Game Product that still exists in WvW. It’s called Community. You’ll find out that the more chances that you provide for players to create Community…the more you’ll find out that they’ll buy gems just because they continue to play.

World Linking reduces the “surface area” for Communities to form and to simply “Exist”.

ANet reduced the “surface area” & chances for Communities to exist in the Lower Tiers when they introduced World Linking.

As players that liked the Lower Tiers quit due to the forced play in the Upper Tiers. ANet will find out the hard way that gem sales will trend to decline as these players leave their GW2 Universe.

ANet will have to depend only on the “surface area” of the Top Tier Servers to provide gem sales.

Previously…the Lower Tier Servers allowed for more “surface area”.

Players that wanted the high level zerg fight action…literally had to Move to the Upper Tiers themselves. World Linking now moves players directly into the Upper Tiers while Destroying the Community of the Lower Tiers.

All players want a free ride to the Upper Tiers, but at the cost of destroying the fragile Communities that used to exist in the Lower Tiers.

It’s a vicious cycle of Long Term declining gems revenue…imho

I still strongly believe WvW can be “fixed” with another solution that Does Not use World Linking, but instead Focuses on Building Community in the Long Term…for a more consistent & stable source of gem sales that ANet can depend upon.

1. Reduce the direct impact of Server stacking to Match-Ups
2. Allow friends & family to play together from many different Worlds
3. Allow Off-peak capping, but let players to work out a solution themselves

@Balthazzarr.1349

Totally agree with your observation & sentiments.

I’m basically in the same “boat”.

ANet basically spiked & shocked the WvW ecosystem with all their great ideas to improve it.

If you ever raised fish in an aquarium…you’ll understand that ANet probably over fed the upper tiers with fry from the lower tiers & caused a spike in ammonia levels in the ecosystem. Everything is turning toxic. Also, the severe PH levels are shocking the few survivors left on guest servers.

I’m almost certain ANet is still learning how to take care of the WvW Aquarium…and they’re killing off the lower ecosystem. Refusing to realize that they need to change the water & make adjustments to save things. In the end…their whole aquarium will crash…and the solution is to go out & “get” (f2p) more fish to replace the dead ones.

You, me, and very loyal WvW players that still believe in ANet will linger & come back here hoping beyond hope…that things will change.

Still singing my tune that there’s a better Long Term solution…imho.

For the Pass my brother in arms!
Diku

p.s.
ANet Revenue streams will continue on a downward trend as they loose players that used WvW as the “End Game” product to GW2. These players & communities that existed in the Lower Tiers by choice have no place to cling to and grow…there’s no Lower Tier communities of small fry to feed the Upper Tiers anymore…imho.

Chaba.5410:

My suggestion was to keep players guessing at whether a server will receive a link not because of whether one believes tanking exists or not, but to remove an avenue by which organized groups will try to affect outcomes.

Tanking does exist based on my personal observation.

Organized & Non-Organized for different reasons.

Non-Organized = Players tend to quit when Outmanned or No Commander

There’s no game mechanic that I’m aware of that can prevent or remove a “verbal” based alliance between players.

This game mode should actually incorporate & encourage this simple ability of players to make “verbal” based alliances in a positive way instead of fighting it.

The way it’s being used is negative because Tiers enforce a limit on players being able to fully cooperate across all borders. We’re not allowed to attack other servers outside our Tier.

ANet’s Adjustments to linked pairs will always be too slow (2 months) to react & counter Organized “Tanking”…imho

atheria.2837:

Roxanne.6140:

I think we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the possibility of tanking. If say I were to be a leader of a guild of 50 dedicated wvw players and we’re part of an alliance who agreed not to play for a period of time. That would definitely have an impact on population metrics. I think the population is measured on activity, right or no?

Tanking? You mean quitting for a specified period of time.

Sorry, but I don’t know any real WvW’er on any server who would Stand Down no matter what they were “told”.

