But it is about being Full. JQ is Full because it has more active population than Very High servers. There’s no reason to give a link to a Full server.
I think this round of links is pretty reasonable. Look at how close all the NA matches are right now.
Population is used for server status. Links are used to better even up matches. This is not whats happening
^This.
I’ve got a lot of friends on JQ and when I look at my friends list during the day I rarely see more than 2 or 3 of them in wvw. But every one of them will hop in at some point, either during prime time or just to get their daily.
All of these people are technically active players even if they are only in wvw for about an hour or less everyday.
When I look around on Mag I see the same names logging in every day and putting in way more hours.
Yeah and thats why we’re full, not why we didn’t get a link.
JQ is currently winning the T2 match without a server link. Seems like the T2 match is pretty even.
That’s because it’s the weekend and some of our Sea came on for reset. Today we have some NA playing during EU, etc. Once the work week begins, that coverage and man power goes poof!
EU got their thread locked even before it started… Anet don’t want to hear people crying about stuff such as “Now Drakkar Lake is in a bad position like Gunnar’s Hold was.” or “Why Vizunah Square have 2 links?” or “Why Piken Square (2nd) have no link and Jade Sea (3rd) does if they are on the same tier?”
And honestly, while I’m loving dem tears, NA one should have received the same treatment. They won’t answer the question these people want answered anyway, so why bother?
As far as I know, Piken Square and Far Shiverpeaks are pretty kitten happy about being unlinked
It’s actually a good thing they seem to be ignoring EU. Maybe they’ll ignore it enough to let it float back to solo servers for all. You NA kids can have the shiny new stuff.
Swords will trigger if you kill the upgrade guy. It’s a great tool for scouts to divert attention.
Swords will appear if you just hit any of the guards then leave.
I belive he meant if you just leave the NPC dead it will keep recontesting. But honestly, why would anyone bother to just tap a camp when you can pretty much flip it before swords even come up?
I demand explanation! Swapping alt is reasonable but putting individuals in, bypassing the limit is not reasonable!
Paging for Gaile Gray!
How do you know he didn’t have an alt he swapped? And why would he owe you or anyone an explanation if he did? It’s way funnier watching you guys lose your marbles over this anyway.
It’s unethical. It indicates that one person or group are given privileges that others, who paid the same amount for the game, are not afforded.
That is a slippery slope for any corporation. It erodes trust.
What? I don’t know the reasons why Devs choose to move people despite the link. I just stated the facts and I know this to be true because I have Arenanet staff in my guild and I have met individuals with these abilities.
Hel also has devs in Guild, moving a off hour Guild into a already stacked server, seems someone paid more than cookies.
No one moved Hel. A singular person is not moving a guild regardless if Hel has Devs or not.
A popular off hours commander is moved on to a locked very stacked server. This is not someone that has waited eons to join his guild, there is plenty that would like to know the reason why this case was different than all other requests we read about for people to join friends.
Yeah its questionable. ArenaNet will never tell you why. They’ve also been doing this since the dawn of time. They’ve moved people to locked servers for reasons unknown many many many times over even during a season tournament. They will not tell you why because they simply don’t want the community to take advantage I’m sure.
Again, if this is true, there should be some explanation.
It is true whether you believe it or not it’s been happening since the games launch.
Someone famous for doing it is Heurix who is a shoutcaster for SPvP tournaments.
There are a few individuals in my guild whose gotten Arena Net to move them despite the lock and I remember one specific case where Arena Net swapped someones alt account with their main on a locked server.
I don’t think the community should be worried about Arena Net moving individuals for certain reasons. They aren’t moving entire guilds this way.
What? I don’t know the reasons why Devs choose to move people despite the link. I just stated the facts and I know this to be true because I have Arenanet staff in my guild and I have met individuals with these abilities.
Hel also has devs in Guild, moving a off hour Guild into a already stacked server, seems someone paid more than cookies.
No one moved Hel. A singular person is not moving a guild regardless if Hel has Devs or not.
