Guild Wars 2

Just blow up the servers people….
Those two servers are stacked over the years, it will not magically spread out overnight or within a year or two, the return players effects gonna be lasting too.

Blow everything up, reset everything to zero, make things competitive again.

Those SEA guilds that went BG, sorry, they are not gonna last, BG is never known as SEA server to the SEA players so I wonder where they gonna recruit from now they are out of JQ, the heaven to recruit SEA players, and in a closed server. SEA people will continue to flock to JQ unless everything are deleted, servers name abandoned so even a google search on SEA servers or anything close will simply lead to old servers.

LOL. Really? QQing about warning? What about the new players who started without given even a single chance to get easy GOB? If do not want to spend that effort and time to get GOB, then don’t get legendary.

Self entitlement is strong, my advise would be make your own game and set your own rule.

Furthermore, wvw players have to do pve to get some of the HOT gears. Stop QQing and go earn it, otherwise, don’t get legendary.

someone pumped a 6mth old thread

Anet believe JQ is competitive in T1 but in reality it isn’t. JQ is too casual thus the inconsistent for T1. It can also be that anet believe some absurd advise from some foolish JQers that JQ should go T1.

If you create multiple wvw maps, wouldn’t that become eotm-ish, just without the ktrain. That wvw feeling is no more.

HOD triple simply outplay DB triple despite lesser number. DB triple still have much more population. But hey, guess what, I was told DB triple link was “OK” by some players but obviously, anet agree is not “OK”.

I hope anet go through with the plan to reduce global cap and direct new players downwards so lower servers can actually get to recruit players and form a competitive zerg to fight other with and against with instead of having to eat each other servers’ players up, the smallest servers will slowly get eliminated.

I once suggested penalty restriction on it a month ago, with greater cost for each transfer while having reset cycle but people were pretty kitten against it.

RodOfDeath.5247:

SkyShroud.2865:

I don’t think anyone is suggesting “perfect” balance.

I don’t think it will ever happen and I sympathize with anet on it. The large guilds and band wagoners will never allow it.

BG is always going to be massive and that server who likes to k-train like no tomorrow to get a massive lead, then they disappear the entire week after a comfortable lead is established with a core of “roaming guilds”<—lol. Then we have JQ, who is pptin their brains out to get to T1 and SBI/TC just can’t keep up with the night/back capping.

I’m also convinced if TC/SBI had a solid nightcrew they’d be hanging with JQ easily. So not sure why people in the forums are pushing so hard for JQ to be matched up with BG. I think the outlook would be different from what they are wishing. BG would just destroy them and they’d be stuck with the same boring lower pop servers.

But….no1 is suggesting perfect balance

what people want is…..not having that outman buff between any two/three servers

I don’t think anyone is suggesting “perfect” balance.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone! It still seems like there is a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it again.

Maybe you should consider the ideas given in the feedback than asking the same idea twice. Asking the same idea twice in such a short duration is already giving the impression that devs are reluctant to accept other ideas other than their own preferred ones.

Gw2 is highly dependent on single core performance
Try using https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html to help decide the CPU.

Still no idea why anet is so insistent on new worlds instead of working on the existing worlds, they actually talk about this twice (include this thread). Is the dev so stubborn to the point that they believe new worlds will work better in a long term when the current numerous worlds already failing?

The dev should be more realistic and practical when come to choosing solutions, the dev should consider a middle ground where you make current specific servers free to transfer, for example the guest servers of T4. Dev could even setup additional transfer rules like higher transfer cost from “High” to “Medium” if they are targeting to shift population from “Very High” to “Medium”. dev can also reduce global cap to channel new players towards the bottom servers.

I doubt creating new servers is any easier than working on the current. Proven to be doable since S2 had free transfers for specific servers.

Seems like usual periodic server status update, now all anet has to do is to reduce the global cap and make all very high servers full >:)

that will fulfill their intended goal to shift population to bottom servers.

