Guild Wars 2

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hello everyone,

I know a lot of EU players are asking why Far Shiverpeaks is linked with Whiteside Ridge and Fissure of Woe so I figured I would clear up why this link was made.

Our goal with World Linking is good matches. This doesn’t necessarily mean that worlds in tier 4 are intended to be competitive with worlds in tier 1, but ideally every world in tier 4 should be competitive with the other worlds in tier 4 and likewise every world in tier 1 should be competitive with the other worlds in tier 1. It would be nice if worlds in tier 4 were competitive with tier 1, but it’s not realistic since the distribution of players across worlds is not consistent. The issue is compounded in EU, due to the fact that we are avoiding linking worlds with different languages. For example, there is only one Spanish world, so they’ll never be linked and thus might never be competitive in tier 1 worlds. Similarly making each set of German worlds have equivalent populations has proved equally impossible because if we were to link them they would have a much higher population than other worlds, making match-ups against them not competitive.

Far Shiverpeaks was linked with two worlds because we needed a third world that would have similar population to the French worlds, specifically Jade Sea and Vizunah Square so that the matchup could be competitive. Far Shiverpeaks, Whiteside, Ridge, and Fissure of Woe linked together gave us the best population to create competitive match-ups for that tier.

It is also important to keep in mind that this is the very first week of match-ups and it will take time before glicko adjusts worlds into their correct tiers.

Why don’t you step back abit and consider excluding T1 out from the equation. You can make T4 competitive with T2 (or least T3) while simply ignoring T1 (and T2) and leave them to their own device.

Actually, there is no such thing as 75% voted for DBL. The vote actually is to keep DBL or throw it away permanently and it is not even 75%.. Also, no one ever voted DBL to be part of the rotation, we were never given that choice. DBL is literally forced into the rotation without our consent. Our only option is to keep or not keep DBL but anet devs go beyond that and interpreted it as we want to keep it means we want it to be in rotation. Then, we are forced to vote for the type of rotation without voting for wanting it to be part o the rotation. There is also no other vote regarding what kind of things people dislike about DBL. The popularity will is engineered, nothing is real, wvw continue to bleed.

Jeknar.6184:

misterman.1530:

Wow. Take a look at the bottom tier of NA. That’s some awesome pairing there. Jesus wept.

Well, have time for Fallout 4 now. Thanks Anet.

Much better than Dh+EBay/SF+FC+GoM/CD+Kain+ET+BP.

I would prefer having three 4-servers linking than three 3-servers linking. I believe three 4-servers linking will be much closer in terms of population to match against T3 and T2. In other words, “Very High” servers can be not linked to create a closer and wider variety. The previous 4-servers linking already prove competitive against a single “Very High” server.

Blowing up the servers is considered a controversial solution. The dev did consider that option but called it off, presuming fearing majority backlash. However, blowing up servers is definitely the only sure way to balance the populations. Of course, the populations will go unbalance eventually in long terms and thus you blow it up again when that happen.

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

A lot of people often misunderstand one thing, SEA population doesn’t mean it include the early NA/EU players, it literally means people from SEA. You might think DB and BG are “bigger” but in reality, it just include their NA/EU players who play much more often. That is literally how most servers function, prime time help to maintain their off hours via players who willing to wake up early to play.

Given you’re from HOD and have not fought any of the servers involved for a long time you know nothing about it. DB have a long established resident sea population and BG being BG have always attracted guilds.

Right, if you do not know that [TIME] was once in DB, it already prove that you know nothing much. Don’t try to justify JQ, it will just embarrass yourself and make JQ looks desperate and demanding. Also, I don’t need to remind you that your SEA guilds got wiped multiple times by a single guild from a weaker SEA server, in other words, JQ has numbers without quality and now you are just wanting more numbers.

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

An month or so ago, in another thread, one jqer was complaining about the exact same thing and I told him that if you cut down your SEA, you can increase your NA

JQs SEA is now smaller than BGs and DBs, it may be potentially larger but I doubt many who don’t play any more are coming back. So if JQ destacks it would leave T1 with only 2 servers able to compete at all. Never mind the fact that forcing players/guilds to leave is clearly a ridiculous proposition.

morrolan.9608:

SkyShroud.2865:

What anet see in their data is that you have that numbers but your numbers is concentrated on one area, it is not their problem and they cannot afford to increase your cap without the risk that your server again stacking more in that area. Wake up.