It’s totally possible. I’ve already witnessed a commander & small group being able to survive in Stone Mist for over 30 minutes without being wiped while our Host Server was “Outmanned” in EB. They were allowed to live & farm bags with the other enemy forces because they were deemed “friends”.

It’s called a “verbal” based alliance between players.

Don’t be surprised…you can see it happening when players are dueling & it’s agreed that players don’t attack each other…except those dueling.

Tanking is just a longer period of time & definitely on a larger scale than you’d want to imagine.

When WvW Rank is meaningless…it’s no sweat off a player’s back to let their friend’s server to win & move up in Rank.

They can get away with it because Tiers mechanically locks 3 “teams” in a room to fight & nobody else is able enter the room to offset the in-balance until ANet re-forms teams to react.

However, by the time ANet reacts…it’s already (2 months) too late.

Monsters serve a critical role in providing camouflage cover & target distraction for roamers/small havoc groups traveling in enemy territory…imho

NekoNoKoi.9137:

Diku.2546:

NekoNoKoi.9137:

Diku.2546:

Using mixed borderlands would probably be fair & work better if everybody’s Home BL was set to DBL…while Enemy Entry point BLs were set to Alpine.

What? No, just randomise which colour gets the dbls. It’s literally that easy.

I agree. It’s literally that easy & this would work, but it’s a “short-term” solution…imho

“Short-term” solutions that band-aid the problem tend to create built-in limitations to what the future design can evolve into.

Our current WvW game design is flawed & needs to address these “built-in” limitations in order for it to evolve into something larger in scope…imho

Just adding my 2 cent opinion…you can continue the discussion. I’m hoping for a more long term solution.

That’s true, it’d be a short term solution and it wouldn’t necessarily change the issue of population being completely screwed or how bad the dbls still are, but it would certainly make it more manageable. As someone that plays WvW daily (although less now, because this is getting too annoying for me to enjoy anymore to be honest) I can attest to seeing far less roamers nowadays on GH than before, and I do think that being permanently given the dbls contributes to that because no one wants to play on them, not only because we generally dislike them, but also because they’re too big for our population.

WvW Population levels are like sediment.

If you allow all servers to naturally settle like sediment…you’ll have a wide range of game playstyle that can occur within these “geological” layers.

Geologically speaking…consistent & constant pressures allow for change.

Servers should move up or down based on their “Earned” WvW Rank.

At the very top…there would be servers with large population levels that zerg a lot & community is like a large city.

At the very bottom…there would be servers with small population levels that tend to roam a lot & community is like a small town.

Next, we’d need to remove the Tiers & allow players to “free” travel between the bottom through the top layers.

So in the end…which specific server you decide to call home can be totally different from which server(s) that you can visit for the week. If Tiers are removed.

Finding the right sediment layer to live in would give people choices to pick their in-game happiness.

The game mechanics are in place to allow this to happen…it just needs to be re-purposed for WvW.

Nobody needs to get punished…imho

As far as the DBL assignment…I agree with you.

Given the way how WvW is currently designed…I’d prefer a set rotation between the 3 different colors within the time frame (currently 2 months) of the assigned linking for things to be “fair”.

All colors should have an equal amount & opportunity to have DBL as their Home BL.

NekoNoKoi.9137:

Diku.2546:

Using mixed borderlands would probably be fair & work better if everybody’s Home BL was set to DBL…while Enemy Entry point BLs were set to Alpine.

What? No, just randomise which colour gets the dbls. It’s literally that easy.

I agree. It’s literally that easy & this would work, but it’s a “short-term” solution…imho

“Short-term” solutions that band-aid the problem tend to create built-in limitations to what the future design can evolve into.

Our current WvW game design is flawed & needs to address these “built-in” limitations in order for it to evolve into something larger in scope…imho

Just adding my 2 cent opinion…you can continue the discussion. I’m hoping for a more long term solution.