Anet is afraid of major backlash for doing some drastic changes but they not afraid of suggesting new servers and asking people to move. It is puzzling, puzzling why they couldn’t ask the same for the current dead servers, why they can’t make the current dead servers free, why they can’t reduce the cap now and so on, why must they do it in such a beat around the bush manner.

Then, when people are asking for deletion of servers which they too mentioned they had intention of, they wouldn’t dare to poll the public opinions about it. Puzzling, really puzzling.

Joke. Guilds are not forced to stack on these servers, they made those choice while knowing the servers will be full, while knowing they have to compete with other guilds for a limited yet large pool of players in a full servers, while knowing any so-called returned players that were on the previous servers will not be able to rejoin them and so on…….

If guilds made the choice to stack on these servers without considering these factors, then those guilds deserve to die for their bad leaderships.

If you reduce the map cap, you need to increase the number of commanders which many servers are lacking.

Disagree, get people to fill up the current near dead servers then we can talk about new servers.

Reading through the replies and putting all the reasonable suggestions together, I am suggesting a option 4 which is….

Shorten the server names into their initials like….
Pink Nation become “PN”, displaying “PN” on everything
Pink Nation + Blue Nation will become “PN/BN”, displaying as “PN/BN” instead of just “Pink Nation”

I believe it can be quite easily done and will fit just well into the existing UI.

Also, do keep this in mind, new players, be it pve or wvw or pvp or pvx type of players, will all be shut out of the server as long as the server is full. That is also to say that the empty server naturally does not even have any non-wvw population to tap into while the older servers do have non-wvw populations to tap into. Therefore, the risk factor is much higher in the new servers than the old servers. This is some of things that leaders have to consider when moving their guilds and deciding the value of the proposal, in the perspective of their guilds’ future.

Personally, I think it is much more realistic to give incentive to players to move down to current lowest populated servers while systemically reducing all servers’ cap than to open new servers.

SkyShroud.2865:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We could achieve more balanced competition in a world-versus-world setting if we had more pieces to join together with the World Linking System. It currently is not possible for us to establish an “equal” number of players on each link/world with the current world sizes. You may recall this initially was mentioned by Tyler a few months ago.

For example, world populations currently look something like this:
• World 1: 95%
• World 2: 82%
• World 3: 81%
• World 4: 60%
• World 5: 30%
• World 6: 10%

Since our final world total needs to be divisible by 3 because we need a team for each color—Red, Blue, and Green—we either need to avoid linking any of the worlds, or link some worlds even if the result is that they have the advantage of a larger population.

• Worlds 1+6: 105%
• Worlds 2+5: 112%
• Worlds 3+4: 141%

After linking, the difference in population between the highest and lowest teams is much narrower, but the third rank server still has significantly more population than the server that previously was ranked first. Also, the result of this theoretical world linking is that all worlds are now above our goal population cap, and probably have moderate to heavy queues.

If we instead had twice as many worlds, but if each had about half the population, it would be much easier to create linked teams with similar populations. This would lead to better matchups for everyone, and encounters would be less predictable. In this scenario, we would allow players free transfers to the new empty worlds for a period of time. These worlds would start out linked so that they wouldn’t begin in an empty state in a match-up. We would lower the player population cap on all worlds so that more worlds would become and stay “Full.” The result would be that guilds that want to expand would have an excellent option to do so with a move to these new open worlds.

Having outlined some of the thinking behind this proposal, we’d like your feedback on these three topics.
1. How do you feel about this proposal?
2. What, if anything, would you change about this current proposal?
3. Would you be interested in transferring to a new free world?

Hi, the problem with this suggestion is how are the inflow of players gonna be? Guilds need people to strive and if no people, they can’t strive. Newbies will hardly choose those “empty” server, they will often choose the higher populated server. In such a case, guilds will not prosper, your proposal will fail in long run. Unless there is a way to get newbies to choose the empty server or allow newbies to choose a server at later time, small to medium sized guilds will not choose to go to that empty server. Likewise, big guilds will unlikely to go there since they might have established a sphere of influence in their servers, able to recruit or invested much in attracting players.