Where was I asking for a cap increase? I’m saying JQ should be linked, Anet are clearly making linking decisions on a more reasoned basis than simply blindly looking at metrics.

A lot of people often misunderstand one thing, SEA population doesn’t mean it include the early NA/EU players, it literally means people from SEA. You might think DB and BG are “bigger” but in reality, it just include their NA/EU players who play much more often. That is literally how most servers function, prime time help to maintain their off hours via players who willing to wake up early to play.

That is not the case of JQ, JQ is literally stacked in SEA and your SEA is not the kind that will wake up in the morning to play unlike the NA/EU people or are they the kind of people who will do wvw when their guilds aren’t raiding. It is not BG/DB bigger, is just JQ is casual but being casual doesn’t mean it isn’t stack, being causal doesn’t mean it isn’t big, being casual doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be full, being casual doesn’t mean it should be linked. Fundamentally, the population is there, there is no excuse, there is no justification.

morrolan.9608:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Here are the worlds for NA:

• Dragonbrand
• Blackgate
• Jade Quarry

Jade Quarry doesn’t have near the population of DB or BG how the hell do you expect us to be able to compete?

More decisions which just turn players off the game mode. You need to be more transparent with players about how you made these decisions.

An month or so ago, in another thread, one jqer was complaining about the exact same thing and I told him that if you cut down your SEA, you can increase your NA but no, he argued that if the artifical cap is removed they can recover their NA. Now, it is removed and what? It is the same old thing. The root of the problem is that JQ has overstacked one of their timezones and now your other timezone are suffering the consequences. This is a JQ’s problem, most of it is caused by your very own JQ’s sponsors with their policy to stack off hours without a single care towards other timezones. What anet see in their data is that you have that numbers but your numbers is concentrated on one area, it is not their problem and they cannot afford to increase your cap without the risk that your server again stacking more in that area. Wake up.

You have a rotating match up, isn’t that good? Or you just want a fixed 3 servers matchup?

One of the popular requests is varieties,.

TC is a struggling T1 server compare to JQ. TC don’t have a selling point unlike JQ which brag about having huge SEA (and even overstack it by sponsoring some more small SEA guilds during early part of this year, at the cost of other timezones). Reasonable TC get a link and their link isn’t that massive either.

First thing first, the blow it up option is not simply blow it up once. It is to blow it up every X months, recreating X servers base on demands. Then, having predetermined rules for joining the servers to balance the population. Servers population will always be kept similar to one another, transferring then become more pointless. This option emphases not on individual’s desires but spirit of competition.

Bug again, this time it has no HP on the HP bar and can’t activate.

Prisoner seems to be buggy since a month ago, please remove it from bounty list until it is totally fixed.

You have yet to see what a real P2W game is really like. The P2W factor here is so insignficiant that it can be passed off as a joke but if you really that anal about the very insigificant bit of P2W so to prove your point that it is P2W, then so be it, you happy can already.

I will be amused if there are guilds really spending golds every single relink to transfer.

The squad marker for targets, used to behave tag-like on the mini map, with the marker following along the target. However, now it doesn’t and behave like a fixed position marker on the mini map.

the dev cannot avoid this much longer. the dev has to decide to blow up the servers or keep going on this declining path.

u r requesting this so u can move up right.

Don’t worry, the next relink will have the top 4 servers without link, then the rest with links. The main goal is to make every server become similar population to make tier meaningless. The issue is SEA/OCX is always hardest to make up with linking alone since those timezone are stacked on specific servers.

Gw2 is pve oriented, your idea will not fit into that.

Gw2 is not programmed to utilize all cores, it uses 2 cores at best. Old school programming. To answer your question, it doesn’t matter. The only thing you can do is to get a high single core performance processor or overclocking.