Using mixed borderlands would probably be fair & work better if everybody’s Home BL was set to DBL…while Enemy Entry point BLs were set to Alpine.

However, this isn’t possible with the current game design.

ANet would have to change the Base Map Mechanic for this to work.

Having mixed borderlands would then be “fair” & would properly provide more variety…if this change is done…imho

Let players stack, but change how a Server gets “Targeted” for attack.

Servers that stack tend to win & have a higher WvW Rank…imho

Knowing this…why not re-design WvW to use a “Targeting” system that gets its inspiration from a “soap bubble”.

Everyone knows that bubbles float to the top.

Why not put a “Target” on the Top bubble & encourage everybody below to attack it or their neighbor above?

Use WvW Rank to show the rise & fall of servers.

Create an open bucket without Tiers that encourages this natural bubble effect to “Target” the Top Server that’s tied to Population stacking.

Junkpile.7439:

One good idea would be remove WvW and so everybody could play EotM. Kind of pointless try to keep dead game mode alive.

How do players get assigned a Color in EotM now?

How would players get assigned a Color if the current system goes away?

Do players pick it themselves?

If you say MegaServer…

What are the specific details behind the mechanics that will allow it to work.

Then, I’d like to ask…Could these mechanics be abused by players to manipulate things again that will bring us back to all the same problems that we’re stuck with now?

Or, you might be saying that WvW should changed from a Competitive Game Mode into a “Disneyland Themed Ride” where scoring only matters for that brief moment you’re riding it.

After you get off the ride…the Score Resets to Zero for all Colors & a new batch of riders get on to experience the ride…let’s say for an hour.

Then using the MegaServer makes sense…we get a constant & consistent amount of “New” Match-Ups & Score is Reset to Zero on the hour for new players that gets on the ride.

WvW is made into a “PvP Themed Ride” & is no longer a Competitive Game Mode where you can host an Annual Tournament…like in professional sports…and ANet will miss out on an opportunity to generate revenue streams similar in scope.

Straegen.2938:

Servers are an “old school” design that fail in virtually every MMO that used them for large scale PvP.

It’s the game design that is failing & not the Server concept.

Server concept can provide the unique identities that would fuel exciting battles between Staunch or Bitter Rivals in a healthy competitive annual tournament.

The SuperBowl franchise is based off of this “Old School” concept & it’s highly lucrative.

Get rid of the Tiers that locks servers into stale match-ups due to huge differences in population.

WvW needs to be re-designed to make Higher “Ranked” Servers be the “targets” in weekly match-ups.

Then use a scoring system that discourage attacks against Low “Ranked” Servers, but encourages attacks against any Higher “Ranked” Server in relation to a player’s Server.

GW2 already has the mechanism in place that would allow this to happen, but it just need to be re-purposed for WvW…imho

Artemis Thuras.8795:

so every map has like.. 12/15 spawns?

Will only say that at Minimum…each World owns 1 EBG Map with 3 Spawn Points.

1 spawn point For Home Team & 2 spawn points for Enemy Guests to Enter from.

Don’t discuss this idea in this thread…just see below for details if you’re curious.

Xenesis.6389:

About the only thing they can do to help lessen the effect of population sways is drawing active players out of a bigger pool of players, rather than the limited amount provided by a single server. Which is kind of what they are trying to do with the links, providing sides with a bigger pool of active players. But as we know with this game, coverage is still what wins you the week.

There’s something else that can be done…imho

I agree with what you explained…we can’t prevent people from stacking servers & coverage typically wins the war.

So…Let them stack.

However, the current Tier based design structure should be removed to use these stacked servers in a positive way.

The game mode should be re-designed with a Long Term focus that makes Any Higher Ranked Server be the target of Any Lower Ranked Server…imho

Removing the Tier structure also allows all players to attack any Server.

Fyi – Please fix typo

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

Score System

Matches are week long, split into 2-hour time slices called Skirmishes. During a skirmish, worlds will earn War Score based on how many objectives are held, with War Score being used to determine the winner of each skirmish. When each 2-hour skirmish ends, War Score is reset, but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.