Also, this proposal is asking for volunteers to give up something to go to a risky environment with unknown futures. Not many will be willing to do so, especially if guilds want to stay competitive, able to recruit surely. Better option will be just blow it all up for equal start.

To add on, even if you lower the overall cap, closing up servers and therefore increasing the servers status. The inflow numbers will always be limited and it will still be shared across the numerous servers. Then, it will also eventually reach a timeline where all servers eventually be opened due to decline populations, the incoming players will be spread to a wider range of servers then.

A solution that can work for long term, flexibility to handle the increase and decrease of population is more preferred.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We could achieve more balanced competition in a world-versus-world setting if we had more pieces to join together with the World Linking System. It currently is not possible for us to establish an “equal” number of players on each link/world with the current world sizes. You may recall this initially was mentioned by Tyler a few months ago.

For example, world populations currently look something like this:
• World 1: 95%
• World 2: 82%
• World 3: 81%
• World 4: 60%
• World 5: 30%
• World 6: 10%

Since our final world total needs to be divisible by 3 because we need a team for each color—Red, Blue, and Green—we either need to avoid linking any of the worlds, or link some worlds even if the result is that they have the advantage of a larger population.

• Worlds 1+6: 105%
• Worlds 2+5: 112%
• Worlds 3+4: 141%

After linking, the difference in population between the highest and lowest teams is much narrower, but the third rank server still has significantly more population than the server that previously was ranked first. Also, the result of this theoretical world linking is that all worlds are now above our goal population cap, and probably have moderate to heavy queues.

If we instead had twice as many worlds, but if each had about half the population, it would be much easier to create linked teams with similar populations. This would lead to better matchups for everyone, and encounters would be less predictable. In this scenario, we would allow players free transfers to the new empty worlds for a period of time. These worlds would start out linked so that they wouldn’t begin in an empty state in a match-up. We would lower the player population cap on all worlds so that more worlds would become and stay “Full.” The result would be that guilds that want to expand would have an excellent option to do so with a move to these new open worlds.

Having outlined some of the thinking behind this proposal, we’d like your feedback on these three topics.
1. How do you feel about this proposal?
2. What, if anything, would you change about this current proposal?
3. Would you be interested in transferring to a new free world?

Hi, the problem with this suggestion is how are the inflow of players gonna be? Guilds need people to strive and if no people, they can’t strive. Newbies will hardly choose those “empty” server, they will often choose the higher populated server. In such a case, guilds will not prosper, your proposal will fail in long run. Unless there is a way to get newbies to choose the empty server or allow newbies to choose a server at later time, small to medium sized guilds will not choose to go to that empty server. Likewise, big guilds will unlikely to go there since they might have established a sphere of influence in their servers, able to recruit or invested much in attracting players.

Also, this proposal is asking for volunteers to give up something to go to a risky environment with unknown futures. Not many will be willing to do so, especially if guilds want to stay competitive, able to recruit surely. Better option will be just blow it all up for equal start.

Aitadis.8269:

And nothing of value was lost.

If that’s what you believe and that helps you sleep at night, is all cool.

Rink.6108:

The “high” mark doesn’t adequately show the wvw population on the server, like others have said here, DB hybernated for a long time now and the players just didn’t play. That’s why they are considered tier 4 now and thus get the same amouth of links as the other tier 4 servers.
But yes, they have a large SEA-time crew including those guilds. HoD has a huge EU crew instead (especially when you play into EU-time), crushing everything for weeks now. Should we get no link because of that?
But of course it is possible that DB wakes up and we will lose, but imho it is still a fair and good fight, even if we lose. We will have good fights.

Nope, I have more faith in system indicator than human estimation, afterall, majority people can’t differentiate between 20ish from 30ish and so on. Also. HOD remains medium despite having larger EU, again, system status indicator. It is simple to say that HOD has a lot more regular wvwers and commanders on average than other T4 servers, keeping the server afloat despite lesser overall numbers.

