IMHO GH were the major cause of death to wvw when HOT came out, not the dbl. Guild Halls are very expensive to level (or were) making small guilds useless….
What would have been an interested poll before the DBl was ever made would be to ask players to pick an existing PvE zone to use as an inspiration for the visual theme of a new Borderland map. I suspect Dry Top would not have won.
DBL is more based in the Silverwastes than Dry Top itself, altho both maps are the same region, the Maguuma Wastes.
My guess would be that some Ascalonian based map would have won if they ever made a the pool you suggest.
they did say their deviation and something else was changing to make the matchups less stagnant. I never saw any actual hard numbers though (and doubt it is enough to cover a 300 pt gap).
Good change thank you, artificial restrictions should not be used, people should be able to go and play where they wish.
what about no such thing as “full”? let the queue length sort things out? not saying I am for or against it, just wondering what people on a full un-linked world think (as this is artificial as well)…..
I hope PvE players that were only coming to WvW to bank know they can do so just as easily by entering heart of the mists without interrupting the PvP matches in progress. :p
As far was I was aware the guild registrar already had a drop down bank access option.
The guild registrar allows access to guild banks, not account banks which is what the craft tables were also useful for aside from crafting. The only other way to get access to the bank was to get a t3 keep. But luckily now we will have an always accessible bank vendor.
I wonder if it would be acceptable to put crafting tables in the HoTM lobby as a compromise.
I have been using the guild registrar to access MY bank for a LOOONG time now. Did they change it? You just select the drop down menu to vault and there it is. Doh! Ninja’d over and over and over again. XD
I agree adding crafting to HotM would help solve the problem.
Oops sorry about that, did not know you can access account bank or at least part of it from the guild registrar. They could also try changing part of OS to be like a WvW Lobby that includes a condensed crafting station and merchant.
I am fine with them removing the craft tables, but I think it would be better for everyone if they replaced it by putting them in another area like HoTM or OS because there is the convenience factor of not having to port to a slow loading city and then port back to the map you were on. If its on a mists map you can just load in, craft, exit and be back where you were, and not conflict with wvw maps.
it was THE place to go for toons parked at JPs / favorite farm spots because you end up back where you started.. if they made airship or that area in dr work that way, they would get gem sales and not even have to put in work in placing the stations elsewhere….
As an active WvW player I just want to say that this is a very welcome change. I honestly thought this thread was going to be a “YAY they removed crafting from WvW!” thread.
Getting active players on a given map is a massively important part of an enjoyable WvW experience. Even 3 or 4 more active players can turn the tides in a given tick. So if this change keeps map queues down by a few players this a great thing.
I know you might think “But I wouldn’t go into a map that is queued to craft.” But the thing is, a map population can shift in an instant. If the main force is on another map and needs to move to respond, a few crafters can actually hurt their servers.
I know it seems lame, but just know that there is definitely a benefit to this change
for a community that was feeling a bit neglected for quite a while.
I didn’t realize the other side of things and am sorry to hear that this has a negative
impact on so many people.
ive always thought the solution for this was to simply disable the stations when a queue is present. if there is no queue, who really cares?
I do wonder with the reward tracks / contribution algorithms that they saw people tagging a few things and then afking at craft stations. The five minute timer and constant flip of north camp may be a scenario where reward tracks kept ticking away from very minor contribution…..
If this really helps with queues fair enough, but FWIW I can’t remember seeing more than 3 people at WvW crafting and it’s usually just me when I’m there. But things like stacking sigils are borked if people have to go to LA.
And yeah, adding a normal bank NPC next to the trading post NPC would be nice.
edit: Perhaps it’s not about queues. Maybe they didn’t like people who logged off at the end of a jumping puzzle, went to WvW for banking crafting, and returned to the JP when they left WvW. Or something like that.
like me? I have all alts that I am not really playing at flax farm, strongboxes in TD, or JPs. They pretty much only left to bank, TP, or craft….
Oh, and don’t be mislead by BG in T1. They throttle to keep matches closer. They aren’t called Hibergate for nothing. Also, a certain couple of Guilds are OT’ing on TC to focus YB down.
I just find it hilarious Anet opened the T1 servers… its like they want to encourage people to stack those servers…
Last time I faced TC they already blobed everything to death, but hey.. I guess T2/3 servers actually have more ppl huh. Who knew…..
They actually might, because of server linking.
Which is the whole point of server linking.
it is. linked servers have a cap 1/2 of un-linked servers….
But this is exactly the problem… this way T1 servers will only pull further ahead in terms of population from all the other servers…
not arguing it is the way it should be, it is just the way it seems to be.