Skirmishes award Victory Points based on placement (1st—3 Victory Points, 2nd—2 Victory Points, 3rd—1 Victory Point) wich are used to determine the match victor.

Wonders if we could reference how Combat chat was setup…

Allow multiple BL map options that could be toggled on or off by the player.

Also, it would be nice to perhaps use text color based on assigned map colors.

Example channel labels below.

Green BL>
Red BL>
Blue BL>

EBG>

ANet…thank you for trying to improve things. The thought was there…and now you’re probably hoping the community will respond with feedback to help improve things together.

Don’t envy your position…you get blamed for every little thing, but get very little praise when things are working normally.

ArchonWing.9480:

both the user and the creator should take responsibility.

Anet screws up like, 80% of new features.

But at the same time, don’t you think that if we all have to design programs like it’s a padded cell because people are just too lazy to figure out how to use things, it’d prevent new features from being made due to this fear?

This is what I saw in your post & have to agree.

Warning stickers & labels are really important & sometimes can graphically inform the user on what they should not be doing…because sometimes people really don’t know the consequences.

Yeah…It’s kind of like the Hot Coffee label…but it could also be

Jana.6831:

Diku.2546:

Still hoping to be a compass & lighthouse in this storm of uncertainty…if they’re willing to hear a guiding message.

Thanks for the laugh I’m having right now.

Not sure how to take that, but I fully agree with your typical postings that the EU servers are not the same as NA servers.

Different Languages, Time Zones, and even National cultures make it a completely different ship to pilot when steering & navigating…each World Server…for your particular Theater of War.

EU is not the same as NA.

morrolan.9608:

Diku.2546:

I’m curious to know what the driving vision for WvW is…because I’m hoping that someday…it will match what I can envision for the future of WvW.

There is no driving vision. The person ostensibly in charge of the WvW team seemingly has nothing to do with it beyond supervising the staff. The only devs with a clue about what to do have been taken off the WvW team. No-one left appears to have a vision for the mode.

I really hope you’re wrong & that there’s at least a first mate piloting our WvW ship.

If the captain is missing at the helm…then WvW may end up going in circles & end up being completely lost at sea.

Still hoping to be a compass & lighthouse in this storm of uncertainty…if they’re willing to hear a guiding message.

Polls “should” be a tool that helps gauge & gather feedback before “Going All In”.

It’s like putting your toe in the water to check things out before you totally commit to jumping in.

Polls can help to make good or bad decisions.

Polls are more effective if you have a solid understanding of what you want to accomplish.

If you have no idea of what you want to accomplish…how can polls help?

Everything goes back to having a solid “vision” on what you want to accomplish…because this will give you a direction to take when making tough & critical decisions.

Having a solid “vision” provides that inner compass to move things forward in a meaningful way.

Using polls to move forward can have you going in circles without a solid vision…

I’m curious to know what the driving vision for WvW is…because I’m hoping that someday…it will match what I can envision for the future of WvW.

WvW really needs a compass…imho

Posting bug again?

Given the current game design with World Linking & Glicko…I have no solution that I’d recommend that would be able to adequately address your concerns.

Jeknar.6184:

Full Exotic level 80.

Agree…

Just visit your friendly neighborhood WvW Armor Master:
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Armor_Master

Good luck…

Xenesis.6389:

On the flip side if links never happened, we probably would be here with people complaining how dead their servers are every day. Let’s not forget the major downward spiral wvw was on after the expansion released, it still is, but links were a minor stop gap from people leaving and may have brought back some players, like myself. It certainly has it’s problems, but it helped revive wvw for a moment.

If you don’t like links fine, but just think what the alternative could have been, your server absolutely dead during the last 6 months. That’s not to excuse anet, been about year since the expansion and things still aren’t looking that well for wvw’s future. Question is, are there even any long term solutions on the table right now.