Regardless, now we entering weekdays, DB is catching up in PPT, demonstrating their higher coverage aka higher overall populations. I was not wrong about DB links having much more, I am not wrong to find such linking logically absurd. I don’t have to see how it will go in weekdays because the logic is already that absurd.

Ultima.5318:

You didn’t train nobody because you refused to work with anyone from sf. There’s only 5 English speaking guilds in sf and we can all confirm cd never even tried to talk to us. You’re not just bad commanders. Because now you’re lying to our faces.
And that’s saying a lot coming from the server of guilds that can’t even fight RED without booking it before killing them. Stay in your lane.

Maybe you guys could actually achieve something if your server wasn’t so busy always talking trash on forums.

No worries, I have a few CDers that added me into their friend list. They blocked me the moment I whisper them for politely asking them to join HOD, in fact, only CD peeps ever blocked me for that. Really rude individuals, especially if you think about the fact that they are the one that added you into their friendlist. Totally reminds me why I get my guild to leave CD.

anet should blow up the servers

Darlgon.9273:

SkyShroud.2865:

Darlgon.9273:

SkyShroud.2865:

So why a “High” server like Dragonbrand has 2 other links?

DB hasnt been high since they won.. ONE week. The WvW guilds left by the droves in the two weeks after that. Personally, I had two guilds that left. DB has been a wasteland. The few players who stayed could chat for hours in map/team and no one else would respond. We had four (?) main guilds that stayed.

Logging into our own BL became, “Is anyone here?”. No answer. No keeps or towers held. T3 servers would steamroll our BLs and EBG because no one was there. Commander tags? Lucky to have one for a few hours in the SEA times and 1 at NA prime.

The last two days and nights were awesome. There were people responding to call outs. There were three commander tags in EBG. WvW felt alive again, instead of the walking zombie it felt for the last month plus.

I too, dont understand how the links are determined, but at least they are trying something, admitting what was happening before was not working.

Completely lost at the bold words.

Anyway, DB is a legit “High” server, “High” as in “High” status population server. DB is similar to JQ, high off hours population and in DB’s case, high SEA population. Thus, unfortunately for you, if you are from NA, you are in an asia dominated server. Your NA therefore become similar to other servers’ off hours situations which is sometimes quiet. Regardless, again, DB is a “High” server.

Now anet decide to add two links to it, in hope to boost its NA I assume, however without a care about how it will affects the off hours. DB already dominating SEA will gain even more numbers with morning NA. In fact, I already seeing it happening.

Up until Friday, if DB had 20 players in EBG and the three BLs, in the early morning of a weekday or afternoon NA, they had a population explosion. It has NOT been a “High” server for weeks. Queues? Lol.. non existant on a reset night.

Right, I must be blind to see AZ, RF and ASIA running a combine of 40 to 50 from time to time daily, this didn’t even include the pugs. I must deluded to see that the server status shows DB as high. I must be seeing things to see a outman buff on my 40-men squad on reset morning (which is your morning).

Again, same case with JQ, just because it has weaker “NA” timezone, doesn’t means it doesn’t has a strong timezone elsewhere but whatever that helps you sleep at night ok, I mean your selective reading is strong.

Darlgon.9273:

SkyShroud.2865:

So why a “High” server like Dragonbrand has 2 other links?

DB hasnt been high since they won.. ONE week. The WvW guilds left by the droves in the two weeks after that. Personally, I had two guilds that left. DB has been a wasteland. The few players who stayed could chat for hours in map/team and no one else would respond. We had four (?) main guilds that stayed.

Logging into our own BL became, “Is anyone here?”. No answer. No keeps or towers held. T3 servers would steamroll our BLs and EBG because no one was there. Commander tags? Lucky to have one for a few hours in the SEA times and 1 at NA prime.