A popular off hours commander is moved on to a locked very stacked server. This is not someone that has waited eons to join his guild, there is plenty that would like to know the reason why this case was different than all other requests we read about for people to join friends.
Yeah its questionable. ArenaNet will never tell you why. They’ve also been doing this since the dawn of time. They’ve moved people to locked servers for reasons unknown many many many times over even during a season tournament. They will not tell you why because they simply don’t want the community to take advantage I’m sure.
Again, if this is true, there should be some explanation.
Devs can move people regardless of the cap for reasons and some people have the power to ignore the cap and transfer to servers they want also for reasons.
See? Now you’re making things sounds sketchy by innuendo again.
Doing anything you mention above is unethical.
What? I don’t know the reasons why Devs choose to move people despite the link. I just stated the facts and I know this to be true because I have Arenanet staff in my guild and I have met individuals with these abilities.
You’re contradicting yourself in a single paragraph.
“I don’t know the reasons why devs choose to move”
“I know this to be true because I have Arenanet staff in my guild”
Devs can move people regardless of the cap for reasons and some people have the power to ignore the cap and transfer to servers they want also for reasons.
See? Now you’re making things sounds sketchy by innuendo again.
In EU for example. FSP, Piken and Jade Sea would all become unlinked and play as solo servers next linking.
If servers that are paired from below push up into T1 then they become unlinked at next pairing.
The minute you enter the T1 threshold, you have to be able to stand on your own or fall down.
In BGs case, keeping the server locked to transfers will offer challenges, and will, at the very least rotate out the other two opponents, giving match variety.
I had written this in another thread, but I think it might be worth its own discussion.
What if there was a rule that any server that goes into T1 does not get a link?
So with linking every two months, if your server (combos), push into T1, at the next linking you become unlinked.
It’s like a threshold that will enable other servers the chance to rally a bigger population and rotate in and out of T1 — and generate variety of matches.
So in T1 you either stand on your own as a server, or you get picked off and drop back down again.
And Anet remains resolute on keeping full servers closed; only allowing in new players through attrition.
hmmm…
i hope you wont come back here to complain on how easy is for your enemy spies to intercept your server’s ppt units and wipe by their fight squads
since gw2 is f2p, spying isnt worth it anymore since everyone can do it anyway. IF you have a spy account, and want to spy, you just log through each 4 maps or just go onto TS and then log your normal account. you will hear where the cmd is and where he borderhops.
It’s been marginal in EU. It would be epidemic in NA.
I can be fine if anet decides to have these polls to show you care of, but not use them to drop the responsability to the WvW community about the changes. 1000 players will never take a designer’s decision, because they aren’t and they will never be even if their number grows!
Well, thinking about, no, I’m not fine at all with these polls:
Come on, I don’t play pvp and still I can vote the current pvp related poll.
There’re many other ways to show you care of WvW but putting the cannons in the current state, a prototype of the previous WvW siege state (no cd, no condi/crit dmg on them, no cap), show me lack of effort, the opposite of anet intent.
Very good point. WvW needs a designer taking charge. Outsourcing all responsibility to player polls is not the way.
By the way are EotM players allowed to vote? I bet they are and they have nothing to do with WvW.
Hey, anybody who stumbles across these polls online that has a game account can vote.
Whereas prior it was game design by who yells the loudest.
I guess it’s a sneak preview of the upcoming GW2 – Storms of Steel Expac. They could be preparing two new wvw maps: Pirate of the Carabbean Sea and Defense of Verdun.
Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).
Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..
This sounds like pvp and not wvw.
Even your scratched out post hints at that.
And the problem with poaching ideas from pvp, for a format people want more pvp oriented is..?
It’s not even remotely the same game.
If spvp was so optimal, you’d think they’d get more than 50 players for its big competition.
There’s a reason people play and are attached to wvw more than spvp.
Actually believe that one was the pve players, ticked off about GoB changes.