Personally I think players that’s never transferred to any server since they started playing GW2 should be given a free one.

After that 1st Free Transfer…players should take it upon themselves to pay for their next transfer & any thereafter.

Other MMOs typically charge a monthly fee.

Players get what they want & ANet gets income.

Keep in mind…ANet doesn’t charge a monthly fee once you’ve paid for the game…so they need to generate income somehow.

It’s a Win & Win situation…imho.

Linking just provides a Free Transfer from Guest to Host Server…which undercuts ANet’s income in the long term, but generates a lot of income in the short term…temporarily…until the novelty wears off.

EDIT – Actually, players are going to push really hard for ANet to increase the frequency & variety of Match-Ups to maximize this “Free” Transfer through Linking.

WvW is the End Game content to GW2 from my point of view.

Game content helps you build a community of friends & family as you journey through it together.

What keeps you coming back to play WvW is your community of established old friends & family…not the game content…although that helps.

Creating the right End Game content & properly positioning it to earn income can make or break a company in their Long Term survival…and not just the game mode product that they’re selling.

ANet can definitely use other in/out game “products” to generate revenue off a massive fanatic player base that WvW would bring to the table…if they focused on growing & nurturing long term communities instead….imho

Please merge threads. This World Link discussion could use all the feedback…both good & bad to hopefully guide the future of WvW…imho

Give players a reason to maintain & keep their WvW Rank above a certain level:

1. Reset a player’s WvW Rank to zero when they change Server
2. Allow players to earn Ranks in WvW on EB & BL maps only – Not in EotM
3. Require a minimum WvW Rank to setup & use Siege
4. Setup 2 entrance queues into WvW based on Rank Level – Veteran & Standard
5. Personal WvW Rewards tied to Rank Level

Idea for a SNL Skit on Server Link Match-Ups…that only a WvW player can understand…

Telephone: Brrring

Somebody Picks Up Telephone: pur-chuppa

• Girl: Hello?

• Mountain: Can I pretty please speak to Muhammad?

• Girl: I’m sorry, but Muhammad can’t be bothered at the moment…he’s really upset that he can’t find a battle to fight in. Is there something that you want me to tell him?

• Mountain: OH Noo! That’s ok…I really understand & don’t bother…I’ll come over right now by myself. I’ve got lots of fun & exciting battles for Muhammad if that’s ok with him?

• Girl: Okaay, but he might not like it…plus he says he wants all kinds of battles & you better be ready to change it more often for him. He’s really busy searching his room so you might not get to see him immediately.

• Mountain: Oh my. Didn’t think about that. My bad…hmmm…well that’s ok. I can wait for him if I have to…plus I’ll do my very best to quickly change battles often & give him lots of variety like he wants. I’ll be right over this instant…bless you…and thank you for letting me come over.

• Mountain Hangs Up Telephone: click

• ANet Announcer: Live from New York…It’s Saturday Night!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X9zGUC9Wmw

Vihar.5780:

There are two major problems that have plagued WvW from the beginning…

1. Any effort to balance WvW by balancing servers will fail while transfers are allowed and easy.

2. The Glicko system is stagnation. It was a dumb idea to use it for server matchups.

I’d like to add to your list…

3. Can’t “team-up” in WvW & play together with all friends & family that are on different servers.

4. Allow players to resolve off-peak capping themselves.

Swamurabi.7890:

So two of the issues a new WvW must answer is:

How do you have equal players on each side when you step into a map?

How do you prevent all the skilled players from grouping together?

You can’t & you don’t.

You design a game mode that takes advantage of all these player’s basic behavior patterns to drive Match-Ups…imho

Standen.3479:

EU does not have the population to support 27 servers or anything close to it. All that would be achieved by unlinking is a few more dead tiers. Obviously Anet made a huge mistake with Gunnar’s link and SFR seems to have collapsed but that does not mean linking has not been a good thing for most servers.