The last two days and nights were awesome. There were people responding to call outs. There were three commander tags in EBG. WvW felt alive again, instead of the walking zombie it felt for the last month plus.

I too, dont understand how the links are determined, but at least they are trying something, admitting what was happening before was not working.

Completely lost at the bold words.

Anyway, DB is a legit “High” server, “High” as in “High” status population server. DB is similar to JQ, high off hours population and in DB’s case, high SEA population. Thus, unfortunately for you, if you are from NA, you are in an asia dominated server. Your NA therefore become similar to other servers’ off hours situations which is sometimes quiet. Regardless, again, DB is a “High” server.

Now anet decide to add two links to it, in hope to boost its NA I assume, however without a care about how it will affects the off hours. DB already dominating SEA will gain even more numbers with morning NA. In fact, I already seeing it happening.

You are right, this is a clear double standard, it also suggest that EU customers are not important or valued. You should rally more people to protest this unfair treatment.

Rink.6108:

Night, I love you man, but if the servers are that close together as we are now in PPT, then it obviously is not a highly questionable link. It shows that if a server is “high” or “medium” in population (number of players) doesn’t show the wvw population adequately and thus isn’t used by arenanet to calculate the activity in wvw. HoD has a lower population, but very active players, guilds and commanders, DB is struggling to keep people active after weeks of being bashed into the ground. In some timezones HoD will be outnumbered (and I am aware that your timezone is one of them) in others, DB will be overrun, that’s normal for servers with coverage gaps. I suspect arenanet uses the participation-gain per server in last weeks to measure how good a server is for the linking and imho this is the easiest way to make sure the linkings are fair. And I think if the points in a matchup are 60, 63, 55 K PPT like in the HoD, DB, CD matchup, then it is kind of unfair to say that it isn’t balanced. How much more balanced can it be?

Now IF DB wakes up and players start to play again, then it is possible that DB will be clearly stronger than HoD or CD, and I also expect this to happen like with YB (to a lesser degree), but I think Arenanet has to do their linkings depending on the activity they see, based on hard data and not on theoretical calculations of how the activity could develop in the future. Because such calculations can never be reliable enough.

I don’t like the idea of a “High” server getting two links. It also pretty contradictory to TC’s “Very High” solo link and as well as the only “High” servers to have 2 links. That is like saying DB is very close “Medium” population but surely that isn’t the case.

Lapiy.7160:

Skill does matter right now because ppk is a thing, if your linked partners feed kills all the time you will lose timezones even if the main server is doing well. http://imgur.com/a/QnEvw this was the K/D from reset with CD mainly going EBG and the other 2 links on the bl’s, we came in last place during every single skirmish during reset. CD is the smallest host server and cant really hold its own like other servers in terms raw coverage even during NA prime we can only hold one map so we are given the biggest linked servers like SF and DH but both servers cant do anything by themselves even with making up about a 1/4 of the overall pop. We are always the ones who get to log in Sea or NA(our main timezones) and break all the tier 3 keeps while SF’s guild groups or now DH’s pugs go around feeding ppk to the other servers and never really help. Its not fun to carry a 1/4 of your server while always having to deal with tier 3 keeps everyday because you don’t have the coverage to stop them from upgrading it in the first place. Also about training we did train SF and they where starting to learn but oh relinking happened and now we have DH another server of clueless players.

It is a matter of what come first, people or skill? If one don’t have people, how can one talk about improving? It is much easier to blob down a 30-men with 60-random men than to build up a highly skilled 30-men. Likewise, you still need to have 30-men in the first place to train them.

Rink.6108:

SkyShroud.2865:

Anet continues to link servers with zero desire to balance them equally, they continue using their balance within tiers approach.

How would you make the linking to make that better? I think the current system is the closest solution to balance out servers within tiers AND between tiers. OF course the first priority is to keep it balanced in the tiers themselves, so matchups will be balanced, but I am sure tier 2 servers will do ok in tier 1 and tier 4 servers will do ok in tier 3 as well.