Nah… The ticked off PvE players preffer that WvW receive nothing, thus they vote against anything be added to WvW. That’s what one ticket off PvE’er posted anyway…
Oh I have a quote buried somewhere alluding they did. Hang on…..
Dear god, what the hell is wrong with people. Why would anyone even remotely consider voting on this? Are you not really aware of what this will mean? Like how are you gonna defend against a huge zone blob when you can not take down their rams, cattas, trebs? I mean this is tricky as it is anyway when outnumbered, so how on earth do you guys feel that this is a great idea?
This wont help defenders for the easy reason that if you have to use siege to defend, it means your side is undermanned. And the attacking side will be more powerful due to the repair hammer AND it wont stop them from taking our siege down for the simple reaso, that we are not immune to the insane amount of damage a blob throw at the siege, so repair hammer for defending side will be utterly useless!
So by all mean, all you guys that voted for this. How were you thinking? How are you even considering this to be a good thing?
But yes, I too think the message should be sent to everyone, not just those in WvW at a certain unknown time.
Terrible idea. WvWers don’t want the PvE kittens voting on WvW features when they have little to no idea what the actual impact will be.
Cuz people not playing WvW actively this very week/month will most certainly have no clue about WvW and thus don’t deserve to know there’s a poll going on; and every PvE:er is totally going to go in and vote on something that has 0 effect on their own gameplay just to be mean. I strongly doubt that.
Sometimes something as simple as a smile can give you away.
You realize of course that poll was massively trolled. A call out to troll it was on the cancer forums. Any serious wvw players knew what a horrible idea it was, the fact that ANET didn’t is just….sad.
Actually believe that one was the pve players, ticked off about GoB changes.
Another possibility, would be to work the transfers so you change at the reset ( but can pay for your transfer/reserve your slot if there is one to reserve any time).
Could add a 1 week cd on transfers, though I’m not sure that would be necessary/desirable. Though this does hinge on the idea of factions being reformed weekly. ( should be doable.. anet does matchmaking in seconds/minutes for spvp..) never mind, It doesn’t if you have to wait till the next matchmaking, whenever that is..
As much as I hate blobbing, and rarely blob myself: Let people play how they want to.
I can still roam and duel because my server respects my playstyle; I will totally return that respect and find a way to enjoy myself.
Both types of play can coexist.
I seem to remember you had quite a lot of people waiting to kill us at your north camp last time I went there, not just a few more, a lot more than us.
I’ve also seen all 3 servers completely killing any and all duellers this match up. Sad to say but the zerg is winning.
Oh that’s only because I asked in map chat if anyone wanted to hold my hand in north camp
You notice they left us alone when you were thwapping me? Lol.
That’s just one example, there are plenty of other great organized groups that don’t let the blob have the advantage. In fact I’d argue organized groups have the advantage more often.
If you don’t believe those kinds of discussions happen in a serious manner, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think you are confusing the setting of server-wide goals with their ability to execute their plans.
You believe that people have that ability to control pugs and guilds to the extend to tank. Not only that, to tank for entire month.
Easier than you think.
Popular commander doesn’t log in. Pugs log off.
While as a pug myself, I don’t need a commander to play wvw — a lot do. Or won’t play unless they see the blue tag.
Yes. Your behaviour painted you as the bad guy. You aren’t seeking to solve issues. You’re pushing for changes that would put more control in the hands of the people that caused the issues in the current system such as yourself.
There would be more control in the hands of ALL guilds/players not just him and his alliance, and an alliance system is a way of solving current issues. Anet themselves clearly went quite far along in the design of the system as a solution and quite a few other players have raised a similar system as a solution. I dislike his actions in the past but they are irrelevant in this discussion.
Well the original discussion was about linking and it’s become derailed into alliance nonsense. Which has already been addressed by a dev in this very thread as a non-starter. Yet it continues…..
This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.
Internal Drama happens with Guilds and servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.
“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.
A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on server, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.
“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "
Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.
Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.
And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.
So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?
Interesting.
As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.