I am a little confused on how the server statuses were determined, why would TC be open and other servers that are full not be open? Some of this doesn’t make any sense. I think artificial lock downs need to end. At least lift them for a week before or after a new linking to let people move around as they want, so servers don’t need to have blackout weeks to open up, essentially wasting a week or more of play. This becomes an even bigger issue with guilds that now have members on different servers.
linked worlds have a cap 1/2 the amount of un-linked worlds seems to be the answer others found elsewhere. Not sure it makes sense to do it that way, but explains tc/yb open and jq/db/fa full.
Shouldn’t it work differently for servers that don’t have a linked partner? Meaning it should basically go back to normal where status is determined by activity, the calculations need tweaking. But I don’t understand the use of artificial lock downs now that one tier is completely unlinked. If its full through normal means that’s fine and all, but intentionally blocking people from transferring for an undetermined amount of time through the use of artificial lock downs seems more like they are playing wvw politics.
Even the old system had a cap / threshold. linked servers seem to be a percentage of what non-linked were. in this scenario “full” using the old formula, but a new max cap could leave some servers full (when we know they aren’t compared to tc).
I don’t know why did this, maybe they could not find any guests that made sense for tc/yb….. maybe they wanted to get host servers at bg level ?
Like I said elsewhere, Anet needs to explain how it works and why they thought it was a good idea…
I just find it hilarious Anet opened the T1 servers… its like they want to encourage people to stack those servers…
Last time I faced TC they already blobed everything to death, but hey.. I guess T2/3 servers actually have more ppl huh. Who knew…..
They actually might, because of server linking.
Which is the whole point of server linking.
it is. linked servers have a cap 1/2 of un-linked servers….
Halving the cap actually makes no sense. The population of JQ/AR is not half and half just for example. Why not simply take the calculated population of both servers and use the same cap as for unlinked servers?
your argument is with anet not me. I am just stating what I have heard / saw somewhere. anet needs to answer this so people understand how it works.
don’t think sos has been full since the re-link….. bg/db/jq/fa were the only full ones. time of day shouldn’t matter any more, TC has been open since re-link.
I just find it hilarious Anet opened the T1 servers… its like they want to encourage people to stack those servers…
Last time I faced TC they already blobed everything to death, but hey.. I guess T2/3 servers actually have more ppl huh. Who knew…..
They actually might, because of server linking.
Which is the whole point of server linking.
it is. linked servers have a cap 1/2 of un-linked servers….
How would a mixed bls setup of 2 ABLS and 1 DBL affect the population?
Because to have a good competitive environment, all sides need to have an equal playing field, literally. Football fields are equal on both sides of the 50 yard line are they not? I can’t think of a single sport that has unequal courts, fields, or lanes. As such, people that play WvW as a competitive game mode will leave.
It’s funny to sad how much WvW is becoming EotM. In EotM there’s two types of play, K-Training or Bag Farming. Now in WvW it’s basically coming down to people wanting to full blown either K-Training or Bag Farming too. Long live EotM 2.0
hasn’t been competitive for some time with 3 bls the same anyway…
I am a little confused on how the server statuses were determined, why would TC be open and other servers that are full not be open? Some of this doesn’t make any sense. I think artificial lock downs need to end. At least lift them for a week before or after a new linking to let people move around as they want, so servers don’t need to have blackout weeks to open up, essentially wasting a week or more of play. This becomes an even bigger issue with guilds that now have members on different servers.
linked worlds have a cap 1/2 the amount of un-linked worlds seems to be the answer others found elsewhere. Not sure it makes sense to do it that way, but explains tc/yb open and jq/db/fa full.
Seeing that YB is now “High” and other servers obviously has lesser population than YB is now “Very High”
MAG can Just blame Kalkz for spawn camping those Anet devs that daringly stuck their heads out of red keep last match and provoked him to take their entire side of the map and spawn camp them…
Maybe the devs that were spawn camped said " SPAWN CAMP MEH EH?!! TAKE THAT MAG! MWAHAHA! 560 gold to get the rest of ya guild on yer server now SUCKERS!!"
Yes, I am seeing no way for this " high/ med/ very high/ full list to be accurate.
linked servers have a cap 1/2 of the non-linked is the answer I believe….
So wait…. JQ received the second to last place world prior to Beta. Now we’ve been paired with the actual last placed world prior to Beta. How exactly does that work out? That we have less players again after linking. Meanwhile, a couple minutes before midnight EST, and BG has 61 players in queue total across the 4 maps.
So the problem is, how is this a competitive game mode any longer? We can’t build our team up, to move up, because we’re locked. The dev’s take away numbers when they please. This is pretty much hitting “why bother” levels of care now.
btw… JQ is absolutely NOT full. That’s utter bunk! You’d have to be counting players coming in to gather nodes, spy accounts, or something. They are not in Squad, in TS, or on JQ.com. Need far more strict rule sets for what is a “WvW player”. Also need it based on hours played and not just weekend warriors that play reset and nothing else.