DB lost a lot of coverage. It is true that they are likely to go up in tiers later, but if arenanet only takes into account the amouth of activity in wvw in the last month or so, then it is clear that DB became a tier4 server and thus is entitled to 2 links.

Jeknar.6184:

SkyShroud.2865:

JQ is similar to DB such that they have a specific off hours prime stronger than their NA prime. If JQ is full and thus without link, then why should DB be given the different treatment?

Because DB is not full? And please… JQ SEA is far larger than DB’s.

Rink.6108:

@Skyshroud (Night? Dijory here.): DB in its current state really isn’t comparable to any tier1 server. They have a good sea-coverage, but we both have seen them without link the last weeks and have seen their numbers implode during eu-times for example. I think the matchup is quite balanced, DB received better links because of their tanking the last few weeks, but both HoD and CD can beat them. If they still had no link then they would just be dead last again for the next weeks to come and they have seen enough of that lately

It is a matter of fairness and balance. Putting a high server with obvious higher population with 2 other medium servers, it is very highly possible it have combined higher population than others.

In fact, it does. While HOD is winning skirmish by a very very small margin, the overall PPT is losing to DB. To put it in a more practical perspective, HOD itself has outman buff during PST prime reset with CD having a blob of 40ish running around and paper everything HOD had except garri while DB still able to resist it. I don’t remember seeing much queue during reset either. Both CD and DB are having map queue during SEA time while HOD is having a outman buff with 40-men squad.

Honestly speaking, I believe HOD has lower population compared to both and is making it all up with average teamwork, tactics and skills, most importantly coverage. If both CD and DB have more good commanders to cover 24 hours which apparently they don’t, they both would have easily crashed HOD.

It is funny to me seeing some CDs complaining in some threads about inferior links with poor skills while my personal opinion, realistically speaking, skills can improve in short amount of time while population is extremely volatile. I rather have the populations than skills.

Regardless, the links are highly questionable. I have doubt in anet team capability to analyse data.

Rink.6108:

SkyShroud.2865:

Anet continues to link servers with zero desire to balance them equally, they continue using their balance within tiers approach.

How would you make the linking to make that better? I think the current system is the closest solution to balance out servers within tiers AND between tiers. OF course the first priority is to keep it balanced in the tiers themselves, so matchups will be balanced, but I am sure tier 2 servers will do ok in tier 1 and tier 4 servers will do ok in tier 3 as well.

DB lost a lot of coverage. It is true that they are likely to go up in tiers later, but if arenanet only takes into account the amouth of activity in wvw in the last month or so, then it is clear that DB became a tier4 server and thus is entitled to 2 links.

JQ is similar to DB such that they have a specific off hours prime stronger than their NA prime. If JQ is full and thus without link, then why should DB be given the different treatment?

Anet continues to link servers with zero desire to balance them equally, they continue using their balance within tiers approach. The people who continuously on the sad receiving end will eventually quit but I guess they don’t care.

Jeknar.6184:

SkyShroud.2865:

So why a “High” server like Dragonbrand has 2 other links?

For a High server DB was performing very poorly at T4 against Linked Medium ones.

Of course if you looking at their NA since their prime time is upside down. The way anet put those servers together, is more like pairing them up for the sake of pairing, sloppy work.

So why a “High” server like Dragonbrand has 2 other links?

Jeknar.6184:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Just wanna point out that most server take part in the buying of guilds. Its not specific to BG or JQ.

FC bought [Sold] (Pun not intended). Even lower tiers buy guilds.

Serious talk tho: It’s like I said in the other post. People are here all crying about servers buying guilds but it’s not like these servers send gold and the guild is forced to move. People can make the choice of not accepting the gold and not move. However, these people decide to sell themselves of their own will. The problem here isn’t servers offering gold to guilds move, but the guilds accepting gold to move to certain servers.

Then now come the question, why guilds willing to accept golds to move on? It can be that the server they are in isn’t satisfactory to them. However, often, it is the top couple of servers that can afford golds to move these guilds so they end up stacking those servers, even if they didn’t have the intention to stack but just taking advantage of the gold aids to help them get off the server they are in.