Ni In.6578:

Regarding SoS/YB vs. CD, I’ve seen it. I have a video of it. YB held SMC and briefly before the reset last week, CD grabbed it (I believe we lost it again just before reset). We owned (mostly) the south corridor. We fought YB in the NW corridor and SoS in the NE corridor. Did YB/SoS fight each other? Nope.

I’ve also seen, but don’t have a video for, YB and SoS grabbing the CD towers on either side of the CD EBG keep.

If it isn’t coordinated, they’re certainly making it strongly feel like it is.

CD is bags, the KDR says so, only natural that people go for the easier target.

Balancing will not be perfect or close to perfect via server linking because each server has different population, trying to put together a group of servers that have similar population throughout can be subjective difficult. As long as people insist to keep their servers instead of opting for mess destruction of all the servers, close balancing will never occur.

Druid can heal but zerg is looking for more than that. Simply because since there is a map cap or limited in number, people want players to bring the classes that can do way more than just heal. Just imagine you go to pve raid with a limit of 10 people and all those people use healing druid, do you think you can complete the raid? It is just that simple, people want to win and ranger / druid is not part of the winning formula in a zerg fight, you can’t blame them for that.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hey everyone,

After reading through the comments and feedback, and some deliberation among the team – we have decided to adjust Crystal Desert by +300 for this match only, making them more likely to advance out of tier 4. Next week we will adjust them to +200.

CD was artificially boosted out of proportion. Base on this, we can say CD glicko is highest of T3, closer to FA’s, making them zero chance of rolling into T4, even if they are placed 2nd the last week. SBI/HOD is literally being punished because they were 1st among among YB & SOS but forced to go down because of RNG and artificial glicko. I wonder what kind of discussion they really did in anet office, who in the right mind would suggest artificially increasing one’s glicko without reducing other’s. Common sense will dictate you to have all 4 servers with equal chance to roll down. Tsk, anet really not suitable in running pvp oriented game modes.

Making alt on bg now.

Oh, I didn’t know about this. I only clear wing 1 once and stop doing raid completely, kinda boring.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

SkyShroud.2865:

We tried for an hour the other day and that is about 13 tries, we joked about how unlucky we are that we are not able to roll trillia in the list whenever it appear in that short path and we should not visit any casino any time soon.

Was this not fixed in the latest patch? I know that it did fix other NPCs that were affected by this (or a similar bug).

I am not sure if it is fixed, but just replying about our attempts.

Why have sea when u have airship?

We tried for an hour the other day and that is about 13 tries, we joked about how unlucky we are that we are not able to roll trillia in the list whenever it appear in that short path and we should not visit any casino any time soon.

Jim Hunter.6821:

SkyShroud.2865:

dzeRnumbrd.6129:

SkyShroud.2865:

They have nerfed the reduce condi food in favor of more condi. They further boost it with increased condi stacks.

1. They also nerfed +duration foods so your point is moot.

2. Condi stack limits are irrelevant to PvP – if you have 25 stacks of bleed in WvW/sPvP you are already a dead man walking, 30 or 40 is hardly worse than 25, you’re still dead.

PvP? This is WvW, you sure you are in the right forums? In wvw we have zerg and blob, we have necro with epidemic. You think is not possible stack it to a deadly point? If it isn’t possible, why do people have to use boonshare to maintain that disgusting amount of resistance uptime? Bragging rights?

To help keep up stability, might, etc. They don’t run boonshare/duration just for resistance. Resistance does however keeps the zergs immune to CC like chill, immobilize and fear.
It’s not for damaging conditions which are much less effective than direct damage on that scale.

Less effective, erm, I am sure someone in this thread already mentioned that he or she managed to kill ppl using condi in that scale.

saerni.2584:

Groups of 25–40 never needed resistance. They could AoE cleanse and ignore condi application anyway. Resistance is a problem BOTH because of boonshare stacking and because of the 100% immunity.

Ironically, boonshare compositions that capable of sustain 100% quickness and resistance are more often seen in that numbers.