Yea.. there is definitely something not right here.. and No way YB has less coverage than MAG, yet it costs less to transfer to YB than Mag. IDK what they are doing, but no way JQ is full or YB should cost less to move than T3 servers. The way this is being done prevents servers from being able to compete at the same level. Every server should have equal chance of competing with BG is what would actually be fair, and they are preventing that from happening via locks and increased costs and unusual methods to determine coverage.
agreed its odd, but I think the “reasoning” is tc and yb are unlinked so don’t have the reduced cap linked servers have (thought I saw linked cap are 1/2 the unlinked cap). not agreeing with it, but that seems to be the logic….
Not sold on the linking concept yet, but this version of linking is way more interesting than the original version which seemed rushed and too basic. This re-link deserves some time to see how it works.
I love that they went to 3 and 4 server links (start of alliance wars?) instead of just 2 server links everywhere in NA. I didn’t understand no link for tc and yb at first, but then saw they were open compared to fa/jq who are full with less/similar pops, but linked. Time will tell if that works….
Man this is so kittening bs half my guild on TC half my guild on Kaineng and someone of my members still on DH yeah anet of course linking is.great you know guilds are totally not going to kittening die kittening hell that’s I’m out V overwatch here I come.
None of the servers in EU linked with full servers are showing full. That will likely carry over to BG when NA reset happens. And I did vote against linking. Anyone in lower tiers could already tell you that this hasn’t fixed anything.
I’m on Kaineng, and getting linked to a T1 server certainly increased wvw action for us. We went from being almost a ghost town in wvw to suddenly having pretty much non stop activity in wvw. Sure, the blob warfare gets tiring, and roaming and havoc squads are a lot more challenging to do, but yea…..linking has definitely ‘fixed’ some things for the lower tiers.
And yea, it does come with problems….like loss of server identity, etc. But the linking has definitely given those of us on the lower tiers that wanted more action….it has given us lots more action.
if this was what you wanted all along, why didn’t you transfer? pretty sure the gold to convert to gems wasn’t that hard to get over the 3 years to do it….
“IF” ABL brought people back, they have already left or others have left. Tell me again how the ABL was the savior and not a two week trip down nostalgia lane..
The real issue with people leaving isn’t the BL and never was the BL…. Too many other issues involved to blame or credit the population on the BL.
Incentive to destack a server is really easy to achieve, just a matter if anet want or not. Simply by locking the 6 largest servers and give the bottom 6 lowest server complete free transfer while opening the rest of the servers with 500 or 1k gem transfer cost. Then check the population by weekly basis and adjust accordingly. You can achieve a very simple way to destack. The word “free” itself is powerful enough.
except of course yb and jq barely play at the same time which was part of the issue when both were t1. sort of like a marriage where spouses get along great – because they live in two different houses…..
why would anyone assume its the pve players with 20 accounts on different servers and not the wvw players with the 20 accounts? there is no ‘pve server’ and wasn’t ‘pve servers’ when the 10$ accounts came out. if you were pve why create another account other than daily reward login?
the more likely scenario is the wvw player with 20 accounts on 20 servers since they had a reason to do this. Hence the ballot box stuffing more likely a wvw player not pve player.
most likely scenario is that the amount of people voting more than 2-3 times is negligible…
I wonder if you people realize that there are other servers outside of tier 1 lol.. Blackgate is only a problem for YB and TC. No one else cares, and if you don’t like fighting them – go transfer to a different server. Really, all of the complaining about Blackgate when you’re willing to do nothing about it is getting old. I can’t go in to a WvW thread without seeing someone crying about fighting Blackgate.
Come on down to T2 or T3, it is a lot more fun than T1. I can personally vouch for that as someone who was on Blackgate and transferred to a T3 server that became a T2 server (Borlis Pass/Fort Aspenwood.)
^This is true except for that fact that no tier is safe with this tier linking volatility changes. Transferring to another server at this point is dangerous.
Yes indeed, so wait until after Friday to decide where to transfer once the servers are relinked. I’ve transferred so many times, I’ve lost count. I don’t mind though, I go where the fun is. If it ever stops being fun for me on the server I am on, I go somewhere else. I don’t see why that is a hard concept for so many people to grasp.