In that case, how can we prevent it? The servers they are in need to get better in the different aspects. However, been 4 years, obvious enough that plenty of servers cannot accept changes, operated by relics or ego kids who can’t let it go to the new era. Then, we need a new way to prevent it, what way? Blow up all the servers so players get to enjoy a new community every couple of months while letting the system handle the balancing? Actually, that the only thing I can think of.

Asked for a pure wvw then expect some other things like pve fanning….Not too sure if you know what you are looking for.

Lastly, this is wrong section.

That is a bad suggestion. A link will always has the possibilities to exceed the activity level of a single full server and thus if a link managed to enter T1, base on your suggestion, wouldn’t there be a dilemma? A dilemma like all link servers are only “High” in populations. Are you really sure you want to unlink “High” servers?

Anet should focus on balancing all servers (regardless of links) and not attempt to make foolish balance within tiers.

Full servers should not get a link. “Very High” servers should only get a link if and only if they are at the bottom, towards the borderline “High” servers. If they are borderline to “Full” status, linking them should be reconsidered thrice. The only time “Full” and “Borderline Full” servers should get a link is when all other linked servers have exceed their wvw activity level. Also, do include bandwagon allowance calculation.

Also, if the server status is not calculated by individual wvw activity level, then anet should considering doing so. By using individual wvw activity level, any movements between servers can easily be factored in to server status at real time. This will reflect the server status true activity level and display in real time the afflicted cost. This will then become a deterrence to sudden bandwagon (to main or guest servers) and a clear risk factor (for guilds) to move into borderline full servers.

Syryn.7591:

SkyShroud.2865:

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.

How do you know he has an alt to swap?

Why do I owe you an explanation for my demand?

:)

I demand explanation! Swapping alt is reasonable but putting individuals in, bypassing the limit is not reasonable!

Paging for Gaile Gray!

If that accusation is true, that it really deserve to be blow big. I do know that the supports reject transfer request if the target server is full.

I demand anet to do a investigation on this.

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

Furthermore, I already explained why it should not get a link or be opened even if the casual populations only come out once per week.

Edit: I should say out of all servers.

If Mag. TC and YB don’t get links then I have no problem with JQ not getting one

No worries, I did suggest getting all the “Very High” servers not linked in another thread while linking the rest of the servers to be comparable in size.

DeWolfe.2174:

SkyShroud.2865:

Not really, I am simply annoyed by the amount of QQ coming from JQ.

Any thread that mentions JQ, you are there complaining. If you’ve read the other forums, you’ll see complaints for JQ to recruit more NA. That it needs more NA so server’s like BG can have fun fighting us. Thus, we recruited more NA. Now here’s you, someone not even in the match, to complain after the fact.

Complaining? Nah, I never complain QQ threads or posts as long it is reasonable. However, JQ thread always seems to be unreasonable and demanding. Furthermore, you don’t see other servers complain as much about being full and thus you don’t see me being hard on them as much.

Also, while you mentioned that JQ need more NA, which I used to agree but no longer because of your recruiters or ex-recruiters who used to continue to flood your SEA despite already having a decent amount of SEA at that time. Your community didn’t stop your recruiters or ex-recruiters or whatever from filling up your servers without reinforcing your more important timezones. Anet or anyone outside your servers are not responsible for that or your server being full or should we support your reasoning to increase your cap above other servers’ while creating more future imbalance which in turn make other servers make the same demand to increase their caps, a vicious cycle.

Nope, they say they are fine putting on monthly but no news after that.

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

Server status isn’t broken, it never was.

JQ is simply suffering the consequences of its uncontrolled stacking over the past 4 years, I am sure all old players will notice how JQ’s old recruiters stack JQ without any self control over the past 4 years, always demanding for more even when they had the most at some timing. They stacked all kind of players from casual to hardcore to weekend players to school kids to new players checking WvW out to fairweathers who just want a easy way out. Those stacking once work because the past server capping included PvE populations but it no longer works now as it is purely on WvW active populations.