Vayne.8563:

SkyShroud.2865:

Danikat.8537:

If I remember correctly you get 1 free transfer if you upgrade a free account to a paid account. Which is because you don’t get to choose your server when you create a free account so you might get stuck on one you don’t like.

False, free account can choose server at start, so it isn’t the reason why they got a free transfer token.

It’s actually true. When you buy HOT, if you have a free account, you get a free server transfer.

You need to read again.

Danikat.8537:

SkyShroud.2865:

Danikat.8537:

If I remember correctly you get 1 free transfer if you upgrade a free account to a paid account. Which is because you don’t get to choose your server when you create a free account so you might get stuck on one you don’t like.

False, free account can choose server at start, so it isn’t the reason why they got a free transfer token.

I definitely didn’t get to choose one when I created my free account, but that was just a few days after they were introduced so it’s possible it’s been changed since then.

I actually don’t know what server it’s on because I can’t open the transfer menu or the WvW menu (still haven’t gotten to level 60) and I don’t know where else it’d tell me.

I see, I only create a free account a month later and it allow me to choose a server.

dzeRnumbrd.6129:

SkyShroud.2865:

They have nerfed the reduce condi food in favor of more condi. They further boost it with increased condi stacks.

1. They also nerfed +duration foods so your point is moot.

2. Condi stack limits are irrelevant to PvP – if you have 25 stacks of bleed in WvW/sPvP you are already a dead man walking, 30 or 40 is hardly worse than 25, you’re still dead.

PvP? This is WvW, you sure you are in the right forums? In wvw we have zerg and blob, we have necro with epidemic. You think is not possible stack it to a deadly point? If it isn’t possible, why do people have to use boonshare to maintain that disgusting amount of resistance uptime? Bragging rights?

Argh, this workaround require luck and time. If you are unlucky and trillia isn’t part of your bounty during that path, you are screwed.

Danikat.8537:

If I remember correctly you get 1 free transfer if you upgrade a free account to a paid account. Which is because you don’t get to choose your server when you create a free account so you might get stuck on one you don’t like.

False, free account can choose server at start, so it isn’t the reason why they got a free transfer token.

Condi has already been boosted much. They have nerfed the reduce condi food in favor of more condi. They further boost it with increased condi stacks. They finally boosted the condi with HOT stats and traits. Now, you want a resistance nerf to make the condi deadly powerful, why not we call it condi war instead of guild war?

CrimeMaker.8612:

The only way I think population is going to balance itself is by making the current servers go KABOOM and create new servers… have 9 total servers 3 tiers.. lock servers once they get full at 80% and then open 3 new servers… Seriously the way everything is I think linking was a good idea at first but right now it hasnt done nothing but kill 2 servers maybe more…. I will just say its time for kaboom I know a lot of people will say its a bad idea but seriously though this is literally the only way now to fix population issue.. In one of the post before anet also said that they can make all servers go KABOOM and do a fresh start. WvW does need a fresh start.

and I am back from the ban

This solution has been considered but anet deem this solution not acceptable by the majority and thus shelved it. However, this solution is the closest to balancing. Afterall, if remaking servers every X months while having additional joining rules in place can’t achieve the closest balancing, I wonder what will.

Sylvyn.4750:

SkyShroud.2865:

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

Technically speaking, only a very small percentage actually voted for the 2 month linkings that we got, around 15%, so you should really only be telling 15% of the population to “accept the consequences of their decisions”. The rest of us, the 85%, are immune from your statement because we did not get what we voted for.

Nope. That is a naive way of looking at things. Those who voted 2 months and more which is the majority should accept the consequences of their decisions. 2 months period is the final result because the people who voted for one month which is less than 40% iirc is not considered as the majority. Are you part of that less than 40%?

Spurnshadow.3678:

People voted for the linking, they voted for the frequency of re-linking. They didn’t vote to have T1 servers unlinked and to have a 7th place server without help and a 1st place server with help. I just want to play on an even field.

You are really stubborn, ain’t you? All “balancing” takes place on the very day it relink. Those “T1” servers weren’t T1 at that time nor were they full at that time, and basing on the data at that time, it was decided to link them as such. One month is all it need to have data at that point become outdated. People voted for the frequency of the linking, people should have account for this kind scenario, people should accept the consequence of their decisions.