People seem to forget how empty WvW was in the lower tiers before linking while now as least you can find fights whenever you log in.

Why should ANet have to give Free Server links to help these players find a “zerg” fight?

Why should ANet force an entire Server to help them find “zerg” fights?

World Linking strips lower tiered servers of their identity & destroys the communities that existed on them that managed to survive without “zerg” fights.

I’d highly suggest that people that want to find “zerg” fights from the lower tiers be the ones to transfer themselves instead.

Each player should be given 1 free transfer if they’ve never transferred before.

There’s no way to balance WvW Population between Servers.

Solution needs to use these huge differences in Population levels to create Match-Ups…that is a fact…imho

Take a moment & visualize that a Server’s Population level can define what they bring to a battle.

The below is only an example on how I’d visualize this:

Large Servers – Aircraft Carrier

Medium Servers – Squad of M1 Tanks

Small Servers – Squad of Motorcycles

Ok with this in mind…

There’s only going to be a few Large Servers that can bring an Aircraft Carrier to battle.

World Linking actually steals players from all Small & Medium Servers to fuel the Large Server’s Aircraft Carrier needs.

World Linking actually prevents Small & Medium Servers from ever growing in the long term.

World Linking with Tiers ensures that only 2 Servers can directly attack the Largest dominant Server that has the Aircraft Carrier.

WvW game mode needs a design that allows competition between All Servers & not encourage this mechanically imposed dominance.

Small & Medium Sized Servers will only have Motorcycles & M1 Tanks because resources are mechanically diverted to Large Host Servers.

Tiers, World Linking, and Glicko design will only have the ability to create Match-Ups between an [ Aircraft Carrier ] vs [ M1 Tanks & Motorcycles ]

At this rate…we’re going to end up with a schizophrenic WvW Culture.

Our commanders & communities will always be

Unhappy, Unsatisfied, & Burned Out

with constantly having to adjust to change while trying to fight for meaning where there is none…given the current game design & mechanics.

If you’re on the Aircraft Carrier…you probably think…why is everybody complaining…everything looks good to me.

Johje Holan.4607:

Norbe.7630:

Why does server linking will be improved by adding tiers again?
im confused…. alot
some says, remove the linking cuz its a bad idea
some says, add more tiers
but NO one said to remove the tiers or to tweak the tiers, the one that separates servers from population and coverage superweapons to bandwagon imbalances

now i can see everybody doesn’t look at the big picture, everybody here just pretends to look at it………

I’ve seen people say this, “Remove the tiers”. What does that mean?

Tiers aren’t some artificial construct. They simply result naturally from the fact that it is a three way battle. Tiers are nothing more than the matches going on during a particular week. T1 = match between the 3 highest rated servers that week (after RNG), T2 = then next 3 servers, etc.

I’d totally recommend removing the tiers.

To do so would require a new game mode where servers attack each other directly…hence…no tiers.

Not going to explain it…cause I’ll incur the wrath of folks who are tired of seeing my posts.

This thread is about improving World Linking, but I can’t think of anything that would help…sorry.

Now back to the discussion of improving World Linking.

See below if you’re interested in a solution that “Removes the Tiers”.

veo.9243:

why not get rid of the “flat” ranking and adopt a “tree” ranking? you know, like on sports tournaments but on a permanent basis…

say team is one world or linked world, linking will be automatic at the end of every week

• three teams will be matched up on tier1
• six team will be matched up on 2 matches on tier 2 (going on like that will need 12 more teams on t3, so let’s just stop at 2 tiers)
• one up one down: team going down from t1 will be splitted (if not a single world) and relinked with the teams remaining in t2, worlds from the teams going up from t2 will be merged in one team to face the remaining t1
• enjoy the next week

…dunno, maybe it’s my brain farting :p

edit: small clarification

Which Server would you pick to play on & why?

If your Server choice is in the Top Tier or Rank…don’t bother answering the following question.