Only idiots will think JQ will not be full from time to time when all those casuals come out to play every once in awhile. However, JQers will forever be JQers, they will continue to whine and blame, looking for all kind of reasons while not looking at their own stacking actions they are directly responsible of. JQ simply reap what they sowed, even if it is years late.

You clearly have a grievance with JQ from the past I suggest you get over it. I agree with your comment about casual players but there’s no need to be so aggressive about it. Having said that I just want to emphasise again that JQ being forced into full by casual players coming out once a week is no reason for it not to get a link. Second point it is arguable that the population algorithm does not treat inconsistent populations as it should.

Not really, I am simply annoyed by the amount of QQ coming from JQ. JQ QQ so much over the past 4 years that it has become really annoying. Like seriously, JQ QQ the most out of all the T1 servers.

Furthermore, I already explained why it should not get a link or be opened even if the casual populations only come out once per week.

Edit: I should say out of all servers.

Roxanne.6140:

SkyShroud.2865:

Roxanne.6140:

so funny, seeing all these non-JQ players talk as though they know what is going on..

Not as absurd as JQers coming up with things like anet manually lock server, without any evidence, lmao.

Yea we don’t have the monitoring software to count players’ activities in each of the most populated servers. What we have are observations which some of us listed here and which you conveniently steam-rolled and tossed them aside. I’m not saying you should write a thesis counter-argument against every single point, but at least stop single-mindedly be so focused on the fact that some of us are raising questions on the population metrics and actually read what is being said.

Now you are claiming these so-called observations, bias or not, are done 24 / 7 across the maps, every corners, every itch of it. The result of that questionable and unconvincing approach is some absurd accusation , pleading about the case and you expect people to respond positively to it? Expecting people to agree with you? Really?

Roxanne.6140:

so funny, seeing all these non-JQ players talk as though they know what is going on..

Not as absurd as JQers coming up with things like anet manually lock server, without any evidence, lmao.

Server status isn’t broken, it never was.

JQ is simply suffering the consequences of its uncontrolled stacking over the past 4 years, I am sure all old players will notice how JQ’s old recruiters stack JQ without any self control over the past 4 years, always demanding for more even when they had the most at some timing. They stacked all kind of players from casual to hardcore to weekend players to school kids to new players checking WvW out to fairweathers who just want a easy way out. Those stacking once work because the past server capping included PvE populations but it no longer works now as it is purely on WvW active populations.

Only idiots will think JQ will not be full from time to time when all those casuals come out to play every once in awhile. However, JQers will forever be JQers, they will continue to whine and blame, looking for all kind of reasons while not looking at their own stacking actions they are directly responsible of. JQ simply reap what they sowed, even if it is years late.

Too bad for the guild(s) transferring there, that is the risk guild(s) should account for when transferring to a borderline full server.

However, that doesn’t mean that BG should not be a legit full server. Do note that BG is fighting “Very High” servers that are LINKED with other servers. The combined activities of these servers might be actually higher than BG’s.

Why a spoof thread became a QQ thread anyway?

I am pretty sure people have been saying JQ is a server of casual populations that has a inconsistent presence in wvw but apparently there are people who are having denial about it. Regardless, JQ has been for ages the favorite server for fairweathers alike and is not a secret that JQ only seem to have lots of people during the days that fit that mentality.

However, that doesn’t mean that JQ should not be a legit full server, simply because by allowing JQ to go beyond that activity level, it means JQ will exceed other servers activity level for specific days to come and who knows, the fairweathers might even come out more often due to it and break the balance completely.

This is nothing more than a causes and effects of mindless stacking throughout the 4 years and servers that are heavily involved in that will simply start to suffer the consequences of it.

Armored Supply Transport – Player driven transport to deliver supply to objectives, can move on irregular path as long supply gets there.