For the record, I voted for one month knowing the consequences of the voting and frequency of the relinking. How about you, what did you voted?

People voted for it, people has to accept the consequence of the voting. Now, the only thing you can do is to wait for next relinking.

clone wars.9568:

SkyShroud.2865:

Your suggestion which is similar to merger and world linking will not solve the issue in long term. Reason being, population will go unbalanced in long term.

No it’s not the same thing as a merger/current failed system. halving the servers WILL have more of a balancing effect on wvw vs what we have now.

Currently we are stuck with a system that has had the opposite effect to what anet intended (balancing the matches). We are seeing in EU and NA top servers in their tiers being paired with other servers when they were clearly holding their own as it was. Now they are all impossible to beat due to their numbers and coverage.

Instead scrapping half the servers (all bottom servers from each tier) and giving free xfers to those people to move over to other servers is completely different.

It will be more balanced that way. The other thing to consider is the current pairing do little to bring server pride. Lack voice coms with the other paired servers/allies and basically makes servers even more disorganized than they were to begin with.

SO having less servers means.

1. More balance to the wvw population.
2. No more failed glit match-ups/pairings.
3. Servers get their pride back or build it up on their new servers. Get to know each other better and commanders & guilds about to work together better. Vs being temp allies who can’t be bothered to work together since the pairing isn’t for long.
4. Voice comms can be perma setup for people joining the new servers (more organized).
5. And less servers = less chance people are going to bandwagon.

And yes there will NEVER be a perfect balance in wvw I agree, its impossible with the 24/7 game-mode. However it still can be GREATLY improved compared to this current failed and cheap (for anet) way to “fix” balancing issues. And this current system is not a long term OR short term fix, take a look at the match-up boards and see.

Scrapping half the servers will only achieve a sub-standard balancing. Reason being, the half the servers weren’t the reason why wvw is unbalanced. The main reason why wvw is unbalanced because servers are stacked in a way that balancing is not possible without drastic measure. Instead of a sub-standard approach like removing half the servers, it is way better to remove all servers and remake the servers to force reallocation of players while having certain server status rules in place, to achieve a closer balancing.

This is variety, isnt- it? The closer the balance get, the meaningless the tier will become.

Your suggestion which is similar to merger and world linking will not solve the issue in long term. Reason being, population will go unbalanced in long term.

You have to see that DB is link with IOJ, thus it is highly possible the combined population is larger than a single full server.

However, the idea of linking really isn’t 100% about balancing, it is about putting servers together to create more activities due to concentrated populations. The only “balance” part about linking is during the relink part itself, so the balance will only come at every relink which is every 2 months.

the issue with having a free transfer token is equivalent to a time bomb, unless that free transfer token has a expiry time. this is because if the ppl like that server for the time being and stay there for awhile but a few months later or a year later or whatever timeline, some major event happen and caused guilds or individuals to move. the free transfer token will become a encouragement to bandwagon which by then we will have another round of servers unbalance issue.

It will be better if they remove mandatory world choosing and let new players choose at a later time, like when they want to enter wvw.

Some of us suggested deleting everything every X months and remake X number of servers, let players choose new server then. That suggestion is considered controversial by many though the number of people accepting that is gradually increasing as people are realizing the limit of linking and merger.

It doesn’t matter. Your suggestion doesn’t make the fundamental problem go away. Every server has NAs but not every server has off coverage. It is extremely hard to link servers in such a way that you don’t destroy the NA with queues while having comparable coverage.

No, it shouldn’t open, as long it is at the cap.

And, don’t use the friend / relative play together nonsensical reason. That is telling anet to break the balance of the server further and make the opponents majority suffer from that decision, just for the benefit of the minority.

Is just claiming a keep…..

I voted yes as well due to golems but hopefully it takes more than 50 supplies to make, wouldn’t want to see it deployed easily everywhere.

need a retort taunt /childish

DoctorWunderbar.5037:

Can I ask what is the thought process behind adding these improvements?

I guess those are already made long ago but not implemented.