Would a Majority of WvW players also share the same choice & reason?

Don’t think having a Tree to determine the Match-Ups will really help.

Everybody will naturally want to be on a Top Ranked Server (Powerhouse) & the Bottom Ranked Servers will sadly be abandoned.

It’s like playing Cops & Robbers…and if Robbers are cool…nobody wants to be a Cop.

EDIT – Posted thread merged

Not bashing you veo.9243…it’s pretty noble that you’re trying to suggest a solution & I totally respect & encourage it.

Just pointing out to myself…that it can also be said

If it’s easier to steal a win over having to earn it…why bother being a cop

Flash Mobs Robbing Stores
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wepmrX9n1uw

Tournaments…using World Linking & Glicko…No Thanks.

Healthy competition between all servers isn’t possible atm…imho

Skirmishes is a good game mechanic, but it can only provide hope to the hourly small fights even if the weekly battle can already be decided based on the Match-Up.

Frozen.1347:

@ Diku
The same could happen with the current linking system, if players continue to leave. In EU they already deleted another tier last month. Server merging wouldn’t “fix” WvW – but it would create a more stable system like we had before the linkings, just without “dead” servers". Doesn’t mean they can’t or haven’t continue to work on WvW.

Funny thing…you might be right. It could help…not 100% sure it would…create a more stable system, but it only buys us more time to do what?

If things continue to go “Not as Planned” & we end up merging all the Worlds down to 3 Servers…what do we do then?

Honestly, if it is decided to merge servers…to “stabilize” WvW…then we should do it once…then pull the plug on Server Linking & let things return to how it was before.

We need a better game design & World Linking is definitely Not a Long Term solution that will work to create a game mode that supports & encourages a healthy competition between all servers…imho

The way how things are going…our precious WvW ecosystem (communities) are under constant & consistent pressure to survive.

I say…let the Low Tier players go back to paying for their own transfers instead of giving them free World Links to join the Upper Tier Zergs.

However, I doubt players will vote to un-do World Linking. It’s like WvW crack…once you’ve experienced Zerg Fest Heaven…how can you give it up?

Instead, players will be asking ANet to give More Links & to give it Faster.

Worst possible “fix”…imho

Merging servers without implementing a game design that takes advantage of population in-balances to create Match-Ups.

In 1 year…WvW devs will run out of “fixes”.

Here’s why…

2016 December

NA 24 Servers – Merged Down – NA 18 Server
Servers stack & Players Scream for fix
ANet implement Merge Server fix

2017 April

NA 18 Servers – Merged Down – NA 12 Servers
Servers stack & Players Scream for fix
ANet implement Merge Server fix

2017 August

NA 12 Servers – Merged Down – NA 6 Servers
Servers stack & Players Scream for fix
ANet implement Merge Server fix

2017 December

NA 6 Servers – Merged Down – NA 3 Servers
Servers stack & Players Scream for fix
ANet implement Merge Server fix

2018 April
NA 3 Servers – Can’t be Merged Down

Fix does not consider different Language based communities, or Time Zones.

It’s a pure Server Merge fix that people are carelessly asking for, but don’t realize the overall impact to the whole WvW ecosystem.

I’d strongly advise ANet to instead replace World Linking with a New Game Mode that can support & encourage healthy competition between all Servers.

World Linking was a Pandora’s Genie Crack Bottle.

ANet asked the typical WvW player if they wanted to try it just once…a majority voted & agreed…let me try it just once.

Now try asking anybody who’s addicted to Zerg Fest Heaven if they want to come down off their WvW Server Linked High…

ANet had a fiduciary duty…and threw it away…imho

All we can do is wait & hope…

I’d seriously advise ANet to use their next XPack to replace World Linking with a different game mode that can support & encourage competitive Match-Ups.

WvW Rank should be reset to Zero when players transfer to a different World.

Also, I believe there should be a minimum WvW Rank to Setup & Use Siege.