Again, not thinking this through.
“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "
Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.
I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.
However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.
When you want to make your points, its better to stay on point rather than target someone and talk down to them. Here you could have easily explained why you think I’m not thinking this through based off what I posted in response. Be less condescending and more productive.
There’s only so many times you can repeat yourself.
The problem here is you believe you’ve presented an unassailable pov. When I counter with real issues, you don’t address them, just redivert into ideologies that you adhere to, or dismiss them as unimportant. When I say “but what about” .. you do a Hellion wall of text.
What I think is going on is perhaps just a basic inability for each of us to understand each other, and that happens.
And I’m incredibly productive. You should see me at work
This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.
Internal Drama happens with Guilds and servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.
“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.
A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on server, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.
“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "
Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.
Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.
And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.
So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?
Interesting.
As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.
Again, not thinking this through.
“If ArenaNet could matchmake Battlegroups with a cap, on servers that expand with population, on a competing Tier. "
Battlegroups have a cap of 1000. Battlegroups, guilds, and players are matchmade into servers. Those servers exist on a tier. Battlegroups do not replace servers and servers have their own caps that relevant to how servers already work in GW2. Thus, you can join a server without joining a battlgroup. Battlegroups are utilized for match making similar to how Server links are utilized except better.
I’m not confused you are confused and you choose to read what you want to read. You should stop telling me I haven’t placed much thought into this or that I’m confused because you are failing to explain why that’s so.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, not be disparaging.
However, if you are fully cognizant, then that puts things on a whole other level.
This is all false. Firstly, a battlegroup at capacity is 1000 players but not the cap of a server. In fact, a server can hold more than the cap of a battlegroup and a maximum capacity battlegroup would still need to get paired with other guilds, players and battlegroups. Therefore, you can not stack your world, your world will be matchmade in creation which is taking it out the players hands to prevent any type of manipulation.
Internal Drama happens with Guilds and servers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. Your point about internal drama holds no weight in this argument. This is like saying we shouldn’t have guilds, because guilds can be elitist and stack with the best players and theirs internal drama.
“* then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because”
This would be like someone coming to the forum and complaining that a guild removed them from the roster. Just because you get kicked out a battlegroup doesn’t mean you get kicked from your server. In-fact as it said it would lock you in place for the duration of the season and the tournament afterwards. So even if you were removed from your battlegroup and guild, you’d still be associated with the same server.
A battlegroup has a max cap. A server expands as it does now. server hold more than 1000 players and because organized groups are match made on server, then the system is locked afterwards there is no wiggle room to take advantage and stack your side.
“* then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups … "
Everything I said makes these two points pointless and make very little sense. If matchmaking is designed to kitten guilds and keeps evenly matched together then how would the very same community complain about the lack of fights. Furthermore, if the match making system places evenly matched guilds in a matchup, how would they complain about unorganized pug groups… Lastly if the match making system reevaluates and takes everyone into account and servers are larger than 1000 players, how will you get staleness when we are already rotating in a match made server linking system that’s in fact easier to stack now.
Well you can try to protest and say that it’s false, but it’s not.
And now I think you’re even more confused than before — because in this version of battlegroups, servers still exist.
So are battlegroups kind of like the condom of WvW?
Interesting.
As for internal drama, nobody wants to have real repercussions to some other group’s drama.
It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.
But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.
You’d think.
Until:
each of those groups were manipulated to capacity,
then internal group drama where someone gets kicked out, or another group wants to join,
then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because
we’ve seen, historically, that people want the easy face roll,
then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups …
And then guess what? Stale matches, predictable week after week matches, personal pride battles that satisfy a small minority of those in control of the dominant groups and leave everyone else out, and we are back to where we are now. Only worse. People just give up because the community they once had no longer exists to keep them tied to the game.
People are not thinking this through.
This model highly favours GvG groups. A demographic assessment needs to be done to determine if these groups are stable enough to sustain the model. Because once you eliminate the casuals, they won’t come back.