If you’re trapped in a room with a bunch of people you don’t like (or don’t want to be around in general), would you be willing to pay $10 to leave that room and go to one where there are different people that you may like better or do you stay in that room and suffer? I’d rather pay $10 and take a chance on new people if I know I don’t like being where I am already.
if I recall properly you are a smallish havoc guild? What works for you may not work for larger guilds when there is a higher chance of Anet suddenly setting the servers full mid-transfer. They have done this twice with no prior warning/knowledge since linking…
I think something like this would be possible if NA & EU could be combined for greater variance but since that will never happen it probably will not be popular enough to sell to 75% either side of the pond. And while it would be nice (and even something I’ve suggested in the past) it is generally a bad idea to segregate different play styles because they are actually stronger together and often need each other to thrive. I do wish ANET would consider trying a few more risky things but it is probably too late for that.
I would love to be able to play with/against EU servers unfortunately its not possible due to technical limitations. You do bring up a good point about different playstyles, but this was already possible before server linking. I agree though both playstyles do absolutely need each other, I love working with small op groups when my guild raids.
Your idea still allows for all playstyles in each group. The way I see it, the difference is when you do want to “blob it up” – just how big is that blob? Some may only want to blob, but their computer handles 40v40v40 better than current qvqvq. A few in my guild are sort of forced to scout / small ops because their system cant handle t1 qvqvq. Heck sometimes I think anet cant handle it with no skills firing for anyone.
BG hasn’t had 4 map q outside of reset for weeks now, they did have 4 map queue when the hype was real and servers just merged but so did TC, YB and a lot of other servers.
Not gonna say BG doesn’t have the most people, they probably do but it’s a lot deader than people think it is.
pretty sure YB had 1 queue the last 2 resets – maybe 2 very small ones, but not 3 or 4….. A militia heavy server has little reason to play when you know who wins and by how much 5 minutes into a match.
That said, I personally had a ton of fun holding Garry from both BG and TC, but you had to love it for the fight – the score wasn’t going to matter in the end. Unfortunately the score DOES matter with many people on all servers….
When we trounced t2 prior to coming to t1 (like BG is doing now), that was the most boring wvw ever. I barely played then other than dailies…..
Because no one likes “running from everyone to hide behind siege” aka YB
Every server that has fewer numbers on a map “hides behind siege”. The difference with YB was (is?) that it kept that siege refreshed, encouraged scouting and is comprised mostly of PUGs.
No YB does it even when they have superior numbers.
out of curiosity – which 5 minutes out of the 24 hour day would that be?
Pretty much, yeah. Watching all the contortions to justify excluding people from having a say is disheartening for sure.
No, we’re talking about ensuring 1 man, 1 vote. Also, to ensure players are informed voters by having some experience in WvW.
Anyone below rank 500 don’t have much experience
and how many above 500 were eotm warriors? basing on ranks when eotm was the means for so many EASY ranks…. what about newer players < 500 who play way more than the old vets that just whine these days?
@Liston: agreed on that point.. if people are indeed standing around spawn causing fighters to not be able to get on then that really is wrong imo.
same can be said of the home bl ‘crafters’…. I will use the stations at times, but not when I know there is a queue for the bl. Pretty sure others could care less that they are “wasting space” though….
Well, I’m not sure about your server but I rarely see people just sitting at our spawn points for long periods of time with the likely intent of boosting their rewards. It’s possible people do it of course but from what I can see it’s in the very small minority at best. Frankly I don’t care if someone is so lazy they want to stand there just for that… At the end of the day, it doesn’t hurt me in any way so power to them.. ugh…
it hurts if you are in a que to get onto the bl…..
unless fa + mag roll around in map que blobs, won’t be much of a fight. if they do roll around in map que blobs – best auto attack wins – other skills often won’t work…..
It’s pretty easy to hate on BG and #stackedgate but lets face it if BG does ‘die’ the people will be quitting and not spreading out to balance tiers which we all know is never gonna happen.
BG and to a degree TC are the last T1 servers with actual players around the clock (mostly) and rather than cheering on for BG to destack/die players should be more concerned with how the other servers don’t have enough coverage to match BG.
That won’t change without more drastic action, so BG will remain stacked, although we will see what happens when the link is changed. I would actually hope BG doesn’t get linked and 1 set of servers is 3 servers.
Its not just players leaving BG and the game which is a potential problem its players leaving any server including those from TC and YB who are sick of BG. Its why I find the attitude of those who want servers to die (as is frequently seen on the salt forum) so shortsighted, servers die people will leave the game leaving it in a worse state.
The reason they wont spread out is due to the environments on many of the other servers. Some are outright toxic.
The reason they won’t spread out is that they are winning pure and simple.
and already have free / 10$ accounts on other servers so no need to move….. The dormant ‘wvw’ accounts that all woke-up around the patch still located on BG even before the linking is a part of the problem that anet didn’t really address with server status.
.