This will go a long way in helping build Community & Keep Trolls in check.

SkyShroud.2865:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”?

Still Believing that WvW can be saved if ANet changes the Game Mode’s Core Base Map Mechanic to take advantage of Population In-Balances instead of fighting it.

I’d rather see ANet remove the Tiers, assign a single map to each World, then let all Worlds attack each other with only the WvW Rank Leaderboard to provide players a weekly score & target system.

Why punish the customer by raising prices…let the retailer sell their goods to players that want to transfer to the #1 (NA/EU) or Any Top Ranked Worlds.

Just let the Bottom Ranked Worlds & everybody in between to attack the Top.

Then, keep the Map Caps the same so everybody spreads out when they find out that the queue to enter the #1 Ranked World’s Map take forever to enter…

ANet can later adjust the Map Caps to provide better game performance, Match-Up balance & to respond to increased player demands.

This option helps to build Long Term Communities in the Lower Ranked Worlds.

Still standing up to say something…

Load the Default Matrix Construct…

Just a pure white plain of existence with nothing in it except the players.

Sorry…couldn’t resist.

Matrix Construct
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGZiLMGdCE0

@Jana.6831
@joneirikb.7506

I think the both of you are both trying to encourage the same thing.

The concept of Home, but you’re on different wave lengths as far as Maps goes, but that’s ok…you both share the same desire about Home…imho

My opinion on Home is that this is exactly what makes you return to play WvW.

Home is Community…you’ll hear it over & over again.

Having many Communities (weak or strong) nurtured & allowed to exist…means a Robust Game Mode…it allows for a cycle of life.

You could have a corner in the Map, or you could have single EBG Map assigned to be your “Home”

It’s the simple fact that there IS a Particular Corner or Single EBG Map for you to return to.

It’s the place where you’ll find ALL your friends & family. A place where your heart can go to.

This is what’s now missing for many in WvW since World Linking was used to “Balance” population.

The Veteran Community on many Guest Servers were forced into choosing to change their “Home”, to remain a refugee in their preferred “Home”, or stop playing.

The “Heart & Soul” of many Guest Servers are gone now. Those that remain only joyride upon the Zerg Fest of their Host Server.

ANet asked the Zerg Addicts what they wanted…and they voted to turn WvW into a Zerg Fest.

You can’t ask an Addict how much Zerg they want & not expect them to request an overdose.

ANet is now stuck with this decision that the “Majority” of players wanted.

Worst part of this…ANet can’t ask the “Majority” of players to undo it…because…well you know.

At this point…I’d advise ANet to seriously change their Game Mode with a new core mechanic instead that can support & does encourage healthy competition…perhaps with the next XPack.

Someone mentioned that I should open my own game studio, but what I’d really like to do is join the ANet WvW dev team as a guiding light in rl…which I doubt they’d consider because I’ve criticize their product so much, but I downright love this product & feel miserable about the current state it’s in…speaking from the heart.

ANet can still fix this. I still believe this Game Mode can become the next eSport similar in scope to the NLF & Super Bowl franchise…if the right path is taken to make it right again…imho

Take a cookie…you’ll feel right as rain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvaE_HCMimQ

SkyShroud.2865:

However, this isn’t a food stall or retail shop, it is called as what it is, a penalty. Also, it isn’t a matter of people (who transfers a lot) liking the idea, it is a matter of controlling the transfers to maintain the balance, balance that got broken by the players themselves every time we relink.

Totally agree 100% with you about trying to maintain balance.

I wish there was a game mechanic in place, or WvW was designed to take advantage of population in-balances as a natural part of creating Match-Ups.

A better solution would be to create a game mechanic, or create a new game mode that takes advantage of population in-balances that naturally occur…instead of punishing players by charging them more to pay for a product they like.

I’d want the retailer to stay in business, and allow customers to purchase goods at an affordable price. It’s just good business sense from a retailer’s viewpoint…imho